San Diego County District Council Of Carpenters

584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and Hopeman Brothers, Inc. Case 21-CB-8670 28 September 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 12 April 1984 Administrative Law Judge Richard D Taplitz issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief to the Respondent's exceptions 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 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, San Diego, Califor- nia, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order 1 In sec II,D, of his decision the judge discussed the decisions of the Board in Communications Workers Local 5795 (Western Electric), 192 NLRB 556 (1971) and Oil Workers Local 7-103 (DAP Inc ), 269 NLRB 129 (1984) Member Dennis adheres to her position in DAP Inc and for the reasons cited there would overrule Western Electric As in DAP Inc Chairman Dotson and Member Hunter find it unnecessary in the instant case to pass on the continued validity of Western Electric in view of the fact that, here, Rittner s job duties require that he report employee viola tions of the Employer s standards of conduct DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD D TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge This case was tried in San Diego, California, on Febru- ary 28, 1984 The complaint dated December 27, 1983, which was based on a charge filed on November 18, 1983, by Hopeman Brothers, Inc (the Company) alleges that San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (the Union) violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1(A) of the National Labor Relations Act Issue The sole issue is whether the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by fining and threatening to sus- pend its member Clarence J Rittner, because Ratner, while an employee of the Company, told the Company that a fellow employee had threatened him with a knife The General Counsel contends that the Union's action was unlawful because it was based on Rittner's report to the Company about a work rule infraction at a time when it was Rittner's duty to make such a report The Union contends that its action was the lawful exercise of its power to discipline a member for slandering another member All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to produce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs Briefs which have been carefully considered were filed on behalf of the General Counsel, the Company, and the Union On the entire record of the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The Company, a Delaware corporation with its princi- pal office located in Waynesboro, Virginia, is engaged in ship construction and repair at a facility located at 28th Street and Harbor Drive in San Diego, California The Company annually purchases and receives at its San Diego facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside California The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background The Company and the Union are parties to a collec- tive-bargaining agreement Clarence J Ratner is an em- ployee in the bargaining unit covered by the contract He is also a member of the Union For the last 4 years he has been a carpenter-joiner leadman Though he works with the tools of the trade on the job, he has addi- tional duties as leadman 1 One of those duties is to make sure that the other employees are working safely It is his responsibility to report to the Company any violation of the Company's rules of conduct When he was origi- nally promoted to leadman status and on a number of oc- casions thereafter, he was told by his supervisors that part of his job was to report any violations of the stand- ard rules of conduct and any other safety violations and that, if he failed to do so, he would be demoted from his leadman position or dismissed 1 The parties stipulated that Rittner is an employee within the meaning of the Act 272 NLRB No 91 CARPENTERS (HOPEMAN BROS ) 585 The Company maintains a detailed list of rules called "Standard Rules of Conduct" They provide that certain offenses call for immediate discharge and that other of- fenses receive lesser discipline Among the offenses for which there can be immediate dismissal are "disorderly conduct on Company property, including, but not limit- ed to fighting, or agitation" and "being in possession of weapons on Compny property" Apparently Ratner took his duties seriously During his tenure as leadman, he reported 60 or more employees for rules violations Some of those employees were dis- charged B The Altercation Between Ratner and Hoffman When Ratner reported to his worksite about 7 30 a m on March 29, 1983, he overheard a loud argument be- tween Supervisor Morgan Bourgeois and an employee named John Hoffman Shortly thereafter Ratner turned around and saw Hoffman holding a knife Hoffman stepped toward Ratner, thrust the knife toward Rittner's throat, and said that he would just as soon cut him up as look at him Hoffman then dropped his hand and walked off 2 Shortly thereafter Ratner reported the incident to his supervisors As a result of that report Hoffman was sus- pended Later the suspension was changed to a dis- charge Shortly after the suspension, Union Business Repre- sentative Joseph Scully Jr was told that there had been an altercation between Hoffman and Ratner and that Ratner had accused Hoffman of pulling a knife on him Scully told his chief shop steward Dan Wilson to investi- gate the situation Scully received reports that there were two witnesses who were within 10 feet at the time of the altercation who both said that there was no knife He also received a report that there were three employ- ees who had seen Hoffman within 10 or 15 minutes of the incident and they had seen no knife Scully then con- fronted Ratner and told him that there were five wit- nesses against him and that he did not feel that Ratner was telling the truth about the incident After Hoffman's