Local Union No. 305, Plumbers

826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 305, United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit- ting Industry of the United States and Canada (Mechanical Contractors Association of Connecti- cut, Inc., acting through its agent, Eastern Con- necticut Mechanical Contractors Association) and Anthony DiMella and Victor J. Bartoluccl.Cases. 1-CB-2385 and 1-CB-2389 June 21, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On February 25, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Joseph I. Nachman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions 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.2 APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and ordered us to post this notice and abide by its terms. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce any applicant for employment pursuant to the exclusive hiring hall we operate, by refusing to refer them to jobs for reasons that include lack of membership in Local 305. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce any employee or applicant for employ- ment through the exclusive hiring hall we operate, in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make whole Victor Bartolucci and Anthony DiMella for any loss of pay they suffered by reason of our refusal to refer them to jobs because they lacked membership in Local 305. WE WILL, upon request, make available to the Board or its authorized agents, at all reasonable times, all records relating in any way to the hiring and referral system. 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 and hereby orders that the Respondent, Local Union No. 305, United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, New London, Connecti- cut, its officers, agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for the Administrative Law Judge's notice. I 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, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 In the absence of exceptions we adopt, pro forma, the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of the complaint's allegation of an independent 8(bXIXA) violation regarding the operation of the referral and dispatching system. LOCAL 305, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA (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, Seventh Floor, Bulfinch Building, 15 New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Telephone 617-223-3300. 211 NLRB No. 124 LOCAL UNION NO. 305, PLUMBERS 827 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding tried before me at New London, Connecticut, on December 3-5,1 with all parties present or represented by counsel, involves a consolidated complaint2 pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein the Act, which alleges in substance that Local Union No. 305, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (herein Respondent, the Union, or Local 305), in the operation of a contractual exclusive hiring hall provision (conceded to be valid on its face), discriminated against Anthony DiMella and Victor J. Bartolucci in the matter of referral tojobs, because of their lack of union membership, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.3 By answer Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. It admits that for the major part of 1973 it refused to refer DiMella and Bartolucci to jobs, but claims that such refusal was based solely and only on the fact that they were not "qualified journeymen" within the meaning of the contractual provision that the Union would refer such persons to the contractors. The issue thus presented for decision is what was Respondent's "true purpose," or "real motive" in denying referral to DiMella and Bartolucci? For reasons more fully hereafter set forth I find and conclude that such lack of referrals was the absence of union status of the individuals mentioned, and that by such refusal to refer, Respondent coerced and restrained employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. At the trial all parties were afforded full opportunity to present relevant and material evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to submit briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent, respectively, have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, including the pleadings, stipulations of counsel, the evidence, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACTO Background For some years Respondent has been the recognized collective-bargaining representative of the plumbers, steam- fitters, and welders employed by employers in the building and construction industry, in the general environs of New London, Connecticut. A contract between Me- chanical Contractors Association of Connecticut, Inc., and Respondent Union, renewed from time to time, provided I This and all dates hereafter mentioned are 1973 unless otherwise indicated 2 Issued November 28, upon charges filed by DiMella and Bartolucci, on August 7 and 13, respectively 3 No violation of Sec 8(b)(2) of the Act is alleged. 