Carpenters Local 1089 (E. F. Hargett & Co.)

CARPENTERS, LOCAL NO. 1089 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1089, AFL-CIO (Emmett & F. Hargett d/b/a E. F. Hargett & Company) and Joseph Raspanti. Case 28-CB- 1133 November 4, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On July 6, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Roger B. Holmes issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith, and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent, which operates an exclusive hiring hall, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing E. F. Hargett & Company (hereinafter Hargett) to refuse to hire Joseph Raspanti. We agree. The Respondent, through its agent Diane Smith, discouraged Hargett from hiring Raspanti when it cast a cloud over Raspanti's standing with the Union. We disagree, however, with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the action taken by Assistant Business Agents Greene and Boggs to encourage Hargett to hire Raspanti cured its con- duct. The Respondent was required to notify Raspanti, who was aware of the Respondent's original action, that it would not bar his employment with Hargett. Notice to Hargett was insufficient as long as Raspanti was unaware that the Respondent no longer objected to his employment.2 Had Raspan- ti been so notified, he could have elected employ- ment with Hargett without fear of hurting either Archer or Hargett. 3 REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act, we shall adopt the recommended remedy of the Administrative Law Judge to the extent consistent herewith. 233 NLRB No. 47 Inasmuch as we have found that the Respondent unlawfully caused discrimination against Raspanti and, as found, did not toll its backpay liability, we shall order that the Respondent make Joseph Raspanti whole for any loss of wages and benefits suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimina- tion, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from October 22, 1976, to the date on which Raspanti receives written notification from the Respondent that the Respondent will not discrimi- nate against him, less his net earnings during said period, such sums and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).4 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 below, and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1089, AFL-CIO, Phoenix, Arizona, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take that action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Insert the following as paragraphs 2(b) and (c), and reletter succeeding paragraphs accordingly: "(b) Make Joseph Raspanti whole for loss of wages and benefits as set forth in the section of the Board's Decision entitled "Remedy." "(c) Notify Joseph Raspanti in writing that the Respondent has no objection to his employment with E. F. Hargett & Company or any other employer." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 Local Union 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamnental Iron Workers, AFL (Clyde Crider). 109 NLRB 73 (1954). 3 William Archer. Hargett's carpenter at the Lincoln Hospital jobsite. credibly testified that Raspanti said regarding his employment: "'Bill, forget about it. I knowed you for a while, and I don't want to get you into trouble.' " 4 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Hearing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 275 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to present evidence, it has been found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, and we have been ordered to post this notice. WE WILL NOT fail to dispatch or refer to work Joseph Raspanti, or any other person who has properly registered at our exclusive hiring hall established pursuant to the Arizona State Carpen- ters Labor Agreement, because such person is not a member in good standing of our Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees, or persons seeking referral to work from our exclusive hiring hall, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL dispatch or refer to work Joseph Raspanti, or any other person who has properly registered at our exclusive hiring hall, in a nondiscriminatory manner. WE WILL make Joseph Raspanti whole for loss of wages and benefits, plus interest. We previously notified Emmett F. Hargett, d/b/a E. F. Hargett & Company, that we have no objection to his employment of Joseph Raspanti, and will notify Joseph Raspanti in writing that we will not discriminate against him. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 1089, AFL- CIO DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROGER B. HOLMES, Administrative Law Judge: The original charge in this case was filed on December 3, 1976, by Joseph Raspanti. The first amended charge in this case was filed on January 4, 1977, by Raspanti. The complaint was issued on January 17, 1977, on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for Region 28. The General Counsel's complaint alleges that United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1089, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer to the complaint and denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. The hearing was held before me on May 5, 1977, at Phoenix, Arizona. Both counsel for the General Counsel and the attorney for the Respondent timely filed briefs by the due date of June 23, 1977. Those briefs have been read and duly considered. Upon the entire record in this proceeding and based upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Emmett F. Hargett, d/b/a E. F. Hargett & Company, herein called Hargett, has been at all times material herein an individual proprietorship. Hargett has maintained an office and place of business at 2907 West Fairmount Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona, where he has engaged in business as a general contractor in the construction industry. In the course and conduct of his business operations during the calendar year 1976, which period of time is representative of his annual operations generally, Hargett has purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. During that same period of time, Hargett has caused those goods and materials to be transported in interstate commerce and to be delivered to his place of business in Arizona directly from States of the United States other than the State of Arizona. At all times material herein, Hargett has been a member of the Arizona Building Chapter, Associated General Contractors. The Arizona Building Chapter, Associated General Contractors, has been at all times material herein an association of employers which exists for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of its employer-members with the Respondent and other labor organizations, negotiating collective-bargaining agree- ments, and resolving grievances arising in connection with collective-bargaining agreements among the employees of its employer-members. In the course and conduct of their respective business operations during the calendar year 1976, which period of time is representative of their annual operations generally, the employer-members of the Arizona Building Chapter, Associated General Contractors, have purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 in the aggregate. The employer-members have caused such goods and materials to be transported in interstate commerce and delivered to their respective places of business in Arizona directly from States of the United States other than the State of Arizona. Upon the foregoing facts, I find that Hargett and the employer-members of the Arizona Building Chapter, Associated General Contractors, have been at all times material herein employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 276 CARPENTERS, LOCAL NO. 1089 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It was admitted in the pleadings that the Respondent has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Accordingly, I find that fact to be so. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issue The principal issue raised by the pleadings in this case is whether the Respondent caused, or attempted to cause, Hargett to refuse to hire Joseph Raspanti on or about October 22, 1976, because Raspanti was not a member in good standing of the Respondent, and thereby violated Section 8(b)( I )(A) and (2) of the Act. B. Admissions and Stipulations It was admitted that since on or about July 31, 1976, the Respondent has been a party to a collective-bargaining agreement which provides, inter alia, for the operation of an exclusive hiring hall by the Respondent. It was further admitted that the agreement provides that the employer- members of the Arizona Building Chapter, Associated General Contractors, including Hargett and other employ- ers signatory to the agreement, shall requisition all carpentry workmen who are to be employed within the Respondent's area jurisdiction from the Respondent's hiring hall in accord with the placement and referral procedures set forth in that agreement. The parties stipulated and agreed that for the week beginning on Monday, October 18, 1976, Raspanti was registered on the "A" list at the Respondent's hiring hall. It was further stipulated and agreed that Raspanti had signed up on the "A" list on or about October 14, 1976, and, as of the week beginning on Monday, October 18, 1976, Raspanti was the 255th person on the journeyman "A" list. In addition, the parties agreed that, under the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, it did not matter what numerical place Raspanti occupied on the journeyman "A" list. The parties agreed that since Raspanti was on the "A" list Raspanti was entitled to a referral if Raspanti was called by name by an employer. Consistent with the stipulation of the parties was one of the provisions in the Arizona State Carpenters Labor Agreement, which was introduced into evidence as a joint exhibit, and which provides as follows: 704.3.1.1 - Individual Contractors may requisition a workman specifically by name from Group "A" for the same craft in which he was previously employed, provided said workman is properly registered and available for such employment. With regard to Diane Smith, the parties stipulated that she was employed as a secretary by the Respondent. In the regular course of her employment, she occasionally received calls from an employer who was signatory to the Arizona State Carpenters Labor Agreement and who requested an employee by name to be dispatched to a certain jobsite. Acting under instructions, if that person's name was on the "A" list, she would then fill out the work order with the employee's name on the work order. It was then the person's duty to come in to the local hall. If that person showed up while Ms. Smith was there, she filled out a written referral slip which referred that person to the job. The referral slip may, or may not, be signed by her acting under the instructions from the Respondent's business agent. The parties disagreed, however, as to whether or not Ms. Smith was an agent of the Respondent at the times material to this proceeding. The foregoing findings of fact are based upon admissions in the pleadings, stipulations by the parties, and documen- tary evidence. C. The Conversation Between Raspanti and Archer William A. Archer was a carpenter foreman for Hargett on a project known as the John C. Lincoln Hospital from March 1976 to April 1977. His duties as carpenter foreman included the hiring of employees for that project. Archer has been a member of the Respondent since August 1950. On Friday, October 22, 1976, Archer discussed the need for three carpenters on that project with the project superintendent, Lee Weden. Archer explained at the hearing that the carpenters were needed to do the scaffolding and decking work in preparation for pouring the roof deck. About mid-morning on that day Raspanti came to the project and had a conversation with Archer. Archer knew Raspanti because he had worked with him since the mid-1960's. Archer said at the hearing that he believed that Raspanti could do the type of work which was required on the project at that time. They spoke first outside the trailer at the project. Archer asked Raspanti if he was looking for a job. Raspanti replied, "No, I didn't come out here looking for a job. I come out to see you, but I'll take it. I'll take a job." Archer told him that he had a call for three carpenters that morning and Raspanti replied, "If you've got a job, I'll take it." Archer said that he would call in a work order, so the two of them went inside the trailer. Inside the trailer and prior to Archer's making the telephone call, Archer asked Raspanti, "Are you and the Union ok?" Raspanti answered, "Yes, if you call down there, I'm on the list. They'll have to send me out." Archer then inquired whether Raspanti was a member of Local 1089 and Raspanti said that he was. At the hearing Archer explained that he usually asked a person what local he was from, so that Archer would know which local union to call. The foregoing findings of fact in this section have been based upon the testimony given by Archer. In a pretrial affidavit, which was given on November 29, 1976, by Archer, Archer gave a somewhat abbreviated version of Raspanti's response to Archer's initial inquiry as to whether Raspanti was looking for a job. In the pretrial affidavit Archer stated, "We talked a few minutes and I asked if he was looking for a carpenter's job. He said yes, and we walked into the trailer office .... " In his testimony at the hearing, Archer gave a slightly different version of Raspanti's response. As noted above Archer testified that Raspanti responded, "No, I didn't come out here looking for a job. I come out to see you, but I'll take it. I'll take a job." After comparing the foregoing statements, I 277 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find that there is only a minor difference between the two versions. I find that his version given at the hearing is the more logical and complete version of Raspanti's reply. D. The Telephone Conversation Between Archer and Ms. Smith After Foreman Archer and Raspanti went inside the office trailer at the Lincoln Hospital jobsite, Archer telephoned the Respondent's hall and spoke with Diane Smith, a secretary employed by the Respondent. During the course of the conversation between Archer and Ms. Smith, Raspanti sat about 5 feet from Archer. Archer repeated what was being said to him in a normal voice. Archer identified himself to Ms. Smith on the telephone and told her for whom he worked. He also told her that he wanted to call in a work order for Joe Raspanti. Archer testified: "Well, when I mentioned his name, the girl stated that - asked me if I knew that Raspanti was a member that wasn't in good standing with the Local." Archer stated that she told him that Raspanti had a lawsuit or charges against the Local and at that time Raspanti was not a member in good standing. After his recollection was refreshed by reference to his pretrial affidavit which Archer had given on November 29, 1976, Archer recalled that she told him that she knew that Archer was a member in good standing with the Local and she did not want to get Archer in trouble. Archer then told her, "I guess I've got myself in a bind." Archer further testified, "[W]hen I was talking to her on the phone, and repeating some of the conversation, part of the conversation, Raspanti said to me, said, 'Bill, forget about it. I knowed you for a while, and I don't want to get you into trouble.' " Archer then left what is known as an "open call" at the union hall for the Union to refer three carpenters for work. At the