Glenn Machine Works, Inc.

658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Glenn Machine Works, Inc. and Roger D. Price International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 92, AFL-CIO and Roger D. Price. Cases 26-CA-10849 and 26-CB-2079 B. Respondent International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 92, AFL-CIO, Birmingham, Alabama, its of- ficers, agents, and representative, shall take the action set forth in the Order. 22 November 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND BABSON On 17 June 1985 Administrative Law Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that A. Respondent Glenn Machine Works, Inc., Co- lumbus, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b). "(b) Offer immediate and full employment to Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger Price in the posi- tions they would have had but for the unlawful conduct or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges in the manner set forth in the section of the deci- sion entitled `The Remedy."' 2. Substitute the attached notice marked Appen- dix A for that of the administrative law judge. ' The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra- tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re- versing the findings 2 The judge's recommended remedy provides that Respondent Glenn be directed to return Roger Price to his former position of foreman and, if necessary, remove from that position persons employed after it termi- nated Price We do not agree The record does not clearly specify the jobs that were available after 15 February 1984 for which Price was qualified, but was wrongfully denied Therefore, we shall leave to the compliance stage of this proceeding the determination of the position to which Price should be reinstated APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES 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 tell our employees that they have to get things straight with International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 92, AFL-CIO or any other labor organiza- tion before we employ them. WE WILL NOT tell our employees that they have to make it right with Ironworkers Local 92's busi- ness agent before we employ them. WE WILL NOT refuse to employ anyone because they engage in protected internal union political activities or because we believe that they are in dis- favor with a labor organization because of protect- ed activities. WE WILL offer immediate and full employment to Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger Price to the po- sitions they would have had but for the unlawful conduct, or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges, and WE WILL, along with International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 92, AFL-CIO, make Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger Price whole for all loss of earnings suf- fered by reason of our discrimination, with interest. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. GLENN MACHINE WORKS, INC. 277 NLRB No. 76 GLENN MACHINE WORKS 659 Margaret Theiner, Esq., for the General Counsel. Hunter N. Gholson, Esq., for Respondent Glen Machine Works, Inc. Thomas N. Crawford Jr., Esq., for Respondent Ironwork- ers Local 92. Roger D. Price, appearing for himself. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge. This matter was heard in Columbus, Mississippi, on 14 and 15 January 1985. The issues stem from an amended complaint dated 28 November 1984. The original charge was filed on 3 July 1984 in Region 10. On 15 August 1984 the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued an order transferring the cases from Region 10 to Region 26. Facts i In this case the General Counsel attempted to prove that Respondent Glenn refused to employ, and Respond- ent Local 92 refused to refer for employment, two mem- bers of Local 92, Roger Price and Jerry Rogers, because Price and Rogers were in disfavor with Local 92 as a result of their involvement in internal union political ac- tivities. H. L. (Babe) Thacker, the current business agent of Local 92, was opposed by Price and Rogers on three separate occasions. Prior to 1980 Thacker had served as Local 92's busi- ness agent for a number of years. However, during the 1980 election, Wayne Lucas ran against Thacker and de- feated him for the position of business agent. Both Price and Rogers actively supported Lucas. The evidence proved without conflict that their work in opposition to the election of Thacker became known to both Thacker and Respondent Glenn. Prior to 1980, one of the assistant business agents for Local 92 was Bonzell McGee Since at that time assistant business agents served pursuant to appointment by the business agent, McGee lost his position when Thacker was defeated in the 1980 election.' Roger Price opposed Thacker and McGee again fol- lowing the 1980 election when Thacker and McGee at- tempted to establish a separate local union in Columbus, ' The commerce facts and conclusions are not at issue Respondents, Glenn and Local 92, respectively, in their answers as supplemented by stipulations on the record, admitted that Glenn is a corporation with an office and place of business in Columbus , Mississippi , where it is and has been engaged in steel fabrication and erection and is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act Respondents also admitted that Local 92 is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act 2 The record revealed that, beginning after 1980, the assistant business agents, as well as the business agents, ran for election Although, unlike the case of the business agent , the assistant business agents were not in- stalled as a direct result of the election, it became the practice after 1980, according to the testimony of H L Thacker, for the business agent to appoint those two members who ran for assistant business agent and re- ceived the highest and second highest number of votes respectively Mississippi.3 At a meeting called to organize the Colum- bus, Mississippi local Price spoke against the idea of a Columbus local Again the position supported by Price prevailed. Thacker and McGee were not successful in organizing a separate local. However, in 1983 when H. L. Thacker again ran for election as business agent of Local 92 against Lucas, he was successful. Again, Price and Rogers campaigned against Thacker. After his election, Thacker tried unsuc- cessfully to persuade one of the election winners to post- pone his acceptance of an assistant business agent posi- tion in order to enable Thacker to appoint Bonzell McGee. Thacker did appoint McGee to another Local 92 position, that of area steward, for the area which in- cluded Columbus, Mississippi. Prior to the June 1983 election, both Price and Rogers had been employed continuously for a number of years by Respondent Glenn. In February 1984 both were ter- minated by Glenn and, with rare exceptions, neither has worked since then either for Glenn or for anyone pursu- ant to referral from Respondent Union. A. The Relationship Between Respondent Glenn and Respondent Local 92 Glenn is engaged in the construction industry in Co- lumbus, Mississippi. In that business, which includes the installation of steel and machines, Glenn employs iron- workers and millwrights. Glenn looks to Local 92 to provide it with a competent work force of ironworkers. Under the referral practice established by their collec- tive-bargaining agreement, Glenn customarily calls for, and Local 92 refers to Glenn, needed ironworkers. Those referrals include ironworker foremen as needed by Glenn. It was proved without contest that the accepted prac- tice provides that Glenn may acquire their ironworkers by three methods:4 1. Glenn may request that Local 92 send it a cer- tain number of Ironworkers without specifying the workers by name. Under that type of request ac- cording to the unrebutted testimony of Assistant Business Agent Sam Shaw, Local 92 is obligated to select from that respective month's out of work reg- ister, beginning with the registered worker showing the oldest out of work date and continuing progres- sively to select each next out of work registrant showing the longest out of work period, until Glenn's requested number is satisfied. 2. Glenn may request any number of Ironworkers by name. In that event, again according to the unre- butted testimony of Sam Shaw, Local 92 is obligat- ed to refer the requested member(s) even though the particular Ironworkers may or may not be reg- istered on that month's out of work register. 3 Respondent Local 92 which is located in Birmingham, Alabama, serves 35 counties in Alabama and two, which include Columbus, in Mis- sissippi ' Of course, Glenn could use any combination of the following meth- ods to select a number of ironworkers 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Glenn may employ any Ironworker by con- tacting the employee directly and not going through Local 92. B. The Facts Material to the Instant Controversy 1980 Roger Price testified that shortly after the 1980 union election in which Wayne Lucas defeated H. L. Thacker for business agent of Local 92, Thacker and Bonzell McGee attempted to organize a separate local in Colum- bus, Mississippi. A meeting was called with representa- tives of the International. At that meeting Price spoke out against a separate local in Columbus. Afterward Price had a conversation with Bonzell McGee in a restaurant in Hamilton, Mississippi: A. (McGee) was really upset with,me about not supporting him and-in his political moves to get the Local Union and to-and defeating Mr. Thacker in the '80 election. Q. What did he say to you? A. He said some things that I had rather not repeat in court, but-in here in front of mixed com- pany. But he told me that he would get even some day. He'd get his chance. If he ever got back in power he would get even with me. As shown below, I discredit Bonzell McGee's denial that he threatened Roger Price during the above-men- tioned conversation. 1983 and 1984 (Before the Layoff of Rogers and Price) In June 1983 H. L. Thacker regained the position of business agent by defeating Wayne Lucas. Shortly after that election Roger Price saw Bonzell McGee on a Glenn job at General Tire: [McGee] said that things was going to change the next three years in this area. The same people wouldn't be working at Glenn Machine Works after-all time, the same few that had been working there would change. Again, as shown below, I discredit McGee's denial of the above conversation. During the last 2 years of the administration of Wayne Lucas as business agent, until 1983 Jerry Rogers served as job steward on his jobs with Glenn. Bobby Hudson served as area steward during the Lucas administration. When Thacker was elected, he removed Hudson and appointed Bonzell McGee as area steward. Concerning the practice of removing job stewards, it is customary for a job steward to be replaced in writing. Jerry Rogers was working on a Glenn job at Weyer- hauser when he was notified of his dismissal as job stew- ard. His replacement brought a note written on toilet paper by Business Agent Thacker to Tommy Glenn. Tommy Glenn is one of the stockholders, along with his brother Sonny, that manage Glenn. According to unre- butted testimony of Jerry Rogers, the toilet paper note read: "To Tommy Glenn." And, it said down there, it said, "Since I have been treated like shit for over the period of the last three years I feel like this paper is appropriate for this dismissal." After the Weyerhauser job, Jerry Rogers, along with Junior Plunk, started working on a Glenn job at General Tire. Rogers, in accord with regular practice, appointed himself job steward since he was the only ironworker on the job. When two additional men were ordered 2 weeks later, Bonzell McGee replaced Rogers as job steward. However, since he had not been replaced by phone or letter, Rogers called Assistant Business Agent Sam Shaw. Shaw told Rogers that he should continue serving as job steward. Nevertheless, the next day Shaw was overruled and Rogers was dismissed as job steward on the General Tire job. While still on the General Tire job, Rogers had a conversation with Bonzell McGee in the presence of Johnny Perkins. McGee told Rogers, "The tables have been turned on you and your buddy." Rogers testified that McGee was referring to Roger Price as his buddy.5 Rogers and Roger Price had worked together for several years. As in all of the instances, Bonzell McGee denied the above-mentioned conversation. I credit the testimony of Jerry Rogers. Discussion as to the Incidents Involving Bonzell McGee Bonzell McGee denied all questions which implied im- proper comments by him. That testimony which was in direct conflict with two other witnesses did not appear logical under the circumstances. It was established that McGee was strongly opposed on three occasions by Price and Rogers. Moreover, McGee admitted that on the day of his conversation with Price in Hamilton, Mis- sissippi, Price refused to employ McGee after McGee was referred to the job. Nevertheless, according to McGee, he said nothing at any time to either Price or Rogers which would demonstrate his displeasure with their treatment of him. Moreover, in another area McGee's answers under cross-examination were conflict- ing. When first asked by the General Counsel about ef- forts to have him appointed assistant business agent in 1983, McGee denied all knowledge of such an effort. Subsequently, McGee admitted that he had heard talk that Thacker wanted to replace Assistant Business Agent Goolsby with McGee. I observed McGee's demeanor. I was not impressed with his demeanor. I found that he was evasive in his an- swers on cross-examination. While other agents of the Union, notably Sam Shaw, admitted making comments which reflected conflicts between McGee and Thacker on one hand and Rogers and Price on the other, McGee'stestimony failed to reveal similar candor. In my opinion, Bonzell McGee was not a reliable witness. 