United Brotherhood Of Carpenters And Joiners Of America, Local 953

70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 953 and Corbesco, Inc. Case 15-CB-2630 18 September 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER On 25 February 1983 Administrative Law Judge Richard J Linton issued the attached decision The Respondent and the Charging Party filed excep- tions and a supporting 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 With respect to the remedy, we agree with the judge's recommendation that McWaters be reim- bursed by the Respondent for the expenses he in- curred in traveling to Florida to reinstate his union membership While the Respondent did not ex- pressly direct McWaters to go to Florida, the manner of its initial refusal to reinstate him locally implied that a trip to his home local was necessary The Employer's representative, Barnett, spoke with Business Representative Cannon about getting a referral for Mc Waters When faced with McWaters' lapsed membership status, Barnett asked Cannon if Cannon could do anything to straighten out things locally or whether McWaters would have to travel to his home local in Florida to be reinstated Cannon simply replied there was no way he could help McWaters, implying that the only alternative was for McWaters to go to his home local for reinstatement We find that Can- ' Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative 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 reversing the findings In adopting the judge's decision, Chairman Dotson and Member Hunter find it unnecessary to rely on Stone Boat Yard 264 NLRB 186 (1982), and Dee Cee Floor Covering 232 NLRB 421 (1977) Member Hunter would not include in the remedy travel expenses in curred when McWaters flew to Florida to reinstate his union member- ship In his view, the nexus between the discriminatory conduct and the expenses incurred in connection with the trip has not been established He notes the Respondent Union did not suggest the trip and indeed con- tinued to decline to refer McWaters out even after he went to Florida to reinstate his membership status Unlike his colleagues, he is unwilling to find that when Cannon told Barnett 'there is no way I can help this guy Cannon was "Implying" that McWaters should travel to Florida Accord ingly, Member Hunter finds the expenses incurred too remote from the alleged violation to constitute an appropnate subject of the Board s reme- dial powers non's statements—that McWaters' lack of a current union book was preventing his referral and that the Respondent could do nothing for McWaters local- ly—precipitated McWaters' trip to his home local in Florida In these circumstances, there is a suffi- cient nexus between the discriminatory conduct and the expense of the Florida trip to warrant the remedy prescribed by the judge ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 953, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD J LINToN, Administrative Law Judge This case was tried before me in Lake Charles, Louisiana, on December 16, 1982, pursuant to the September 22, 1982 complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board through the Regional Director for Region 15 of the Board The complaint is based on a charge filed August 9, 1982, by Corbesco, Inc (Charging Party or Corbesco) against United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, Local 953 (Respondent or Local 953) In the complaint the General Counsel principally al- leges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by refusing on and after August 2, 1982, to refer Alfred Leo Mc Waters to Corbesco because McWaters was not a member of Local 953 and/or had not complied with membership requirements of Respond- ent's International Union, thereby causing Corbesco to discriminate (by not hiring) against McWaters in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 2 By its answer Respondent admits certain factual mat- ters, denies violating the Act, and asserts that McWaters (was not referred because he) "did not sign the out-of- work list nor request referral under the procedure estab- lished in the Hall On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by Corbesco and Respondent, 3 I make the following ' All dates are for 1982 unless otherwise indicated 2 McWater's name is spelled McWatters ' In the complaint and in the transcript, but as McWaters when it appears in exhibits, Including his union membership card I shall use the spelling appearing in the exhibits 3 Although counsel for the General Counsel did not file a brief she made an oral argument, duly considered, at the close of the hearing 272 NLRB No 9 CARPENTERS LOCAL 953 (CORBESCO, INC ) 71 FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION A Louisiana corporation, Corbesco installs industrial roofing and siding at the jobsite of a Pittsburgh Plate Glass plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana During the past 12 months Corbesco purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from firms who shipped such items to Corbesco at its Lake Charles, Louisiana jobsite directly from points located outside the State of Louisi- ana Respondent admits, and I find, that Corbesco is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act Ii LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A The Evidence 1 Introduction Corbesco was hired by Hyatt Construction Company (Hyatt) to install sheeting on two cell buildings at the Lake Charles facility of Pittsburg Plate Glass Company (PPG) It appears that industrial sheeting is a type of in- sulation made from asbestos or