discharge the Union filed a grievance About April 1, 1983, Ratner, Hoffman, Scully, and other representatives of the Union and the Company met at a grievance meeting concerning Hoffman's discharge Ratner told his version of the incident and Hoffman denied that he ever had a knife Scully called Ratner a "fucking liar" and said that he was going to help Hoff- man file charges against Ratner because Ratner was slandering Hoffman Scully also said that he knew that Ratner was a "fucking liar" ever since the Steffler case 2 These findings are based on the credible and uncontradicted testimo- ny of Ratner Union Business Representative Joseph Scully Jr testified that shortly after the incident he caused an investigation to be made and it was reported to him that two employees who were within 10 feet of Hoffman said there was no knife, and three other employees who saw Hoffman shortly after the incident said that they did not see Hoffman with a knife None of those employees was called to testify Though Scully's testimony as to the reports made to him was probative evidence relating to his state of mind with reference to future actions he took, it did not have sufficient probative weight to undermine Rittner's credible and convincing testimony Rittner was the only eyewitness to the event who testified The Steffler incident had occurred in 1981 when Ratner reported two men for smoking marijuana Both of those men were discharged Hoffman's discharge grievance was ultimately taken to arbitration As of the date of the trial in the instant case, the arbitrator had not yet issued his decision C The Fine Imposed by the Union Against Ratner The constitution and bylaws of the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, which is binding on its subordinate bodies, such as the Union, pro- vides that after a member has been charged and tried before the Union, the member may be fined, suspended, or expelled for certain violations Among those viola- tions, which are set forth in section 55, are "(1) Causing dissension among the members of the United Brother- hood", "(5) Willful slander or libel of an officer or any member of the United Brotherhood", and "(13) Violating the Obligation" In late April or early May, Ratner received a notifica- tion that charges had been filed against him with the Union The charges were entitled "John Hoffman vs Clarence Ratner" The charges related to the incident in which Ratner claimed that Hoffman had threatened him with a knife The Union held a preliminary inquiry about May 4, 1983 The meeting was scheduled to take place at 7 p m Hoffman was there but his case was not called until 9 20 p m He was asked some questions and then told he would be notified by mail Later he received a notice that he had to appear before a union trial board In early June, on the date the trial was scheduled to take place, Ratner had a 5 45 p m appointment at a hospital Though he told the receptionist at the hospital that he had to be at a meeting by 7 p m, he was in the X-ray room at that time and was unable to call the Union When he arrived at the union hall at 8 10 p m, he was told that the matter had already been settled Hoffman and another witness gave evidence at the trial, which had been completed before Ratner arrived Subsequently he received a letter dated July 7, 1983, from the Union which said Dear Sir and Brother Subject Violation of Section 55, Rules 1, 5 & 13, of the Constitution and Laws of the United Brother- hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America (4/5/83) You are hereby notified that official action on the above subject matter was taken by the San Diego County District council of Carpenters on June 29, 1983, as follows Fine of $50 for Rule 1, fine of $50 for Rule 5, fine of $50 for Rule 13, and $25 fine for failure to appear before the Trial Panel Recommend one year's probation that he not violate the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Bylaws, Trade Rules or Constitution, with expulsion from Brother- hood Total fine $175 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the Constitution of the United Brother- hood, any fine imposed must be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of this notice If a fine is due beyond the 30-day period, said member is subject to suspension Fraternally, /s/ Jim Clark Secretary-Treasurer That letter was based on a recommendation that the trial board made to the Union at a meeting on June 29, 1983 Though Ratner had the right to appeal the trial board's ruling when the recommendation was made to the Union, he did not do so He did write a letter to the president of the International Union saying that he should not have been fined and he also filed internal union charges against Hoffman for threatening him with a knife The charge against Hoffman was later dropped Ratner never received a response from the International president Rittner did not pay the fine There is no evidence in the record to indicate that the Union took any further action against him D Analysts and Conclusions As found above the Union fined Ratner $175 and threatened him with suspension because he truthfully told the Company that fellow employee Hoffman had threatened him with a knife The threat was a violation of the Company's "Standard Rules of Conduct" and Ratner, as a leadman, had a duty to report that violation The Union's constitution provided for the trial and fine of members who slandered other members, but in this case the report was true 3 and therefore was not a slan- der Even if the Union in good faith believed the report to be slanderous, the terms of the Union's constitution would not be a viable defense if the controlling law pro- hibits the fining of a member who truthfully reports a violation of the Company's safety rule when that member has, as a part of his work duty, an obligation to make such a report 4 The controlling law is, however, not entirely clear The language of the statute does appear to be clear The complaint alleges that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by coercing and restraining Rittner in the exercise of rights that are protected under Section 7 of the Act Section 8(b)(1)(A) states (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents— (1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 Pro- vided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own 3 The Company argues that, even if the report were false, the Union could not lawfully Impose a fine As I have found the report to be true, that issue need not be reached 4 The Union argues in its bnef that the fine was for slander and not for making the report I do not consider that distinction to be meaningful Ruiner was fined for making the report because, the Union claims, it considered the report slanderous rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein Section 7 of the Act provides Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self-or- ganization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza- tions, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) The proviso of Section 8(b)(1)(A) cannot be used to prove a violation by a union, it is solely an additional de- fense that a union can raise if there otherwise would be a violation It is a shield, not a sword The proviso does not come into play unless a union's activity can be con- strued as a restraint or coercion of an employee in the exercise of a Section 7 right If the employee is not en- gaging in any Section 7 right, then it would appear from the wording of the Act that there could not be a viola- tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) In the instant case Ratner re- ported a violation of the Company's work rules to the Company That did not involve the employees' right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza- tions, to bargain collectively or to engage in other con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection Nor did it have any- thing to do with refraining from such activities What- ever Ratner did was in concert with his employer, not with the fellow employees The Company has a right to the undivided loyalty of its supervisors and the union may not put pressure on a supervisor to interfere with that loyalty 5 However, Ratner is an employee and not a supervisor The Company has put Ratner in a somewhat untenable position He is a union member who is a coem- ployee with the other workers and he is a company lead- man who has a duty to report coemployees for rule vio- lations The Company, who is the Charging Party in this case, could have protected Ratner by making him a su- pervisor, but it did not choose to do so Rittner was acting on behalf of and in concert with the Company when he made his report to the Company He was not acting in concert with any other employee Such activi-, ties are not concerted within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act As the Board recently held in Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984) 6 In general, to find an employee's activity to be "concerted," we shall require that it be engaged in with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the employee him- self 'Sec 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides that it is an unfair labor practice to restrain or coerce an employer in the selection of its representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances 6 See also Alcan Cable, 269 NLRB 184 (1984) CARPENTERS (HOPEMAN BROS ) 587 Nor is there any evidence that Rittner's activity involved the "invocation of a right provided for in his collective bargaining agreement" Cf NLRB v City Disposal Sys- tems, 104 S Ct 1505 (1984) As the activities for which Rittner were fined do not appear to have involved rights set forth in Section 7 of the Act, a strict reading of Section 8(b)(1)(A) would appear to preclude a finding of violation 7 However, both the Board and the courts have given a broader scope to Section 8(b)(1)(A) The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the proviso of Section 8(b)(1)(A) in NLRB v Allis-Chalmers Mfg Co, 388 U S 175 (1967), and Scofield v NLRB, 394 U S 423 (1969) In both cases, employees had been fined by a union when they engaged in concerted activities The fines could be considered to be a coercion of em- ployees in the exercise of those concerted activities and would have constituted violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) unless they were shielded from a violation by the proviso which states that nothing in Section 8(b)(1)(A) shall "impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to acquisition or retention of membership therein" In both cases, the high court held that the fine did not constitute a violation of the Act In the Allis-Chalmers case the union had fined employee- members who crossed a picket line and worked during a strike Though the refusal to honor the picket line was the exercise of the employees' right to refrain from con- certed activity under Section 7 of the Act, the Court found that the proviso precluded the finding of a viola- tion After a detailed analysis of the legislative history, the Court concluded that Congress did not intend Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) to restrict a union's internal affairs and that Section 8(b)(1)(A) was intended only to relate to matters that affected a member's employment status Thus, a union could lawfully fine a member-employee for crossing a picket line but it could not force an em- ployer to discharge an employee for taking that action 8 In the Scofield case the union had initiated a ceiling on the production for which its members could accept im- mediate piecework pay In effect the union was control- ling the amount of piecework its members would turn out by fining employees who accepted immediate pay- ment for piecework in excess of the quota The limitation of the amount of piecework was a union-sponsored con- certed activity of the employees The company claimed and the Court implicitly found that the employees had been fined for refraining from engaging in a concerted 7 Nor can any affect employment theory be used in this case to find a violation of Sec 8(b)(2) of the Act which makes it a violation for a union to attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employ ee so as to encourage or discourage membership in a union No such vio lation has been alleged or litigated 8 As the Court held in Scofield , 394 U S 423, 428, in referring to Allis Chalmers The Court thus essentially accepted the position of the National Labor Relations Board dating from Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co, 109 NLRB 727 (1954) where the Board also distinguished internal from external enforcement in holding that a union could fine a member for his failure to take part in picketing during a strike but that the same rule could not be enforced by causing the employer to exclude him from the work force or by affecting his seniority with out tnggering violations of Sections 8(b)(1), 8(b)(2), 8(a)(1), 8(a)(2), and 8(a)(3) [Footnote omitted ] activity After discussing the meaning of the proviso and the distinction between internal and external enforcement of union rules, the court held 9 (394 U S 423, 430) Under this dual approach, Section 8(b)(1) leaves a union free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union interest; impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, • and is reasonably enforced against union members who are free to leave the union and escape the rule This view of the statute must be applied here In Scofield the court concluded that all those criteria were met and that the union did not violate Section 8(b)(1) of the Act In both Allis-Chalmers and Scofield the high Court spoke in terms of broad statutory objectives and overall legislative intent The high Court's decisions were how- ever subject to interpretation when applied to specific narrow problems A serious argument could be made that a union could not under the shield of the proviso raise a viable defense to what otherwise would be an unfair labor practice unless the fine was geared to a le- gitimate union interest, impaired no policy imbedded in the labor laws, and met the other criteria set forth by court Another interpretation of the high Court's lan- guage would be that all fines violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) by coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights unless those criteria are met That interpretation would require a very expansive reading of Section 7 of the Act The Board appears to have chosen that interpre- tation In Communications Workers Local 5 795 (Western Elec- tric Co), 192 NLRB 556 (1971), a union fined an employ- ee because she reported to her employer a violation of work rules by another employee It was not part of her job to make such reports The administrative law judge analyzed Section 7 of the Act and concluded that the fined employee had not engaged in any conduct protect- ed by that section He pointed out, "The Act, however, does not simply render illegal all coercive acts of a union but only such coercive acts which infringe upon rights of employees enumerated in Section 7 of the Act" The judge went on to say that the Board and the courts had given Section 8(b)(1)(A) a broader reach He then ap- plied the criteria that the Supreme Court had used in Scofield and found that a union rule which prohibited a member from informing on another member represented a legitimate union interest in promoting harmony within the ranks The complaint was dismissed However, the judge added the following dicta However, where such a rule was contrary to a company's work rule, e g where the informer's work duties required him to report infractions of work rules (as, where the informant has an inspec- tor's job or a guard's duties), such union rule would 9 At another point the court held (Id at 429) It has become clear that if the rule Invades or frustrates an over riding policy of the labor laws the rule may not be enforced, even by fine or expulsion, without violating Section 8(b)(1) 588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not be proper inasmuch as its application and en- forcement would result in a dereliction of duties by the informer and, consequently, lead to his dis- charge, thus affecting his employment status The Board adopted the administrative law judge's deci- sion without comment The situation envisaged in the dicta of the Western Electric case arose as the core of Chemical Workers Local 604 (Essex International), 233 NLRB 1239 (1977), enfd mem 97 LRRM 1115 (7th Cir 1978) In that case an em- ployee was fined by his union for reporting a violation of a work rule by a coemployee The employee who re- ported the violation was required by his job to make such a report The administrative law judge referred to the Western Electric case and held Respondent's fine and suspension of Leep for per- forming his work duties directly affect his employ- ment status and violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act Though it could be argued that the effect on the employ- ee's employment status was a concept that applied to the "proviso" defense where there was an underlying viola- tion of a Section 7 right (under Allis-Chalmers and Sco- field), or a concept appropriate for resolution in an 8(b)(2) context (which was not alleged), the Board chose to adopt the administrative law judge's decision without comment '''' As indicated above this is an area where I believe that further explication by the Board would be helpful How- ever, in the absence of such guidance, I feel that I am bound by the Board law as set forth in the Essex Interna- tional case I therefore find that the Union violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by fining Ratner for reporting " In Oil Workers Local 7-103 (DAP Inc ) 269 NLRB 129 (1984) the Board held that a fine of an employee member, for giving a statement concerning a work rule infraction of another employee was violative of Sec 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act In that case the company had asked for the statement in anticipation of disciplinary action against the offending em ployee and the statement was considered to be intimately related to the entire grievance machinery even though a grievance had not yet been filed Participation in the grievance machinery is a protected activity under Sec 7 of the Act Teamsters Local 557 (Liberty Transfer Co ), 218 NLRB 1117, 1120 (1975) Because of the interrelation with the grievance procedure, the Board distinguished the Western Electric case The Board stated (269 NLRB 129 at fn 1) Member Dennis agrees that the Respondent violated Sec 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by fining employees Britton and Miller for pro viding a statement to the Company that resulted in a fellow employ ee s discharge for misconduct However, rather than distinguish Communications Workers Local 5795 (Western Electric), 192 NLRB 556 (1971), as did the judge, she would overrule it In Scofield v NLRB, 394 U S 423, 430 (1969), the Court stated Section 8(b)(1) leaves a union free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union Interest, impairs no policy Congress has Imbedded in te labor laws, and is reasonably en forced against union members who are free to leave the union and escape the rule In Member Dennis view, a union rule that authorizes the fining of members for reporting a fellow employee's infraction of a proper plant rule does not reflect a legitimate union Interest,' and is con trary to national labor policy, which favors the observance of valid rules governing the work place Chairman Dotson and Member Hunter find that Western Electric is dissimilar to the case presented here They therefore find It unneces sary to pass on the continued validity of Western Electric in this case a company rule violation when Rittner's job duties re- quired him to make such a report and by threatening to suspend Ratner from membership unless he paid that fine CONCLUSION OF LAW By fining and threatening to suspend Ratner from union membership because he reported another employ- ee-member to the Company for work rule infractions at a time when it was part of Rittner's work duties to do so, the Union affected Rittner's employment status and thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Union engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that the Union fined and threatened to suspend Ratner in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Union be ordered to re- scind the fine and the threat of suspension As of the date of the trial Rittner had not paid any part of the union fine If since that time all or part of the fine has been paid, the Union is to refund that money to him with interest to be computed in the manner set forth in Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) It is further recommended that the Union be ordered to remove from its files any reference to the unlawful fine and threat of suspension and to notify Ratner in writing that it has done so and that the fine and threat of suspension will not be used against him in any way On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed" ORDER The Respondent, San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, San Diego, California, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Fining or threatening to suspend any employee from union membership because he or she reports an- other employee-member to his or her employer for work rule infractions, at a time when it is part of the work duties of the employee who makes the report to do so (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act " 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 , CARPENTERS (HOPEMAN BROS ) 589 (a) Rescind the fine assessed against Clarence J Ratner and the threat to suspend him which were based on his report of work rule infractions to his employer (b) Remove from its files any reference to the ,unlawful fine and threat of suspension and notify Clarence J Ratner in writing that it has done so and that the fine and threat of suspension will not be used against him in any way ' (c) Refund to Clarence J Ratner the full amount of any fines that he has paid to the Union in connection with his report of work rule infractions, with interest, as is set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy" (d) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shallbe posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the said Union to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (e) Furnish the Regional Director with signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by Hopeman Brothers, Inc , if that Company is willing to post it " 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" (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT fine or threaten to suspend any employ- ee from union membership because he or she reports an- other employee-member to his or her employer for work rule infractions; at a time when it is part of the work duties of the employee who makes the report to do so WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act WE WILL rescind the fine assessed against Clarence J Ratner and the threat to suspend him which are based on his report of work rule infractions to his employer WE WILL remove from our files any reference to that unlawful fine and threat of suspension and notify Clar- ence J Rittner that we have done so and that the fine and threat of suspension will not be used against him in any way WE WILL refund to Clarence J Ratner the full amount of any fines that he has paid to the Union in connection with his report of work rule infractions, with interest SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, AFFILIATED WITH THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO