Teamsters Local 519 (Rust Engineering)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING) Teamsters Local Union #519, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Rust Engineering Co.) and Ted L. Porter. Case 10-CB-4238 .16 May 1985 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMIiERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On, 28 November 1984 Administrative Law Judge Howard I. Grossman issued the attached-de- cision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief.I The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's- rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations-Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Teamsters Local #519, affiliated with the International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Knoxville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. ' The Respondent filed a motion requesting an addendum to record, and the General Counsel filed a response We deny the motion, as the evidence sought to be adduced would not require a different result See Sec 102 48(d)(1) of the Board's Rules and Regulations 2 In sec III,B, the` judge inadvertently referred to George "Noir," rather than George "Moir " We correct the error DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HOWARD I. GROSSMAN, Administrative Law Judge. The original charge was filed on December 7, 1983,1 by Ted L. Porter (Porter or the Charging Party) and was served on Respondent by certified mail on December 9 (G.C. Exhs. 1(a) and (b)). Porter filed an amended charge on February 28,- 1984. Complaint issued on March 5, 1984, and alleges that Teamsters Local Union #519, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers-of America (Respondent or the Union) failed and refused since about June 7 and thereafter to refer Porter for available employment to various employers, including Rust Engineering Company (Rust), with whom the Union had a collective-bargaining agreement which in- cluded an exclusive referral procedure. Such failure and refusal to refer Porter, the complaint alleges, was predi- r All dates are in 1983 unless otherwise stated 433 cated on Porter's filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) against the Union, and on other concerted activities, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). - A hearing' was held before me on these matters in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on May 3 and 4, 1984. On the entire record, including briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, and on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, 1-make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The complaint alleges -that Rust is a Delaware corpo- ration with an office and place of business at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where it is engaged in maintenance and repair of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Facility for the United States Department of Energy. Respondent's answer admits these allegations. The complaint further alleges that, during.the calendar year preceding issuance of the- complaint,, Rust purchased and received at its Oak Ridge, Tennessee facility finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Tennessee. Respondent's answer states that this is "[a]ssumed to be correct." Finally, the complaint asserts that Rust is an employer engaged' in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent's answer states that this allegation is also "[a]ssumed to be correct." - Respondent, in its brief, asserts that the record is "bare of any proof . . . that Rust Engineering Company is an employer engaged in commerce ...." This argument is patently without merit. Respondent specifically admitted some of the jurisdictional allegations, and "assumed" the others "to be correct." The -Board's Rules and Regula- tions provide that an allegation in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be so found by the Board, unless the allegation is specifically denied or explained.2 Respondent has neither denied nor ex- plained the jurisdictional allegations. Accordingly, I find that the truth of the allegations has been established, and that Rust is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. . II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The pleadings establish and I find that Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the 'Act. III. THE ALLEGED-UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Union's Contractual Relationship with Rust The pleadings establish that the Union and various em- ployers, including Rust, are parties to a current collec- tive-bargaining agreement, effective May 14, 1982, and terminating April 30, 1985. That agreement provides that each employer "shall call (the Union) not later than 48 2 National Labor Relations Board , Rules and Regulations , Sec 102 20 275 NLRB No. 68 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hours before starting work so competent Teamsters may be secured for the job" (Jt. Exh. 1, art. II). In another contract, effective from October 1, 1983, until September 30, 1988, the Union (through the Knox- ville Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL- CIO) agreed with Rust that it maintains a referral system, and that the employer may employ applicants from any source in the event that the local unions do not refer qualified applicants- as requested by the employer within 48 hours after the request is made by the employ- er (Jt. Exh. 2, art. 6-3). The work being performed- in- this dispute was done at a nuclear power plant site called the Clinch River Breed- er Reactor. The parties introduced a Nuclear Power Construction Stabilization Agreement, stating that its terms are applicable to all construction -work on -nuclear power sites in the United States. The agreement is signed ,by Respondent's International Union, and by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, the general contractor at the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. The agreement provides that the Union shall be the "primary source of all craft employees," and that the - employer may hire from any source if the Union is unable- to fill require- ments for specific -classifications within 48 hours (Jt. Exh. 3, art. IX). _ B. Porter's Relationship with the Union George Moir 'was, elected - president of the Union in January 1980. He appointed Porter as a business agent, and put him in charge of the out-of-work book, in addi- tion to other-duties. Porter was released as a business agent in September' 1981, and signed the out-of-work book at that time. • Porter testified without contradiction that he filed a lawsuit in a state court against Union President Noir and another union official, after allegedly learning that they had accused him of.theft. According to Porter, there was a jury trial and he was awarded damages in the amount of $120,000 Although the record is not entirely clear, this apparently took place in 1982. . Porter. also filed a prior charge against the Union with -the Board, alleging violation of- Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. By letter dated February 9, 1983, the Regional Director for Region 10 informed Porter that he was refusing to issue a complaint in Case 10-CB-3999. The, Regional Director concluded that there was no evi- dence (1) that the Union had caused or attempted to cause any employer 'to discriminate against employees, (2) that the Union had. failed to refer individuals because they exercised- Section 7 rights, or (3) that the Union had referred individuals on the out-of-work list in a discrimi- natory manner. On appeal, the Regional Director's deci- sion was upheld by. the General Counsel (Jt. Exhs. 8(A), 8(B)). • In the middle of 1983, Porter and others filed charges against the officers of the Union alleging that changes in the bylaws, approved by the membership, had not been printed as