plastic 4 Although the record does not specifically identify Hyatt Construction as the general contractor, it seems clear that such is the position Hyatt occupied Corbesco began work, or was scheduled to do so, on August 2 Ottis Barnett, Corbesco's job superintendent for the past 12 years, testified that all employees he hired for the job were union members hired through Local 953 Indeed, it appears that Hyatt Construction operated the job as a union job 5 As Respondent admits in the pleadings, "At all times material herein, Respondent and Corbesco have been parties to an understanding or arrangement and/or have maintained and given effect to a practice providing for exclusive referral for employment for individuals in the carpentry craft from an exclusive hiring hall operated by Respondent" Before turning to a discussion of the August 2 confer- ence of Barnett and McWaters with Ronnie Cannon, Local 953's business manager, at the union hall concern- ing initial hiring for the job, we perhaps should consider certain provisions of the pertinent collective-bargaining agreement The purpose of this review is to examine the exclusive hiring hall rules as they bear upon just what the exclusive arrangement was between Corbesco and Local 953 This examination is necessary for two rea- sons First, the events herein occurred between the expi- ration date of one contract and the execution of a succes- sor agreement Second, Cannon's testimonial description 4 McWaters testified that he specializes in installing industrial sheeting ' In describing a meeting discussed below in more detail on August 13 in Hyatt s office, Barnett quoted Danny Penwell, apparently Hyatt s job superintendent, as ascertaining that he was union and had always been of the hiring hall procedure differs in some respects from that set forth in the expired contract It should be noted that Louisiana is a right-to-work State, and Cannon testi- fied that he is aware of that fact 2 The contractual background On December 8, 1975, Corbesco siged a one-page doc- ument whereby it agreed to comply with the terms of the contract between Local 953 and the Lake Charles Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc, of Lake Charles, Louisiana (AGC) The brief one- paragraph text of this me-too agreement reads (R Exh 2) We, the undersigned, have read this copy of the du- plicate original Agreement and do hereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of em- ployment contained therein This Agreement shall remain in effect until contract is terminated The underlying contract existing at that time was ef- fective for the period of May 1, 1975, through April 30, 1978 (G C Exh 6) The next collective-bargaining agree- ment placed in the record covers the period of May 1, 1980, through April 30, 1982 (G C Exh 7) There is no evidence explaining the gap between 1978 and 1980 6 Cannon testified that he considered Corbesco bound by virtue of the 1975 me-too compliance agreement until such time as Corbesco notifies Local 953 that the agree- ment is terminated, and further testified that Corbesco has never given such notice He testified that he under- stands the situation as one in which the 1975 compliance agreement automatically renews and, apparently, at- taches to whatever base contract is in existence While that interpretation may be debatable, there apparently is no question that Cannon considers Local 953 bound by the terms of the 1980-1982 contract and its successor contract as well At the very least, therefore, it appears that the details of the exclusive hiring hall arrangement recognized and honored by Local 953 are the same pro- visions set forth in the 1980-1982 contract This fact is all the more obvious when, as we soon shall see, the 1982-1984 contract (G C Exh 8) carried forward essen- tially the same rules The 1980-1983 contact expired on April 30, 1982, ap- parently by virtue of a notice to modify or terminate, for on August 27, 1982, representatives of Local 953 and the AGC executed a new agreement retroactively effective for the period of May 1, 1982, through April 30, 1984 (G C Exh 8) In the usual industrial setting involving a 9(a) collec- tive-bargaining representative, the terms of an expired contract must still be observed by the parties Stone Boat Yard, 264 NLRB 186 (1982) However, in the building and construction industry, as here, an agreement qualify- ing merely under Section 8(f) of the Act is voidable at will unless the union gains majority status, at least at the jobsite in question Dee Cee Floor Covering, 232 NLRB 6 The 1975-1978 contract contains the usual provisions of automatic extension from year to year in the absence of a notice to modify or term' nate 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 421 (1977) Before discussing this topic further, we should consider the exclusive hiring hall provisions 3 Relevant exclusive hiring hall rules Business Manager Cannon testified that the exclusive hiring hall rules are contained in the contract In the 1980-1982 contract, the pertinent provisions in article III, read (b) Exclusive Referral of Employees 2 Except for the minimum number of Key men, the Employer shall notify the Union of its need for all other employees and shall not recruit applicants directly or hire additional employees not referred by the Union [Emphasis supplied ] 6 The Union shall maintain a list of persons available for employment 7 Registration and referral of applicants shall be in accordance with the following plan The union shall register all applicants for employment on a first-in, first-out basis 8 Requests by the Employer for carpenters pre- viously employed by the Employer shall be given preference of rehire and shall be referred to the Employer regardless of the applicant's position on the out-of-work list, if said applicant has signed out- of-work list and has worked for that employer within the past year 9 Requests by the Employer for pile drivers who have been employed by the Employer 50% of the time during the previous calendar year in which the Employer employed pile drivers and request by the Employer for pile drivers previously employed by the Employer and who have been laid off or termi- nated by the Employer within 30 days previous to the requests shall be given preference of rehire and shall be referred to the Employer regardless of the applicant's position on the out-of-work list 10 Subject to the other provisions of this Exclu- sive Referral Plan and except in cases where the employer calls for a particular workman by name, who has previously been in his employ, applicants shall be referred for work on a first-in, first-out basis [Emphasis supplied ] 11 The Union shall maintain the list as outlined above in order the individual registers as available for employment 12 The Union shall refer applicants to the Em- ployer in the order of their places on said list How- ever, if in the opinion of the registrant himself, his ability is not such to qualify for the job, then by so stating his position shall remain the same on the out-of-work list and the next applicant shall be called Upon a registrant being referred for employ- ment and actually employed on a job, such regis- trant's name shall be removed from the list until such time as his employment has been terminated, at which time he shall be registered at the bottom of the list If a registrant, upon being referred in regu- lar order arbitrarily refuses to accept the referral, such registrant's name shall be placed at the bottom of the list The exception to the above shall be if ap- plicant is referred to a short job five (5) days dura- tion, this will not cause the applicant to lose his po- sition on the out-of-work list 17 The order of referral set forth above shall be followed except in cases where Employers require and call for employees possessing special skills and abilities The Union shall refer the first applicant on the register possessing such special skills and abili- ties 18 The Union shall require all job applicants who have not previously registered to submit a resume of experience and qualifications in order to determine their proper classification and whether they are qualified to perform the various requisite skills of the craft and thereby be eligible for regis- tration and or referral 19 In the event any job applicant feels he is ag- grieved with his failure to qualify for registration or with his order of referral, he may within ten (10) days following the occurrence of the event which constitutes the basis for the grievance, file with the person in charge of the registration and referral office, a written statement of the grievance clearly and specifically setting forth the wrong or violation charged An Appellate Tribunal consisting of an Employer representative, a Union representative and an impartial chairman appointed jointly by the Employer and Union, shall consider the grievance and render a decision which shall be final and bind- ing The Appellate Tribunal is authorized to issue procedural rules for the conduct of its business, but is not authorized to add to, subtract from or modify any of the provisions of this system and its decision shall be in accord with the system 22 When the Union refers an employee to the Employer, the business agent shall certify to the best of his knowledge that the referee has the expe- rience, qualifications, and physical ability to per- form the work which he has been referred As one observes, the above rules not only provide an out-of-work (o-w-1) registration list, but also set forth certain exemptions for key employees (rule 2) and em- ployees requested by name (rules 8 and 10) 7 Although rule 2 clearly permits a contractor to hire a key employ- ee directly, i e , without the employee having to obtain a referral from Local 953, Business Manager Cannon testi- fied that key employees in fact must sign the o-w-1 and be referred without regard to their position on the o-w-1 Rules 2 and 8, above, are combined in the 1982-1984 contract as art 9, A reading A The employer shall have the right to employ directly key person nel In addition, the employer shall have the right, through the refer- ral procedure, to employ on any job all employees required provided such employees have been employed by the employer 50% of the time during the previous twelve (12) months, or within the last 90 days, and are on the out of work list All other employees required by the employer will be furnished and referred by the union CARPENTERS LOCAL 953 (CORBESCO, INC ) 73 Assistant Business Agent J B Thigpen also testified that even a key employee must sign the o-w-1 in order to be referred I do not credit Cannon and Thigpen in this re- spect, and I find that the exclusive hiring hall arrange- ment on this point was the same as that appearing in the 1980-1982 contract Thus, key employees could be hired directly by the contractor 8 Cannon testified that a foreman qualifies as key em- ployee, and he confirmed that the provisions for key em- ployees and employees requested by name are separate and distinct rules Thus, he testified, a key employee, unlike an employee requested by name, does not have to have worked previously for the contractor 4 Events in August-September 1982 Of the five witnesses who testified herein, four de- scribed the conference of August 2 McWaters-Barnett, and Cannon-Thigpen 9 The gist of the McWaters-Barnett version is that Cannon would not refer McWaters be- cause the latter did not have a current union book De- nying that version, the Cannon-Thigpen story is that McWaters, for some unknown reason, to sign the o-w-1 and for that reason only was denied a referral Based principally on the demeanor of the witnesses, I credit McWaters and Barnett At the same time there are ele- ments of the testimony of Cannon and Thigpen which I credit From a composite of the testimony I find as follows About midmorning on August 2, Barnett, accompanied by McWaters and Robbie Adams, went to the union hall of Local 953 and spoke with Cannon Present with Cannon was Assistant Business Agent Thigpen Barnett told Cannon that Corbesco was starting work on the Hyatt Construction job at PPG that day and that he wanted to clear McWaters as his key man on the job 10 Barnett added that he also wanted to clear Adams and to get two more men from the hall 11 Cannon asked to see the union books of McWaters and Adams McWaters and Adams stated that they did not have one Barnett explained that McWaters had dropped his book and that Adams was not a book man Cannon said he could not clear McWaters and Adams because they did not have (union membership) books Barnett asked about Cannon referring them on permit, but the business manager replied that, since they had no books, he could not help them Cannon stated that he had some 300 to 400 men "on the bench" (out of work) and there was no way he could clear McWaters and Adams 12 8 Although Barnett himself signed the o-w-1 in September and was re ferred immediately as a working foreman, this does not establish that the practice was different from the 1980-1982 provision in rule 2 This is so because Barnett clearly was not aware of Corbesco's rights under rule 2 9 Attorney Singleton briefly testified concerning a letter he wrote to Attorney Fonti about the dispute 10 Both Canon and Thigpen acknowledged at trial that McWaters was requested as a key man Barnett testified that as the key man, McWaters could "run the crew" as, in essence, a working foreman " The record is unclear regarding the exact capacity for which Bar nett requested Adams There is very little testimony about Adams and Barnett testified that Adams returned to Florida on August 3 12 Cannon testified that during August 1982 he had 350 to 400 men out of work Local 953 has about 1800 members Barnett said that he had to get the job started, and he asked Cannon to send two men from the hall That ended the conference About 5 30 p m that same day Barnett telephoned Cannon and asked if there was any way Cannon could reinstate McWaters without the latter having to travel to (his home local in) Florida to get his book reinstated Cannon said, "There is no way I can help this guy" Cannon testified that he could not recall any such con- versation I credit Barnett The following day, August 3, McWaters returned to Florida Early on August 4 he paid the appropriate dues and fees to his home local, Local 2217, in Lakeland, Florida, was reinstated as a member in good standing, re- turned the same day to New Orleans, and arrived back in Lake Charles that afternoon 13 On August 5 McWaters went to the Local 953 hall around 7 30 a m, showed his dues receipt and paid-up book to Cannon, and asked for a referral to Corbesco After inspecting the documents, Cannon said, "Oh, I see you bought a book" McWaters stated that he had told "that man" (presumably Barnett) that he could not refer McWaters He told McWaters that, if Cannon needed to reinstate his book, he could have" done it in Lake Charles, but that he did not need the money for the Union That ended the conversation 15 Mc Waters left the union hall and went to the Corbesco job 18 At the gate McWaters informed Barnett that Local 953 would not clear him Barnett suggested that McWaters get in the truck with him, unload some material, and then Barnett would call Local 953 After the truck was unloaded by McWaters, J D Hartman, the job steward," and Walter Savage, Hart- man and Savage showed McWaters their union books and asked to see his He showed them his book and paid- up dues receipt, and explained that Local 953 would not give him a referral Hartman responded that McWaters could not work on the job without a referral, that the book was no good, and that if there was no referral then "we will either strike or picket" the job In a few minutes Barnett appeared and the three went to see him Hartman told Barnett that McWaters could not work on the job without a referral from the hall Barnett explained that McWaters was unable to get a re- ferral but that he was Barnett's foreman on the job Hart- man replied, "Well, I am sorry He works, we don't work" Taking that remark to mean that Hartman and Savage would walk off the job if McWaters worked, Barnett " Copies of McWaters' airline ticket, his receipt for dues and fees, and his books showing membership in good standing are in evidence as G C Exhs 9 and 9(a) 14 The phrase in the transcript is "couldn t have Whether McWaters misspoke at the hearing or whether the record is in error is uncertain, but it is clear that Cannon said he could have made the reinstatement in Lake Charles is As with the conversation of August 2 I do not credit the testimony of Cannon and Thigpen that McWaters on this occasion as well, refused to sign the owl I find that signing the o w I was not mentioned on August 4 is McWaters has worked for Corbesco 11 years out of the last 17 and in July 1982 he had worked for Corbesco and Barnett in Kansas " Cannon testified that Hartman was referred to the job on August 4 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told McWaters to leave because he did not want any trouble on the job. About August 13 Cannon and Barnett had a confer- ence in the Hyatt Construction office of Danny Penwell. During the meeting, apparently arranged to iron out some problems on the job, Barnett asked Cannon if he would clear McWaters. Cannon stated that there was no way he could clear McWaters "because he is not sup- posed to move his book for 60 days." Cannon asked if McWaters thought he could go to any union hall and buy a book. Barnett corrected Cannon by saying that McWaters merely got his book reinstated. Cannon pulled a purported copy of the Union's constitution from his pocket and stated that it prohibits a member from moving his book for 60 days. Barnett said he had not read the constitution." About a month later, when it became necessary to expand to two crews, Barnett hired McWaters as a su- perintendent," a supervisory position, in which classifi- cation he worked until the job ended. 2° The two crews apparently operated only a few days, and then Barnett himself cleared through Local 953 and obtained a refer- ral to the job as a working foreman after signing the o- w-1. 21 When asked why he did not suggest to McWaters that he follow the procedure Barnett had just done to get referred, Barnett testified that he saw no need in doing so since McWaters was on the job as a superin- tendent, that there were only 3 to 4 weeks' work left by then, and for the further reason that he thought Mc Waters would probably not get referred anyhow. B. Concluding Findings In light of the foregoing, I find that Respondent re- fused to refer McWaters on August 2, 1982, to Corbesco because McWaters initially was not a union member in good standing. I further find that Cannon continued thereafter to refuse to refer McWaters because Cannon felt that McWaters had "bought" a current book for the purpose of bypassing the 350 or so out-of-work members of Local 953 and/or because Cannon, correctly or not, believed that a member could not work as a traveler for 60 days after becoming a paid-up member of the union. By such refusal, Respondent caused Corbesco to dis- charge McWaters on August 5, 1982, and Local 953 thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 18 Cannon testified that he did not recall bringing a copy of the consti- tution to the Hyatt Construction meeting. Testifying only as a witness called under FRE 611(c), in effect, by the General Counsel, Cannon also testified that he did not believe there is any 60-day restriction No docu- mentary evidence of such a restriction was offered. 19 The sequence is not entirely clear in the record. Although McWaters testified that he was off work for about a month, Barnett at one point testified that McWaters served as a supervisor when Barnett was absent for a week beginning about August 20 20 In this capacity, McWaters testified, he had to relay instructions to a working foreman There is testimony by McWaters and Barnett that progress of the job was slowed, in part at least, because of workers being inexperienced and because job instructions had to be relayed rather than an experienced person, such as McWaters, being able to serve as a work- ing foreman who could issue instructions directly to the crew. 21 It is not clear whether Local 953 treated Barnett as a key man or a request by name. In either event, he signed the o-w-1 and was referred ahead of all others on the o-w-1 I also find that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, as alleged in complaint paragraph 8, when J. D. Hartman, the job steward, threatened Barnett with a work stoppage if Corbesco retained McWaters on the job. I find a violation here because Barnett informed Hartman that McWaters was his foreman. That is, the job steward was told, in effect, that McWaters was a key man. Under the exclusive hiring hall arrangement, the key man does not have to be referred and can be hired directly by the employer. Although normally the job steward can police the contract to make certain that workers on the job have been referred through the ex- clusive hiring hall, the exclusive hiring hall arrangement here has an exception to the referral procedure so that key men do not have to be referred through the union hall but can be hired directly by the employer. Accord- ingly, I find that Hartman's threat constituted a violation by Local 953 as alleged. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Corbesco, Inc. is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 953 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. At all relevant times Local 953 and Corbesco have had an exclusive hiring hall arrangement and practice whereby Corbesco hires its employees engaged as car- penters through the exclusive hiring hall operated by Local 953. 4. At all relevant times the exclusive hiring hall ar- rangement existing between Local 953 and Corbesco provided that the employer may hire key men directly without such employees having to be referred through the exclusive hiring hall. 5. On August 2, 1982, Corbesco sought to hire Alfred Leo McWaters as a key man at a jobsite of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company in Lake Charles, Louisiana. 6. Respondent Local 953 has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act since on or about August 2, 1982, by refusing to refer Alfred Leo McWaters to em- ployment with Corbesco because he was not a member in good standing of the Carpenters' Union, and further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act on August 5, 1982, by the action of J. D. Hartman, job steward for Local 953, in threatening Corbesco with a work stop- page if Alfred Leo McWaters remained employed by Corbesco at the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company jobsite, thereby causing, and attempting to cause, Corbesco to discriminate against and discharge Alfred Leo McWaters in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CARPENTERS LOCAL 953 (CORBESCO, INC ) 75 To remedy the violations found, it is recommended that McWaters be made whole for any loss of earnings which he may have suffered, and any expenses he may have incurred, by reason of the discrimination against him Respondent shall be ordered to reimburse McWaters for the expenses he incurred in traveling to and from Lake Charles, to Lakeland, Florida, on August 3 through 4, 1982, wherein McWaters traveled on the mistaken belief that if he reinstated his union membership book he could go to work in Lake Charles, Louisiana Backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon as prescribed in Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 22 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed23 ORDER The Respondent, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 953, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employers bound to an exclusive hiring hall arrangement with Local 953 with a work stoppage and/or picketing if the employer retains in its employment a key employee hired directly by the em- ployer without the key employee being referred through the exclusive hiring hall, where the exclusive hiring hall arrangement in force grants such direct hiring rights to the employer (b) Causing and/or attempting to cause Corbesco, Inc , or any other employer to discriminate against Alfred Leo McWaters, or any other employee or job applicant, by refusing to refer or clear him for employment because he or they are not members in good standing of the Car- penters Union (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees, members, or job applicants in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Make Alfred Leo McWaters whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered, including expenses in- curred in traveling round trip from Lake Charles, Louisi- ana, to Lakeland, Florida, on August 3 through 4, 1982, by reason of Respondent's unlawful refusal to refer him on August 2, 1982, and its unlawfully causing Corbesco, Inc to terminate him on August 5, 1982 (b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all hiring and referral books, out-of-work lists, steward re- ports, pension and benefit reports, and other documents necessary to analyze and compute the amount of back- pay due Alfred Leo McWaters under the terms of this Order 22 See generally Isis Plumbing Go, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 23 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 (c) Post at its union hiring hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "24 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members and employees are customarily posted Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (d) Sign and return to said Regional Director sufficient copies of the attached notice for posting by employer- members of AGC, if said employers are willing, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to the employees are customarily posted (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 24 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading 'Posted by Order of the Na tional Labor Relations Board shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board" APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence and cross-examine witnesses, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, and the Board has ordered us to post this notice and to comply with its provisions We intend to abide by the following Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To engage in self-organization To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of your own choice To engage in activities together for the purpose of collective bargaiing or other mutual aid or pro- tection To refrain from the exercise of any or all such activities Accordingly, we give you these assurances WE WILL NOT threaten employers to an exclusive hiring hall arrangement with us with a work stoppage and/or picketing if the employer retains in its employ- ment a key employee hired directly by the employer without the key employee being referred through the ex- clusive hiring hall, where the exclusive hiring hall arr- rangement in force grants such direct hiring rights to the employer 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Corbesco, Inc , or any other employer, to discriminate against Alfred Leo McWaters, or any other employee or job ap- plicant, by refusing to refer or clear them for employ- ment because he or they are not members in good stand- ing of the Carpenters' Union WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL make Alfred Leo McWaters whole, with in- terest, for any loss of earnings he may have suffered, in- cluding expenses incurred in traveling roundtrip from Lake Charles, Louisiana, to Lakeland, Florida, on August 3 through 4, 1982, by reason of our refusal to refer him on August 2, 1982, and by our causing Corbesco, Inc to terminate him on August 5, 1982 UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 953