Glaziers & Glassworkers Local 513

GLAZIERS & GLASSWORKERS LOCAL 513 617 Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Umon No 513, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Paint- ers and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company) and Alan Profancik Case 14-CB-2278 November 30, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On June 29, 1972, Administrative Law Judge' Thomas D Johnston issued the attached Decision in this proceeding Thereafter, the General Counsel filed limited exceptions and a supporting brief Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order with the additions and modifications noted below 2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified herein, and hereby orders that Respondent, Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No 513, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified 1 Delete paragraph 1(c) of the Order and substitute therefor the following "In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, or any other employer, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act " 2 Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c) of the Order "Make Joseph J Cermak whole for any losses he may have suffered by reason of Local Union No 513's refusing to accept his tender of dues and restore all rights and benefits to which he was entitled before the unlawful disciplinary action was taken against him " 3 Insert the following as paragraph 2(d) of the Order and renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly "Notify Joseph J Cermak, in writing, that it has taken the action required in 2(a), (b), and (c), above " 4 Substitute the attached Appendix for the Administrative Law Judge's Appendix 1 The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law Judge effective August 19 1972 2 We find merit in the General Counsel s exceptions to the breadth of the Order insofar as he contends that Respondent should be ordered to restore Joseph Cermak an employer-member to full membership rights Accord- ingly, the Order has been modified to effect such a remedy See Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No 361 (Langston and Co Inc) 195 NLRB No 65 and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers System Council U-4 (Florida Power & Light Company), 193 NLRB No 7 Further in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed which primarily were directed at causing Cermak and other employers to discriminate against nonmembers in employment and in order to prevent the commission of other unfair labor practices we shall order that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act Cf Barnwell Garment Company Inc a subsidiary of Colonial Corporation 163 NLRB 51 In view of the breadth of our remedial order we need not pass upon the General Counsels specific request for a provision precluding Respondent Union from demanding payment of back dues As the record does not disclose whether such a demand on the part of Respondent would constitute an extension of the unlawful conduct against Cermak this issue is best left to resolution during the compliance stages of this proceeding APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, to discriminate against Alan Profancik in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce article XXIV, section 3, of our bylaws and trade rules prohibiting members of our Union from working at glazing with other than members of the International union against Joseph J Cermak, or other employer-members, thereby causing or attempting to cause them to discriminate against nonunion employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, or any other employer, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- 200 NLRB No 85 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of employment in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act WE WILL make Joseph J Cermak whole for any losses he may have suffered by reason of Local Union No 513's refusing to accept his tender of dues and restore all rights and benefits to which he was entitled before the unlawful disciplinary action was taken against him WE WILL notify Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, in writing, that we have no objection to the Company's employment of Alan Profancik to perform glazing work, and we will furnish Alan Profancik with a copy of such notification GLAZIERS AND GLASSWORKERS LOCAL UNION No 513, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES, AFL-CIO (JOSEPH J CERMAK, D/B/A SOUTHERN GLASS COMPANY) (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314- 622-4167 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS D JOHNSTON, Trial Examiner This case was heard at Centralia, Illinois, on March 28, 1972, pursuant to a charge filed by Alan Profancik, an individual, on July 16, 1971,1 and a complaint issued on January 6, 1972, and amended on February 82 and March 20, 1972 The complaint alleges that Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No 513, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the Respondent), violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) 1 All the dates referred to are in 1971 unless otherwise stated 2 The amendment to the complaint issued on February 8 1972 was orally amended at the hearing to delete certain jurisdictional allegations 3 These initials apparently refer to the Brotherhood of Painters and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act), by maintaining against its employer-members, including Joseph J Cermak, a provi- sion under its bylaws and trade rules prohibiting members of Respondent from working at glazing with other than members of the B of P D & P of A 3 thereby causing or attempting to cause them to discriminate against their employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act or to discriminate against their employees with respect to whom membership in Respondent had been denied on some ground other than their failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformily required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership therein, by enforcing this provision of the bylaws and trade rules against its employer-member, Joseph J Cermak, thereby causing or attempting to cause him to discriminate against his employees in violation of the Act, and by discriminatorily causing Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Compa- ny (herein referred to as the Company), to relieve employee Alan Profancik of his duties as a glazier or glazier's helper because he was not a member of Respondent Respondent in its answer to the complaint filed on January 12, 1972, and amended answers filed on February 10 and March 22, 1972, denied having violated the Act The issues involved in determining whether Respondent violated the Act as alleged are whether Respondent maintained or enforced the aforementioned bylaw against its employer-members, including Joseph J Cermak, and whether Respondent discriminatorily caused the Company to relieve Alan Profancik of his glazing duties because he was not a member of Respondent Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the oral argument made by Respondent's counsel and of the brief filed by General Counsel, I hereby make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, with its office and place of business located at Centralia, Illinois, is engaged in business as a glazing contractor During 1971, a representative period, the Company purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were delivered directly to it in Centralia, Illinois, from places located outside the State of Illinois or from other enterprises located in Illinois which in turn had received these goods and materials from outside the State of Illinois Based upon the foregoing evidence I find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act Decorators and Paperhangers of America which according to the Directory of National and International Labor Unions in the United States is the former name of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the International union) GLAZIERS & GLASSWORKERS LOCAL 513 619 II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background Joseph J Cermak is the sole owner of the Company His daughter Ruth Profancik, her husband Albert Profancik, and her son Alan Profancik are also employed there Ruth Profancik is the secretary-bookkeeper Albert Profancik, who holds no official or supervisory position with the Company, works as a glazier as does the owner Joseph J Cermak Alan Profancik began work for the Company in January as an apprentice glazier following his discharge from the United States Navy Both Joseph J Cermak and Albert Profancik are members of Respondent and have been members for many years Although in January Alan Profancik submitted an application for admission to Respondent's apprenticeship training program to become a glazier he is not a member of Respondent 4 No apprentices have been taken into Respondent's apprenticeship training program since October 1970 because of a large amount of unemployment in the trade and a practice of not taking in apprentices while such conditions exist The Company has maintained a bargaining relationship with Respondent for many years and the most recent collective-bargaining agreement between them expired around November 1971 5 Although not required to do so the Company whenever it needed additional glaziers hired them through Respondent The evidence does not establish whether the collective-bargaining agreement which was not offered into evidence contained union-security provisions Respondent's bylaws and trade rules under article XXIV, section 3, provide as follows Members are prohibited from visiting or communicat- ing with glazing contractors who have not signed the agreement except when delegated by the Union to do so Any member found guilty of working at glazing with other than members of the B of P D & P of A, shall be punished by fine or expulsion as the Trial Board may decide, after charges, and if found guilty by the Trial Board B Respondent's Enforcement of its Bylaw against Joseph J Cermak and Discriminatorily Causing a Change in Alan Profancik's Duties On March 12 the Company was performing work on a school addition located at Red Bud, Illinois Between 10 and 10 30 that morning Robert McMillan, a member of Respondent but who holds no office or position, ap- proached Joseph J Cermak and Alan Profancik while they were working on the jobsite performing glazing work and requested them to show him their work cards 6 Cermak 4 The apprenticeship committee which is comprised of representatives from Respondent and glazing employers notified Profancik in March 1972 the committee was meeting and he should attend 5 A new agreement had not been executed at the time the hearing was held 6 A work card is a card sent out quarterly by Respondent to its members who knew McMillan showed him his card However, upon being informed Profancik did not have a card, McMillan told Cermak he was working with a nonunion man and he couldn't work with him When McMillan advised Cermak he would have to prefer charges against him Cermak replied it was his privilege As they walked out to the Company's truck Cermak attempted to explain that Profancik had applied for membership, was married, had a wife to support and needed a job McMillan told Profancik if he were him he would j ust sit in the truck 7 Alan Profancik did not perform any more work that day but waited in the truck until around 4 30 p in while Cermak completed the Company's work on the jobsite by himself Around 2 p in while waiting for Cermak, Profancik asked McMillan who had come to the truck if he thought it would hurt his chances of getting into the Union McMillan laughed and replied it wasn't going to help any While they were talking the superintendent for the general contractor,8 Wolff Construction Company, came out and McMillan informed him Profancik didn't have a card The superintendent's response was as far as he was concerned if Profancik walked back in the building he was going home The above findings are based on the undemed testimo- nies of both Cermak and Alan Profancik which I credit McMillan although present in the courtroom during the hearing did not testify According to Respondent Business Representative Ron- ald Brown, who also holds the positions of recording secretary and treasurer, on either March 13 or 14 McMillan reported the incident to him whereupon he informed McMillan such conduct violated that section of Respondent's bylaws prohibiting members of the Union from working with employees who were not members of the International Union, and that since McMillan had observed the violation he could file charges Thereafter, charges were filed against Cermak and on March 18 Respondent notified him by letter he was charged with violating section 3, article XXIV, of Respondent's bylaws and trade rules with respect to the March 12 incident on the Red Bud jobsite He was also instructed to appear before a trial committee of Respondent on May 4 On April 28, Cermak advised Respondent by letter due to prior commitments he would be unable to appear on May 4 as directed He further denied having violated the bylaws contending the man he was charged with working with was working on a 30-day trial to determine whether to make the glazier trade his career In addition, Cermak pointed out he had received legal advise that under the law the man had 30 days to join the Union and the Union was doing the man an injustice and causing him hardship by refusing to allow him to work at the glazier's trade to make a living for his wife and child Notwithstanding his response a trial was held by Respondent on May 4 during which Business Representative Brown admitted he sat as a member of the Trial Board On June 1, Respondent by letter notified Cermak he had showing their dues are paid up 7 Although Profancik testified Cermak agreed with McMillan that he should wait in the truck in view of Cermak s failure to corroborate his testimony in this respect I am not persuaded by the evidence Cermak agreed 11 The identity of the superintendent was not further established 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD been found guilty of violating section 3, article XXIV, of Respondent's bylaws and trade rules and had been fined the sum of $600 which was to be paid to the financial secretary9 before the financial secretary would be allowed to collect any dues from him Although Cermak did not appeal Respondent's decision 10 several letters were written to the president of the International umon who advised him the matter had been turned over to a former union business representative, Adrian Floyd, to handle Although Floyd contacted Cermak 5 or 6 months prior to the hearing in this case and promised to look into the matter no further action has been taken Cermak has refused to pay the fine and Respondent has refused to send him his work card When Cermak attempted to pay his dues in June by mailing Respondent his check as was his usual practice, the check was returned with a note signed by Respondent Financial Secretary Schlemmer" informing him he was unable to accept Cermak's dues until the $600 fine was paid and that he was not allowed to work until such payment was made Following the March incident on the Red Bud jobsite, Cermak instead of assigning Alan Profancik glazing work as previously assigned him duties of driving a truck and working around the shop This continued for about a month until the State of Illinois approved an apprentice- ship training program for the Company's shop whereupon Alan Profancik began receiving training under the pro- gram to become a glazer and subsequently resumed performing such work on various jobsites With the exception of working 2 or 3 days to help out Cermak has not worked at the trade since June However his reasons for not doing so in addition to Respondent's failure to accept his dues and prohibiting him from working was because he had been busy performing estimating work for the Company On or about July 20 Respondent President Ray Raftery inquired of Albert Profancik whether his son would drop the unfair labor practice charge if the Union agreed to accept him When Albert Profancik indicated he would, Raftery told him to call the next day The following day Financial Secretary Schlemmer visited the Company and informed Albert Profancik he wasn't allowed to work with his son, Alan Profancik, either in or out of the shop or he would be liable for charges When Albert Profancik replied Alan Profancik wasn't working himself but only watching him work Schlemmer inquired how Alan Profancik could learn to be a glazier just by watching Albert Profancik's response was that was why they wanted to get him a card so he could work and learn the trade Upon being told the shop had been approved by the State and the Veterans Administration to train Alan Profancik and that another employee had previously been trained Schlemmer replied he didn't think the shop was 9 The financial secretary s name was Vernon Schlemmer 10 The constitution of the International umon under sec 285 provides that appeals from the local union shall be taken to the district council where one exists and sec 286(a) requires such appeals be filed in writing within 30 days from the date of the decision and failure to take a timely appeal shall be grounds for disallowing the appeal by the appellate body Further Sec 287 of the constitution requires in pertinent part that members against whom charges have been preferred or disciplinary or adverse actions have been taken shall exhaust their remedies provided for in the constitution before resorting to any other court or tribunal and failure to do so subjects qualified and should not have been approved Schlemmer also informed him Respondent did not recognize the State's training program Schlemmer rejected Albert Profancik's suggestion if Respondent wanted to give Alan Profancik an apprenticeship card the Company would pay him as a glazier The next day when Respondent President Raftery again inquired about dropping the unfair labor practice charge Albert Profancik indicated Respondent would have to give Alan Profancik a card, drop the charge against Cermak, and reinstate him in good standing The following day Albert Profancik received a letter from Respondent informing him he had been charged with violating the constitution 12 According to Respondent Business Representative Brown, President Raftery pre- ferred the charge against Albert Profancik and a trial was held at which he was found guilty and told to attend a union meeting to be reprimanded from the floor Albert Profancik stated when he attended the meeting to be reprimanded President Raftery informed him he had been fined $500 13 Raftery did not testify According to Albert Profancik, the reason he was fined was for having violated different articles of the constitution for instigating trouble Although Albert Profancik has not paid his alleged fine Respondent has continued to accept his dues and no demands have been made upon him for payment Since July he has been working at the trade with his son, Alan Profancik, on various construction jobs without further action having been taken against him by Respondent C Analysis and Conclusions Counsel for General Counsel contends Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by maintain- ing the bylaw against employer-members, including Joseph J Cermak, enforcing the bylaw against Cermak, and by discriminatorily causing the Company to relieve Alan Profancik of his glazing duties because he was not a member of Respondent Respondent's counsel while denying the Act was violated further contends the Board lacks jurisdiction since Cermak failed to exhaust his internal union remedies and that because of Alan Profan- cik's relationship to the Company's owner he was not an employee within the meaning of the Act Disposing of the latter issues first, a union member is not required to exhaust his internal union remedies before resorting to the Board's processes N L R B v Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, 391 U S 418 With respect to Alan Profancik's relationship as a grandson to the owner of the Company, such relationship is not a basis upon which to deprive him of his protection as an employee under the Act Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a union from them to disciplinary action 11 The signature of Schlemmer who did not testify was identified by Albert Profancik whom I credit 12 The evidence does not establish as General Counsel contends in his brief that the charge against Albert Profancik was for working with his son It was the bylaw rather than the constitution which prohibited such conduct 13 Although Business Representative Brown denied Albert Profancik was fined I do not find it necessary to resolve this conflict in their testimonies as it is not an issue in the case GLAZIERS & GLASSWORKERS LOCAL 513 621 restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act However, the proviso to that section gives a union the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership Section 8(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a union from causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate against employees because of their nonmembership in a union The bylaw in the instant case which prohibits Respon- dent's members from working at glazing with other than members of the International union by subjecting them to either fine or expulsion is insofar as it prohibits a member from working with a nonmember a valid bylaw with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership and to that extent is protected by the proviso of Section 8(b)(1)(A) 14 However, a union by maintaining a bylaw against employer-members prohibiting them from working with nonunion employees by subjecting them to penalties violates Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act 15 The Board has cited with approval16 for determining the kind of evidence necessary to establish a violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act the following language used by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 17 However, in order for union conduct to violate Section 8(b)(2), as opposed to Section 8(b)(1)(A), there must be some direct approach to the employer, or some conduct aimed at him, for the purpose of causing the employer to discriminate by implementing the union bylaw through his hiring practices or otherwise undoubt- edly, petitioners as union members have been acutely aware of the bylaw's existence and of the rigorousness of enforcement within the Federation However, on the present record, the Board was free to find that Petitioners have not shown any pattern of action by the Federation aimed at them as employers [Emphasis supplied] The undisputed evidence in the instant case establishes and I find that Respondent enforced its bylaw against Cermak because he was performing glazing work with Alan Profancik who was not a member of Respondent or the International union and that Respondent caused the Company to relieve Alan Profancik of his glazing duties because he was not a member of Respondent or the International union Although General Counsel contends McMillan was acting as Respondent's agent when he threatened to being charges against Cermak, such a finding is unnecessary since Respondent itself immediately initiat- ed action against Cermak by notifying him of the charge and by subsequently trying, fining, and prohibiting hun from working until such fine was paid While Alan Profancik's cessation of work on March 12 was not attributable to any instructions by Cermak but only upon McMillan's directions which Alan Profancik obeyed the Company's relieving him of his glazing duties for approxi- mately a month thereafter was directly caused by Respon- dent's action taken against