5 According to Rogers, his only other buddies were Johnny and Terry Perkins . However, both Johnny and Terry Perkins were supporters of H. L Thacker Moreover, Johnny Perkins was present when McGee made the above-mentioned statement to Rogers. GLENN MACHINE WORKS Both Roger Price and Jerry Rogers appeared to testify in a credible fashion. In most respects involving persons other than Bonzell McGee, their testimony was either unrebutted, admitted, or not directly denied . Additional- ly, I was impressed with their testimony on cross. Roger Price was particularly impressive in his explana- tion of several incidents which Respondent Glenn point- ed to as a basis for Price's layoff. Although Price ex- pressed surprise at the way in which Glenn allegedly weighed those incidents, his recollection of the facts ap- peared frank and similar to the factual accounts of Tommy Glenn. In my opinion both Rogers and Price were truthful in their testimony. January 1984 In January 1984 Price spoke with Assistant Business Agent Eddie Goolsby first in the underlay department at General Tire and then at the Reagan Company. Goolsby told Price that Business Agent Thacker had asked Goolsby to step down as assistant business agent and permit Thacker to appoint Bonzell McGee to the assist- ant business agent position. In return Thacker promised Goolsby Roger Price's job at Glenn. At that time Price was a foreman at Glenn. Goolsby told Price that "They were going to get [Price] one way or the other, they were going to get [Price's] job." Discussion H. L. Thacker admitted that he did ask Eddie Goolsby to temporarily step down in order to permit the appoint- ment of Bonzell McGee as assistant business agent. Thacker testified that after considering his request, Goolsby declined to step down. Goolsby did not personally testify. In an affidavit which was offered into the record, Goolsby's testimony did not include the above-mentioned January conversa- tion. No explanation was offered as to how Price knew of Thacker's proposal to have Goolsby step down as as- sistant business agent, other than through the above-men- tioned conversations with Goolsby, In view of my find- ing that Price was a credible witness and the lack of a denial about the contents of his conversations with Goolsby, I find that the conversations occurred as relat- ed by Price. The Layoffs Both Price and Rogers were laid off by Glenn at or near the completion of Glenn's General Tire job around 15 February 1984. As to his layoff, Price testified: A. That was a pay period ending February 15th. I'm not really positive that was the last day. That was the last pay period . Anyhow the last day that I worked, Mr. Glenn came by and we rode around back of the Underlay and looked over the job. He did, occasionally he carne by the job. JUDGE ROBERTSON: Which Mr. Glen are you talking about? 661 THE WITNESS: Mr. Tommy Glenn. And, told me to take a few days off. And, that we would have something coming up real soon. BY Ms. THEINER: (Resuming.) Q. Okay, did he say anything else to you? A. Yes, ma'am. I asked him to go-about going on down to Weyerhauser. And, since these rumors, you know, I trusted the man-but the rumors were-well, I asked him about going to Weyer- hauser and he said we couldn't do that right now. Couldn't let me go down there right now. The Post Layoff Period Following their layoffs, both Price and Rogers sought work from Glenn and through Local 92. Approximately 2 weeks after his layoff, Price asked Tommy Glenn for work while he was at Glenn to pick up his check. Glenn told Price there was no work ready for Price. Price testified that after that conversation he had several conversations with Tommy Glenn in which he asked for work. Tommy Glenn admitted that Price talked to him about work . Glenn admitted specifically that Price talked to him "about doing other work [than work as a foreman] as well [as work as a foreman]." On 4 June 1984 according to Price he had a phone conversation with Tommy Glenn: A. Yes, Ma'am, I called Mr. Glenn and asked him, after I had seen the-I didn 't think he was ever going to let me go back to work , I asked him what the problem was, what could I do to make things rights and get back to work. He said that I would have to make things-get things straight between myself and the Business Agent or the Union before I could return to work. Q. And, where were you when you made this call? A. From my home. Q. Do you remember anything ; else that was said in that conversation? A. Yes, I asked him was this the reason I hadn't been working, and he said it was. That I just had to get things right between myself and the Union before I could go back to work. Tommy Glenn was asked if he recalled telling Price that "for him to get employment he would have to make it right with the Union?" Glenn replied, "I don't remem- ber saying that to Roger [Price]." After his layoff, Jerry Rogers was also unsuccessful in finding work. In May 1984 according to his testimony he went to Glenn, and spoke to Tommy Glenn and Sonny Glenn: A. We went into Tommy's office, wasn't anyone in there the best that I can remember now. And, we sat down. And, I asked Sonny and Tommy, I said, I want to know how come I can't work no more. Sonny said I thought you was working. He turned and looked at Tommy, and said, Tommy, do you know anything about this. And, Tommy said Jerry, you're going to have to make it 662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD right with Babe Thacker. And, he also told me that Roger had to make it right with Babe Thacker too. When asked about the above conversation, Tommy Glenn testified: Jerry Wayne came in the office one day and wanted to go to work and wanted to know why he hadn't gone to work. And, he was talking to me and Sonny both. And, I told him that he needed to go back to the Local and get referred, or go back and get straightened out with Babe or whoever it was to get straightened out with so he could get re- ferred to the job. Discussion As shown above, I found both Price and Rogers to be credible witnesses. I am convinced that Tommy Glenn told both, in effect, that they would have to get straight with the Union before they could return to work with Glenn Machine. Glenn admitted having that conversa- tion with Rogers, and he did not recall the conversation with Price. I credit Price and Rogers' account of those two conversations. Contact with the Union The record shows that beginning immediately after their layoffs from Glenn, Price and Rogers contacted the Union about needing work. On the next day after his layoff, Roger Price called Local 92 and spoke with Assistant Business Agent Goolsby and perhaps Assistant Business Agent Shaw as well.6 Price specifically recalled the conversation with Goolsby. He told Goolsby that, "I was afraid that what he had told me before had gone to pass, that they had gotten my job." Price told Goolsby that he was out of work. From that time Price continued to call and visit Local 92 on a regular basis.' Price testified that he frequently told the assistant business agents at Local 92 that both he and Jerry Rogers needed work. Rogers also made nu- merous phone calls and visits to Local 92 seeking refer- ral for work. Local 92 witnesses Thacker and Shaw did not dispute testimony from Price and Rogers that they frequently contacted the Local and indicated that they remained out of work. However, Shaw testified that the Local's operating procedure requires that members may be referred for work only when requested specifically by name by an employer or in response to a request for un- specified ironworkers, when they appear on the respec- tive month's out-of-work register. Only members listed on that month's out-of-work register are eligible for re- ferral unless an employer specifies a requested worker by name. According to Shaw, members may register as out of work through one of two methods: 8 Price testified that he believed he also talked with Shaw on that oc- casion ° Price's phone bill reflected that he called the Local office 25 times during the period from March through 13 December 1984 1. The member may appear at the Local's office during the respective month and personally sign the out of work register, listing his last day of work. 2. The member, if he lives over 50 miles from the union hall, as did Price and Rogers, may call the business agent or one of the assistant business agents and have his name placed on the register. However, the member's name will not be placed on the regis- ter unless the member specifically asks the business agent or assistant business agent to put his name on the register. Assistant Business Agent Shaw testified that for sever- al months after their termination in February, both Price and Rogers failed to specifically request him to place their names on the register. 8 Shaw admitted that from the time he first talked to Price and Rogers, after their February 1984 layoffs, he knew they were out of work and were looking for jobs. He also admitted he knew they were calling from 100 miles from the Local hall. Shaw recalled that at some point he explained that Price and Rogers needed to be on the out-of-work register, and that he did sign them on the register. However, through October 1984, neither Price nor Rogers ap- peared on the register (see below). Until that time nei- ther Price's, nor Rogers' names were included on the reg- ister because, according to the Local, neither specifically asked that their name be entered. Price and Rogers testified that they contacted the Local in the hope of being referred out to work, and it was not until after the unfair labor practice charge was filed in July that they learned of the Union's requirement that callers must specifically request inclusion on the out- of-work register. Neither was told by the Union of that practice. Price was unable to recall specifically when he re- quested inclusion on the out-of-work register, but he be- lieved he made a specific request in July or August. On 24 September 1984 Price called Assistant Business Agent Goolsby and asked to be referred to a job at Glenn. Price told Goolsby that he had learned from Glenn's supervisor, Perkins, that Glenn was ordering eight men that day. Goolsby told Price that he was on the out-of-work referrals and would be the next referred to a job. However, Price was not called. Assistant Business Agent Sam Shaw admitted to a con- versation with Price in September 1984: That's when he-the best I can remember that's when he told me that he was suing, you know, about the lawsuit. And, then he had told me that Mr. Goolsby had told him the reason he wasn't working he had voted the wrong way. 8 Neither Price nor Rogers was aware of the requirement that mem- bers must specifically request inclusion of their names on the out-of-work register. There was no showing on the record that Local 92 ever in- formed its members of that practice. 9 The regular out-of-work registers did not show inclusion of either Price or Rogers from February through October 1984 However, four pages covering portions of the months of February and August or Sep- tember had been removed and were missing. I credit Price's account of his 24 September conversation with Goolsby GLENN MACHINE WORKS Price recalled that in one of his conversations when he called Assistant Business Agent Shaw at Shaw's home, Shaw told him that what Thacker and McGee had against him most was his opposition to the Columbus local being established. I credit Price's recollection of this conversation. Jerry Rogers testified that during March 1984 while in the union hall to pay his dues, Assistant Business Agent Goolsby told Rogers that "The reason that we had lost our jobs that we didn't support Babe Thacker."10 On that same visit Rogers talked with Assistant Business Agent Sam Shaw. Shaw told Rogers, "I guess you know . . . you just didn't back the right person." After review- ing his affidavit, Rogers recalled that "Sam [Shaw] said we didn't support Babe, me or Roger, that's the reason we lost our job." I credit Rogers' testimony. In addition to his discussions with the Union, Rogers, as well as Price, regularly talked to Glenn about work. On one occasion Rogers talked with Supervisor Terry Perkins. Perkins told him Glenn had a job going at Jef- frey Steel and that he could use Rogers for that job. Per- kins told Rogers, "that he had been trying to get them to call me . . . they wouldn't call me."" 1 On cross-exami- nation, Rogers recalled that Perkins told him that he had been trying to get Steward Woodrow Howell to have Local 92 refer Rogers to the Glenn job. Glenn's Superintendent Cornithan testified that he had requested Rogers on a couple of occasions in 1984, but that Rogers was not sent by the Union. C. Findings The ultimate question herein involves the allegations that Price and Rogers were illegally denied referrals and employment by Respondents because of their internal union political activities. There was no contention made by either Respondent to the effect that either Price or Rogers engaged in any union activity which would legal- ly justify reprisals. Their internal union political activities constitute activities protected under the National Labor Relations Act. A violation must be found if the evidence establishes that Price and Rogers were denied referrals and/or employment because of their internal union politi- cal activities regardless of the fact that Local 92's hiring hall was not their exclusive means of employment. Team- sters Local 923 (Yellow Cab), 172 NLRB 2137 (1968); Hoisting & Portable Engineers Local 4, 189 NLRB 366 (1971). Each Respondent denies that employment/referrals were deified Price and Rogers because of their union ac- tivities. In determining the relevant issues, it is unnecessary to determine whether there was collusion between the two Respondents. If the evidence shows that Respondent Glenn denied employment to Price and/or Rogers be- cause of their union political activities or simply because of its belief that they were in disfavor with Local 92 be- 10 Again, I credit Rogers' testimony Goolsby did not testify at the hearing His affidavit contained a denial that he told Rogers why Rogers was laid off Since I was unable to obseive Goolsby 's demeanor, I credit Rogers whom I found to be a credible witness 11 Rogers' testimony about his conversation with Perkins was unrebut- ted 663 cause of their union political activities , a violation would have been established. Steelton, Inc., 266 NLRB 881, 885 (1983). Moreover, if the evidence shows that Local 92 refused to refer, or otherwise interfered with, employment for Price and/or Rogers because of their political union ac- tivities, a violation will have been established. The record shows that Roger Price was neither re- ferred to work by Local 92 nor was he employed by Glenn from 15 February 1984 until 20 October 1984. On 21 October he was telephoned by Assistant Business Agent Sam Shaw and told to report to work for Glenn at the jobsite for Weyerhauser. As directed, Price report- ed the following day. However, Local 92's job steward and the Glenn foreman refused to permit Price to work. Price went to Glenn's office and asked Tommy Glenn why he was' not permitted to, work. Glenn told Price that he did not know but perhaps they did not want him down there anymore. Glenn said he did not know "where he was legally" but that he would get back with Price later. Later that evening, 22 October 1984, Glenn's superintendent Jerry Cornithan telephoned Price and told him to report to work at Glenn's Weyerhauser job on 23 October and that Price would also be paid as though he had worked on 22 October. After a few days, Price was transferred to Glenn's job at United Cement. Price telephoned Assistant Business Agent Shaw and asked who was job steward since Price was the only ironworker on that job. Shaw appointed Price as job steward. However, Price was removed as job steward by Bonzell McGee. McGee sent word by his son, Steve McGee, that McGee did not want anybody that had a charge against the Local being a job steward. Price continued to work for Glenn until 9 November 1984 when he was laid off. Price has not been recalled. Rogers