approved. C. Porter's Referral to Work at Perini Corporation- -His Termination and the Filing of the Grievance 1. Introduction In order to evaluate the validity of the complaint, it is necessary to consider some events which are not alleged as unlawful in this proceeding. After signing the out-of- work book in September 1981, Porter was referred by the Union for 'work in March • 1983. This employment terminated a few days later, and the termination became the subject of an unfair labor practice charge filed by Porter against the employer, and a grievance filed by him with the Union. Although these events are not being litigated in this proceeding, and at least some of them are outside the statutory period of limitation, they are inex- tricably intertwined with the events which are being liti- gated, and constitute background evidence which may be considered under existing Board law. 2. The work assignment and Porter's layoff Sometime in March 1983, about 14 employees were re- ferred to Perini Corporation for work at the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. Perini was a subcontractor on the job. The group of employees included Porter (who worked as a truckdriver), James Isbill, Edgar Cate, and Red Branson . According to the uncontradicted testimo- nies of Porter and Cate, the four named employees were assigned to a different job from the one to which others were assigned, and received, less work. After reporting for work, they would be "dogged off," i.e., sent home. Porter affirmed that they had only 17 hours of work the first week. The four employees decided to protest and, according to Cate, "elected" Porter to represent them, since he had formerly been a business agent. Porter approached Area Superintendent Bob Higgins on the evening of April 29. -"Bob," he said, "why don't you try to divide this time up? Them people up there is getting 50 hours a week, and we are getting 15. That ain't fair. We are all Teamsters." According to Porter, Higgins "came unglued ." While engaging in profanity, he said that the four employees were working where the union hall told him to put them, and that the employees were not running the job. About 4:30 p.m. the next day, March 30, various em- ployees began gathering for work at the 5 p.m. shift. This took place at a gate about 2 miles from the main office. Supervisors Tommy Cannon and Kenneth Goo- dall were present. Cannon pointed his finger at Porter and said that he was laid off. The supervisor gave Porter two checks and a layoff slip stating that he was laid off because of lack of -work. Cannon also told Cate, Isbill, and Branson that they were "dogged off."3 - At that point, a "commotion" took place, according to Porter. Cate asserted that Isbill "became unglued," and told Supervisors Cannon and Goodall that. he would "strike that damn place." The uncontradicted testimonies of Porter, Cate,_ and Isbill establish that Porter did not threaten a strike. It is 3 Testimonies of Porter and Cate TEAMSTERS' LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING) 435 also clear from uncontroverted evidence that Porter at- tempted to quiet Isbill down , saying that the-employees would be fired if they engaged in a strike. The factual issue is whether Porter attempted to quiet Isbill in front of the company supervisors, or did so only at a later ren- dezvous of Porter, Cate, Isbill, and Branson. According to Porter, he said nothing after being laid off, and sat down in a truck . Isbill's testimony is unclear on this point. Cate, however, testified specifically that Supervisor Goodall and the other individuals, including Supervisor Cannon, were within 20 feet of each other in a gravel area when Porter was attempting to quiet Isbill. Cate was asked more specific questions than Porter, and had superior recall of these events. Accordingly,..I find that Porter attempted to dissuade Isbill from striking while in the presence of Supervisors Cannon and Goo- dall. Porter testified without contradiction that he never threatened or discussed a strike with any representative of Perini Porter, Cate, Isbill, and Branson then left the worksite and had a conference a few minutes later Isbill again ad- vocated a strike. Porter told him that they would all be fired, and Isbill said that he did not "give a damn," and that they would "put it up anyway." Porter replied, "Now, Jim, the best thing you can do is go home and forget it and sleep on it." Porter testified that he thought that he had talked the other employees out of a strike. 3. Porter's grievance and fair representation suit a Porter's conversation with union representatives Porter had telephone conversations with business agent Jimmy L. Metz and Union President Moir on the evening of March 30. According to Porter, he called Metz and asked him to go over to the Perini jobsite and represent Porter. Metz replied that he did not know any- thing about the'applicable contract Porter said that he had to get in touch with Moir, because some union mem- bers wanted to put up a picket line; and Porter might as well help them if he could not get representation. Metz asserted that Porter told him that he had been "fired." He needed help, or he was going to. put up a picket line and shut the job down. Metz promised to get Union President Moir to call Porter. Porter, however, on cross-examination, denied that he told Metz that he had been fired or that he was going to put up a picket line. I credit Porter-the uncontroverted facts establish that Porter had tried to prevent a picket line, and there is therefore no reason why he would have made a contrary statement . Rather, I find, Porter told Metz that other union members wanted to put up a picket line, and that Porter might as well help them if he could not get repre- sentation Further, since the Company gave Porter, a document stating that he had been laid off for -lack of work, it is unlikely that Porter would have told Metz, at that time, that he had been fired. Although Porter later filed an unfair labor practice charge against Perini, alleg- ing an unlawful discharge , this took place almost' 6' months later, when the permanence of his layoff had become apparent. The significance of the dispute over the "discharge" or "layoff" of Porter is the possible difference in Porter's placement on the Union's out-of-work list which might result from either determination , as more fully explained hereinafter: Moir called Porter a few minutes after the latter's con- versation with Metz. According to Porter, he begged Moir to go over to the Perini jobsite and represent him. Moir refused to go that night , but said that he would call the Company the next morning . Porter told Moir that some of the members were thinking of putting up a picket line . Although Porter had tried to. stop them, he would join the picket line if one was put up . Moir testi- fied that Porter told him that he had been fired, and that Porter was going to put up a picket line the next morn- ing. . I credit Porter's version of this conversation, for essen- tially the same reasons as those given in connection with the Metz conversation. b. The grievance On April 1, Porter filed a grievance with the Union stating that Perini had him laid off, purportedly for lack of work. However, the grievance asserts , the real reason was Porter's dispute with Higgins over unequal distribu- tion of work. The grievance notes - that Higgins told Porter that he was "doing what the union hall told him to do." Porter, Isbill, and Cate also filed a joint griev- ance the same day, alleging unequal distribution of work by Perini (Jt. Exh. 11). The grievances were assigned to Charles L. O'Brien, chairman of the construction division of the Southern Conference of Teamsters. Both grievances were reject- ed-according to O'Brien , after a "hearing" on "March 14" (sic), attended by two representatives of Perini, in- cluding "Lee Goodall:" The reasons given in Porter's case were that-he had threatened to strike the project, contrary to a no-strike clause in the stabilization agree- ment (Jt. Exh. 11). Union President Moir testified that O'Brien had ' a letter from Goodall affirming that Porter threatened to put up a picket line and shut the job down. According to Moir, O'Bnen based his decision on this letter. Isbill, Cate, and Porter testified without contradic- tion that nobody asked them for their version of the events. Porter affirmed without contradiction that- he re- ceived no notice of a hearing , merely a letter from O'Brien stating that his grievance was denied because he had threatened to strike the Company. Union President Moir testified that Perini refused to take Porter back be- cause, he had attempted to incite a strike. c. Porter's fair representation suit against the Union On March 9, 1984, Porter filed a complaint against the Union-in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee . The complaint, in essence, alleges that O'Brien held a meeting with a Perini representative on April 14 . without notifying Porter, failed to investi- gate and "ineptly" handled the case, and thus breached the Union's duty of fair representation (Jt.• Exh. 11). No disposition of this proceeding is in the record. However, in its brief, Respondent states that the court's decision issued on May 24, 1984, i .e., subsequent to the unfair labor practice hearing. Respondent quotes what it 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD represents to be a portion of the court's decision. In that portion, the court held that the action was barred by the statute of limitations because it was not commenced within 6 months of the date that "the Union took final action (on-the grievance) on April 14, 1983. ; . . 4. The unfair labor practice charge against Perini On September 27, Porter filed an unfair labor practice charge against Perini, alleging that he had been discri- minatorily discharged on March 30. The matter was thereafter heard by an administrative law judge • (Case 10-CA-19622) On December 14, Porter withdrew the charge with appropriate approval, and executed a release to Perini in return for the sum of $4750.4 D. The Union 's Refusal to Refer Porter for Work 1. The Union's out-of-work book and policies a. Summary of the evidence The evidence is in conflict concerning the Union's policies about referral priority if a member' was dis- charged. Union President Moir agreed that a member did not lose his place on the out-of-work list if he was laid off prior to 60'days of work. If a man quit a job, howev- er, it was not equitable to compel a member with later placement on the list to wait even longer for referral. The same rule'should apply to a discharge, according to Moir, and this rule was adopted in 1982. Union trustee Jack Hamby Jr. gave similar testimony. However, Moir admitted that if a grievance procedure established that a member had -been fired illegally or unjustly, then the Union would "take a look at" it, i.e., consider whether the member should retain his position on the out-of-work list. Moir testified that Porter's name was not physically "moved" in the book-indeed,'the only place where Por- ter's name appeared wds in the September 1981 book, which is not iii evidence. What actually happened, there- -fore, is that the Union simply stopped referring Porter for work after the Perini layoff on March 30 Porter contended that he hadnever heard of a mem- ber's losing his place on- the list because of a discharge until Moir applied the rule to-his case in 1983. Porter tes- tified that a, member'named Charlie Lee had been fired by Perini after running over an automobile with a large dump truck, but was back at "work within 2 to 3 weeks with Stone & Webster, • the- general contractor at the Clinch River project: Union President Moir contended that he investigated the incident, and that Perini merely said that Lee -was unqualified -to drive the dump truck. However, the Union's out-of-work book contains the fol- lowing entry opposite -Lee's name: "Fired at Perini-1 day . . . Stone & Webster. 12/19/83" (Jt. -Exh..4, •p. 2). Union trustee Jack Hamby Jr. testified that another union official made-this entry. , The General Counsel elicited testimony tending to cast doubt on the bona fides of the Union's out-of-work book With one exception, the only documentary evidence con- sists of photocopies containing entries beginning about July 1983 and ending in about December (Jt. Exh 4) Union President Moir testified that the book had been "revised" three times ,since 1981, but prior.copies are not in evidence. Some copies of the pages in evidence have a blank line between signatures, while others at later dates do not. The signature of union member Jerry Burgess appears on line 7 of page 21, with six names above his. There is no signature below it. Burgess testified that there were only three names above his (on p. 21) when he signed the book, and that Union Treasurer Bob Barnes told him to "skip a line" when he signed. -Moir asserted that Burgess claimed his name had been omitted during one of the "revisions" and that the Union merely inserted Burgess' name where he said it belonged: Union member Johnny Black testified that 'he asked Union President Moir for a referral in 1983. Moir "flipped through pages (of the out-of-work book) toward the front. It was all double-spaced, and he read through them, and he showed me where to sign." There were names above him on the list. Black was scheduled to work at Perini 2 hours after signing the book. Black said that Moir did him a favor because Black's father was on the bylaws committee. He related the incident to other members who "couldn't believe it." They went to the Union to look at the book in April, but it had disap- peared, according to Black, and another book was in its place without Black's signature. The purported signature of "Johnny Black" appears in the 'out-of-work book in this proceeding, dated September 29.5 Black testified on cross-examination that the signature is "a forgery " James McDade stated that his name had been left off one of the "reissued" books, and that union officials told him that it was a mistake. Respondent introduced part of a page of a 1981 out-of- work book kept by Porter when he was a business agent. This is a' preprinted, lined page, on which Porter drew additional lines creating rectangular spaces -containing about four lines each. Porter testified that the rectangular spaces were used' to make various entries. Although there are blank lines between the names, there are no blank spaces (R Exh. 5). b. Factual analysis I credit Porter's testimony concerning the hiring of Charlie Lee, as, partially corroborated by the testimonies of Moir and Hamby, and the out-of-work book. From Moir's testimony, I infer that the union president did not move Lee's name to the bottom of the list after he was fired by Perini-rather, he sought to explain why he had not done so. It follows that Respondent did refer Lee for work in December after a discharge, without moving his name to the botom of the list. This is inconsistent with Moir's and Hamby's -testimonies- to the contrary. I also credit the testimonies of Jerry Burgess, Johnny Black, and James McDade. Moir's attempted explanation of the Burgess signature is obviously manufactured. If, as Moir contended, he merely inserted Burgess' name where. the latter said it belonged in the "revised" book, there would have been another signature immediately 4 it Exits 5(a), (b), (c), and (d) . . 5 Jt Exh 4, p 29, L 3, from the bottom of the page TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING) below' Burgess' name as well as one immediately above it. Instead, it is clear from Burgess' testimony, the Union caused additional signatures to be written in the three lines above line seven which were blank at the time Bur- gess signed. his name. The Union also caused Black's name to be written in the book, or a "revised" book, at a later date. The evidence from Burgess, Black, and McDade cre- ates serious doubt about the bona fide nature of the Union's referral system, and about the credibility of the Union's witnesses. When considered in combination with the Lee referral, this doubt is sufficient to warrant a con clusion that the Union did not have a policy of moving members who had been discharged to "the bottom of the list." I find that the Union's policy in 1983-if it had one-was to continue the position of discharged or laid- off members at the same place on the list if they had worked less than 60 days. It follows that Porter, who signed the book in September 1981, and who worked at Perini about 6 days, should have retained his position on the out-of-work list. Since his name was not actually "moved," he retained the same referral rights, based on the September 1981 signing of the book, which caused the Union to refer him to Perini in March 1983.6 2 The referrals of other job applicants As noted, the only documentary evidence of the out- of-work books is one of the "revisions," with the earliest entries being dated in July (Jt. Exh. 4).7 The printed name of John R. Cotter appears on page three of the book, without a date.8 Cotter testified that he did not print his name where it appears on the exhibit. Instead, Cotter testified, he signed. the book about 5 months before Porter was terminated by Perini, i.e., about No- vember 1982. Cotter testified that' he was referred to Rust as a truck driver in the second or third week of July. ,I credit his testimony. It is obvious that Porter, who signed the book in -September 1981, had referral rights superior to Cotter. Porter testified that he would have been referred to Rust instead of James Neal, if Porter's placement on the referral list had not been changed by the Union The out-of-work book shows that Neal was referred to Rust on July 21.9 I infer from Porter's testimony that his Sep- 6-My position would not be different even if the Union's policy was to move discharged members to "the bottom of the list " Moir admitted that the Union would "take a look" at the placement issue if a grievance pro- cedure established that the discharge was illegal or unjust Without making any finding on the legality of Perini's termination of Porter-an issue which is before me-it is clear that it was unjust, and that Porter's. grievance should have been sustained by the Union The Union cannot escape Porter's claim to retention of position on the list by arguing that his grievance was denied, when the denial itself was unfair Here again, I make no finding on the legality or illegality of the Union's disposition of the grievance However, because of Moir's testimony concerning the effect of an unjust discharge on a member's placement on the out-of- work list-an issue which is before me-consideration of the grievance, as background evidence, is appropriate 7 The General Counsel asserted that he had subpoenaed all the out-of- work lists which Respondent had, and the latter's counsel stated that they had been supplied Nonetheless, Respondent submitted part of a page of a 1981 out-of-work book which Porter had kept (R Exh 5) 8Jt Exh 4,p3 9 Ibid , at 5 437 tember 1981 placement on the list was prior to Neal's. His testimony that Neal was referred to Rust for work is corroborated by the out-of-work book. On the basis of the evidence concerning Cotter and Neal, I find that work for which Porter was qualified was available ' at Rust on about July 15, but that the Union referred other members, who had signed the book subsequent to Porter's signature in September 1981. - 3. Porter's second signing of the book, the Union's referrals thereafter, and the the security clearance issue a. Summary of the evidence ' - - Porter testified that he did not return to the union hall for several months after the Perini termination, because of his belief that he had retained his position on the list. However, when he learned that other employees were being referred "around him," he went to the hall in August and had a conversation with Union President Moir. The latter informed Porter that he had placed Por- ter's name "at the bottom of the list" because Perini had "fired" him, and that he would have to. sign the book again. Porter protested that Perini had laid him off for lack of work, and that he had the layoff slip to prove it. However, Porter signed the out-of-work book again, on August l.'° He testified that he had no choice in the matter. However, when Union Secretary Pat Weitzel told Porter to "skip a line," Porter refused, and signed on the next line. Burgess told him that if he skipped a line the Union would put names "between them." The Union continued to fail to refer Porter for em- ployment, and instead, referred to Rust two individuals who signed the out-of-work book subsequent to August 1, when Porter had signed it a second time. 11 Union President Moir's explanation was that the two individuals who were referred had security clearances, called "Q-clearances," whereas Porter did not have a clearance. Rust was "tightening up" on security at the Clinch River project, and Union official Barnes had asked the membership at meetings to "get Q-cleared." Union trustee Hamby testified to similar effect, and averred that Rust had refused to employ drivers who were not "Q-cleared" since June 7. Respondent intro- duced a letter from- Rust to Respondent's counsel, dated April 9, 1984, stating this to have been Rust's policy (R. Exh. 6). The Union's contract with Rust provides that the employer may hire employees "who have special skills and security clearances" (Jt. Exh. 2, Sec. 6-4). The out-of-work book has the letter "Q" in the lines contain- ing the names of Ellis and Davidson, who were referred to Rust (Jt. Exh. 4). The General Counsel introduced evidence to the con- trary. Thus, Union President Moir admitted on cross-ex- amination that there wasa time in 1983 when Rust hired io Jt Exh 4, p 23 11 Otto R Ellis signed the book on September 15, and was referred to Rust on November 11 James Davidson signed the book on November 18, and was thereafter referred to Rust These findings are based on the testimony of Union President Moir and the out-of-work book (Jt Exh 4, pp 27, 37) ' 438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD individuals without security clearances. According to Porter, this policy continued _in effect after June, the sup- posed date of Rust's new policy. James C. McDade and John Cotter, who were referred to Rust in July, testified that they were not "Q-cleared." McDade affirmed that he made application for clearance after being referred. Jackie Ray Hamilton testified that an individual named Dukes was -working at Rust in the fall of 1983, and was not "Q-cleared." Larry R. Kitts testified that a Jack D. Dukes was working at Rust in February 1984 without "Q-clearance." Respondent sought to elicit testimony to the effect that individuals whom it referred were allowed to work only in areas not requiring security clearance . This is irrele- vant, since the individuals were doing the same kind of work for which Porter was qualified. Edgar Cate had no security clearance, yet was allowed to work within an area where "double-Q" clearance, i.e., a higher degree was required. A guard accompanied him on such occa- sions. Porter denied,that anyone in the Union had requested members to get • Q-clearance prior to referral In fact, Porter averred, this was impossible because each clear- ance required an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and cost the employer about $3000. The union could not send out members to Rust for Q-clear- ance "for the fun of it. They [the employer] wouldn't do it." The only way to get security clearance was to' refer a job applicant, at which time the company would initi- ate clearance -procedures Union President Moir was asked about this atihe hearing, and professed to have no knowledge of the clearance procedures. - b. Factual analysis Respondent's generalized assertions of Rust 's policy, the contract language, the out-of-work book, and Rust's letter are insufficient to offset' the specific details of Rust's employment policies described by the General Counsel's witnesses. These details are uncontradicted, and have greater' probative weight on the issue of Rust's actual hiring practices. They establish that Rust, in fact, hired individuals without security clearance who were referred to it by the Union after June 1983. In some in- stances, at least, Rust initiated security clearances after the individual was employed. I therefore conclude that the Union's asserted reason for its failure to refer Porter after August 1-that he did not have a security clearance-is pretextual. 4. The "new rules" and Porter's removal from the referral system a. Summary of the evidence Moir acknowledged that there were "questions" from members about the referral system, and that some said that the Union should have "rules to go by." According- ly, in January 1984, the Union adopted new referral rules. They read in pertinent part as follows: All persons desiring to be referred from the hiring hall shall personally provide the President and the Business Manager with their name, address, telephone number, industry to which referral is de- sired, and shall also provide such other information as is necessary to determine their length of time or service in the industry, places of employment and qualifications for work in the industry to which re- ferral is desired. No person shall be allowed to register for referral unless they are currently employed. A person shall be - considered unemployed when not working or when working on a job of short duration which shall be defined as ten (10) days or less. Any person registering for referral from the hiring hall shall -renew their registration the first of every month. The President and Business Manager shall make referrals to those employees requesting 'workers from among the persons who have registered for re- ferral, taking into consideration the information pro- vided by the persons upon registration [Jt. Exh. 9]. The new rules were posted at -the union hall, 'and were . mailed to stewards for posting at work locations. 12 Union President Moir described the new procedure as an "index type" card system which contained informa- tion about the job applicant. He testified that he took the information which the Union had in the out-of-work book and "transferred it over to these individual cards, a card for each person, and numbered the card" according to the order in which individuals were found in the out- of-work book. 13 According to Moir, there was a general membership meeting in January 1984 in which the new rules were ex- plained, and the members were informed that monthly "renewal" of an individual's position on the hiring list meant that he had to come to the union hall, and put his initials and current date on the back of his card. This procedure, according to Moir, would show that the indi- vidual was unemployed and looking for work. However, there was an exception to this rule-an individual who lived 50-60 miles from the hall did not have to come in and initial the card, but could call in and notify the union of his availability for work. This exception was not "in 12 The rules contain provisions for the resolution of complaints Any individual with a complaint about a referral, or lack thereof. may appeal by letter to the secretary-treasurer within 5 days A hearing on the com- plaint will be held by the union executive board within 10 days of the filing of the complaint All parties will be given equal opportunity to present evidence and arguments, and a majority vote of the Board shall determine what remedy, if any, should be granted (Jt Exh 9) - 13 Respondent introduced a copy of the card It has Respondent's name at the top, and contains various questions which the applicant was required to answer (R Exh 1) Another document in evidence, is at- tached to a joint exhibit containing the Union 's new rules, and is entitled "Hiring Hall Registration" (Jt Exh 9) It is a sheet of paper of legal size, contains various questions, and has a space designated for the applicant's signature The card does not have any such designated space The card does have questions for the applicant , mentioned by Moir,' pertaining to "•Q-clearance" status and veteran status-whereas the registration form does not have these questions Like Moir, other witnesses describing the new procedure talked only of a "card" which, one witness said, was placed in a "Rolodex" file There is no evidence that any applicant ever signed a "Hiring Hall Registration " form-indeed, there is no testimony whatever about it I conclude that the operative document used in imple- mentation of the new system was the card rather than the "Hiring Hall Registration" form TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING) the rules,", according to Moir. There was another excep- tion for illiterate individuals. Moir testified that there were about 2100 active mem- bers of the Union who would be involved in the hiring under the new system. However, after admitting that there were only about 50 members present at the mem- bership meeting.in which the new rules were purported- ly explained, Moir said there were not "over 50-60 people in construction." It is not clear. whether this as- sertion qualifies Moir's other testimony about the 2100 members who would be involved with the new hiring system. The only out-of-work book in evidence has about 437 names in it (Jt. Exh. 4). The General Counsel subpoenaed the Union's records, and union counsel stated that he had supplied all that were available. As in- dicated, Moir testified that he copied names onto the cards in the same order in which he found them in the out-of-work book. Under these circumstances, and taking into account the ambiguity of Moir's testimony, I con- clude that the out-of-work book is the best evidence of the individuals affected by the new rules. The Union president said that he waited -about 2 months after initiation of the new system for word of it to "get around." Thereafter, he eliminated about 200 in- dividuals from the referral system for failure to sign the monthly renewals affirming their unemployed status. Those who were "dropped" included Porter and Isbill: t' The union president testified that he would not permit inidividuals to see the "hiring list" itself, i.e., the cards, since he did not "have the time to take up with them coming in and harassing" him. Porter testified that he had read the new rules. He was present at the membership meeting at which they were adopted. He recalled that the rules were read, but did not recall that the card was shown. Although Porter filed an application under the new system-as Moir con- ceded-he informed the union officials that he was not going to sign "any card because at one time [his] name was moved on the referral book:" Nonetheless, he went to the union hall at least once a month since January 1984, and informed them that he was available for work Edgar Cate denied that he ever heard a union official state the card had to be signed or initialed He called in for work a few weeks before the hearing in this case, and Moir asked him whether he had "renewed" his card. Cate replied that he did not know anything about it. Isbill testified about his initial application under the new system. The Union secretary filled-out the card for him, and asked him to sign it. Isbill declined because tie once saw what looked like his signature in the former out-of-work book, but it was not in fact his signature. Isbill testified that he would be "very reluctant to sign anything in that union hall." Despite his refusal to sign, the union secretary filled out the card, put it into a Rolo- dex file, and told Isbill that he was number 62. "Remem- ber that number," she said. "Later I went back and she told me that I was 82, so I don't know how they did that," she said. "Later I went back and she told me that I was 82, so I don't know how they did that," Isbill noted. . 