4 No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented The the terms and conditions of employment of the aforesaid employees. The latest such contract mentioned in the evidence, in effect from October 28, 1972, through October 27, 1973, and thereafter from year to year unless terminat- ed by notice, provides for an exclusive hiring hall to be operated by the Union.5 Article XVI of the contract between the parties contains the hiring hall provisions. It provides in substance that contractors will employ only qualified journeymen, and a journeyman is defined as one who had had at least 5 years' actual practical experience in the trade, and has either (1) successfully completed an approved apprenticeship pro- gram; (2) has previously worked as a journeyman for a signatory contractor, and whose services have proved satisfactory; or (3) has successfully passed a competency test, any question as to what constitutes a competency test to be resolved by a Joint Hiring Committee provided for in the agreement. The contract additionally provides that contractors will call the Union for all journeymen they require; the Union will establish and maintain appropriate registration facilities where applicants may register the time and date of registration, by crafts; the Union will refer from that list on a nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to union membership, or the lack thereof; that all referrals may be rejected by the employer; the Union and the contractor will post in places where notices to all employees and applicants for employment are customarily posted, a notice containing all provisions relating to the operation of the hiring hall under the contract; a joint hiring committee, composed of an equal number of representatives from the union and the contractors shall be established which will supervise and control the operation of the job referral system, and settle all questions that may apse in the administration of the system. Employment history of Anthony DiMella Prior to 1969, DiMella worked for about 12 years at Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics. During this period he worked in the pipe shop, where he did mostly rigging, moving components aboard the ship, testing, and connecting them, performed such work under the supervi- sion of a pipefitter who was in charge of a group of men and had the responsibility for what was done. In mid or late summer of 1969, DiMella contacted Anthony Polcaro, the general foreman for Ebasco on the Millstone I project, and a vice president of Respondent Union, seeking work on that job. Polcaro questioned DiMella regarding his knowledge of pipe and pipefitting, and then told the latter that his employment had to be cleared through the business agent, which he would do, and would call DiMella in a few days. Several days later Polcaro called DiMella and stated that the latter's employment had been cleared with the business agent, and that he should report to the rigging foreman on the job the following day. DiMella did, and worked for that foreman for about a year when that complaint alleges and the answer admits facts which establish the jurisdictional elements referred to I find those facts to be as pleaded 5 How long this hiring hall has been in operation, the record does not show It does appear that it was in operation at least as far back as the contract for the 1966-69 period 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD kind of work was phased out, and he was transferred to the turbine building. There DiMella was teamed up with a welder to run vacuum lines. According to the uncontradict- ed testimony of DiMella, he cut pipe to length, put it at proper elevation, making provision for hangers, put the joints together either by screwing them on, by socket weldings, or holding it for the welder. This job terminated for DiMella sometime in October 1970, for lack of work, and DiMella again went to Polcaro for a work assignment. Polcaro told DiMella to lay off for a few weeks and then see Impellitteri, business agent of Respondent. When DiMella called Impellitteri, the latter stated that he had "bookmen" out of work, but that he would take care of it. In about 2 weeks, after another telephone call from DiMella, Impellitteri assigned DiMella to contractor W.J. Barney who was building a plant for the Pfizer Company, where DiMella was paired with a welder, the pair running 8-inch cast iron pipe with a 6-inch return. DiMella and his welder cut the pipe to proper length, beveled the flanges, and the two ends were welded by the welder; the pipe being placed into position on permanent hangers and bolted on. DiMella testified without contradiction that he was the pipefitter on the job, and directed the work from the plans. This job to which DiMella was referred in November 1970, ended for him in October 1971, when he was laid off for lack of work. After being laid off the last-mentioned job in October 1971, DiMella again communicated with Impellitteri for work and was told that things did not look good; that he had a lot of "bookmen" out of work, but that DiMella should "hang on" and he would be taken care of. About 2 weeks later Impellitteri telephoned DiMella and dis- patched him to Bechtel Company, the contractor on the Millstone II job, where Polcaro was the general foreman. There DiMella was assigned to a pipefitting gang of 8 to 12 men which prepared pipe which varied in size from 1 to 8 inches, for the welders, and made hangers. This job lasted until March 1972, when he was laid off for lack of work. With the end of that job DiMella again called Impellit- teri to report the fact that he was out of ajob and wanted work. According to DiMella whose testimony