Local Un. No. 630, Plumbers

524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 630, United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit- ting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Ebasco Services, Incorporated) and Daniel E. Jurmanovich, John M. Ackerman, David R. Lambert, and Fred Gene Raby. Cases 12-CB-1500, 12-CB-1518, 12-CB-1536, and 12-CB-1549 January 22, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Daniel E. Jurmanovich in Case 12-CB-1500 on October 2, 1974, a complaint was issued on December 27, 1974. The complaint was first amended on January 31, 1975, to con- solidate Case 12-CB-1500 with the charge filed by John Ackerman in Case 12-CB-1518 on November 29, 1974. A second amendment to complaint was issued on April 17, 1975, to consolidate the two prior charges with the charge in Case 12-CB-1536 filed by David Lambert on February 7, 1975. A third amendment to the complaint was issued on May 29, 1975, to consolidate the three prior charges with the charge in Case 12-CB-1549 filed by Fred Raby on March 21, 1975, and amended on May 22, 1975. On June 10 and 11, 1975, hearing was held in Coral Gables, Florida. Upon the entire record,2 including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief of Re- spondent and General Counsel's supplement to oral argu- ment, I make the following: On August 26, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Henry L. Jalette issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached 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. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Local Union No. 630, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the Unit- ed States and Canada, AFL-CIO, West Palm Beach, Florida, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HENRY L. JALETTE, Administrative Law Judge: This pro- ceeding involves allegations that the above-named Union discriminated against the above-named Charging Parties in the operation of an exclusive hiring hall because they were not members of the Union and/or had incurred the disfa- vor of the Union's agents.[ Pursuant to a charge filed by 1 The allegations of the complaint respecting Charging Party Lambert FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE FACTUAL SETTING Respondent is located in West Palm Beach, Florida. The complaint alleges, and Respondent admits, that at all times material herein Respondent was party to an exclusive hir- ing hall practice and arrangement with various employers, including Ebasco Services, Incorporated (hereinafter re- ferred to as Ebasco),3 pursuant to which Respondent was the exclusive source of all journeymen pipefitters and pipe- fitter welders to be employed by such employers. Accord- ing to uncontradicted testimony of Respondent's witnesses, which I credit, Respondent maintains three out-of-work lists for use in making referrals. The group I list consists of applicants with 1,200 hours of work within the territorial jurisdiction of Respondent for 2 consecutive years. The group 2 list consists of all other applicants, exclusive of apprentices who are on the third list. Although the com- plaint alleges discrimination against the three Charging Parties in Respondent's failure to refer them to employ- ment, there is no allegation in the complaint that member- ship in Respondent is a condition for registration on either list, nor does the complaint allege the maintenance and enforcement of a discriminatory hiring practice or arrange- ment. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Fred Gene Raby Raby is a pipefitter who was employed by Ebasco from July 1972 to March 10, 1975, when he was terminated for excessive absenteeism. On March 17, 1975, he registered on the Group 1 out-of-work list. Since that date he has re- ceived no referral. were dismissed at the hearing on motion of General Counsel for failure to appear. 2 General Counsel's motion to correct the record, which is unopposed, is hereby granted 7 Jurisdiction is not in issue . The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Ebasco meets the Board's $50,000 direct inflow standard for the assertion of, jurisdiction. 222 NLRB No. 82 LOCAL UN. NO. 630, PLUMBERS 525 The complaint alleges in Raby's case that "Since on or about March 15, 1975, and continuing to date, Respondent caused Raby to lose an undetermined number of employ- ment opportunities by failing to maintain his name in its proper order on the out-of-work list for job referrals, be- cause of his lack of membership in Respondent and/or because of his membership in another labor organization, a sister local of Respondent." The record indicates that Raby is a member of a sister local of Respondent and that he was unsuccessful in his attempts to become a member of Respondent. The General Counsel contends that Respondent's agents entertained an- imus against Raby because of his attempts to become a member and for that reason did not maintain Raby's name in its proper order on the out-of-work list. Assuming, ar- guendo, that Respondent's agents entertained animus against Raby, I conclude that the complaint must never- theless be dismissed because General Counsel failed to es- tablish by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent failed to maintain Raby's name in proper order on the out-of-work list. The only evidence that Raby's name was not maintained in proper order on the out-of-work list consisted of his testimony that he signed his name on a