hearing, Archer did not remember whether or not Ms. Smith told him during their telephone conversation that she would dispatch Raspanti to him. Archer also did not remember whether or not Ms. Smith told him that Archer would not get into a "bind," or that Archer would not get into trouble, or words to that effect. Archer was also not certain at the hearing whether he told her that he would call her back. Archer did not hire Raspanti for work with Hargett. Since June 1974 Ms. Smith has been employed as a secretary for the Respondent. As part of her duties at work, she answers the telephone and she answers calls from contractors who are signatory to the Arizona State Carpenters Labor Agreement when those contractors need employees. Ms. Smith was present at the union hall when Raspanti had come into the hall and had his name put on the referral list. Ms. Smith said that she had been told that Raspanti was not a member of the Union. Ms. Smith gave a slightly different version of her conversation with Archer. She recalled that on October 22, 1976, she received a telephone call from Bill Archer whose voice she recognized because she had spoken with him before and she had seen him in the union hall. Ms. Smith knew that Archer was a member of the Respondent. After Archer told her who he was and the Company for whom he was working, Archer told her that he wanted Raspanti to go to work for him, and Archer told her when he wanted Raspanti to begin work. While Archer was telling her the foregoing, Ms. Smith said that she was writing out a workcard. Ms. Smith did not reply to Archer while he was giving her the foregoing details and while she was filling out the card. However, after she had filled out the card, she did speak to Archer. Ms. Smith testified: I asked Bill Archer if he knew that Joe Raspanti was not a member, and Bill Archer said, no, he didn't know that, and he said that the job was running along nice and smooth, and he didn't want any problems, so he didn't want Raspanti then, and I assured him that there wasn't any problem that Raspanti was on the "A" list, and that we would dispatch him. And he - you know, he kept saying that he didn't want any trouble, and I told him there wouldn't be any. She said that Archer told her to change the order to an open call. She said that she asked Archer if Archer would tell Raspanti and let him know not to come down to the union hall to pick up a work referral. Archer responded, "Well, I won't have to. He's sitting right here." Ms. Smith said that Archer did tell her that he would call her back. She said that she had no further conversation with Archer that day. She also denied telling Archer that Archer had been a member of the Union for a long time and that she would not want to see Archer get into any trouble. In resolving the conflicts in the testimony regarding the telephone conversation between Archer and Ms. Smith, I have credited Archer's account of the conversation. It seemed to me that Archer was testifying truthfully as to this matter. While he experienced momentary difficulty in recalling all of the contents of the telephone conversation, his recollection was refreshed by reference to his pretrial affidavit, and his testimony at the hearing was substantially the same as he had given previously. It is noteworthy that Archer has been a member of the Respondent for 27 years. There does not appear to be any reason why Archer would fabricate his versions of the events related in this Decision. There was no discernible bias or hostility displayed by Archer to the Respondent during the course of his testimony. Accordingly, the findings of fact in this section are based upon the testimony given by Archer. E. The Conversation Between Archer and the Union Representatives on October 22, 1976 Archer recalled having two conversations with union representatives after lunch on October 22, 1976. He recalled that Assistant Business Agents Jack Greene and Bob Boggs spoke with him near the office trailer. Archer also stated that a few minutes after they had left Greene returned and spoke with Archer and Superintendent Weden. At the hearing, Archer did not give testimony regarding the substance of the conversations with the union represen- tatives. The first conversation on that day was recounted in 278 CARPENTERS, LOCAL NO. 1089 his pretrial affidavit. However, that affidavit was used by counsel for the General Counsel to refresh Archer's memory with regard to another matter - his telephone conversation with Ms. Smith. Subsequently, the pretrial affidavit was offered into evidence by the attorney for the Respondent for impeachment purposes only. Since Archer did not testify at the hearing concerning the substance of his conversations and since his affidavit came into evidence for purposes of impeachment and not for purposes of a past recollection recorded, I have not based findings of fact as to the substance of the conversations on the account related in Archer's pretrial affidavit. Instead, I have based the findings of fact with regard to the substance of the conversations on October 22, 1976, between Archer and the union business representatives on the account given by Assistant Business Agent John F. Greene, who was the only witness to testify