I credit, Impellitteri then stated that work was very slow; that a lot of "bookmen" were out of work and they come first, but "I will take care of you." Thereafter, DiMella called Impellit- teri periodically, but each time received basically the same answer. Finally in late August, DiMella called Polcaro informing the latter of his talks with Impellitteri, and asked if the latter could assist him in getting work. Polcaro stated that he had not been working himself, but that he was going back to work the following day on the Montville power home job, and would see what he could do. Sometime in September, DiMella received a call from one Delaporta, a union steward on the Montville job, who stated that there would be need for a substantial number of 6 After about February 1, DiMella went to the Union accompanied by Bartolucci, the other discnnunatee in this case. Those joint visits will be detailed after setting out Bartolucci's work record. r My findings in this section are based on the credited testimony of DiMella. Testifying as a witness for Respondent, Impellitteri denied that he ever toldDiMella or Bartolucci that there were "bookmen" out of work and claimed that he always used the words "qualified men." He admitted, however, that in the language of the Union the terms "bookmen" and men on the Millstone I Ebasco job the following day, and that DiMella should call Impellitteri and get a referral. DiMella did so and was told that he had intended to refer DiMella to the Montville job the following Monday, and did not want to refer him to Ebasco job. When DiMella protested that Delaporta had told him to can, Impellitteri changed his mind and told the former to report to Union Steward Preolla at the Ebasco job immediately. DiMella did as directed and worked on the Ebasco job continuously until January 5, 1973, when he was laid off for lack of work. While on the Ebasco job DiMella was paired with a welder and worked in the installation of a radiation waste line where pipe varying from 4 to 8 inches was used. Following his layoff at the Ebasco job DiMella, as he had in the past, called Impellitteri asking for work, repeating such calls each week for about a month. Each time Impellitteri told DiMella that at the time things did not look good; that he had "bookmen" out of work, and that they came first; that half the State was on his back for work; but not to worry, that he would be taken care of.6 Sometime in April, Impellitteri called DiMella and told the latter to call Assistant Business Agent Quinn, that he needed some gas fitters and that DiMella might get a referral to such a job. DiMella did so and was assigned to a gas fitter's job which lasted until the end of June.7 Employment history of Victor Bartolucci About August 1969, Bartolucci, who had known Impel- litteri for some time, telephoned the latter and asked about the possibility of a referral to a job. Impellitteri replied that a night crew was being started at the Millstone job, and that if he wanted the job he should report to union steward Delaporta at the main gate at 3:45 that afternoon and the latter would take care of the matter. Bartolucci reported as directed, and was assigned to "bull gang," doing rigging, some pipefitting, grinding, beveling, or any other job assigned to him by the foreman. When he was terminated for lack of work in about February 1970, Bartolucci went to the union hall and reported the fact to Impellitteri. About 3 or 4 weeks later Bartolucci was referred to a contractor on the Montville Power House job, and approximately a month later was transferred to another contractor on the same job. On this job Bartolucci was hired and worked as a pipefitter, doing some pipefitting as well as rigging, hanging pipe, grinding, and also worked some on condensers and valves. This job ended for Bartolucci in October 1970, when he was terminated for lack of work. Following this job Bartolucci was referred by Impellitteri about mid-December 1970, to the Millstone Unit I job, where he reported to Polcaro, and did essentially the same type of work until his termination in late January 1971, for lack of work. In February or March 1971, Impellitteri referred Bartolucci to a shopping center job where, as one of a crew of three pipefitters from Local "qualified men" mean the same thing, that "qualified" people came first, and that so long as there were "qualified" people out of work, neither fhMella nor Bartolucci was entitled to referral . He also admitted that he told DiMella and Bartolucci that there were other fully qualified people he had to put to work first. To the extent that there is a conflict between the testimony of Impellitten on the one hand and DiMella and Bartolucci on the other, I credit the latter. LOCAL UNION NO. 305, PLUMBERS 305, he installed tubing outside the air-conditioning components. When this job was completed about mid-July 1971, Bartolucci was terminated. Following this Bartolucci again talked with Impellitteri about work; the latter saying that things were slow and it would take a while because "bookmen" were out of work and had to be placed. In August 1971, Impellitteri sent Bartolucci to the Montville Power job, Unit I, to work for Champion Construction Company, telling him at the time that it would be a short job. It in fact lasted about 12 days and Bartolucci was promptly transferred to the Bechtel Unit