Cermak That Respondent's 14 See Associated Musicians of Greater New York Local 802 AFM AFL-CIO (Joe Carroll Orchestras) 176 NLRB No 46 15 American Federation of Musicians AFL-CIO (Don Glasser) 165 NLRB 798 enfd 395 F 2d 401 (C A 2) action had accomplished the effect intended of depriving Alan Profancik of work was clearly conveyed to Respon- dent by Cermak' s letter in response to the filing of the charge wherein Respondent was informed it was causing Alan Profanclk a hardship by refusing to allow him to work at the glazier's trade Despite such protest Respon- dent preceded with its disciplinary action against Cermak Under these circumstances the evidence more than meets the test for determining whether the Act was violated Therefore I find based on a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by maintaining and enforcing article XXIV, section 3, of its bylaws and trade rules prohibiting members of Respondent from working at glazing with other than members of the International union against Joseph J Cermak, an employer-member, thereby causing and attempting to cause him to discriminate against his employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and by discriminatorily causing the Company to discriminate against Alan Profancik in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by relieving him of his glazing duties because he was not a member of Respondent or the International union In making this finding, I do not consider it necessary to consider those conversations between Albert Profancik and Respondent's officials as urged by General Counsel in his brief as further evidence of the violations IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No 513, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By maintaining and enforcing article XXIV, section 3, of its bylaws and trade rules prohibiting members of Respondent from working at glazing with other than members of the International union against Joseph J Cermak, an employer-member of Respondent, by preceed- ing with charges against him, trying, fining, and prohibit- ing him from working thereby causing and attempting to cause him to discriminate against employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act 16 See Associated Musicians of Greater New York supra 17 395 F 2d 401 (C A 2) enfg the Board s Order in American Federation of Musicians supra 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 By causing Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, to discriminate against Alan Profancik within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by assigning him work other than glazing work because he was not a member of Respondent or the International Union, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Accordingly, Respondent shall be ordered to cease and desist from maintaining or enforcing against Joseph J Cermak and its employer-members article XXIV, section 3, of its bylaws and trade rules and withdraw its objection to the Company employing Alan Profancik to perform glazing work Inasmuch as no loss of pay was suffered by Alan Profancik as a result of the discrimination against him no make-whole order is required Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended 18 ORDER Respondent, Glaziers, and Glassworkers Local Union No 513, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, its officers, repre- sentatives, and agents, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Maintaining or enforcing article XXIV, section 3, of its bylaws and trade rules prohibiting members of Respondent from working at glazing with other than members of the International union against Joseph J Cermak and other employer-members of Respondent by subjecting them to penalties thereby causing or attempting to cause them to discriminate against employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act (b) Causing or attempting to cause Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, to discriminate against Alan Profancik within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by assigning him work other than glazing work (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass 18 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 19 In the event that the Boards Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Company, or any other employer, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Rescind the $600 fine imposed against Joseph J Cermak (b) Expunge from Respondent's records all references to the charges, trial, fine, and other action taken against Joseph J Cermak for violating article XXIV, section 3, of its bylaws and trade rules (c) Notify Joseph J Cermak in writing that it has taken the action required in subparagraphs (a) and (b), above (d) Notify Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, in writing, that Respondent has no objection to Alan Profancik performing glazing work for the Company and furnish Alan Profancik with a copy of such notifica- tion (e) In the event Alan Profancik is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, notify him, in writing, that it has no objection to his employment with the Company as a glazier, in accordance with the Selective Service Act, and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces (f) Post at its business office and union hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 19 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by Region 14, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (g) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 14, signed copies of such notice for posting by Joseph J Cermak, d/b/a Southern Glass Company, if willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted (h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not found herein Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board 20 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional Director for Region 14 in wasting within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith