Stage Employees IATSE Local 769 (Broadway in Chicago)

STAGE EMPLOYEES IATSE LOCAL 769 (BROADWAY IN CHICAGO) 349 NLRB No. 12 71 Theatrical Wardrobe Union Local 769, IATSE (Broadway In Chicago) and Tania Traynor. Case 13–CB–18033 January 26, 2007 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND KIRSANOW On January 6, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Bruce D. Rosenstein issued the attached decision. The Respon- dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed a cross-exception and an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions, the cross-exception, and the briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,1 findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recom- mended Order as modified.3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec- ommended Order of the administrative law judge as 1 The judge found that neither party filed its posthearing brief in a timely manner. Because the judge considered the parties’ briefs and neither party objected to his consideration of the briefs, we find it un- necessary to pass on the judge’s findings as to timeliness. 2 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by failing and refusing to refer Charging Party Tania Traynor for employment, we find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s constitution and bylaws apply to and govern a suspension from the hiring hall referral system, as occurred here. We find, however, in agreement with the judge, that the Respon- dent acted in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner in the operation of the exclusive hiring hall by suspending Traynor because she challenged the authority of the Respondent’s executive board. We observe in this regard that the Respondent did not give reasonable notice to Traynor that she faced suspension for failing to attend the scheduled meeting of February 18, 2005, and suspended Traynor without giving her an op- portunity to address the Respondent’s purported concerns about her failure to appear. We also note that the reasons given for her suspen- sion—whether characterized as “insubordination” to the executive board or simply a failure to attend the February 18 meeting—are differ- ent in character than the reason for calling the meeting in the first place (Traynor’s conduct during the production of Spamalot). Accordingly, the Respondent effectively disciplined Traynor, without notice, for alleged conduct not directly pertaining to the effective performance of the Respondent’s hiring hall and for discriminatory reasons based on her previous challenges to the executive board. 3 We shall substitute a new notice in conformance with the Order. The judge’s recommended Order, which we adopt, directs the Respon- dent to cease and desist from informing Charging Party Traynor that it will not refer her because she failed to attend a meeting. Par. IV (C) of the complaint alleges this matter and it was fully litigated. We shall also include in the notice a provision requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from refusing to refer Traynor, as set forth in the Order but inadvertently omitted from the judge’s notice. modified and orders that the Respondent, Theatrical Wardrobe Union, Local 769, IATSE, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. Substitute the attached notice for that of the adminis- trative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio- lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. WE WILL NOT inform Tania Traynor that she will not be referred for employment through our exclusive hiring hall system because she did not attend a meeting. WE WILL NOT refuse to refer Tania Traynor, or any other employee, for employment through our exclusive hiring hall system because of not attending a meeting. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make Tania Traynor whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from our refusal to refer her for employment with Broadway in Chicago, less any net interim earnings, plus interest. WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files, and ask Broadway in Chicago to remove from its files, any reference to the unlawful re- fusal to refer Tania Traynor for employment and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify her in writing that we have done so and that we will not use the suspension from the referral system against her in any way. THEATRICAL WARDROBE UNION, LOCAL 769, IATSE Brigid Barnicle, Esq., for the General Counsel. Sherrie E. Voyles, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respon- dent. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 72 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BRUCE D. ROSENSTEIN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on November 1, 2005,1 in Chicago, Illi- nois, pursuant to a complaint and notice of hearing in the sub- ject case (complaint) issued on May 31, by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The underlying charge and amended charge was filed by Tania Traynor (the Charging Party or Traynor) alleging that Theatrical Wardrobe Union, Local 769, IATSE (the Respon- dent or Union), has engaged in certain violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying that it had committed any violations of the Act. Issue The complaint alleges that Respondent notified Traynor on February 25 that she was suspended from the Union’s exclusive referral system for a period of 4 months for failure to attend a meeting (GC Exh. 11). As a result of the suspension, Traynor was not referred for employment and suffered a loss of earn- ings.2 On the entire record, including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent,3 I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Employer, Broadway in Chicago, is a limited liability company, with an office and place of business in Chicago, Illi- nois and is engaged in the business of providing theater man- agement services. The Employer, during the past calendar year, in conducting its business operations purchased and re- ceived at its Chicago facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois. The Respon- dent admits and I find that Broadway in Chicago is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act4 and that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1 All dates are in 2005 unless otherwise indicated. 2 The suspension was enforced between March 1 and April 30, a pe- riod of 2 months. Traynor was then referred for employment on May 23, when work became available. 3 Posthearing briefs from the parties’ were due in Washington, D.C., by close of business on December 23, 2005. Counsel for the General Counsel filed a Motion to Accept Late Filed Brief on December 23, 2005, since their brief was inadvertently mailed to the Division of Judges in New York City rather than to the Division of Judges office in Washington, D.C. The Respondent’s brief was not received in Wash- ington, D.C., until December 27, 2005. While neither party submitted their brief in a timely manner, I have decided to consider the respective briefs and note that mail was delayed during the holiday season. 4 Counsel for Respondent and the General Counsel agree that the Employer met the Board’s jurisdictional standards (Jt. Exh. 1). II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background At all material times by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, Re- spondent has been the exclusive collective-bargaining represen- tative of a unit of employees designated as wardrobe attendants employed at the Ford Center for the Performing Arts/Oriental Theatre, the Shubert Theatre, and the Cadillac Palace Theater located in Chicago, Illinois. Since September 15, 2003, the Respondent and the Employer have maintained and enforced a collective-bargaining agreement covering conditions of em- ployment for the wardrobe attendants that provides that the Union agrees to furnish competent wardrobe attendants satis- factory to the Employer to perform work as required and the Employer agrees to notify the Union when it seeks employees (GC Exh. 3). The Respondent is subject to a constitution and bylaws that covers discipline of members that is pertinent to this case and will be discussed more fully in the decision (GC Exh. 2). At all material times, John Salyers has served as Respon- dent’s president while Carolyn Barczak held the position of business representative. Caryn Vanko is a member of Respon- dent’s board of trustees and along with Salyers and Barczak is a member of the Respondent’s executive board. B. The 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) Allegations 1. The position of the parties The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 4 of the complaint that the Respondent engaged in conduct for reasons other than a failure by Traynor to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required by employees or that were necessary to its function of representing employees in the bargaining unit. The General Counsel further argues that the actions taken by Re- spondent in excluding Traynor from the exclusive referral sys- tem were motivated by animus due to her frequent challenging of the executive board and becoming a thorn in the side of the Union. Respondent argues that it does not operate an exclusive hir- ing hall and points to nine separate collective-bargaining agreements that it has with other theater employers in the area where it is not the sole source of referrals for employment (R. Exhs. 4–3). Additionally, the Respondent asserts that, as it concerns the Employer, it is not the sole source of referrals because Broadway in Chicago has hired individuals not re- ferred by it and, on occasions, production companies bring their own employees with them when they perform in the theaters covered in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. Respondent further contends that its actions in suspending Traynor were unrelated to her activities in challenging the un- ion leadership but rather were based on legitimate union rules and were consistent with actions taken against other union members that also were suspended from the referral system. 