Iron Workers Local 111 (Steel Builders)

742 IRON WORKERS LOCAL I I I (STEEL BUILDERS) International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111 (Northern States Steel Builders, Inc.) and David Pappas. Case 33-CB-1774 6 March 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS Upon a charge filed on 26 January 1982 by David Pappas, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on 23 February 1982 and amended on 11 June 1982 against Iron Workers, the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. The Respondent filed answers to the complaint and amended complaint denying the commission of the unfair labor prac- tices and requesting that the complaint be dis- missed. On 5 August 1982 Pappas, the Respondent, and the General Counsel filed with the Board a stipula- tion of facts and a motion to transfer this proceed- ing directly to the Board. All parties to the stipula- tion waived the usual proceedings before an admin- istrative law judge, agreed that the charges, com- plaint, and answers, in addition to the stipulation of facts would constitute the entire record herein, and requested the Board to make findings of fact and conclusions of law and to issue the appropriate De- cision and Order. On 3 December 1982 the Board issued an Order which transferred the proceeding to the Board, approved the stipulation of facts, and set a date for filing of briefs. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs. The Board has considered the entire record as stipulated by the parties and the briefs and makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer, Northern States Steel Builders, Inc., a Minnesota corporation with its office and principal place of business in Duluth, Minnesota, is engaged in the construction of industrial and com- mercial facilities including a construction project in Muscatine, Iowa, which is the only site involved in this proceeding. During the past 12 months the Employer purchased and shipped to Muscatine goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di- rectly from points outside of Minnesota. The Em- ployer admits and we find that it is and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated and we find that the Union is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issue The question presented is whether the Respond- ent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) when it re- fused to accept travel service dues from David Pappas and other travelers (members of other locals), threatened to bring internal union charges against any traveler who worked for the Employer without a valid travel service dues receipt, repeat- edly requested the Employer to lay off the travel- ers and hire its members, requested that the travel- ers give up their jobs in favor of the Respondent's unemployed members, and coerced the travelers into withholding their labor from the Employer. B. The Facts The stipulated facts show that the Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company (Owner) and the Em- ployer along with other contractors are involved in the construction of the Louisa Generating Station in Muscatine, Iowa. By virtue of its collective-bar- gaining agreement with the Quad-City Builders As- sociation, Inc. of Rock Island, Illinois, affiliates of the Construction Employers Council of M.B.I., Inc., an affiliate of the Association of General Con- tractors, the Respondent has exclusive territorial jurisdiction over the ironwork being performed in Muscatine and other parts of Iowa and Illinois. The Respondent along with other unions is signatory to a project agreement between the Employer and others which contains a union recognition clause and grants to the Respondent exclusive employee referral rights-' The Respondent operates its refer- ral service from its office located in Rock Island, Illinois. In November 1980 Pappas, an ironworker from Davenport, Iowa, and a member of a sister local, was referred by the Respondent for a job with the Employer. During this same month, the Respondent referred 16 other travelers and 3 of its own members for jobs with the Employer so that by January 1982 there were 20 employees who constituted the Employer's entire ironworker work force. I Art 4, Referral of employees states in part "(3) In the event the re- ferral facilities maintained by the Union are unable to fill the requisition of the Employer for employees within a forty-eight (48) hour period after such requisition is made by the Employer the Employer may employ applicants from any source directly at the jobsite " 274 NLRB No. 110 ]RON WORKERS LOCAL 111 (STEEL BUILDERS) In accordance with the Respondent's Interna- tional constitution,2 Pappas and the other travelers, in order to be referred and keep their jobs, were required by the constitution to pay the Respondent $2.50 as travel service dues and show their current monthly home local union dues receipts. This pro- cedure was followed in some form on a weekly basis while the travelers were employed by the Employer. From November 1980 until the fall of 1981, either the Respondent's business agent Leroy Russell or Business Manager William Weaver or union steward Jim Smith would collect the travel service dues from the travelers and check their home local monthly dues receipts, previous week's travel service dues receipts, and union cards either at the Employer's jobsite or the union office. The Respondent allowed travelers to pay travel service 2 Art XXI, sec 35, states in part Travel Service Dues Members of one Local Union shall not seek employment, be em- ployed, or remain at work at the trade within the territorial jurisdic- tion of another Local Union without the consent of the other Local Union, which consent may be evidenced by its acceptance of the clearance card presented to it by the member involved , as provided in the Constitution or by the issuance of the service dues receipt hereinafter described If the member involved does not present a clearance card to such other Local Union, or the Local Union to which the clearance card is presented fails to act thereon or the local union to which the clearance card is presented acts thereon and re- fuses to transfer such member, then the Business Agent or other au- thorized officer of such other Local Union, in such cases, shall issue a service dues receipt (described herein ) Then the member involved shall be entitled to receive and required to secure successively, during the period within which said consent be granted and the member's work continues, such number of weekly service dues re- ceipts as shall be issued to the member by the said Business Repre- sentative under the regulations established by the General Executive Board Such service dues receipts shall , for the period issued, allow the holder thereof to seek , accept, and hold employment within the territorial jurisdiction of such other Local Union out of which said service dues receipts shall be issued and in accordance with the pro- cedures of employment provided for in the bargaining agreement in effect in the territorial jurisdiction of such other Local Union, but subject always to such regulations as shall be imposed thereon by the General Executive Board Payment of travel service dues is an obligation arising as an incident of membership in the International Union Failure of a traveling member to comply with this require- ment shall subject that member to an appropriate penalty as provid- ed by the International Constitution Failure of a traveling member to pay travel service dues shall not be used as a basis for any action adversely affecting employment rights, except in accordance with the terms of a valid union security agreement Enforcement of the collection of travel service dues shall be wholly a matter of internal Union discipline Prior Payments of Current Dues Required Sec 36 The consent referred to in this Article shall not be grant- ed by the said other Local Union or its Business Agent, nor shall travel service dues be collected from or service dues receipts be issued to any said members who shall not , at the time when request- ing a service dues receipt , have had their current monthly dues paid into the Local Union to which the members belong, evidenced by the presentation of current monthly dues receipt Upon the issuance to the member of the said service dues receipt , the same should be carried with the member's membership card and current monthly dues receipt and shall always be available for inspection and certifi- cation as to their authenticity 743 dues for up to 1 month in advance. However, be- ginning in the fall of 1981, the Respondent allowed only 1 week at a time to be paid, but continued to allow the travelers to pay dues for up to three other travelers without requiring home local dues receipts or union cards. Travelers still were re- quired to show their previous week's travel service dues receipts. On occasion Weaver would accept calls from a traveler's home local verifying that his monthly dues were paid and in a few instances of financial hardship, Weaver waived the requirement that home local union dues had to be current before he would accept travel service dues. As of 1 January 19823 from 65 to 100 of the Re- spondent's members were unemployed and avail- able for work in the Muscatine area. On 11 January Russell and Weaver refused to accept travel serv- ice dues from Pappas and several other travelers, but accepted the travel service dues from Traveler Foreman Tipton and Mayhew and issued receipts valid until 15 January. Because of bad weather, the Employer's superintendent Wendall Johnson decid- ed that no work would be performed that day. In accordance with the project agreement, each em- ployee who showed up for work was paid 2 hours showup pay. On this same day, Weaver asked Johnson to hire some of the Respondent's mem- bers. Johnson responded that the Employer did not need any more ironworkers. Thereafter, on several occasions in January, union steward Jim Smith re- quested a layoff list from Johnson. Johnson replied that he did not have such a list and did not plan to lay off any employees. On 13 January Weaver spoke with several trav- elers and requested that they quit their employment so that some of the unemployed members of the Respondent could be hired.4 Weaver also told Pappas and fellow traveler Sylvan Hoiness that he would ask the Employer to lay off the travelers so that they could receive unemployment compensa- tion. Smith also told traveler Foreman Tipton that the Employer was drawing up a layoff list affecting 50 percent of the travelers and then would replace them with the Respondent's members. On 15 January Smith informed the travelers that as of 18 January the Respondent would no longer accept their travel service dues. On 18 January at the Respondent's office, Weaver refused to accept travel service dues from 15 travelers, but did accept dues from traveler Foremen Tipton and Mayhew and issued valid receipts through 22 Janu- ary. Later that same day at the jobsite, Smith told 3 All dates hereinafter are 1982 unless otherwise indicated 4 The parties stipulated that the past practice among ironworkers was for travelers to leave an area upon request of the local when local mem- bers were out of work 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the travelers that "[the Respondent] was not telling them they could not work, but if they did work without travel service dues receipts, Respondent would prefer internal union charges against them in accordance with Respondent's constitution and bylaws."5 However because of bad weather again there was no work performed that day and each employee received 2 hours showup pay. On 19 January at the jobsite, Smith again refused to accept Pappas' and the other nonforemen travel- ers' travel service dues. In response to a question from Pappas, Smith stated that Pappas could work if he were a member of the Respondent. Later, Johnson told the travelers that the Employer had work for them and would like for them to work, but he understood the situation between the travel- ers and the Respondent. Johnson assured the trav- elers that they would not be terminated or laid off if they did not go to work. None of the employees worked that day and all were paid 2 hours showup pay. The following day, Smith told the travelers that even though he would not accept their travel service dues, all of them could work that day with- out their travel service dues receipts, and he would not prefer internal union charges against them. All of the travelers worked that day. On 22 January Smith told the travelers that as of 25 January the Respondent would accept travel service dues only from the seven traveler foremen; that only the five traveler foremen whose dues were not accepted on the 18th had to pay the cur- rent week's dues and for all other travelers that week's travel service dues was a "gift" from Weaver. Thereafter, on 25 January, Weaver ac- cepted travel service dues from the seven traveler foremen who received receipts valid until 29 Janu- ary. At the jobsite Smith refused to accept travel service dues from Pappas and the nine other travel- ers and threatened to file internal union charges against them if they worked without their travel service dues receipts. Only 3 ironworker employees who were members of the Respondent worked that day; however, the Employer paid the 10 travelers 2 hours showup pay. The next day Smith again re- fused to accept the travelers dues and repeated his threat to file internal union charges if they worked without their receipts. The Employer's general foreman Ron Smith informed the travelers that they would not be laid off or terminated but the company could no longer give them "show-up" pay. Again this resulted in only three ironworkers who were members of the Respondent working that day. The following day Smith again refused to accept Pappas' and the other nine travelers' dues 5 Art XXI, sec 36, supra and again threatened them with the filing of inter- nal union charges if they worked without their dues receipts. Only three of the Respondent's mem- bers worked that day. On 28 January this same se- quence of events occurred except that the Re- spondent's International sent a telegram to the Re- spondent, with a copy to the Employer, directing the Respondent to immediately accept travel serv- ice dues from the travelers at the jobsite. On 29 January the Respondent's steward J. Smith told the travelers that the Respondent would accept travel service dues for the week beginning I February from all travelers who had in their pos- session union membership cards and their current home local monthly union dues receipts. Based on this requirement Smith then accepted travel service dues from three traveler foremen, Pappas, and nine other travelers, but would not accept the travel service dues from Hoiness, Harbin, Wheatman, and W. Smith because they did not have a current home local monthly dues receipt. Later that day the Respondent's steward J. Smith told Pappas that, if he would drop his charge against the Re- spondent, the Respondent would accept the travel service dues from the four travelers he had earlier refused. Pappas refused to withdraw his charge. Subsequently, Weaver asked Johnson to hire four of the Respondent's members and Johnson refused. Later at the Respondent's office, Weaver received telephone calls from the home locals of Wheatman and Smith certifying that their home local dues were paid. Weaver then accepted their travel serv- ice dues. Traveler Harbin also received his home local dues receipt in the mail and Weaver accepted his travel service dues. However, when Hoiness sought to have the Respondent's clerical call his home local in Calgary, Canada, for verification of payment she refused based on instructions from Weaver. As a result of the Respondent's actions only three members of the Respondent worked that day. On 1 February all of the ironworkers except for Hoiness were working, and the next day Hoiness attempted to pay his travel service dues by show- ing the Respondent a telegram indicating that he had wired money to his home local for payment of his monthly dues. Weaver refused to accept Hoi- ness' telegram as proof of payment and refused his travel service dues and stated that he would do so only when Hoiness had his union dues receipt in his possession. All ironworkers except Hoiness worked that day. From 3 through February 7 Hoiness tendered his travel service dues to the Respondent who refused to accept them, and Smith told Hotness that he would prefer internal union charges against him if IRON WORKERS LOCAL 111 (STEEL BUILDERS) he worked without a travel service dues receipt. All ironworkers except Hoiness worked during this period. On 8 February Hoiness went to work with- out a travel service dues receipt. Acting steward Demis Hernandez wrote down Hoiness' name, home local number, and book number and stated that he was going to bring internal union charges against him. Hotness continued to work. On 22 February the president of Hoiness' local called the Respondent and verified that Hoiness' home local monthly dues were paid. The Respondent then ac- cepted Hoiness' travel service dues and gave him a receipt. Thereafter, the Respondent regularly ac- cepted all travel service dues tendered by the trav- elers. On 26 March and 28 April Pappas and four other ironworkers were laid off by the Employer because of lack of work. C. Contentions of the Parties The General Counsel contends that the Respond- ent had a statutory duty to treat fairly all members of the unit it represented at the Employer 's site in- cluding the travelers and that it engaged in a course of unlawful conduct designed to force the travelers to quit their employment with the Em- ployer. The General Counsel further contends that a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when in oper- ation of a hiring hall it coerces employees previ- ously referred out into quitting their jobs because of their lack of local union membership and that such coercion does not have to result in an em- ployee quitting in order for it to be unlawful. Sachs Electric Co., 248 NLRB 669 (1980), sub nom. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBE W Local 453, enfd. 668 F .2d 991 (8th Cir . 1981). The General Counsel further contends that , although requiring a work permit for nonmembers for a fee for use of a hiring hall is not in itself illegal, a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it requires a work permit as a con- dition of employment and the facts existing herein are analogous to that situation . Iron Workers Local 426 (Great Lakes Contracting), 180 NLRB 856 (1970). The General Counsel also asserts that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) by repeatedly requesting the Employer to provide a layoff list and by coercing and restraining the travelers in withholding their labor from the Employer. The Respondent contends that it did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) by its refusal to accept the trav- elers' travel service dues because the decision to accept or reject is an internal union matter which is protected by the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A). Moreover, the Respondent asserts that it never told the travelers that they could not work for the Em- ployer without travel service dues receipts. The 745 Respondent further contends that in the construc- tion industry past practice has been for travelers to leave a particular jurisdiction at the request of the local union when the work opportunities for local workers declined. Further, this quid pro quo has existed because locals inform others of the avail- ability of work opportunities within their area and historically the Board has found this practice not to be an unfair labor practice. Moreover, this case is not analogous to Sachs Electric Co., supra, because, unlike Sachs, the Respondent does not operate an exclusive hiring hall, and since no traveler quit his job, there was no coercive impact from the Re- spondent's actions. D. Analysis and Conclusion The Respondent misconstrues the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by contending that its conduct is simply an internal union matter and not proscribed by the Act. It is well established that Section 8(b)(1)(A) makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to restrain or coerce any employee in the ex- ercise of his or her Section 7 rights. Although the proviso permits a union to prescribe rules with re- spect to acquisition and retention of membership, a union's ability to enforce such rules in such a way that it affects a member's employment status is re- stricted.6 It is undisputed that, historically, the Respond- ent's travel service dues collection policies and practices were flexible and