No. 2, being terminated in March 1972, for lack of work. At both jobs he did essentially the same type of work, namely pipefitting. After again reporting to Impellitteri that he was now out of work, the latter referred Bartolucci to the submarine base where he worked until the end of May 1972, doing the same type of work as at the other jobs, and was then terminated for lack of work. Although Bartolucci frequently made known his availability for work, it was not until September 1972, that Impellitteri again referred him to a job. This referral was to Ebasco for repair work at Unit I Millstone Point. Here Bartolucci worked as a pipefitter until terminated for lack of work on January 5, 1973. After January 5, and for a period of 6 weeks to 2 months, Bartolucci spoke with Impellitteri a number of times, both at his office and on the street when they chanced to meet, about his desire for work. On each occasion the latter stated in substance that things were very slow, with "bookmen" both locally and throughout the State out of work; that he was getting calls from other business agents asking that he put their "bookmen" to work; but that as soon as the situation was such that he could put permit men to work, Bartolucci would be referred promptly.8 Following these meetings Bartolucci and DiMella made it a practice to go to the union hall together. Between about March 1 and about mid to late August, they made a number of visits to the union hall9 seeking referrals, but they were unsuccessful'.10' Although Impellitteri was not always present when the two men visited the union hall, on those occasions that he was present, he repeated, as above indicated, that things were slow; that "bookmen" whom he had to place first, were out of work; and that other business agents were putting pressure on him to provide jobs for their out of work "bookmen," and that "bookmen" were entitled to performance in employment to those who worked under permits from the Union. It may be noted that up to this point Impellitteri had not mentioned to either Bartolucci or DiMella that they lacked the necessary qualification for referral to a job. On the contrary, the 8 The findings in this section are based on the credited testimony of Bartolucci. As set forth in fn. 7, supra, Impellitteri gave contrary testimony, but I do not credit it. 9 Bartolucci and DiMella testified that such visits were about once a week . Both Impellitteri and Assistant Business Agent Quinn testified that such visits were not that frequent. I find the conflict irrelevant. 10 The only job referral Bartolucci got in 1972, which was to a gas pipe installation job in Bridgeport, which was almost concluded when Bartolucci arrived . For him, the job lasted about a week. 11 The list referred to is in evidence as G.C. Exh. 4. 12 Impellitteri testified that he came into the office just as Bartolucci and DiMella were leaving and when they left asked Quinn what the two men wanted ; that Quinn replied that they wanted to sign the "out-of-work" list, 829 evidence shows that Impellitteri told both men that they were good workers, and Impellitteri admits that he never received a complaint regarding their competence. Early in August Bartolucci and DiMella first learned that the Union maintained a so-called "out-of-work" list which the Union was supposed to use on a first registered, first referred basis in assigning people to work. Being unaware of the existence of such a list, neither Bartolucci nor DiMella had ever signed the same.11 On or about August 5, 1973, Bartolucci and DiMella went to the union hall. Impellitteri being out, they spoke with assistant business agent Quinn, and after being informed that no work was available, they asked Quinn if they might sign the "out-of-work" list. Quinn extracted a paper from his desk drawer containing a list of names, and both Bartolucci and DiMella signed it. On G.C. Exh. 4, there is a line drawn through each name. Neither could give any evidence as to when or by whom the line was drawn.12 Additionally the evidence shows that sometime in early August 1973, both Bartolucci and DiMella filed with Impellitteri their separate applications for membership in the Local, which set forth their experience which they felt would qualify them for membership under the rules of the Local.13 Impellitteri examined these applications and told Bartolucci and DiMella that their applications did not show the required 5 years experience in the trade. Bartolucci and DiMella argued to the contrary. Finally, Impellitteri told the two men that he would not process their applications along with the group to be admitted by the International, but would submit them to a meeting of the membership. When he did so, a great deal of confusion developed and the applications were never acted on by the body. Contentions and Conclusions It is certainly true that if, as Respondent (contends, un- der the contract it was required to refer ,'only those men who possessed certain qualifications, and that its real motive or true purpose for refusing to refer Bartolucci and DiMella to jobs was that they did not possess the necessary qualifications, no violation of the Act could be found. On the other hand, if the alleged lack of qualification was in fact a pretext and the true purpose or real motive for the refusal to refer Bartolucci and DiMella was their lack of union membership, a clear violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act resulted. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher and he permitted them to do so; that he then told Quinn that the men were not entitled to sign the list because they did not possess the necessary qualifications, and that he then drew the line through the two names. Quinn corroborates this. I do not credit Impellitteri regarding his motive or purpose in striking these names from the list. 13 At the time the Local was under a directive from the International to admit into membership any applicant who could show 5 years' experience in the trade. The Local apparently was not complying with this directive, and the International then sent a representative in to obligate those applicants into membership. This was done in late August, and seems to have left some ill-will among the older members who seem to have felt that the 93 people obligated at the time should not have been forced upon them by the International. 830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Workmen of North America, Local No. 576, 201 NLRB 922.14 The issue, therefore, is what Impellitteri's real motive or true purpose was when he denied referral to Bartolucci and DiMella. Upon careful consideration of the entire record I am convinced, and therefore find and conclude, that his true purpose for refusing to refer the two men to jobs, was their lack of membership in the Union, and that their alleged lack of qualification was seized upon in this case to obscure the true purpose of that conduct.15 I reach this conclusion upon the totality of the following considerations: 1. That over an approximate 4-year period Impellitteri referred Bartolucci and DiMella to jobs notwithstanding his knowledge of their alleged lack of qualification. 2. In the numerous conversations Impellitteri had with Bartolucci and DiMella he never once made reference to their alleged lack of qualification for the work. 3. Impellitteri's statements to Bartolucci and DiMella that he had "book men" out of work who came first, that other business agents were "on his back" to get work for "book men," and that as soon as he satisfied those people who had first claim on him, he would take care of Bartolucci and DiMella. These statements, by a responsi- ble union official, make it clear that at least so far as Bartolucci and DiMella were concerned , union member- ship was since January 5, 1973, a condition precedent to referral to a job through the Union's hiring hall. I so find and conclude-16 Upon the foregoing findings of fact, I state the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By refusing, in the operation of its exclusive hiring hall arrangement, to refer Bartolucci and DiMella to jobs 14 The Board's decision in the cited case was enforced by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (No. 73-1275), but the Court directed that its opinion not be published. 15 Considerable evidence was introduced by the General Counsel to establish the qualifications of Bartolucci and DiMella, and by Respondent to establish that they lacked the necessary qualifications , but I find it unnecessary to make any findings on that issue. Suffice it to say that the evidence shows that both men were referred to a number of jobs during the roughly 4 years they worked, and they apparently discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the several employers involved. Impelhtten admitted that both men were reliable workmen, and that he never received a complaint from any employer regarding the manner in which they performed their duties. is The complaint alleges, and the General Counsel contended at the trial and argues in his brief, that Respondent independently violated Sec. 8(b)(lXA) by ( I) failing and refusing to maintain adequate records of registration and dispatching of applicants for employment referral; and (2) failing and refusing to form and/or maintain a joint hiring committee, as provided for in the contract, to protect the rights of applicants or registrants for employment referral . At the conclusion of the trial I asked the General Counsel to provide me with authority to support his contention that factors (1) and (2), above, constitute independent violations of Sec. 8(bXIXA). The only authority counsel provided is a decision by Judge Goldberg, issued July 31, 1973, in Local Union 99, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Crawford Electric Construction Co.), JD-467-73, Case I-CB-2070, still pending before the Board on exceptions. I do not regard that decision as authority here. Judge Goldberg did not hold and so far as I can find the Board has never held that a union 's failure to keep proper records of registrants and referrals under an exclusive referral system, or the failure to cooperate in the joint hiring committee, as provided in the because they lacked membership in the Union, which lack of membership did not exist because of their failure to tender periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or maintaining membership in the Union, Respondent restrained and coerced Bartolucci and DiMella in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(bXl)(A) of the Act, it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent restrained and coerced Bartolucci and DiMella in the exercise of their Section 7 rights by refusing, in the operation of its exclusive hiring hall, to refer them to employment because of their lack of membership in the Union, it will be recommended that Respondent make each of them whole for any loss of pay they suffered, respectively, by reason of Respondent's aforesaid conduct, less their respective net earnings during the applicable period, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, all in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. The basis for the computation of such backpay not being disclosed by this record, that matter is left to the compliance stage of this proceeding. Additionally, the violations above found, being of a character which go to the very heart of the Act, I contract, constituted independent violations of Sec . 