14 Isbill was also involved in litigation with the Union 439 Isbill testified that he did not know what he was re- quired to do after registration. Under the old out-of- work list, an individual did not have to put his name c~ the list personally-someone else -could do it for him. Isbill -affirmed that he went to the union hall every .month in 1984, and reported that he was unemployed and available for work. - Jerry Burgess testified that he attended the member- ship meeting when the new rules were adopted. Later, .the union secretary filled out a card in her handwriting, while asking Burgess various questions. She did not ask Burgess to sign the card. Thereafter, as he paid his monthly dues to the union secretary, he was not required to sign his name. "There's no place on there for it to be signed," Burgess testified. b. Factual analysis The written rule itself-requires - applicants to provide information to the Union in order to register for referral, and to "renew" their registration every month if they continue to desire referral. There is nothing in the rule itself which requires an applicant to sign or initial any document. Although a "Hiring Hall Registration" form in evidence has" a place for -a signature, there is no evi- dence that this form was used in the registration process. Instead, a card without any designated place for signa- ture was used. The testimonies of the General Counsel's witnesses, which I credit, clearly show that the Union ef- fected initial registration without requiring signatures. Even Moir admitted that Porter had filed such an appli- cation, although Porter did not sign it. The issue therefore is whether the Union had a rule re- quiring out-of-work applicants to -"renew" their original registrations by personal signature or initial, and, if it did, whether this rule was communicated to members -and ap- plicants. The only evidence in support -of such a rule is Moir's testimony of an announcement at a membership meeting. The- first question is .why this requirement was not set forth in the written rule. Moir's testimony is suspect, in part because of the Union's established propensity to ma- nipulate the out-of-work list in order to favor certain in- dividuals at the expense of others. The union's presi- dent's assertion that he dropped 200 names from the re- ferral list for failure to observe the renewal' requirement, almost half of the approximately '437 names on the only list in evidence, is incredible. The Union has not intro- duced one referral card with an example of a signed or initialed renewal on the back. For there reasons, and be- cause I consider Moir to have been an untrustworthy witness, I do not credit his testimony about the nature of the renewal requirement. ' Even 'if there were such a rule,'the evidence 'clearly establishes that the Union did' not communicate it to members or applicants. It was not put into any written form, and Moir, by his own admission, simply waited for word of the rule to "get around." The General Counsel's witnesses knew nothing about it. I credit Moir's testimony that he removed Porter from the referral list. However, I- also concluded that his as- serted reason -for doing so-that Porter had refused to 440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD initial his card as a form of renewal of his registration-is pretextual. I credit Porter's testimony that he appeared at the union hall at least once a month beginning in January 1984, and notified the Union of his availability for work: The rule itself has a curious omission. It does not re- quire the Union to refer applicants in the order in which their cards are numbered. Isbill's testimony, that his number went from 62 to 82, without any explanation, and Moir's averment that he would not permit applicants to examine the new card system, raise doubts about its bona fides. common to the current complaint were reviewed earli- er," Respondent argues. The argument has no merit. The charge in Case 10- CB-3999 was filed at an earlier date and alleged unfair labor practices in an earlier time period In this proceed- ing, Porter and the General Counsel have presented new evidence of events which took place at a later date. In these circumstances, it is well established that the Gener- al Counsel's refusal to issue the earlier complaint does not bar a finding of a violation based on the new charge. Operating Engineers Local 406 v. R'LRB, 701 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1983), enfg. 262 NLRB 50 (1982). ' - E. Legal analysis - 1. Respondent's defenses a. The 10(b) defense As indicated above, the original charge was filed on December 7 and served on December 9, and the com- plaint alleges that Respondent refused to refer Porter for work since about June 7 and thereafter. Respondent argues in its brief that "there can be no finding of an unfair labor practice that occurred before December 9, 1983." This is incorrect, since Section 10(b) of the Act bars issuance of a complaint based on an unfair labor practice occurring more than 6 months prior .to_filing and service of the charge. Six months prior to the service date of December 9 falls on June 9, which is within the meaning of the complaint allegation of "about" June 7. Respondent argues that Porter cannot litigate the Perini discharge or the Union's disposition of the griev- ance in this proceeding, in part because of Section 10(b). The short answer is that these matters are not being liti- gated herein, but are being considered as relevant back- ground evidence. The Union, in its brief, points to the dismissal of Por- ter's fair representation suit by a Federal court on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Assuming that Respondent has correctly set forth the court's opinion, the argument is unpersuasive. In the first place, that proceeding pertains to the Union's disposition of the grievance against Perini, not to its refusal thereaf- ter to refer Porter for employment. The disposition of the grievance took place on April 14, whereas the al- leged" unlawful . action in this case consisted of the Union's refusal to refer Porter_ for employment on and after about June 7. In the Federal suit, Porter waited until May 24, 1984. to file a complaint against an action which took place on April 14, 1983, whereas in the in- stant proceeding he filed a charge on December 7, 1983, alleging unlawful conduct beginning about June 7, 1983. I therefore conclude that Respondent's 10(b) defense is without merit. b. The res judicata or collateral estoppel defense The Union argues that Porter, the Board, and- the General Counsel are estopped from proceeding in this matter- because of the dismissal of the charge filed, by Porter in Case 10-CB-3999, which was sustained on appeal. "Many of the same legal issues and facts that are c. Deferral to the Union's appeals mechanism Respondent argues that the Board should require Porter to utilize the appeals mechanism set forth in the Union's new rules, as described above, before taking action on his unfair labor practice charge. Citing Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971), and United Tech- nology, 268 NLRB 83 (1984), the Union maintains that requiring Porter to exhaust his administrative remedies within the Union would encourage "quick and peaceful resolutions of labor disputes." The deferral policy in the cases cited by_ Respondent relates .to disputes arising under collective-bargaining agreements between employers and unions , not to in- traunion disputes between the Union and its members. "The Board has not adopted a policy of deferral for ex- haustion of internal disputes resolution procedures be- tween labor organizations and their members." Musicians Local 47 (American Broadcasting), 255 NLRB 386, 391 (1981). Section 10(a) of the Act states that the Board's power to prevent unfair labor practices "shall not be af- fected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement, law, or otherwise. . . ." Inasmuch as the alleged violation in this case strikes at one of the basic rights protected by the Act, deferral to an appeals mechanism operated by the entitiy charged with that violation would be particu- larly inappropriate. In agreement with the Board's posi- tion set forth in Musicians Union Local 47, I .reject this argument by the Union. 2. Legal conclusions Respondent concludes its brief by arguing that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Porter is a "dissi- dent," or that Respondent refused to refer him because he filed charges.- Indeed, Respondent affirms, it did refer him for employment after he had filed charges, undoubt- edly meaning the referral to Perini after Porter had pre- viously filed a charge in Case 10-CB-3999. Thereafter, the Union contends, it conducted its referral system in a lawful, nondiscriminatory manner. The record does not support this 'argument. Released as a business agent in 1981 , Porter thereafter filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union. Although this was dismissed, he obtained an-award of $120,000 in a state court action against union officials, based on an al- legation of defamation. After Porter was finally referred to work (at Perini), about a year and a half after signing the out-of-work TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING) book, - he was promptly elected spokesman of a small group of employees who complained of unfair job as- signments and lack of work. Fired by Perini, Porter filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Company, went to hearing, and obtained a settlement. After filing a grievance against Perini and having it denied by the Union, Porter filed an intraunion charge alleging that the Union had not printed amendments to the bylaws as ap'-' proved by the membership. Later, he filed _ the instant unfair labor practice charge, and another lawsuit against the Union. This record is that of a classic union dissi= dent. The record .contains evidence of animus against Porter by the Union. Its disposition of the grievance he filed against Perini was grossly unjust.. Porter received no notice of a hearing, and was not asked any quesions, while'the Union's decision against him was based on a company statement of facts which was untrue. Then the Union dropped him to "the bottom of the list" on the pretext that this was required by a union rule following discharge of an employee, and referred other employees whose names appeared in the book after Porter's. When Porter signed the book a second time (August 1), the Union promptly invented a new pretext, he could not be referred because he lacked a security clearance. Meanwhile, the referral system was being manipulated in a manner which engendered complaints, causing the Union to institute a new system. The Union president stated at hearing that members could not examine the new system, a statement which, if implemented, would constitute evidence of an unfair labor practice. Bartenders Local 165 (Nevada Resort Assn.), 261 NLRB 420 (1982). After posting a printed version of the new rules at the union hall and elsewhere, the union purported to make a significant change in or explanation of the rules by oral announcement at a meeting attended by a minority of members, and to communicate same by word of mouth. In fact, some members had no knowledge of the purport- ed change. Such failure to give adequate and timely notice of a change in referral procedures would have constituted evidence of an unfair labor practice if a timely charge had been filed. Operating Engineers Local 406 (Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction), 262 NLRB 50 (1982). Nonetheless, the Union used the supposed amend- ment of the rules to drop individuals from the referral system, including Porter. The Board has held that such shifting reasons for refusal to refer, as well as the filing of unfair practice charges, constitutes evidence of dis- criminatory motivation. 15 With respect to the Union's argument that it assigned Porter to the Perini job after he had filed his first unfair labor practice charge in March 1983,- it may be noted that the record contains abundant evidence of animus based on events which took place after March 1983. In light of this evidence, I conclude that the Perini referral, a year and a half after Porter's signature in the out-of- work book, does not negate an inference that ,such 15 HH Robertson Co, 263 NLRB 1344, 1362 (1982), Laborers Local 38 (Hancock-Northwest, J V), 247 NLRB 1250 (1980), enfd 108 LRRM 2816 (5th Cir 1981) 441 animus was based, in part at least, on the filing of the first charge , The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated the law as follows: [W]e have held that it is an unfair labor practice . .. for a bargaining representative to act in an un- reasonable, arbitrary, or invidious manner in regard to an -employee's employment status [authorities cited]. By wielding its power arbitrarily, the Union gives notice that its favor must be curried, thereby encouraging membership and unquestioned adher- ence to its policies. [NLRB v. Iron Workers Local 433 (AGC), 600 F.2d 770, 3123 (9th Cir. 1979), enfg. 228 NLRB 1420 (1977).] The record shows that the Union has acted in an un- reasonable, arbitrary, and invidious manner. The Board has' repeatedly held that refusals to defer dissidents like Porter, for discriminatory reasons, were violative of Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(a) and (2) of the Act.16 I reach the same conclusion with respect to Porter in this case. I also conclude that the beginning date of discrimina- tion was June 9, 1983, 6 months prior to the service of the charge in this case. Although the earliest date of a job to which Porter could have been referred, shown by the evidence, was about mid-July, the Board has con- cluded with judicial approval that "`it is unnecessary to show that jobs were available at the time of the request for referral."' Laborers Local 38, supra, fn. 4 The Board also noted its position that the burden of negating the General Counsel's prima facie case of discrimination in hiring referrals falls upon Respondent (id). Although a document purporting to be the last "out-of-work" book is in evidence, I cannot accept it as a sufficient rebuttal of the General Counsel's prima facie case, from June 9 to about July 15, because of (1) the errors in, and discrimi- natory manner-in which, the book was kept, (2) the fact that the names on the earlier pages do not even purport to be signatures, and, instead, are printed copies of names in earlier versions (Jt Exh 4), and (3) the fact that no prior books were submitted in response to. the General Counsel's subpoena-despite which fact the Union sub- mitted a portion of -a 1981 book in an attempt to impeach Porter. Such omissions and inconsistencies do not consti- tute an adequate rebuttal of the General Counsel's prima facie case concerning the beginning date of discrimina- tion. As noted above, the complaint alleges that Respondent operated an "exclusive" referral procedure. An affirma- tive finding of this allegation is not a prerequisite to a finding of a violation, since the Board has held a union violated the Act when it, "acting as the statutory exclu- sive bargaining representative, discriminatorily refused assistance through its nonexclusive hiring hall arrange- ment to certain employees in the represented bargaining unit . .. " Operating Engineers Local No. 4 (Carlson Corp.), 189 NLRB 366 (1971). Nonetheless, in agreement 16 Laborers ' Local 383 (AGC of Arizona), 266 NLRB 934 (1983), H H Robertson Co, supra, fn. 15, Longshoremen Local 1408 (Jacksonville Mari- time Assn ), 258 NLRB 132 (1981), enfd 705 F 2d 1549 (11th Cir 1983). 442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the General Counsel, I conclude that the language of the agreements set forth above establishes an exclusive referral procedure.17 In accordance with my findings above, I make the fol- lowing CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • 1. Rust Engineering Company (Rust) is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. -- - 2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent operates an exclusive hiring hall or re- ferral system whereby it refers applicants • for employ- ment with Rust. 4. Beginning about June 9, 1983, and continuing there- after, Respondent Union discriminatorily failed and re- fused to refer Ted L. Porter for employment with Rust, because' Porter had filed an unfair labor charge against, Respondent; had initiated and won a-state court-lawsuit against it; had filed a grievance against an employer with whom Respondent had a collective-bargaining agree- ment, had filed a charge alleging erroneous printing of approved amendments to the bylaws, and had engaged in concerted, protected activities. ' . - 5. By the action described in Conclusion of Law 4, Respondent, Union has caused or attempted to cause an employer to discriminate against Porter in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and the Union has thereby en- gaged in unfair labor 'practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair-labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion.2(6) and (7) of the Act." ..THE REMEDY - - Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. I shall recommend that the Union be ordered to make whole Ted L. Porter -for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, with interest thereon computed on a quarterly basis in the manner described by the Board in F. W. Wool- worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).18 I shall also recommended that Respondent Union be required to maintain and make available for the Board or its agents, upon request, all out-of-work lists, books, or referral cards in its possession, work requests, -and any other- documents and records showing job referrals and the basis for such referrals of employees, members, and applicants. I further recommend that Respondent Union be ordered to notify Porter in writing that use of the Union's referral system will be available to him on an equal and nondiscriminatory basis with other employees and applicants. Because Respondent has used an alleged verbal amendment of its recently adopted card referral system as a pretext to discriminate against Porter, and because there is evidence that it intends to-continue such practice against Porter and others, I shall recommend that it be required to reduce any such amendments to writing, and to mail a copy thereof and a copy of the new. rules to Porter, to every union member, and to every job appli- cant since January 1, 1984, at his or her last known ad- dress. For this reason, and, in addition, because there is' record evidence that Respondent placed the names of certain individuals above others who had signed at an, earlier date in its former out-of-work book,-and because its new rules do not require it to refer _applicants for em- ployment in any particular order of preference, I shall further recommend a broad order. I shall also recommend that Respondent be required to post appropriate notices. " On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed19 . ORDER The Respondent, Teamsters Local Union #519, affili- ated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall - 1. Cease and desist from - . (a) Causing or attempting to cause any employer to deny employment to, or in any other manner to discrimi- nate against, Ted L. Porter, or any other employee or applicant for employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. (b) Refusing to refer Ted L. Porter, or any other em- ployee or applicant for employment, because they file unfair labor practice charges, intraunion charges, or law- suits against Respondent, or grievances against an em- ployer with whom Respondent has a collective- bargain- ing agreement, or engage in concerted, protected activi- ties. (c) In any -other 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 which is nec- essary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. (a) Refer Ted L. Porter for employment to positions for which he is qualified on an equal and nondiscrimina- tory basis with other employees and applicants. (b) Make whole Ted L.' Porter for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify Ted L. Porter, in writing, that Respondent's referral system will be available to him on -an equal and nondiscriminatory basis with other employees and appli- cants. 19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, . and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the 17 Cement Masons (Duran Maguire Corp), 216 NLRB 568, 569 (1975) Board and all -objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- 18 See generally Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) poses TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING) (d) Reduce to writing any amendment of Respondent's new referral system adopted in January 1984, and mail a copy thereof, and a copy of the new rules, to Porter, every union member, and every job applicant since Janu- ary 1, 1984, at his or her last known address. (e) Maintain and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination, all out-of-work books, lists, or referral cards in its possession, work re- quests, and any other documents and records showing job referrals and the basis for such referrals of employ- ees, members, and applicants, which are necessary to compute and analyze the amount of backpay due Porter, and to assure him equal treatment. (f) Post at its business offices, hiring hall, and meeting places, copies of the attached ' notice marked "Appen- dix."20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being signed -by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are cus- tomarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 20 If thig 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 MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 443 The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause any employer to deny employment to, or in any other manner to dis- criminate against, Ted L. Porter, or any other individual in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Re- lations Act. WE WILL NOT refuse to refer Ted L. Porter, or any other individual, for employment because they file unfair labor practice charges, intraunion charges, or lawsuits against us, or grievances against employers with whom we have collective-bargaining agreements, or engage in protected, concerted activities, or for any other unfair and arbitrary reason. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. WE WILL refer Ted L. Porter for employment to posi- tions for which he is qualified, on an equal and nondis- criminatory basis with other individuals, and WE WILL notify him in writing to this effect. WE WILL make whole Ted L. Porter for any loss of .earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against him, with interest. WE WILL reduce to writing any amendments of our new referral rules adopted and posted in January, and mail a copy of the amendments and a copy of the new rules'to Ted L. Porter, every member of the Union, and every applicant for employment since January 1, 1984. TEAMSTERS LOCAL -UNION #519, AFFILI- ATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTH- ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER- ICA