fairly openhanded. At times travelers were allowed to pay dues for up to I month in advance and could pay dues not only for themselves but for other travelers without having to show their home local dues books. It is also undisputed that the Respondent accepted tele- phone calls from travelers' home locals verifying payment of their local dues In some instances of financial hardship the Respondent would waive for 1 week the requirement that home local dues had to be current before it would accept travel service dues. There is also no dispute that in January and Feb- ruary 1982 a significant number of the Respond- ent's members were unemployed while Pappas and the other travelers enjoyed employment with the Employer. We find for the following reasons that the Respondent engaged in a deliberate pattern of conduct consisting of threats and coercion designed to force the travelers into quitting their jobs so that the Respondent's members could be hired by the Employer in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) Sachs Electric Co, 248 NLRB 669 (1980), enfd. sub nom. 6 NLRB v Allis-Chalmers Mfg Co, 388 U S 175 (1967) 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 453, 668 F.2d 991 (8th Cir. 1981). Toward this end, the evidence shows that for several weeks on a daily basis the Respondent re- fused to accept the properly tendered travel serv- ice dues from Pappas and the other travelers while threatening them with filing internal union charges if they worked for the Employer without valid travel service dues receipts. The Respondent also threatened Pappas and the other travelers with loss of employment after they refused the Respondent's request that they quit by stating that it was request- ing the Employer to lay them off and that the Em- ployer was drawing up a layoff list that would affect at least one-half of the travelers. Although Pappas and the other travelers showed up for work at the Employer's worksite each day, they were ef- fectively restrained from working by the Respond- ent's discriminatory manipulation of its rules and coercive threats. Further, we find that in response to its International's directive to "immediately accept all traveler dues," the Respondent continued its unlawful pressure on the travelers by applying its heretofore liberal interpretation of its dues-col- lection policies and practices in a disparate manner. Although the Respondent's International constitu- tion defines the necessary documents to be present- ed when paying travel service dues, we find that the Respondent's strict application and manipula- tion of its rules resulted in travelers Hoiness, Harbin, Wheatman, and W. Smith being unable to satisfy the requirement that they have their home local union dues receipts in their possession. The Respondent's unlawful motivation in this regard is shown by its offer to Pappas that if he dropped his charges the Respondent would accept the dues of the four travelers. When Pappas refused the Re- spondent's offer, the Respondent then asked the Employer to replace the four travelers with the Respondent's members. We particularly note the Respondent's discriminatory and disparate treat- ment of traveler Hoiness who, because of the Re- spondent's manipulations of its rules, was the last traveler to return to work. Although Hoiness' re- quest that the Respondent call his home local in Calgary, Canada, for verification that his dues were paid may have been a little beyond the Re- spondent's past practices, we nevertheless find that the Respondent's refusal to accept Hoiness' tele- gram verifying payment of his dues is discriminato- ry and is further evidence of the Respondent's intent to use its internal rules to force the travelers into leaving It is clear that the Respondent's coercive con- duct had an impact on the travelers' employment status, for there were many days when they were unable to work because they found themselves in a "catch 22" situation whereby the key to their con- tinued ability to work for the Employer and indeed any other employer in that area was withheld from them by the Respondent. They knew that if they worked without a travel dues receipt they would be subject to the Respondent's making good its threat to file internal union charges against them, but if they quit and left they probably would not be eligible for unemployment compensation. In Sachs, supra, the Board evidenced an understanding that coercion that is more subtle than actual vio- lence can be equally effective in accomplishing a discriminatory purpose and "travelers asked to quit under circumstances such as those present in the instant case undoubtedly are aware that the 're- quests' come from union officials who, by virtue of their responsibilities in administering the hiring hall, control, and will continue to control, the trav- elers' livelihoods within the hiring hall's jurisdic- tion." Thus, in applying the policy of Sachs, supra, we find that the Respondent may not properly resort to manipulation of its internal union rules in order to restrain and coerce traveler employees into withholding their labor or quitting their em- ployment against their will. Sachs at 670. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 309 (R. Dron Electrical), 212 NLRB 409 (1974); see also Electrical Workers IBEW Local 453 (Southern Sun Electric), 263 NLRB 862 (1983); AMF Inc., 247 NLRB 231, 233 (1980). The Respondent also contends that Sachs does not apply in this matter because it does not operate an exclusive hiring hall. We have previously noted that the Respondent's project agreement with the Employer contains a referral provision requiring the Employer first to seek employees from the Re- spondent and only if the Respondent within 48 hours is unable to fill the Employer's request can the Employer hire workers from other sources. The stipulated facts also show that three of the Re- spondent's members and all 17 of the travelers were referred out of the Respondent's hiring hall and constituted the Employer's entire work force. Therefore, we find that in this particular instance the above factors establish that the Respondent op- erated an exclusive hiring hall. Sachs at 670; Team- sters Local 357 v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (1961). It is also well established that a union violates the Act if it coerces employees previously referred out of its hiring hall into quitting their jobs based on "imper- missible considerations" such as in the instant matter the Respondent's large number of unem- ployed members and/or the travelers' nonmember- ship in that particular local union. B. Dron Electri- IRON WORKERS LOCAL 111 (STEEL BUILDERS) cal, supra . In Philadelphia Sheraton ,7 the court of appeals stated that "the comprehensive authority vested in the union , as the exclusive agent of the employees, leads inevitably to employee depend- ence on the labor organization . There necessarily arises out of this dependence a fiduciary duty that the union deal fairly with employees . [Citations omitted.]" Thus the Respondent had an obligation not to conduct itself in an arbitrary, individious, or discriminatory manner when representing the trav- eler employees referred out by it. Therefore, we conclude in agreement with the General Counsel that the Respondent by conditioning the tenure of travelers in their jobs on its level of unemployed members further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). See, e.g., NLRB v. General Motors Corp ., 373 U S 734, 742 (1963). The Respondent also contends that no effort was made by it to involve the Employer in its dispute with the travelers and therefore Section 8(b)(2) was not violated . However, the stipulated facts show that the Employer was made aware of the dispute by the Respondent's repeated requests of the Em- ployer that it hire its members to replace the trav- elers and draw up layoff lists even though the Re- spondent knew the Employer had no present plans to effectuate a layoff Further, the Employer ac- knowledged its awareness of the dispute when Johnson told the travelers that "the Employer had work for them and would like for them to work but that because he understood the situation be- tween the travelers and Respondent , the Employer would not terminate or layoff the travelers if they did not work." Section 8(b)(2) makes it an unfair labor practice for a union or its agents to cause, or attempt to cause an employer, to discriminate in regard to hire or any term or condition of employment to encour- age or discourage membership in any labor organi- zation . In NLRB v. Radio Officers, 347 U.S. 17 (1954), the Court stated, "The policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organization- al rights." We agree with the General Counsel that the Respondent was not seeking job availability in- formation each time it asked the Employer to ef- fectuate a layoff, but instead was attempting to pressure the Employer into discriminatorily replac- ing the travelers with its members. We also consid- er the Respondent's actions of coercing the travel- ers into withholding their services from the Em- ployer to be a form of indirect pressure on the Em- ployer to discriminate against the travelers and accede to the Respondent 's request . Therefore, we conclude that the Respondent has further violated ' NLRB v Hotel Employees Local 568 (Philadelphia Sheraton), 320 F 2d 254, 258 (3d Cir 1963), enfg 136 NLRB 888 (1962) 747 Section 8(b)(2). IBEW Local 112 (Ajax Electric), 231 NLRB 162 (1977); R. Dron Electrical, supra, 212 NLRB at 415; see, e.g., Electrical Workers IBEW Local 3 (Mulvhill Electric Contracting), 266 NLRB 224 (1983); Lummus Co. v. NLRB, 339 F.2d 728, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1964). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discriminatorily and disparately refusing to accept properly tendered travel service dues from employees Pappas, Tipton, Mayhew, Hurling, Leirer, Harbin, Bendit, Meech, Roberts, W. Smith, Hamilton, Burger , Hagmann, Murphy, Wheatman, Shepard, and Hoiness because they are travelers, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 2. By threatening to file intraunion charges against the above-named travelers and attempting to cause Northern States Steel Builders, Inc., the Employer, to lay off and otherwise discriminate against them , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 3. By attempting to cause the above-named trav- elers into quitting their jobs in order to provide jobs for Local No. Ill's members, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. By coercing and restraining the above-named travelers into withholding their labor from the Em- ployer in order to pressure and cause the Employer to terminate or lay off or otherwise discriminate against them , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since we have found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) we shall order that the Respondent make whole David Pappas, David Tipton, Richard Mayhew, Clarence Hurling, Mark Leirer, Timothy Meech, Thomas Harbin, Brian Bendit, Boyd Roberts, Walter Smith, Donald Hamilton, John Burger, Dale Hagmann, Ben Murphy, John Wheatman, John Shepard, and Sylvan Hoiness for any loss of earnings that they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them with interest computed thereon in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).8 We shall also order that the Respondent be required to post the appropriate no- tices. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111, Muscatine, Iowa, its of- ficers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Requesting persons referred out of the Re- spondent's hiring hall to quit their jobs because they are not members of the Respondent Union. (b) Refusing to accept properly tendered travel service dues or applying its rules regarding pay- ment of dues in a discriminatory and disparate manner to David Pappas and other similarly affect- ed travelers because of their lack of membership in the Respondent Union or because of any other ar- bitrary or unfair consideration. (c) Threatening to file intraunion charges against David Pappas and other travelers because they re- fused to quit their jobs and are not members of the Respondent Union. (d) Attempting to cause the Employer to lay off or in any other manner discriminate against David Pappas and other travelers in violation of Section 8(b)(2). (e) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Accept all properly tendered travel service dues from David Pappas or any other traveler without regard to whether they are members of the Respondent Union. (b) Make whole David Pappas, David Tipton, Richard Mayhew, Clarence Hurling, Mark Leier, Timothy Meech, Thomas Harbin, Brian Bendit, Boyd Roberts, Walter Smith, Donald Hamilton, John Burger, Dale Hagmann, Ben Murphy, John Wheatman, John Shepard, and Sylvan Hoiness, and any other similarly affected traveler for any loss of earnings they may have suffered because of the dis- crimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Post at conspicuous places in the Union's business office, meeting hall, and other places where notices to its members are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- 8 Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) pendix."9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 33, after being signed by a representative of the Union, shall be posted by the Union immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic- uous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Sign and return to the Regional Director im- mediately upon receipt sufficient copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix" for posting by Northern States Steel Builders, Inc., if willing, in conspicuous places including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. 9 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 Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND 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 violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain by requests or threats of internal union charges travelers who are members of other Iron Workers' locals into quit- ting their jobs in this area in order to make room for International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111, members who are unemployed. WE WILL NOT threaten to file or file intraunion charges against any employee whom we represent because he refused to quit a job in this area and WE WILL NOT threaten to file or file intraunion charges IRON WORKERS LOCAL III (STEEL BUILDERS) 749 against any employee who works without payment of travel service dues after the tender of such dues has been rejected by us. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause North- ern States Steel Builders, Inc. or any other employ- er to lay off or in any other manner discriminate against any individual because such individual is not a member of Local 111 , or for any reason other than such employee's refusal to tender dues and fees uniformly required of all unit employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make whole with interest David Pappas, Clarence Hurling, Boyd Roberts, Brian Bendit, Sylvan Hoiness, Mark Leier , Walter Smith, Donald Hamilton, Timothy Meech, Thomas Harbin , John Burger, Dale Hagmann, Ben Murphy, John Wheatman, and John Shepard, David Tipton, Richard Mayhew, and any other similarly affected employee, for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against them. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNA- MENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL No. 111