8(b)(IXA). All he did was to provide, as a remedy for the violations there found, that the Union in that case be required to maintain certain records in connection with the operation of its referral system. This is the course followed by the Board in Ironworkers Local Union No. 290, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, (Mid-States Steel Erection Company), 184 NLRB 177. On the other hand, in Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 576 (Westfield Thrtftway Supermarket), supra, although the Board found a violation of Sec. 8(bXlXA) based on a refusal to refer, and deemed it necessary to write its own order, it did not order that union to keep records of the operation of the hiring hall and make them available to the Regional Director upon request . Perhaps the explanation is that the decision in the last-mentioned case does not indicate that the Union's records were in fact inadequate. Here the evidence shows that the records were plainly inadequate. In view of Quinn's testimony that a great number of men called at the union hall each week seeking work, the referral list in evidence is deficient as to who registered . Moreover, the list does not show when a man was referred. All Sec 8(bXIXA) requires is that union refrain from coercing and restraining employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. I find and conclude that although the failure to keep proper records and the failure to participate in the Joint Hiring Committee may in a proper case be evidence that the hiring hall was operated in a discriminatory fashion, those facts do not standing alone constitute the restraint and coercion which is proscribed by Sec. 8(bXIXA) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that par. 6(b) and (c) of the complaint, be dismissed. However, under the circumstances I shall include a provision requiring the Union to keep proper records of the operations of its hiring hall, as the Board did in Ironworkers Local 290, supra. LOCAL UNION NO. 305, PLUMBERS 831 shall recommend that Respondent be required to cease and desist from in any manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. N.L. R. B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4, 1941); California Lingerie, Inc., 129 NLRB 912, 915. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: ORDER 17 Respondent, Local Union No. 305, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing or refusing, in the operation of its exclusive hiring hall, to refer Victor Bartolucci or Anthony DiMella for employment for reasons that include their lack of membership in Local Union No. 305. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees, or applicants for employment in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Victor Bartolucci and Anthony DiMella for any loss of pay they suffered, respectively, in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its authorized agents, for examination and copying, all records, reports, work lists, referral documents, and any other records and documents as may be in its possession, custody or control, which are necessary, useful, or appropriate in determining compliance with this Order, or in computing the amount of backpay due under its terms. (c) Maintain permanent written records of its hiring and referral operations which will be adequate to disclose fully the basis upon which referrals are made and, upon request of the Board or its authorized agents, make available for inspection, at reasonable times, all records relating in any way to the hiring and referral system. (d) Post at its business office, hiring hall, and meeting rooms, copies of the notice attached marked "Appen- dix." 18 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Board's Regional Director for Region 1 (Boston, Massa- chusetts), after being duly signed by a duly authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to job applicants are customar- ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Sign and mail a sufficient number of copies of said notice to the aforesaid Regional Director for posting by employers who are bound by the collective-bargaining agreement creating the exclusive hiring hall agreement administered by Respondent, said employers being willing, in places where they customarily post notices to their employees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraphs 6(b) and (c) of the complaint herein be, and they hereby are, dismissed in their entirety. 17 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. 18 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by 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."