legal pad which had four or five other signatures above where he signed, that he returned to the hiring hall a week or so later to find that the list was not typewritten and he was 19th or 20th on the list, and that he returned to the hall on May 2 and he was then 20th or 25th on the list. Raby's testimony is not really disputed. The question is: what did it prove. According to Virginia Fishel, a secretary employed by Respondent, periodically the handwritten out-of-work lists are typed up and updated by removing the names of all registrants who have been referred. In typing up the list, Fishel testified she typed up the names in order of registration, including the date of registration. Ex- amined from the then current typewritten out-of-work list (which neither party offered in evidence) she testified Raby was 25th on list. Examined from the out-of-work list signed by Raby (which neither party offered in evidence) she testi- fied Raby was fouth on the page which he signed, but it had not been the first page of the list. In short, Fishel corroborated Raby's visual observations, but from her testimony, if credited, it is evident that Raby's name was not changed from its proper order as alleged in the complaint. There is no basis whatsoever not to credit Fishel. Accordingly, and as General Counsel has failed to establish that any pipefitters were referred to employment who had either not registered or registered after Raby, I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint with regard to him. B. Daniel Jurmanovich 1. The facts Jurmanovich is a pipefitter-welder and a member of Steamfitters Local 601 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. From early March 1973 until May 22, 1974, he was employed as a welder by Ebasco. He obtained the job through referral by Respondent. On May 22, 1974, Jurmanovich was termi- nated and a notation was made on his termination slip that he was not eligible for rehire. Jurmanovich testified that the following day he went to the hiring hall where he told Assistant Business Agent Jack Cook of his termination and that he asked Cook about work and about signing an out- of-work list and Cook told him that there was no out-of- work list for travelers. At that time, or shortly thereafter, Jurnamovich went north for vacation and to work. Return- ing to Florida on either the 15th or 16th of August, he returned to the hiring hall to inquire about work and again asked Cook about signing the out-of-work list and Cook again said that there was no out-of-work list for travelers. Despite these rebuffs, Jurmanovich kept visiting the hir- mg hall for work and on September 9 Business Manager Jack Stevens referred him to work at Ebasco. According to Jurmanovich, however, in making the referral Stevens told him that he was doing so provided Jurmanovich agreed to cooperate and drag up on the job if Stevens asked him. Jurmanovich explained that this meant that if Stevens had another man (by necessary implication a member of Re- spondent) that he wanted to put on the job occupied by Jurmanovich, Jurmanovich would leave at Stevens' re- quest. When Jurmanovich reported to Ebasco he was rejected because of the notation on his termination slip. Thereafter, Jurmanovich contacted Ebasco representative, Paul Rose, to explain his situation and after some consultation among representatives of Ebasco, Jurmanovich was advised that Ebasco would rehire him but he would need another refer- ral because several days had elapsed since his earlier refer- ral. Jurmanovich returned to the hiring hall and explained what had happened to Stevens. Stevens would not give him another referral unless he received word from a representa- tive of Ebasco. Because of the absence of Ebasco represen- tative Paul Rose, there was a delay of a few days. However, on September 20, Rose spoke to Stevens and verified that Ebasco would rehire Jurmanovich, and Jurmanovich was issued a referral. 2. Analysis and conclusions The complaint alleges that since on or about May 23, 1974, to on or about September 9, 1974, Respondent caused Ebasco and other employers to refuse to hire Jur- manovich by failing to refer him to employment because of his lack of membership in Respondent. It is further alleged that Respondent violated the Act by Stevens' conditioning the giving of a referral to Jurmanovich on September 9 on Jurmanovich's agreement to drag up. Essential to these allegations is the credibility of Jurmanovich. If he is cred- ited, it would appear that the allegations of the complaint have been sustained. Cook denied refusing to permit Jurmanovich to sign an out-of-work list and Respondent asserts he should be cred- ited. In support of this assertion, Respondent adduced tes- timony by Joe Jones, union steward at Ebasco, that on the night of May 22 Jurmanovich was angry about being fired and when Jones told him he could do nothing about it, Jurmanovich said "the hell with this goddam place; I'm going back home." In light of these remarks by Jurmano- vich, which were' not denied, and the undisputed fact that 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he had planned a vacation for June 15 and did, in fact, return to Wisconsin, Respondent argues that a finding is warranted that Jurmanovich did not even appear at the hiring hall on May 23, much less ask to sign an out-of-work list. I am not persuaded that such facts justify rejecting Jurmanovich's testimony. I see nothing inconsistent with Jurmanovich's