2. Whether the Respondent operates an exclusive hiring hall The Respondent’s job referral procedure provides that per- sons available for referrals for work shall be placed on the list in the order of initiation into the Union. (GC Exh. 6). In filling job requests, the business representative will refer to the top of the list. All persons requesting work for the following week are STAGE EMPLOYEES IATSE LOCAL 769 (BROADWAY IN CHICAGO) 73 to call the business representative. When all persons on the list have the opportunity to work on any given day, referrals will begin at the top of the list for the next workday. The rotation will go back to the top of the list every 2 calendar months. If work is refused, the person’s name will rotate to the bottom of the referral list. Broadway in Chicago’s vice president of operations, Suz- anne Bizer, was called under subpoena as a witness for the General Counsel. She testified that during the 5 years in her present position it has been her experience that the Union has been the sole source of referrals for wardrobe attendants to staff shows that are produced in theaters that are subject to the par- ties’ collective-bargaining agreement. Indeed, Bizer confirmed that when a show is scheduled for one of its theaters, she calls Barczak to request the number of wardrobe attendants that are required to staff the production. Once the wardrobe attendants are referred to the Employer, they are not interviewed nor are there backgrounds or experience checked. Rather, Bizer relies on the Union to refer competent wardrobe attendants to perform work as required by the Employer. Additionally, Bizer testified that the Employer does not independently advertise for ward- robe attendants but rather solely relies on the Union to refer qualified attendants. The Respondent argues that it does not operate an exclusive hiring hall with Broadway in Chicago. Indeed, it contends that employees not on its referral lists have been hired as wardrobe attendants and that on occasions, production companies often bring their own personnel who serve as wardrobe supervisors. The evidence adduced at the hearing establishes that on a minimum number of occasions when the Union has exhausted its referral list for a theater production, it was necessary for the Employer to obtain personnel to staff the wardrobe attendant positions. On these few occasions, which sometimes happen during peak holiday periods, individuals have been hired for such positions but they must pay a fee to work which is equiva- lent to the Union’s periodic dues for the period of work. If the fee is not paid, the individual is not permitted to work. With respect to production companies bringing their own personnel to perform wardrobe functions or having one of their own em- ployees serve as a wardrobe supervisor on a particular show, there is no prohibition contained in the parties’ collective- bargaining agreement and it is a customary practice in the in- dustry. More often than not, however, production companies hire one of the employees on the union’s referral list to serve as a wardrobe supervisor rather then use their own employees. Based on the above, I am not persuaded by the Respondent’s argument that it does not operate an exclusive hiring hall with the Employer. Moreover, even assuming that the Respondent has collective-bargaining agreements with other employers in the theater industry in and around Chicago with whom they are not the exclusive source of referrals, it does not in any way impact its exclusive hiring hall relationship with Broadway in Chicago, the only employer involved in the subject case. Therefore, in agreement with the General Counsel, I find that the Respondent serves as the sole source for referral of compe- tent wardrobe attendants to Broadway in Chicago under the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. 3. Alleged animus a. Facts On October 23, 2003, Traynor authored a letter to National Union Vice President Michael J. Sullivan. She asserted, on behalf of a number of coworkers and fellow union members who signed the letter, that the Union’s executive board an- nounced new work rules for the membership but was refusing to bring them to the members for ratification (GC Exh. 18). Thereafter, on October 29, 2003, she raised the same issue with National Union President Thomas C. Short (GC Exh. 19). By letter dated December 15, 2003, Short replied to Union Secre- tary-Treasurer Cheryl Ryba and advised that Respondent’s response was satisfactory and he considered the issue to be a local matter (GC Exh. 20). Traynor was copied on this letter but testified that she never received the letter. Likewise, Traynor testified that she did not receive a copy of the Respon- dent’s reply to Short. In February 2004, Traynor sent another letter to fellow union members with suggested changes to the proposed rules and regulations (GC Exh. 9). The rules were ultimately voted upon and adopted in March 2004, without the changes suggested by Traynor (GC Exh. 7). On October 24, 2003, Traynor was assigned to work as a wardrobe attendant for the production of Lion King at the Cadillac Palace Theatre. Wardrobe Supervisor Gillian Kadish established a 2-day work schedule due to a large rehearsal with the first group of attendant’s scheduled to arrive at 12 p.m. for a 5-hour work call, and the second group of attendant’s sched- uled to arrive at 1 p.m. for a 4-hour work call. The work sched- ule is posted in the wardrobe room every Sunday. On that day, Traynor was scheduled to work with the first group of atten- dants at 12 p.m. She did not arrive for her scheduled work call but did appear at the theatre at 12:20 p.m. Traynor sincerely apologized for her late arrival and informed Kadish that she did not read the schedule correctly as in normal circumstances the first work call is scheduled for 1 p.m. (GC Exh. 21). In November 2003, Traynor spoke by telephone with Barczak wherein she explained the circumstances surrounding her late arrival on October 23, 2003. During this time period, the penalty for a first offense of arriving late for a work call was a verbal warning. The executive board, in December 2003, called Traynor to appear at a meeting to explain the circum- stances surrounding her arriving late at the Lion King work call. Traynor was under the impression that based on her ex- planation to Barczak and the letter submitted by Kadish de- scribing the background surrounding the incident, the matter was closed. In January 2004, however, Traynor received her monthly statement on account from the Union and observed that a tardiness fine of $25 was due and owing (GC Exh. 22). Traynor immediately raised the fine with several members of the Union’s executive board. She asserted that she did not intend to pay the fine since in her opinion the matter had been resolved at the December 2003 meeting and, in any event, the penalty for a first offense of being late for a work call was a verbal warning rather than a fine. The union leadership subse- quently apologized to Traynor for the fine appearing in her January 2004 statement and on the next statement the amount due for the fine was removed and did not appear again. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 74 On February 2, 2004, Traynor attended the regular monthly union meeting. During the course of the meeting, Traynor made a proposal to overhaul the body of the rule infraction policy. Barczak reminded Traynor that the rules were made by a committee of union members and that they had been ap- proved (GC Exh. 8). Executive Board Member Caryn Vanko, while Traynor was debating the issue with Barczak, called her a “thorn in the Union’s side.”5 Immediately after the regular monthly March 2004 union meeting, Traynor testified that she confronted Barczak in a one- on-one conversation about referencing her in a negative manner when other union members were present. On January 3, at the monthly union meeting, Traynor made it known that she disagreed with the way that a situation was handled by Barczak (GC Exh. 24). In early January 2005, Traynor found out that union appren- tice Mary Luchsinger was referred to work on the Spamalot production ahead of Traynor. Accordingly, Traynor com- plained to Barczak that as a union member, Traynor should have been referred for employment ahead of an apprentice. Barczak explained to Traynor that on December 11, 2004, Wardrobe Supervisor Kenn Hamilton specifically requested Luchsinger because of her expertise as a stitcher and since she was requested by name she had priority. By letter dated January 27, Union Steward Zelda Gagliardi informed Barczak that Traynor was not following her instruc- tions on the production of Spamalot, was causing disruption on the set and often became confrontational with her and other wardrobe crew members (R. Exh. 1). By memorandum dated February 5, from Spamalot Wardrobe Supervisor Kenn Hamil- ton to Barczak, it was noted that Traynor’s work performance was disappointing and her demeanor dramatically changed the balance between performers and wardrobe attendants (R. Exh. 2). By letter dated February 7, from the union executive board to Traynor, a meeting was scheduled for Friday, February 18, to discuss the correspondence received from Gagliardi and Hamil- ton regarding her conduct on the production of Spamalot. That correspondence was provided to Traynor in addition to appris- ing her that attendance at the meeting was required (GC Exh. 10). On February 16, Traynor and Barczak had a conversation about the February 7 letter. Barczak apprised Traynor that the executive board needed to discuss the issues raised by the cor- respondence of Gagliardi and Hamilton and get her position before any decision was reached on how to proceed. Traynor informed Barczak that she had received the correspondence prepared by Gagliardi and Hamilton and would attend the meet- 5 On cross-examination, Respondent’s counsel asked Traynor whether it was true that other members of the executive board repudi- ated and immediately informed Vanko that such a comment was inap- propriate. Traynor replied that she had no recollection of this. Re- spondent’s counsel did not call Vanko as a witness nor did she raise this issue with either Salyers or Barczak who also attended the meeting and testified during the hearing as Respondent’s witnesses. Under these circumstances, I find that Vanko made the statement that Traynor was a “thorn in the Union’s side” during the course of the February 2004 regular monthly union meeting. ing. On February 17, Traynor told Vanko while working together on the production of the “Producers” that she could not attend the February 18 executive board meeting, because she had a prior scheduled appointment. Traynor, later in the