with regard to the substance of those conversations. John Greene, who is also known as Jack Greene, was advised by Ms. Smith that Bill Archer had made a call for Raspanti; then Archer told Ms. Smith that he had better make it an open call and he would call her back. Greene asked Ms. Smith if Archer had called back for Raspanti, and she replied no. It was at that point that Greene decided that he would go to the jobsite. At the hearing, Greene explained his reason for doing so. Greene testified: Mr. Raspanti has a record in our Local of filing suits, bringing legal action, and we just didn't want to be involved in any kind of legal action when we felt that he could be hired, and we just didn't want any responsibility put back on the Local that wasn't our responsibility. Assistant Business Agent Boggs accompanied Greene to the John C. Lincoln Hospital jobsite on October 22, 1976, where they spoke with Archer. Greene testified: Well, Bob and I talked to Mr. Archer. I had asked him why he had taken Raspanti's name off the work order, and he responded that he didn't want any trouble with the members on the job. I informed him that there would be no problems and that he could refer - could call for him by name, he was eligible, and that we would ask that he do this to avoid the Local being confronted with any legal action. Archer replied that he felt that the matter was dropped because Raspanti had told him that Raspanti did not want to get Archer involved; that Raspanti did not want to get Hargett involved; and that Raspanti just wanted to forget about it. Archer told Greene that, since Raspanti had made the move not to have Raspanti's name called, the matter was dropped. During the conversation, Archer told the union representatives that Archer was afraid of having problems with the men on the job. Archer and the union representatives also discussed the matter of dispatching additional persons to the job. Archer inquired as to how many apprentices he would be allowed to have on that project. The union representatives told him how many he was allowed. When Archer learned that he was allowed one more apprentice than he actually had on the job, Archer requested that an additional apprentice be added to the work call which changed the work order from three to four persons. Following their first conversation with Archer that day, Greene and Boggs went to Greene's car where they discussed the matter. Greene explained that they felt that Raspanti might possibly try to bring the Respondent into a legal matter so they decided that they should go back and "plead with Mr. Archer to put him to work to avoid any conflict." When Greene and Boggs went back to the trailer at the jobsite, Superintendent Weden was with Archer in the trailer. Greene testified: . . . We requested that Bill Archer reconsider and put Mr. Raspanti on the call, and his superintendent wanted to know what was the problem. Bill Archer then told him our discussion earlier about Raspanti and the phone call to the Local, and that Raspanti's last words were, "Bill, I don't want to get Hargett or you into any trouble. Let's just forget about it." And the superintendent then said, "Well, if that's it, if he doesn't want the job, he said to forget about it, we're forgetting about it, and that's the end of the matter. Leave the call the way it is." During the course of the second conversation, Greene explained to Archer and Superintendent Weden the Union's reason for its concern that day. Greene testified: That Mr. Raspanti in the past had taken legal action against the Local, and that we didn't want to bring the Local into a matter that would cost us some money on something that we felt we hadn't done anything wrong. After Superintendent Weden told the business represen- tatives to leave the work call the way that it was, they both left. On Monday, October 25, 1976, the Union referred four persons to work for Hargett at the Lincoln Hospital jobsite. There were two journeymen and two apprentices referred to work at that point in time. Greene explained that a notation appearing beside Raspanti's name on the "A" list indicated that Raspanti was not present at the roll call held at 7:30 a.m. on Monday, October 25, 1976, at the union hall. The foregoing findings of fact are based upon the testimony given by Greene, who, as pointed out previously, was the only person who gave testimony at the hearing with regard to the foregoing conversations. I found Greene's testimony to be credible, and I have based the findings of fact in this section upon Greene's account of these events. F. Conclusions Having undertaken the operation of an exclusive hiring hall whereby the Respondent referred persons for work to employers who were signatory to the Arizona State Carpenters Labor Agreement, the Respondent was obligat- ed to operate that hiring hall in a nondiscriminatory manner. Local Union 675, International Brotherhood of 279 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (S & M Electric Co.), 223 NLRB 1499 (1976); Plumbers Local Union No. 17 of the United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Pipefitters of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (PSM Mechani- cal Contractor, Inc.), 224 NLRB 1262 (1976); Local Union No. 121, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry (M. J. Doyle, Inc.), 223 NLRB 1250(1976). Based on the credited testimony, I conclude that the Respondent did cause Hargett to fail to hire Raspanti during the telephone conversation on Friday morning, October 22, 1976, between Archer and Ms. Smith. I further conclude that Ms. Smith was acting within the scope of her normal duties and authority during that telephone conver- sation and, at that point in time, she was acting as an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. While Raspanti did not go to the Lincoln Hospital jobsite and seek a job, carpenter's work was fortuitously available since Archer needed three carpenters for work at the jobsite. Raspanti made it clear to Archer in their conversation that Raspanti would be willing to accept employment if Archer had a job for him. Archer's desire to employ Raspanti at that time was made manifest to Ms. Smith during their telephone conversation when Archer specifically made a by-name request for the referral of Raspanti. Significantly, at that point in time, Raspanti was properly registered on the Respondent's journeyman "A" list. Thus, Raspanti was eligible to be referred to work for Hargett under the provisions of the agreement. However, I conclude that the statements made by Ms. Smith in the telephone conversation with Archer were prompted by the fact that Raspanti was not a member in good standing of the Respondent and, as a consequence, the Respondent caused Hargett not to employ Raspanti. Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act. I am not unmindful of the fact that Raspanti did indicate prior to the end of the telephone conversation between Archer and Ms. Smith that he would drop the matter. However, Raspanti's assertion came after Ms. Smith's statements to Archer, and they must be viewed in that light. It should be noted that Archer was repeating most of the conversation in the presence of Raspanti, and it was only after the comment made by Ms. Smith that Raspanti indicated that he did not want to get Archer or Hargett into trouble. I do not view this as Raspanti's abandonment of his interest in being employed by Hargett at that time. While I have found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act during the morning of October 22, 1976, I also find that during the afternoon of that same day the Respondent took immediate and good- faith steps in an attempt to persuade Hargett to employ Raspanti. It should be remembered here that Raspanti was not to go to work for Hargett until Monday, October 25, 1976, and the prompt actions taken by the Union were made on Friday afternoon, October 22, 1976, in an effort to persuade Hargett to hire Raspanti. Thus, if the Union had been successful in its efforts that Friday afternoon, Hargett would have hired Raspanti as planned, and Raspanti would not have lost any wages. I conclude that the Respondent's two assistant business agents, Greene and Boggs, made a genuine effort to try to get Hargett to employ Raspanti. The two agents went out to the Lincoln Hospital jobsite that afternoon and made personal contact with Archer to urge him to hire Raspanti. When they did not succeed in that first effort, Greene returned a few minutes later, a second time, and once again spoke with Archer and in addition with Superintendent Weden. While the two assistant business agents were motivated by a desire to minimize any liability to the Respondent because of the fact that Raspanti had previously filed lawsuits and charges against the Respon- dent, I find, based on Greene's testimony, that they made an unequivocal and genuine effort to get Hargett to employ Raspanti. Thus, I find that the two meetings that afternoon between the Respondent's assistant business agents and Hargett's foreman and superintendent were not "cosmetic in purpose" as was a meeting described in Groves-Granite, a Joint Venture, 229 NLRB 56, 64 (1977). Furthermore, I conclude that the Respondent's actions herein were not merely a "token act" as described by the Board in Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union No. 426, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamen- tal Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Tryco Steel Corporation), 192 NLRB 97 (1971), where the Board observed: Where a union undertakes to remedy its prior unlawful conduct, the Board has recognized the inequity in continuing to charge it with backpay liability simply because the employer, whose actions the union cannot control, declines to hire the victim of the past, union-caused discrimination. Nonetheless, the Board has in this type of case required clear, unequivo- cal action by the union, so as not to permit it to escape liability by virtue of a token act not calculated or likely to achieve a correction of the wrong committed. [Footnotes omitted.] In these unusual circumstances and on the particular facts in this case, I conclude that the Respondent clearly and unequivocally sought to have Hargett employ Raspan- ti prior to the time that Raspanti would have gone to work for Hargett and, therefore, the Respondent is not liable for any backpay in this case. While Raspanti testified that he had never received any communication, either oral or written, from the Respon- dent which indicated that the Respondent had no objection to his employment by Hargett, the Respondent's assistant business agents made it clear to the employer, Hargett, during their conversations with Archer and Weden on the afternoon of Friday, October 22, 1976, that the Respondent not only did not object to Raspanti, but also urged Hargett to hire Raspanti. While the actions of the assistant business agents that afternoon were not a full and complete remedy of the unfair labor practice which had been committed that morning, I conclude that their actions that afternoon were sufficient to prevent the incurrence of any backpay liability to the Respondent. 