remark to Jones and his appearance at the union hall the following day. Understandably he was angry at being terminated and his remark could as well have had reference to his impending vacation plans as to a perma- nent return to Wisconsin. In the final analysis, it is clear he did not return home, except temporarily. Respondent next contends that Jurmanovich' s assertion that Cook refused to let him sign the out-of-work list is belied by the evidence that travelers are in fact permitted to sign the list. Apart from the testimonial assertions of Respondent's witnesses, Respondent adduced no evidence that travelers are in fact permitted to sign the list. As I noted earlier, no out-of-work lists were introduced into evi- dence. Presumably, an examination of such lists and iden- tification of registrants would have indicated whether or not travelers are permitted to sign to a significant extent. As the record stands, only Raby and John Ackerman are shown to have signed a list, and Raby signed after the issuance of complaints herein. On a record such as this, I am not prepared to discredit Jurmanovich. In the final analysis, I deem Jurmanovich a much more credible wit- ness than Cook. Cook did not impress me favorably; to the contrary, I am persuaded that Cook would act precisely as Jurmanovich described. I conclude, therefore, that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)A) of the Act by Cook's refusal to permit Jurmanovich to sign an out-of-work list. This conclusion is dictated by the fact that Cook's refusal was expressly based on an unlawful consideration, namely, Jurmanovich's sta- tus as a traveler and nonmember, and the fact that Re- spondent maintains an exclusive hiring practice or arrange- ment with many employers. By refusing to permit Jurmanovich to sign the out-of-work list, Respondent caused all such employers to discriminate against Jurma- novich. While the record does not show that Respondent actually made referrals to such employers after May 22, the absence of such a showing is a matter of remedy and back- pay, and not a basis for finding no violation. In any event, it is clear that Respondent referred welders to Ebasco after May 22 and before September 9, and based on Ebasco's ready assent to the reemployment of Jurmano- vich in September, it is reasonable to infer, as I do, that but for Respondent's refusal to permit Jurmanovich to sign the out-of-work list on May 22, 1974, he would have been re- ferred to employment with Ebasco and would have been employed before September 9. The precise date can be de- termined in compliance. As to Jurmanovich's assertion that Stevens conditioned his referral on September 9 on his agreement to drag up, I credit Jurmanovich. I, do so in part because Stevens ap- pears to confirm that the subject of dragging up was dis- cussed with Jurmanovich, and while Stevens implied that Jurmanovich brought up the subject, I can perceive no rea- son for him to have done so. Conditioning the making of a referral to an applicant who is not a member of Respon- dent on his leaving the job to permit substitution of a mem- ber of Respondent constitutes an attempt to cause discrim- ination in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act and re- straint and coercion of employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. C. John Ackerman 1. The facts Ackerman is a pipefitter and a member of Local 120 in Cleveland, Ohio, a sister local of Respondent. He was em- ployed by Ebasco from April 1, 1973, to August 2, 1974, when he was terminated in a reduction in force. On August 5, he went to the hiring hall and told Jack Stevens that he had been laid off. Ackerman testified that Stevens re- marked that Ackerman had probably been laid off because he had filed intraunion charges against Bill Johnson, a member of Respondent and general foreman at Ebasco. Ackerman also testified, that he asked Stevens about work and Stevens said he might try to get him a job as soon as he could. Ackerman had been accompanied by-a member of Re- spondent who asked if Ackerman could be cleared into Respondent, that is, become a member of Respondent. Ste- vens said not then, but at a later date. Ackerman left with- out asking to sign the out-of-work list. Thereafter, Acker- man went to the hall to inquire about work two or three times a week and called at other times, all without success. When he asked about work, Stevens always replied he would keep trying to get Ackerman something. On September 3, Ackerman went to the hall and spoke to Assistant Business Agent Cook. He asked Cook if he had any work and Cook said "No, not for me." At this, Ackerman produced a transfer card which he had obtained from his home local, signed it and presented it to Cook. Cook said, "What the hell is this?" "Do you know what you are doing?" "Don't you know the rules and the laws in that," and, throwing the card on the table, "Why don't you pick it up and get out of here?" Ackerman refused to leave at first and things got "pretty huffy." He was induced to leave at the suggestion of another assistant business agent, leaving his transfer card on the table. The following day Ackerman called Stevens who ac- cused him of pulling a blunder and suggested Ackerman pick up his card. Ackerman-asked about a job and Stevens said, "I ain't gonna give you no job." Ackerman asked about a travel card and Stevens said he'd give him one if he picked up his transfer card. Stevens refused to pick