worked for Glenn for 2 days in June 1984 even though he was not referred by Local 92, and in Novem- ber 1984 for about 9 days. He, like Price, has not been recalled. The record illustrated that from 15 February 1984 Glenn had positions available which it could have filled with Price and/or Rogers. In consideration of the allegations of 8(a)(1) and (3) violations by Glenn's refusing to employ Price and Rogers after 15 February 1984, the crucial question is one of motive. Regarding Price, Glenn, through Tommy Glenn, contended that because of several factors, it became dissatisfied with Price's work as foreman and elected to try someone else in that position. Glenn did not advance any reasons why it elected not to employ Price as a journeyman, and, in fact, as shown above, it did employ him as a journeyman in October and Novem- ber 1984. Concerning Rogers, Tommy Glenn admitted that Glenn was not unhappy with Rogers' work. Glenn Su- perintendent Cornithan and Foreman Perkins admittedly sought, without success, the Union 's referral of Rogers to Glenn jobs. In accord with the rationale of Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Or. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), I shall first question 664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD whether the General Counsel proved a prima facie case. If that question is answered. yes, then I shall consider whether Respondent would have refused to employ Price or Rogers in the absence of their protected activi- ties. Obviously, the most damaging evidence against Glenn is the credited testimony that Tommy Glenn told first Rogers, then Price, that they had to get straight with the Union before he could put them to work. A similar com- ment was found to establish an 8(a)(1) and (3) violation in Berry-Mahurin Construction, 258 NLRB 1259 ( 1981). Glenn could have hired Price and Rogers by either spe- cifically requesting them from Local 92 or by employing them directly without going through the Local. Glenn was under no legal obligation to await Local 92's ap- proval before hiring either Price or Rogers. Tommy Glenn's comments illustrate his unwillingness to risk dis- pleasing the Union by hiring Price or Rogers. See Chapin & Chapin, 213 NLRB 250, 255 (1974). Glenn argues that it should not be held responsible for abuses by a union hiring hall. I agree. However, that is not at issue here. Glenn was not bound to the hiring hall. The record established that Glenn could legally hire Price and Rogers without even contacting Local 92. Glenn's motive in refusing to regularly employ Price and Rogers is further illustrated in comments to Rogers by other Glenn agents. Both Foreman Terry Perkins and Superintendent Cornithan requested that Rogers be re- ferred to Glenn by Local 92. Neither Perkins nor Cor- nithan's request was honored. As noted above, Glenn could have employed Rogers directly on all those occa- sions. Apparently, they did not do so because Rogers did not receive a referral from Local 92. I find that the record establishes the following: 1. In May 1984, Tommy Glenn told Jerry Rogers that he and Roger Price had to "make it right" with Business Agent Thacker in order to work for Glenn. 12 2. On 4 June 1984, Tommy Glenn told Roger Price that he had not been working for Glenn and could not work for Glenn until he got "straight" with the business agent. 3. Subsequently, Foreman Perkins and Superin- tendent Cornithan told Jerry Rogers that they had tried without success to have the Local refer Rogers to Glenn jobs. Rogers was not hired on those occasions even though Glenn could have le- gally hired him without going through the Local. The above comments by admitted supervisors of Glenn establish that Glenn's motive in refusing to regularly employ Price and Rogers after 15 February 1984 was their impression that Price and Rogers were in disfavor with Local 92. I find that the General Counsel has estab- lished a prima facie case that Glenn has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by refusing to regularly employ Rogers and Price after 15 February 1984, 12 Glenn employed Rogers on a job of 2 days' duration in June 1984. However, he has never been rehired to a position substantially equivalent to the regular job he held with Glenn before February 1984. I shall now consider whether the record shows that Glenn would have continued to refuse to employ Price and Rogers absent their political activity. Regarding Jerry Rogers, Tommy Glenn admitted that Glenn "had no reason not to" rehire Rogers. Rogers worked for Glenn regularly for at least 2 years before his February 1984 layoff. Since that layoff, he has worked only briefly on two occasions (see above). Tommy Glenn testified that Glenn would have employed Rogers if he had been referred to them by the Union. As shown above, I have found that the General Counsel proved that Glenn could have hired Rogers after February 1984 but did not do so because of his protected activities. In view of Tommy Glenn's above-mentioned testimony, it is apparent, and I find, that Glenn did not show that Rogers would have been denied employment in the ab- sence of his protected activities. Regarding Roger Price, early in the instant hearing, Tommy Glenn was examined by counsel for the General Counsel as follows: Q. Why did you not want him back? A. I had other people to do the job just as good. Q. Okay, any other reason that you didn't call Mr. Price? A. Yeah. Do you want me to give my-the use- you're asking me to tell you why I didn't want to work him any more? Q. Correct. A. Jerry Wayne is an entirely different thing from Roger. I didn't-he just wasn't referred. Roger-well, the time that we laid Roger off at General Tire and there was a period that I thought I would try it without Roger and see how I got along without him. And, we got along just fine, so we didn't want to use him any more. We had had some recurring problems on the job, just things that kind of built up over a period of time. And, we decided we would try it without Roger, or I did. And, I tried it without him and ev- erything went just fine, so I didn't want him any more. Q. What kinds of problems, Mr. Glenn? A. Well, we kept having a problem on the job with the ironworkers and the millwrights. The Iron- workers didn't want to work for a Millwright. Jerry Cornithan, who was the boss, the problem kept cropping up, just kept coming up. And, we would go and stop it but it kept coming back up. In addition to that we kept having lots of com- plaints from our customers. Q. What kinds of complaints? A. Not a lot of complaints, some. The foremen being late for work, leaving work early in the after- noon, and the quality of the work. Q. The quality of Mr. Price's work? A. Right. Q. Can you give me an example or explain what you mean by the quality of his work? A. I don't know, you know, just-rather than drilling holes on a job, was burning holes with a torch. Having to go back to the job too frequently GLENN MACHINE WORKS to make the customer happy with them, you know, put them like he wanted them. Is that an example? Q. I'm asking you. Is that one of the things that you relied upon? A. Urn-huh. Q. Anything else that you relied upon, Mr. Glenn? In considering Mr. Price's work, the quality of his work? A. The quality of the work? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yeah, talking about the profitability of it. Wasn't making any money on what we were doing. Q. Was that a factor in your not hiring Mr. Price? A. Yes, yes. Q. Anything else, Mr Glenn' Any other reasons why you didn't recall Mr. Price? A. Abusing the equipment. Q. Okay. When was that? A. It just went on over a period of time. Q. What period of time are you talking about' A. I mean the time he worked, for me. You know, the truck, he would drive it, just.abusing it. We lost a lot of hand tools, small tools he wouldn't keep up with, etcetera. Q. Anything else? A. Nothing that I can think of right now. Concerning customer complaints, Tommy Glenn first ,estified that the complaints occurred along about "Feb- ruary when Roger (Price) was laid off' or a little before that time. Glenn testified that the complaints were about what was done on the job where Price was foreman, as opposed to being specifically about Roger Price's work. Subsequently, when recalled to testify by Glenn, Tommy Glenn recalled that the complaints he received included one from General Tire during 1982 and that complaint involved quality of work. However, Tommy Glenn testified that he did not recall the specific com- plaint from General Tire. Tommy Glenn also testified that he received a complaint from Weyerhauser, that he did not recall when but "it was probably in 1982" and that it involved "not following directions" but Glenn did not recall what the directions entailed. Glenn testified that he talked'to Price about those problems in 1982. In conflict with his earlier testimony, Tommy Glenn re- called no customer complaints about or shortly before February 1984. Price testified that some problems did arise on one of the General Tire jobs. However,' he testified he was never told that he was being held accountable for the problems which included fabrication of materials. Fabri- cation was performed in the shop and was not performed under Price's supervision. Regarding Weyerhauser, Price testified that he was unaware of any complaints although he admitted that the job was complex and slow due to the nature of the work. Price never received a reprimand about any of his work. Concerning abuse of equipment, Tommy Glenn testi- fied that, through no fault of Price, a truck was damaged when a garbage truck backed into it while it was parked 665 in Starkville, Mississippi. Glenn believed the incident oc- curred in the summer of 1982. Glenn did not hold Price responsible for the accident but did find fault in'Price's inability to have the city of Starkville remedy their dam- ages to Glenn's truck. Price testified without rebuttal that he went to Starkville but was unsuccessful in acquir- ing a copy of the police report of the accident. Howev- er, according to Price, it was customary for Glenn's sec- retary to handle matters involving damage of the type in- volved in the truck accident. Tommy Glenn did not say how Price was at fault in failing to have the city of Starkville remedy the truck damage. Tommy Glenn testi- fied subsequently that a boom on a crane was bent on Price's General Tire job after Price had left the job one day. However, Glenn admitted that Price was routinely required to leave the job for various reasons including handling personal business for himself and for Tommy Glenn. For example, Glenn admitted that occasionally Price was asked to leave the job and pick up football tickets for Tommy Glenn. ' According to Price's unrebut- ted testimony, when he told Glenn that the crane's boom had been bent, Glenn told him "not to worry about it, that he would take care of that; said I worried too much." Tommy Glenn pointed out that there was continuing controversy between the millwrights and the ironwork- ers, and he came to the conclusion that Roger Price was the cause of that controversy. Glenn recalled a problem between the ironworkers and the Millwrights existed during the administration of Business Agent Wayne Lucas. Lucas' administration ended in June 1983. Another witness for Respondent Glenn, Superintend- ent Jerry Cornithan, testified that he and Roger Price had only one conversation with Tommy Glenn about problems between the ironworkers and the millwrights and whether Cornithan, a millwright, or Price, an iron- worker, was overall boss. Cornithan testified that that one conversation occurred in 1981 or 1982. The record reveals that none of the reasons given for refusing to continue to employ Price were ever con- veyed to Price as a basis for disciplinary action against him. Moreover, with the exception of the bent crane boom which occurred during Price's absence, none of the alleged incidents occurred at a time proximate to Price's February 1984 layoff. As an example, Tommy Glenn complained of 1982 complaints from General Tire and Weyerhauser. Nevertheless, the record shows that after those complaints, Glenn assigned Price as foreman on other jobs at Weyerhauser and General Tire in 1983 and 1984. Therefore, I find that the record does not support a finding that Glenn would have refused to employ Price in the absence of his protected activities. Before Febru- ary 1984, Price had worked for Glenn on a regular basis for over 10 years. For approximately 8 years before Feb- ruary 1984, Price had been an ironworker foreman for Glenn. Since February 1984, Price has worked for Glenn as a journeyman briefly on one occasion (see above), at a time after the instant charges were filed. Tommy Glenn also testified that he changed his plan to employ Price as foreman on a job at Jeffrey Steel be- 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cause Price told him he was so mad about being out of work that he was going to whip two ironworkers if they showed up. Price admitted having that conversation with Tommy Glenn. Glenn said that he decided not to use Price as foreman because if he would "put him on the job out there and he would be whipping somebody and that would be me. I couldn't do that." However, Respondent's witness, Superintendent Cor- nithan, testified that Roger Price did not have a temper problem. During his conversation with Tommy Glenn, Price was referring to his continuing controversy with Local 92 over his failure to be referred for work. On other occasions, he discussed the problem with Tommy Glenn including 4 June 1984 when he told Glenn he was suing the Union. At that time Tommy Glenn indicated that he did not disapprove of Price's actions. I am convinced that both Glenn and Price were well aware that Price, by threatening to whip two ironwork- ers, was doing nothing more than expressing his frustra- tions over his treatment by the Local since February 1984. At the time of their conversation, work had al- ready started on the Jeffrey Steel job and Price had not been hired. Moreover, before that date, Tommy Perkins had been promoted to ironworker foreman by Glenn and, as shown above, Perkins told Jerry Rogers that "he had" the job at Jeffrey Steel. Additionally, as shown above, Tommy Glenn alleged that for numerous reasons which occurred before the Jeffrey Steel job, he had de- cided not to use Price as foreman. All the above factors demonstrate that it was never Glenn's intention to employ Price as foreman on the Jef- frey Steel job. Moreover, Price was never told that he would not be hired because of Glenn's alleged fear that he may get into a fight on the job. I find that Tommy Glenn used his conversation with Price as another pretext for refusing to employ Price. The record failed to establish that Price would have not been hired on any of Glenn's jobs after 15 February 1984 absent his protected activities. As in the case of Jerry Rogers, Respondent offered no justification whatsoever for refusing to employ Price as a journeyman, as op- posed to a foreman, after 15 February 1984. Therefore, in accord with the decision in Wright Line, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by refusing to employ Jerry Rogers and Roger Price at all times when it employed ironworkers other than Price and Rogers after 15 February 1984. The 8(a)(1) Allegations As shown above, I credit the testimony that in May 1984 Tommy Glenn threatened Jerry Rogers, and on 4 June 1984 Tommy Glenn threatened Roger Price that they could not work for Glenn until they corrected their differences with Local 92 (see above). Those comments by Glenn tend to restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights. It was well known by Glenn, Price, and Rogers that the differences between Price and Rogers and Local 92 arose as the result of the internal union political activities of Price and Rogers. Those are protected activities. Glenn's comments tend to restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of those and similar activities. The Allegations Against Local 92 From 15 February 1984 until October 1984, Roger Price was not referred out to work by Local 92. Neither was Jerry Rogers referred out during that period. How- ever, the record proved and it was admitted by Local 92 admitted agent, Assistant Business Agent Sam Shaw, that Price and Rogers had sought Local 92's assistance in finding work immediately after their 15 February 1984 layoffs by Glenn. The record is substantial that Local 92 was motivated to even the score with Rogers and Price: 1. Admitted Local 92 Agent Bonzell McGee told Roger Price in 1980 that he would get even with Price if McGee ever got back in power. 2. Shortly after June 1983, Bonzell McGee told Roger Price that the same people would not be working at Glenn Machine during the next 3 years. 3. In 1983, Business Agent Thacker wrote a note to Tommy Glenn on toilet paper dismissing Jerry Rogers as Glenn's job steward stating, "since I've been treated like shit for over the period of the last 3 years, I feel like this paper is apropriate for this dismissal." 4. Bonzell McGee told Jerry Rogers that the tables had turned on Rogers and Price. 5. Admitted agent, Assistant Business Agent Eddie Goolsby, told Roger Price in January 1984 that he had been promised Price's job if Goolsby would step down as assistant business agent and that "one way or the other, they were going to get [Price's] job." 6. In March 1984, Goolsby told Rogers that the "reasons we had lost our jobs that we didn't sup- port Babe Thacker." On that same date, Shaw told Rogers that he "just didn't back the right person." 7. Assistant Business Agent Shaw admitted learn- ing from Roger Price in September 1984 that As- sistant Business Agent Goolsby had told Price that Price was not working because "he had voted the wrong way." Shaw did not dispute the accuracy of Goolsby's comments. 8. Assistant Business Agent Shaw told Price that what Thacker and McGee "had against him most was his opposition to the Columbus local being es- tablished." 9. On 24 September 1984 Assistant Business Agent Goolsby told Price that he was on the out- of-work referral list and was being referred a job with Glenn. The out-of-work list in evidence does not show that Price's name was included,13 and Price was not referred to Glenn as promised by Goolsby. 10. Glenn Foreman Terry Perkins told Rogers that he had unsuccessfully tried to have job steward Woodrow Howell call Rogers for work and Glenn's Superintendent Cornithan asked Local 92 for Rogers to be referred to Glenn without success. I' As noted above, four pages are missing and those pages may include a portion of September 1984 GLENN MACHINE WORKS Due to the missing out-of-work register pages for por- tions of March and August or September 1984, I cannot determine that Price and Rogers were not registered during those months. However, I can and do find, through the admissions of Assistant Business Agent Shaw, that from 15 February 1984, Local 92 has been fully aware that Price and Rogers were actively seeking assistance from Local 92 in finding work. H. H. Robert- son Co., 263 NLRB 1344 (1982); Ironworkers Local 798 (AGC of Mobile), 272 NLRB 679 (1984); Teamsters Local 294, 204 NLRB 700 (1973). Local 92's refusal to provide that assistance presents a clear abuse of its authority . That action tends to restrain and coerce its members in the exercise of protected inter- nal activities. Local 92 in its brief defends in part, on the long delay from Thacker's June 1983 election until Price and Rogers' layoffs in February 1984. However , as shown above, many of the threatening comments by Local 92 agents were made around the time of those layoffs. Moreover, the record fails to reveal that Local 92 had an earlier opportunity to take detrimental actions against Price and Rogers. Obviously, since they were not laid off between June 1983 and February 1984, Local 92 did not have an earlier opportunity to refuse them a job re- ferral. Additionally, I am not impressed with Local 92's argu- ment that Price and Rogers failed to specifically request inclusion on the out-of-work referrals . In the first place, Local 92 failed to prove that Rogers and Price were not included in the register for March, August, and Septem- ber. As noted above, those pages were removed from the register and are missing . Moreover, Assistant Business Agent Shaw testified that he could not recall whether he had entered the names of Price and Rogers in the regis- ter. Secondly, it is clear from Shaw's admissions that shortly after 15 February 1984, Price and Rogers ap- pealed to him as agent for Local 92 to give them assist- ance in finding work. Obviously, from that point, Shaw should have immediately included their names on the register, 14 or, at the very least, explain the procedure for inclusion on the out-of-work register. The testimony re- veals that Shaw did not explain the procedure for regis- tering before the instant unfair labor charges were filed. Local 92 should have properly referred Price and Rogers in accord with its regular referral procedure. Each should have been referred out in accord with his respective out-of-work date. By refusing to refer Price and Rogers from 15 February 1984, Local 92 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. As shown above on nu- merous occasions after Price and Rogers lost their jobs, they were told by agents of Local 92 that their employ- ment was affected by their past protected activities. 2. Additional allegations against Local 92 The complaint further alleges that Local 92 through admitted agents Goolsby and Shaw, threatened members 14 As shown above, Shaw may have included the names in March, August, or September. Nevertheless, neither Price nor Rogers was re- fereed out for work 667 with unspecified reprisals, told a member he was being penalized for his failure to support the incumbent busi- ness agent, and told a member he had lost his job be- cause he had not supported the incumbent business agent in the last election. The credited evidence proved that while visiting the Local in March 1984, Jerry Rogers was told by Eddie Goolsby that "the reason that we (i.e., Rogers and Price) had lost our jobs that we didn't support Babe Thacker." On that same visit, Rogers was told by Sam Shaw, "I guess you know . . . you just didn't back the right person." The above comments by Goolsby and Shaw had the tendency to restrain and coerce members in the exercise of protected rights and are violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I was unable to find evidence sup- porting the General Counsel's allegation that Goolsby threatened a member with unspecified reprisals in July 1984. Therefore, I find that no violation was proved in that regard. Plumbers Local 137, 207 NLRB 359 (1973). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Glenn Machine Works, Inc. is a em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 92, AFL- CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent Glenn, by threatening its employees that they would have to get straight or make it right with Respondent Local 92 in order to be employed by Glenn, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Respondent Glenn, by refusing to employ Roger Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers since about 15 February 1984, has discriminated in regard to hire, tenure and terms and conditions of employment to encourage or dis- courage membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 5. Respondent Local 92, by telling its member that the member was being penalized for his failure to support the incumbent business agent and by telling its member that the member had lost his job because he had not sup- ported the incumbent business agent in the last election, has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 6. Respondent Local 92, by refusing to refer for em- ployment its members Roger Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers since 15 February 1984 because of their protect- ed activities, has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 7. 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 Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist thereform and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of my findings above, it is apparent that the backpay, entitlement of Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger Price must be satisfied jointly and severally by Respond- ents for periods of joint responsibility . However, these responsibilities are not common in all respects. Concerning Respondent Local 92, the affirmative Order herein recommended requires Local 92 to notify all employers within the scope of its hiring hall, that the Union has no objection to the ' employment of Price and Rogers by Glenn or any other employer, 'and to make Price and Rogers whole for losses suffered as a result of Local 92's discrimination from 15 February 1984 until 5 days after Local 92 notifies all appropriate employers that it has no objection to Price and Rogers being em- ployed by Glenn or any other employer, less their net earnings during said period, plus interest in the manner outlined in F. W Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).15 See H. H. Robertson Co., 263 NLRB 1344 (1982). Concerning Respondent Glenn, my findings show that Price and Rogers were wrongfully denied continued em- ployment from the time of their respective layoffs on or near 15 February 1984. Therefore, the recommended Order requires Glenn to offer to Price and Rogers em- ployment at their former position or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi- leges, and to make them whole, with interest, less interim earnings from the time of the layoff until reemployment (F. W. Woolworth, supra; Florida Steel Corp., supra). Re- garding Roger Price, Glenn is directed to return him to his former position of foreman and, if necessary , remove from that position persons employed after it terminated Price See H. H. Robertson Co., supra. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record , I issue the following recommend- ed16 ORDER A. Respondent Glenn Machine Works, Inc., Colum- bus, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Threatening its employees that its employees will have to get straight and make it right with their union, Respondent Local 92, or any other labor organization in order to be employed by Glenn (b) Refusing to employ employees because of their protected activities. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Local 92 to the extent their obligations coincide , and individually as as See generally Isis Plumbing Co , 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 16 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 Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses to other periods, make whole Roger Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers for any loss of pay they may have suf- fered as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner outlined above in "The Remedy." (b) Offer immediate and full employment to Roger Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers to the positions formerly held by them or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges in the manner set forth above under "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its facility in Columbus , Mississippi, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."17 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 26, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained,for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps, the Re- spondent has taken to comply. B. Respondent International Association of - Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 92, AFL- CLO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Telling its members that they are being penalized and that they had lost their jobs because the members had failed to support the incumbent business agent in the last election. (b) Failing and refusing to refer its members for em- ployment because of its members ' internal union political activities which are activities protected under the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Glenn make whole Roger Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimi- nation against them in the manner set forth in the section of this decision. (b) Immediately notify Glenn Machine Works, Inc. and all other employers within the scope of its hiring hall, in writing, that it has no objection to the employ- a 7 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 Nation- al Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " GLENN MACHINE WORKS ment of Roger Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers by Glenn or any other employer. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Birmingham , Alabama, union hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being signed by Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 18 See fn 17. APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 669 WE WILL NOT tell our members or employees that they have lost their jobs because they failed to support H. L. Thacker or any other candidate in an internal union election. WE WILL NOT imply that our members or employees are out of work because they did not back H. L. Thacker or any other person in an internal union elec- tion. WE WILL NOT refuse to refer employees for employ- ment because our members engage in protected internal union activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees or members in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL notify all employers that are customarily supplied with employees through our hiring hall includ- ing Glenn Machine Works, Inc., that we have no objec- tion to their employing Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger Price; and WE WILL along with Glenn Machine Works, Inc., make Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger Price whole for all earnings lost by reason of our discrimination against them, with interest. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON- WORKERS, LOCAL 92, AFL-CIO 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.