day, also apprised Barczak that she had misread the February 7 letter setting the date for the meeting, and mistakenly believed the meeting would be held at the regular time that the executive board normally meets. Since Traynor could not attend the Feb- ruary 18 meeting, it had to be canceled and the Union was forced to pay a $150 cancellation fee for the room. By letter dated February 25, Traynor was apprised that the executive board made a ruling concerning her refusal to attend the February 18 meeting. Since Traynor elected not to attend the meeting and did not acknowledge this until such a time that the meeting room reservation could not be canceled, she was being assessed the cost of the room, $150.6 Additionally, she was being suspended from the referral system for a period of 4 months beginning March 1, and ending on July 1 (GC Exh. 11). On February 29, Traynor telephoned Union President Sal- yers and complained about the harshness of the penalty con- tained in the February 25 letter. According to Traynor, Salyers responded that the executive board was fed up with not being taken seriously. By memorandum dated March 18, Traynor summarized her position regarding the Spamalot issues and informed the execu- tive board that she would like to appear before it to discuss the entire matter (R. Exh. 3). After receipt of the March 18 letter, the executive board met with Traynor and reduced the suspen- sion from 4 to 2 months. b. Discussion It must first be noted, and the Respondent does not dispute, that no other union member has been suspended from the refer- ral system for not attending a required meeting of the executive board. While the Respondent asserts in its February 25 letter to Traynor that there is a required rule to attend executive board meetings when a member is summoned, no such rule exists in the Union’s constitution and bylaws. It is also not disputed that Traynor was a member in good standing in that she has fully complied with all the obligations of the Local not only financially but in all other regards.7 Un- der these circumstances, section 2 of article XI of the constitu- tion and bylaws requires that any member charged with a viola- tion must be afforded a right to a fair trial whereby his guilt or innocence may be determined. It is not disputed that Traynor was not provided this entitlement. Moreover, Traynor was not afforded the opportunity for a postponement of her February 18 meeting as required by section 10 of article XI. Although the 6 Traynor testified that she realized that she notified the Union about her inability to attend the February 18 meeting at the last moment and voluntarily paid the $150 fine. 7 Respondent argued that Traynor, in February 2005, was in arrears in the payment of her stamp obligation to the National Union. I note that this was not a reason relied on by the Respondent for suspending Traynor from the referral system and, in any event, Traynor paid the stamp invoice within the allotted 60-day period provided for all union members before they were in default of this obligation. STAGE EMPLOYEES IATSE LOCAL 769 (BROADWAY IN CHICAGO) 75 Respondent argues that Traynor did not contact the executive board prior to February 25 to request a postponement, it is noted that the Respondent after it learned on February 17 that Traynor could not attend the meeting scheduled for the next day, made no effort to contact Traynor to arrange for a continu- ance of the meeting as required under the constitution and by- laws. Based on the above recitation, I find that the Respondent suspended Traynor from the referral system based on her vig- orous and frequent challenges to the executive board concern- ing a number of issues that impacted union membership. As discussed above, executive board member Vanko admonished Traynor as a “thorn in the Union’s side.” It is apparent to me that the executive board members became frustrated with Traynor’s repeated challenges to their leadership and constant dissent at union meetings. The final action in suspending Traynor from the referral system was a rush to judgment with- out affording her the due process rights guaranteed to members under the Union’s constitution and bylaws.8 Likewise, I reject the Respondent’s argument that Traynor was treated similarly to other members who were suspended from the referral sys- tem. First, I note that the suspensions of Carol Conrad and Andrew Stein occurred after Traynor’s suspension (GC Exhs. 15, 16). Additionally, their infractions concerned being late for work or missing an entire work call. Indeed, as it concerned Conrad, the Union did not enforce an earlier suspension from the referral system giving Conrad a second chance to improve on her tardiness unlike its action in suspending Traynor from the referral system for a first infraction. Second, neither Con- rad nor Stein was suspended for missing a required meeting and no other union member has been suspended for this reason or for the same period of time as originally imposed in the Febru- ary 25 letter. In agreement with the General Counsel, I find that Traynor was suspended from the referral system for reasons other than a failure to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required or were necessary to its function of representing the unit. 4. Discussion The Supreme Court has held in Air Line Pilots Assn. v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1991), that the “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith” standard applies to all union activity, and noted that the duty of fair representation applies to hiring hall operations. The Board has held that Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) make it an unfair labor practice for a union, operating an exclusive hiring hall, to refuse to refer an employee to employment be- cause membership has been denied to him or his membership terminated for reasons “other than his failure to tender the peri- odic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condi- tion of acquiring or retaining membership.”9 It follows that union fines and other penalties ‘not being periodic dues’ may 8 I note the Respondent’s conflicting reasons asserted for Traynor’s suspension. In this regard, the February 25 letter contends the suspen- sion was visited on Traynor for not attending the required meeting while the March 11 position statement submitted to the Board alleges that Traynor was suspended for insubordination (GC Exh. 12). 9 See Radio Officers v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 17, 31–33, 41–42 (1954). not be enforced by the union through a threat of loss of em- ployment.10 See also Stage Employees IATSE Local 412 (Asolo Center), 308 NLRB 1084 (1992). The Respondent, based on the actions described above, has acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in the operation of its exclusive hiring hall by taking action against Traynor for her repeated acts of challenging the authority of the executive board. Such actions, including suspending her from the referral system, caused the loss of a number of employment opportuni- ties. Under these circumstances, I find that the Respondent acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in breaching its duty of fair representation owed to Traynor and further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act when it suspended her from the referral system for reasons other than tendering peri- odic dues and initiation fees uniformly required. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Broadway in Chicago is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act when it suspended Traynor from its referral system for a period of 2 months (March 1 to April 30) because she did not attend a meeting and failed and refused to refer her for employment. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent suspended Tania Traynor from its referral system for a period of 2 months, it must make Tania Traynor whole for any loss of earnings during that pe- riod, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as com- puted in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended11 ORDER The Respondent, Theatrical Wardrobe Union, Local 769, IATSE, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Informing Tania Traynor that she would not be referred for employment through the Respondent’s exclusive hiring hall 10 See Eclipse Lumber Co., 199 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1952) (payment of a fine “in no event” may be made a condition of employment), Car- penters Local 1437 (AGC of California), 210 NLRB 359, 367 (1974). 11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom- mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 76 system because she did not attend a meeting. (b) Refusing to refer Tania Traynor, or any other employee, for employment through its exclusive hiring hall because of not attending a meeting. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. (a) Make whole Tania Traynor, with interest, for any loss of earnings suffered because she was suspended from the referral system for a period of 2 months (March 1 to April 30) in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files, and ask Broadway in Chicago to remove from their files, any reference to the unlawful refusal to refer Tania Traynor for employment, and we will, within 3 days thereafter, notify her in writing that we have done so and that we will not use the suspension from the referral system against her in any way. (c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi- tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment re- cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its un- ion office and hiring hall in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked” Appendix.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and 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. In the event that, during the pendency of these pro- ceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the union office involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no- tice to all employees and current members employed by Broadway in Chicago at any time since February 25, 2005. (e) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for posting by Broadway in Chicago, if willing, at all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso- far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. 12 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”