up his transfer card and Stevens said, "Well, if you want to make a fight of it, I'll meet you in the middle of the ring." Acker- man testified he agreed, but they never did. Thereafter, he left Florida to work in Wyoming. On October 15, Ackerman sent a telegram to the Inter- national Union advising it of Respondent's refusal to transfer him into its membership and its refusal to give him a travel card. Ackerman did not send a copy of the tele- gram to Respondent and there is no direct evidence that it received a copy from the International, but it is evident that Respondent was apprised of the telegram because on November 1, Ackerman went to the hall and spoke to Ste- LOCAL UN. NO. 630, PLUMBERS 527 vens, who knew he was coming. Stevens told Ackerman that he could accept him into Local 630 himself or he could have the International shove Ackerman and others down his throat, but that if the International wanted to shove Ackerman down his throat he could make it a little rough on him. Ackerman told him he would prefer to handle the matter on a local basis and they talked for a half hour or 45 minutes. According to Ackerman, he thought they reached an agreement and he was to appear before the Respondent's executive board in connection with his desire to transfer into Respondent. As their meeting concluded, Stevens led Ackerman to Cook's office and told Cook to let Ackerman sign the out-of-work list. Ackerman then signed the group 2 list. (Ackerman did not have the requirements for registration on the group 1 list.) On November 13, Ackerman was interviewed by the ex- ecutive board and on November 14 Stevens told him that the executive board had given him permission to transfer into Respondent at his discretion. A day or two later, Ack- erman was referred to what he described as a boilermaker job. Ackerman went to the job and decided not to take it because the boilermakers were on strike. Thereafter, Ack- erman kept trying to obtain work through the hall with no success. On November 27, he talked to Stevens who re- marked to him "they're really coming in now; they're real- ly packing in," and "things are bad." Ackerman took Ste- vens- remarks to mean that local people were coming to the hall for work. On November 29, Ackerman spoke to Stevens about transferring into the local and Stevens told him no, not then, because it would be political suicide for him; On De- cember 15 Ackerman went to the hall and he testified either Cook or Stevens said he was going to put him to work,-they were going to pick out a good job for him. He testified they made up a list for him to sign and Ackerman signed a group 2 list. Ackerman testified that Stevens said he was going to put him to work but they were going to find a good job for him. Ackerman did not know why he had to sign another list, nor- did he ask. Sometime thereaf- ter, he was referred to a job. 2. Analysis and conclusions _ In Ackerman's case, the complaint alleges three viola- tions of the Act: that Respondent restrained and coerced Ackerman by Stevens' remark on August 5 that Ackerman was probably terminated by Ebasco because he filed charges against its general foreman and union member Bill Johnson; that since on or about August 12, 1974, Respon- dent caused Ebasco and other employers to refuse to hire Ackerman by failing to refer him to employment because he was not a member of Respondent and/or had incurred the disfavor of its agents; and that Respondent restrained and coerced Ackerman by Stevens' remark on November 1, that he could make it a little rough on him if he tried to get the International to force Respondent to accept him into membership. As to the remark by Stevens concerning the reason for Ackerman's termination by Ebasco, the remark in no way suggested or implied that Respondent had played any part in Ackerman's termination. Rather, Stevens attributed the termination to the rancor of a union member who used his supervisory position in reprisal for Ackerman's preferring intraunion charges against him. In other words, Johnson acted in his capacity as an employer representative and not as an agent of Respondent. This was the burden of Stevens' remark to Ackerman: Under the circumstances, the remark cannot be held violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. As to the allegation of an unlawful failure to refer, the record contains much testimony about Ackerman's unsuc- cessful attempts to transfer his membership from the Cleveland local to Respondent and Stevens' resistance to such attempts, including a threat to "make it a little rough on" Ackerman if he persisted. In other words, animus is clear, and I find that Respondent was opposed to transfer- ring travelers from membership in a sister local to member- ship in it. The difficulty with General Counsel's case, how- ever, is that neither in oral argument, nor in his supplement to oral argument, has he indicated when, where or how Respondent discriminated against Ackerman. In the first place, as noted earlier, Respondent operates a hiring hall pursuant to an exclusive hiring practice or ar- rangement with a number of employers and there is no allegation that the hiring practice or arrangement is unlaw- ful. It is undisputed that in furtherance of this hiring prac- tice or arrangement Respondent maintains out-of-work lists, and, according to Respondent's witnesses, except in cases where the lists are depleted, referrals are made from the lists in order of registration. There