280 CARPENTERS, LOCAL NO. 1089 IV. THE EFFECT OF TIHE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent which are set forth in section 111, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section 1, 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 of commerce. Upon the basis of the findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCI USIONS OF LAW I. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Hargett and the employer-members of the Arizona Building Chapter, Associated General Contractors, are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 3. By failing to dispatch or refer to work to Hargett, on or about October 22, 1976, Joseph Raspanti, who was properly registered at the Respondent's exclusive hiring hall, which was established pursuant to the Arizona State Carpenters Labor Agreement, because Raspanti was not a member in good standing of the Union, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)( )(A) and (2) of the Act. 4. 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 in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Counsel for the General Counsel requests in his brief that the interest on backpay be computed at 9 percent, rather than 6 percent per annum. Since I have found that the Respondent does not owe any backpay to Raspanti, an analysis of the General Counsel's contention is unnecessary except to observe that for 15 years the Board has consistently provided that interest on monetary remedies be computed at 6 percent per annum. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). The Board has had numerous opportunities to reconsider its holding with regard to 6-percent interest, e.g., Mercy Peninsula Ambulance Service, Inc., 217 NLRB 829, fn. I (1975), and Russell Motors, Inc., Amalgamated Local Union 355, 198 NLRB 351 (1972), but the Board has consistently adhered to the 6-percent rate. Board precedent is, of course, controlling here, and, therefore, even if I found any backpay liability in this case, I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board. the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall., as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted hb the Board and become its findings, conclusions and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes I would follow Board precedent and deny the General Counsel's request. In view of the nature of the Respondent's unfair labor practices found herein, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any other manner on the rights of employees or persons seeking referral to work from the Respondent's exclusive hiring hall. Local No. 78, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Murry Walter, Inc.), 223 NLRB 733 (1976); Local Union No. 77 of International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (Colorite, Inc.), 222 NLRB 607 (1976). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed- ing, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER ' The Respondent, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1089, AFL-CIO, Phoenix, Arizona, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing to dispatch or refer to work Joseph Raspanti, or any other person who is properly registered at the Respondent's exclusive hiring hall, established pursuant to the Arizona State Carpenters Labor Agreement, because such person is not a member in good standing of the Respondent. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees or persons seeking referral to work from the Respon- dent's hiring hall in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Dispatch or refer to work Joseph Raspanti, or any other person who has properly registered at the exclusive hiring hall established pursuant to the Arizona State Carpenters Labor Agreement, in a nondiscriminatory manner. (b) Post at its Phoenix, Arizona, offices and hiring hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, shall be signed by an authorized representa- tive of the Respondent and be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places at all locations where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 28 signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Emmett F. Hargett, d/b/a E. F. Hargett & Company, if that employer is willing to do so, at all of the locations 2 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 281 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD where notices to Hargett's employees are customarily posted. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 282