is no probative evi- dence to refute Respondent's witnesses. Ackerman implied by his testimony that referrals were made without regard to the out-of-work lists, but there is no evidence to support a finding to such effect. Accordingly, since Ackerman did not sign an, out-of-work list until November 1, there is no basis for a finding of discrimination against him before that date. General Counsel appears to be contending that Acker- man was excused from signing an out-of-work list because he received assurances of employment from Stevens. I am not persuaded he did, but in any event it is clear that Ackerman's failure to sign an out-of-work list before No- vember 1, was based on a voluntary decision on his part. Thus, in explaining why he did not sign a list, he stated, "I'd be a smart guy then. It was, the way I felt myself. I would just be jeopardizing myself. Better I try to go along with them. I got a better chance of getting a job than ask- ing for a list. That's the reason I never asked for a list." It is evident from this testimony that Ackerman believed Re- spondent operated a hiring hall which gave preference to its members and he hoped by not signing the out-of-work list and not putting any pressure on Stevens that he would be the beneficiary of a discriminatory referral system. In my judgment, he cannot now predicate a claim of discrimi- nation on the grounds that he did not receive the preferen- tial treatment which he thought he would receive. As to events after November 1 when Ackerman signed an out-of-work list, there is no evidence that Respondent failed to refer Ackerman in accordance with his standing on the list. The evidence that referrals were being made to Ebasco only proves that work was available, not that Ack- erman was discriminated against. In this connection, it should be noted that there is no showing here that there 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD existed a shortage of fitters as was true of welders and that referrals were being made of fitters who had not registered on the out-of-work list. Accordingly, without evidence to the contrary, I must assume the referrals of fitters to Ebas- co were made from the out-of-work lists. In short, I conclude that General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent discriminated against Ackerman in the making of referrals. In reaching this conclusion I have carefully considered Ackerman's testimony about his various conversations with Stevens and remarks of Cook. Such testimony was in my judgment colored and filled with innuendoes. For ex- ample, he claimed that he signed an out-of-work list on November 1, because Stevens told him to and also told Cook to let him do so. I really don't know what that proves. He claimed he signed an out-of-work list a second time, and his testimony is not contradicted, and again I don't know what that proves. He was critical of his referral to what he called a "boilermaker" job, and implied he was singled out for this referral. There is no evidence to support his implication. In short, Ackerman's testimony implied much, but General Counsel failed to buttress it by such probative evidence as the out-of-work lists which could be analyzed to determine whether or not Respondent was giv- ing preference to its members. Absent such evidence, I find Ackerman's testimony unpersuasive and I shall recom- mend dismissal of the allegation of discrimination against him. There remains for consideration Ackerman's testimony that Stevens told him he could make it a little rough on him if he tried to get the International to shove him down his throat. Stevens did not deny making this statement and I credit Ackerman. While Stevens did not indicate how he would make it rough on Ackerman, the clear meaning is that he could cause him to lose employment. While Stevens was not obligated to accept Ackerman into membership under the provisions of the Act, he could not threaten to affect his employment opportunities for seeking member- ship. Accordingly, I find his remark to have been an un- lawful threat constituting restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The conduct of Respondent described above, occurring in connection with the operations of Ebasco Services, In- corporated, as 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. W. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices prescribed by Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there- from and that it take certain affirmative action designed to remedy its unfair labor practices and to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. As Respondent has been found to have caused Ebasco Services, Incorporated, and the employees in contractual relation with it and with whom it maintains and operates an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice, to discrimi- nate against Daniel E. Jurmanovich by refusing to permit him to sign an out-of-work list, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to make him whole for any loss of earnings that he may have suffered by reason of such fail- ure, such loss to be computed in accordance with the for- mula in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Ebasco Services, Incorporated, is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Local Union No. 630, United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In- dustry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By causing and attempting to cause Ebasco Services, Incorporated and the employers in contractual relation with it and with whom it maintains and operates an exclu- sive hiring arrangement or practice to discriminate against Daniel E. Jurmanovich because of his lack of membership in Respondent, Respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 4. By conditioning the referral of Daniel E. Jurmano- vich to employment upon his agreement to quit such em- ployment, upon request, in order to provide employment to a member of Respondent, Respondent attempted to cause and is attempting to cause Ebasco Services, Incorporated to discriminate against Daniel E. Jurmanovich because of his lack of membership in Respondent and thereby en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 5. By threatening to make it rough on applicants for employment because they seek to become members of Re- spondent, Respondent restrained and coerced and is re- straining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a pre- ponderance of evidence that Respondent caused or at- tempted to cause employers in contractual relation with it and with whom it maintains and operates an exclusive hir- ing practice or arrangement to discriminate against John Ackerman and Fred Gene Raby in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 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: ORDER4 LOCAL UN. NO. 630, PLUMBERS 529 Respondent, Local Union No. 630, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe- fitting Industry of United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Ebasco Services, In- corporated, and employers in contractual relation with it, with whom it maintains and operates an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice, to discriminate against applicants for referral by refusing to permit nonmembers to sign an out-of-work list and by conditioning referral on agreement to quit their employment, upon request, to provide a job for members of Respondent. (b) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by threatening to make it rough on individuals seeking referrals to employ- ment because of their efforts to obtain membership in Re- spondent. (c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make Daniel E. Jurmanovich whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination practices against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its authorized agents, for examination and copy- ing, all records, reports, work lists, referral documents, and any other records and documents as may be in its posses- sion, custody or control, which are necessary, useful or ap- propriate in determining compliance with this recommend- ed Order, or in computing the amount of backpay due under its terms. (c) Post at its offices, meeting hall, hiring hall, and all other places where notices to members and applicants for referral are customarily posted , copies of the attached no- tice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for Region 12, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Re- spondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt ' thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to job applicants are customarily posted. If Respondent does not have a place for posting a notice which may readily be seen by applicants for employment, it shall establish one 6 Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (d) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the aforesaid no- tice to the Regional Director for Region 12 for posting by Ebasco Services, Incorporated, and by the employers in contractual relation with Respondent and with whom Re- spondent maintains an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice, said employers being willing, in places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations of the complaint found not to have been sustained by a prepon- derance of the evidence be dismissed. 4 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, conclusons, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 5In 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board" 6 The unfair labor practices found herein have been directed against non- members who are applicants for employment In this circumstance, a notice headed "Notice to Members" would be inappropriate and ineffective. Ac- cordingly, I have adopted a notice heading appropriate to the case. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to permit applicants for referral to employment to register on the out-of-work list which we maintain in making referrals to employ- ment. WE WILL NOT condition the making of referrals to employment upon agreement by applicants for refer- ral to quit their employment, upon request, to provide a job for members of Local 630. WE WILL NOT threaten to make it rough on appli- cants for referral because they seek to obtain member- ship in Local 630. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Ebasco Serv- ices, Incorporated, or any other employers with whom we maintain and operate an exclusive hiring arrange- ment or practice, to discriminate against applicants for employment because they are not members of Local 630. WE WILL make Daniel E. Jurmanovich whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered because we re- fused to permit him to sign an out-of-work list. WE WILL NOT in any other manner, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. LOCAL UNION No. 630, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO