Iron Workers Local 798 (Agc Of Mobile)

IRON WORKERS LOCAL 798 (AGC OF MOBILE) 679 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 798 (Mobile Chapter, Associated General Contrac- tors of America, Inc.) and W. S. Odom, Sr. Cases 15-CB-2627 and 15-CB-2659 28 September 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER On 24 January 1984 Administrative Law Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the decision. 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, International ' We reject Respondent's contention that insufficient evidence was pre- sented for the judge to conclude that its failure to refer Odom to Brock & Blevins (B & B) on 15 July 1982 was discriminatorily motivated It is well established that a discriminatory motive may be Inferred from all the surrounding circumstances absent any credible showing by the union of a legitimate justification for a facially discnminatory referral Plumbers Local 725 (Powers Regulator Go), 225 NLRB 138 (1976), enfd 572 F 2d 550 (5th Cir 1978), Electrical Workers Local 675 1BEW (S & M Electric), 223 NLRB 1499 (1976), enfd 96 LRRM 2106 (3d Or 1977), Electrical Workers Local 592 MEW (United Engineers), 223 NLRB 899 (1976) The Respondent here has failed to make such a showing Thus, based on Odom's outspoken challenge to Helton in several recent intraunton elec- tions the judge could properly infer that this was Helton's motivation in failing to refer Odom We also reject the Respondent's contention that Odom failed to follow the hiring hall procedure by telling Helton that he wanted a job before rather than after the B & B job was called in light of Local member Donnie Nettle's uncontroverted testimony that this was a common and accepted practice. In adopting the judge's finding that the referrals to VIVA and Carroll on 7 September 1982 and 4 April 1983, respectively, did not violate the Act, Chairman Dotson and Member Hunter find it unnecessary to pass on the judge's reliance on the General Counsel's failure to present any evidence to rebut business agent Ray Helton's alleged testimony that these referrals were specific requests in view of independent record evi- dence supporting the Respondent's contention that these referrals were not discriminatory In the absence of any exceptions thereto, Chairman Dotson and Member Hunter also adopt pro forma the judge's failure to find that the Respondent discriminatorily failed to refer Odom to Haggett Construction on 4 March 1983 In light of the judge's reliance on the uncontroverted credited testimo- ny of the Respondent's witness in finding that there were special requests for other named individuals on the Baggett Construction project, Member Zimmerman finds it unnecessary to rely on the absence of exep- lions in affirming the judge's finding, in sec B, 1 of his decision, that the General Counsel failed to establish by credible evidence that the Re- spondent Illegally failed and refused to grant Charging Party Odom a job referral to the Haggett project Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 798, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard in Mobile, Alabama, on September 19 and 20, October 31, and November 1, 1983. The charge in Case 15-CB-2627 was filed on August 5, 1982, and amended on September 10, 1982. A complaint issued in that case on September 21, 1982. The charge in Case 15-CB-2659 was filed on October 25, 1982. A complaint issued in that case on December 14, 1982, and amend- ments to that complaint issued on December 16, 1982. By order dated December 14, 1982, Cases 15-CB-2627 and 15-CB-2659 were consolidated. A motion to amend the complaint in Case 15-CB-2659 was made on October 11, 1983, and granted on October 31, 1983. The com- plaints allege that Respondent engaged in conduct viola- tive of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by failing and refusing to refer for employment Charging Party W. S. Odom Sr. because Odom campaigned and ran against Respondent's president and assistant business manager Ray Sanfor Helton in intraunion elections conducted in June 1982, and/or for other arbitrary, irrelevant, invidious, and/or discriminatory reasons.' At various points during the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel clarified its positions regarding alleged violations. It was finally alleged that Respondent en- gaged in violative activity by refusing to refer Odom to the following employers jobs on the dates shown: Contractors Dates B&B July 16, 1982 July 21, 1982 S & G June 14, 1982 June 29, 1982 July 1, 1982 Atkinson June 25, 1982 ICC October 25, 1982 October 26, 1982 October 30, 1982 PAPCO October (date unclear) 1983 March 23, 1983 Corley September 14, 1982 VIVA September 9, 1982 September 17, 1982 Baggett March 4, 1983 McAbee March 4, 1983 ' The General Counsel alleges, and Respondent admits, that It is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization wihtin the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act On the record, all parties stipulated, and I find, that the following employers satisfied the Board's jurisdictional commerce re- quirement and were employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(6) and (7) of the Act at material times. Brock & Diem Co (B & B), S & G Enterprises, Inc. (S & G); Atkinson Industrial Contractors, Inc. VIVA Corporation, Corley Construction Co, Inc, PAPCO, Inc, Industrial Commercial Constructors, Inc (ICC), and Raymond Industrial Builders, Inc 272 NLRB No. 106 680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD G & V April 4 1983 Campbell Piping March 23 1983 ADA June 10 1983 Carroll April 4 1983 PBI July 8 1983 AML August 22 1983 A The Threshold Question2 The parties stipulated that job referrals are made by Respondent to the various employers material herein under an exclusive hiring hall agreement contained in a collective bargaining agreement The undisputed evi dence demonstrated that those job referrals are made from Respondent s hall on a daily basis Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 and 9 30 a m Employees specifically requested by a contractor are normally re ferred to the requesting contractor Where a contract re quests one or more employees from the Union but does not request specific employees referrals are made from the sign in log (also referred to as the out of work regis ter) All out of work employees interested in referrals are permitted to sign a log at the union hall By signing the log the employee indicates his wish to be considered for job referrals Signatures are recorded on various pages in the log in descending order beginning with the earliest sign in After signing the log the person s name is re moved on his referral to a job that lasts more than 3 days Thereafter the employee is not considered for re ferral until he again signs Respondent s out of work log 3 All potential employees who had signed the out of work log and who were seeking referral were required to be at the hall for referrals at the appropriate time each workday However all persons on Respondent s out of work log who lived over 50 miles from the union hall were excused from personally attending the job referral sessions If the name of any of those persons living over 50 miles away came up as a potential referral Respond ent telephoned that person to determine if he wanted to be referred to the job in question A dispute arose in the evidence regarding the proce dure followed by Respondent during its daily notification to the employees of job referrals Respondent s witnesses Helton and Neidhardt 4 testified that the pre October 1983 system for referral was used throughout and for several years before the period encompassed by the in stant complaints The Charging Party agreed with Helton and Neidhardt on the pre October 1983 proce 2 Respondent moved to dismiss because the Charging Party failed to exhaust intraumon grievance procedures That motion is denied Ventura County Carpenters 259 NLRB 541 546 (1981) 3 Dunng October 1983 the above system was changed by Respondent because of pending civil litigation However none of the General Coun sel s alleged violations occurred after that change Therefore the record does not show 4how the referral system changed during October 1983 4 Helton is Respondent s president and assistant business agent Neld hardt is Respondent s business agent and financial secretary/treasurer Those two men are ultimately responsible for the luring hall procedure and the actual hiring hall processing is usually handled by one of the two dure but Odom testified that that procedure was first in stalled after he filed these unfair labor practice charges 5 Under the pre October 1983 procedure it was Re spondent s practice to announce all jobs for referral be tween 7 and 9 30 a m on each workday Whenever spe cific employees were requested by an Employer that re quest was noted along with all other requests for that particular day on a chalkboard located in the hall Spe cific requests by an employer were honored in accord with Respondent s collective bargaining agreement and when possible the requested employee or employees was referred to the appropriate job The only require merit was that the requested employee be available for referral (i e not otherwise employed) and on the out of work register (log) As to job requests which were not filled pursuant to a request for a specific individual the procedure in effect immediately before October 1983 was as follows The appropriate representative of Respondent (usually Helton or Neidhardt) would announce that a job referral would be called imminently He would then announce the job and ask if anyone on the lowest available page on the out of work register wanted the job If an employee whose signature appeared on that page lived over 50 miles from the hall and if all the jobs were not filled through employees that appeared ahead of the 50 miles signatory on that particular page Respondent would telephone the person that lived, over 50 miles away to determine if he wished to be referred to the job in ques tion That procedure was repeated as to each succeeding page in the out of work register until all the jobs for that day were filled Under the above system Respondent contends that it was the responsibility of each person seeking job refer rals to 6 (1) Properly sign the out of work register (2) Be present during job referrals on the appropriate work day (3) Present himself and announce that he desired the job in question when the calling union official reached his page in the out of work register (i e if an employee appeared on p 412 of the register for example he was required to announce to the referring union official that he wanted the job in question immediately upon the offi cial calling out p 412) There is no dispute but that during the referrals of the jobs alleged to involve violations Charging Party Odom did not satisfy the third element above As to the jobs in question Odom did not stand and announce that he wanted the particular job when the union official reached Odom s page in the out of work register Odom on the other hand testified that before he filed his first charge in 1982 referrals were made by going down the out of work list name by name Under that system each out of work employee was called individ ually in the proper order and asked if he wanted the job 5 The charge in Case 15-CB-2627 was filed on August 5 1982 and Case 15-CB-2659 was filed on October 25 1982 6 The following requirements do not include those persons living over 50 miles from the union hall The Charging Party lived within the 50 mile radius from Respondent s hall IRON WORKERS LOCAL 798 (AGC OF MOBILE) 681 in question. Odom testified that on occasion Respondent simply skipped over and did not call his name Conse- quently, employees ranking below Odom on the out-of- work register were assigned jobs that he had not de- clined. Odom also testified to the effect that Respondent's 50- mile rule was abused by Respondent because on occa- sions employees that lived within 50 miles of the hall were called at home by Respondent and solicited to accept referrals where specific employee(s) was not re- quested by the employer. Odom testified that he was called regarding referrals during February and July 1982 even though he lived within 50 miles of the hal1.7 With the above in mind, it would appear that prelimi- narily9 it is the General Counsel's burden to show either that (1) Odom was denied referral(s) even though he complied with the conditions required under Respond- ent's referral procedure; or (2) Respondent skipped over Odom's name while using the name-by-name procedure of job referrals even though Odom was present in the hall at the appropriate time and available for work; or (3) Respondent discriminated against Odom in some other fashion by not affording Odom the same opportunities to be referred to jobs that Respondent afforded others. FINDINGS OF FACT The General Counsel showed that Odom was not awarded jobs by Respondent on several occasions even though his position on the out-of-work register was supe- rior to others that received the work in question. More- over, Odom was in the hall available for referral on those occasions. Respondent pointed out that the evidence is further undisputed that Odom usually did nothing to claim the jobs now alleged as constituting violative activity and, under Respondent's referral system, Odom had an affirm- ative obligation to speak out and claim those referrals. Counsel for the General Counsel does not quarrel with Respondent's referral system and she concedes that Re- spondent was using "page by page" referrals until Octo- ber 1983. However, Odom testified, in dispute with sev- eral other witnesses, that before he filed charges in 1982, Respondent was using a name-by-name call system. Re- spondent, on the other hand, called a number of wit- nesses who testified that Respondent was using the page- by-page system for several years before October 1983. The significance of whether Respondent used a page- by-page system or a name-calling system is one degree of responsibility. Under the page-by-page system, each out- of-work employee is presumptively not interested in a job unless the out-of-work employee asks for the job in 7 Although Odom testified that Respondent abused the 50-mile rule, no evidence was offered to show that Respondent abused that rule on a spe- cific occasion Odom testified that he was called twice even though he did not live beyond the 50-mile limit However, Respondent admitted, without rebuttal, that its practice Included calling employees within 50 miles in emergency situations Odom did not show that the occasions on which he was called did not fall within the emergency rule There was no probative evidence showing that other "within 50 mile employees" called by Respondent were not requested by the particular employer in- volved or that the call was not of the "emergency" type ° Obviously, additional elements must be considered before a violation is established question on the union official reaching the page on which the employees' name appears in the out-of-work register. If the union official calls out a particular page number and no one expresses an interest in the job at hand, it is presumed that no one on that page wants the job. On the other hand, if the Union's referring official calls each out-of-work employee's name as he goes through the out-of-work register, it may be more likely that each employee will respond 9 either yea or nay as his name is called.' ° Except as shown below, Odom did not contest Re- spondent's testimony that on those occasions claimed by the General Counsel to constitute violations, Odom failed to respond when the referral was called. I found nothing in the testimony of Ray Helton, W. H. Neid- hardt, or other witnesses for Respondent that would enable me to discount or discredit their testimony in the absence of conflicting evidence. Respondent proved that Odom often failed to respond to the referral call at ap- propriate times. In view of the General Counsel's concession that Re- spondent's referral system was not illegal, I find that Re- spondent had no obligation to inquire into an employee's failure to claim a referral position. When Odom failed to claim jobs following the calling of the page of his signa- ture in the out-of-work log, Respondent's responsibilities ended in the absence of unusual circumstances. In all the alleged instances, except those specifically noted below, there was no evidence which would sup- port a finding that Respondent took some action that ille- gally deprived Odom of his right to a job. In that regard, there was no showing that Respondent ever called any of the jobs at issue at any time other than those times routinely set aside for referrals. There was no showing that Odom was ever deprived of an opportunity to be present during those referrals. There was no showing that Odom was ever ignored even though he tried to claim one of the disputed jobs. Under the circumstances, I am not persuaded of the critical importance of whether Respondent was using a page-by-page or name-by-name calling system. Under either system, Odom had an obligation to vocally claim all desired jobs at an appropriate time. Even if his name was not called during the name-by-name referral, Odom should have complained at the conclusion of the referral. Except as shown below, no such complaints were made. In the absence of a vocal claim from Odom, Respond- ent was privileged to continue down the out-of-work register until each job was filled Therefore, even though on occasion jobs were filled by employees that appeared below Odom on the register, that fact alone does not es- tablish a violation. The General Counsel argues that Respondent failed to show that Odom failed to claim referrals after having heard the call. I reject the argument that Respondent has the burden of proving that Odom heard each contested call. As noted above, the referrals were routinely made 9 Conversely, the employee would be less likely to respond at all if the union official did not call his name ' 0 However, the record does not show that the Union's practice was to await a response from each employee 682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at the union hall between 7 and 9 30 a m Monday through Friday of each week Nowhere in the record was there a showing that the Union was responsible for each employee hearing the referral calls Employees were usually told in an informal manner when a referral was to be called but conversely employees were free to go and come In fact Odom testified that he left the union hall on an occasion during the calling of a referral Therefore I find that the Union was not obligated to prove that Odom heard the referral calls in question Moreover I cannot Impute impropriety to those in stances where Odom testified that he did not hear a cer tam job call Additionally Respondent had no obligation to show why Odom failed to claim jobs Odom testified that he did refuse to claim some jobs called at the union hall and in fact he routinely refused to claim Rod jobs Therefore it is apparent that the Union s normal practice did not include inquiry into why each employee failed to claim referrals B Specific Referrals 1 Name requested In regard to some of the referrals including one to Baggett Construction on March 4 1983 one to ADA on June 9 1983 and one to Carroll on April 4 1983 Odom claims those were referred as though the contractor (em ployer) had specifically requested the men referred " It is undisputed that employers have the right under the collective bargaining agreement to specifically request certain employees However Odom claims the employ ees in the above instances were not actually requested by the employers The General Counsel argues in support of Odom s testimony that the referral register fails to show specific name requests by Baggett The General Counsel also argues that Respondent through Ray Helton testified that VIVA name requested employee J W Gregson" on September 7 1982 but that records fail to disclose that Gregson was placed on the referral register as a name request As to Baggett Helton testified that the contractor asked for four men including either Gartman or Jackson Gartman won a coin toss and was referred over Jackson However when another of the specifically requested em ployees was out of town the contractor told Helton to send Jackson Jackson was sent as a name request even though Odom would have been called earlier if the call system had been used However Helton neglected to log Jackson as a name requested Helton testified that the Carroll April 4 1983 jobs were not referred from the union hall According to Helton he received a call from two employees that they " Odom also testified that to the best of my recollection the March 23 1983 referral of employee Ed Lovelace to PAPCO was handled as an employee name request by the employer The records show Lovelace was handled as a regular referral In view of Odom s uncertainty as ex pressed in his testimony and the lack of corroborating evidence I cannot credit his testimony regarding the March 23 referral in view of conflict mg documentary evidence 12 Gregson appeared below Odom on the referral register on Septem ber 7 1982 were already working for Carroll and he placed their names in the register Therefore in the case of Baggett Construction on March 4 1983 Carroll on April 4 1983 and VIVA on September 7 1982 only the employers were privy to the referral arrangement with Respondent and in position to offer probative testimony in opposition to Respondent s evidence Apparently none of those employees would contest Respondent s evidence since none were called Under those circumstances I credit the evidence show ing that the employees in those situations were effective ly name requested 13 As to the ADA job on June 10 Helton testified that two employees listed below Odom were referred through the call system rather than name requested The record (Jt Exh 1) agrees with Helton that the referrals on June 10 1983 were made off the referral list On one occasion according to Odom he was name re quested by an employer but Respondent refused to refer him to the job Odom testified that in February 1982 he was called by Ronnie Walker Walker had been called as the first man to flame refractors at Berry Steam Plant Odom testified that a working rule requires that the first man on the job is automatically the ironworker foreman Nevertheless Odom was not referred to the flame refrac tors job Odom complained to Business Agent Neidhardt Neidhardt testified that in regard to Odom s complaint to him he determined that the actual referral request from Flame Refractors was made by Superintendent Phillips and that Phillips request did not include any name request Therefore the referral was made through the referral register As noted above only the employer was privy to the actual referral request with Respondent and only the em ployer could probatively rebut Neidhardt s testimony Since such testimony was not offered through the em ployer I must credit Neidhardt s testimony I see noth ing improper in Respondent s action The actual referral request did not name Odom Therefore Respondent was obligated to handle the referral through the out of work register The records in evidence show that four employees whose names appeared below that of Odom were re ferred ahead of him to a job with ICC on October 23 1982 Ray Helton testified that the contractor in that sit uation was originally H D Harter Harter s collective bargaining agreement with Respondent expired on July 31 1982 However Respondent agreed to permit Harter s successor company ICC to continue to operate under the old collective bargaining agreement until they completed their existing job of building a coal unloader The employees shown on the referral list simply contin ued to work on the same job but the company s name was ICC rather than Harter Again as above in the ab sence of conflicting evidence from the employer I cannot find that Respondent took any action in this regard which illegally discriminated against Odom " Including Carroll where the Union first learned of the jobs from the employees who were already working IRON WORKERS LOCAL 798 (AGC OF MOBILE) 683 Therefore, with the one exception noted below, I find that General Counsel failed to establish by credible evi- dence that Respondent illegally failed and refused to grant job referrals to W. S. Odom. 2. July 1982 In June 1982, Odom opposed Respondent's president Ray Helton in three intraunion elections. Both Helton and Odom were ultimately elected as delegates to the Southeast District Council and the Southwest District Labor Council. Helton defeated Odom and two others in the local president election. Odom finished second behind Helton in that election. During the campaign, Odom made disparaging remarks against Helton about the running of the local and the hiring hall referral system. On July 15, 1982, before the calling of a referral re- quested by employer Brock & Blevin (B & B), Odom told Helton that "if he got to my name on the book, that I needed a job." Immediately after that conversation, Helton called the B & B referral. Six men were referred to B & B including two, J. Wayne Steward and Larry Switzer, whose names appeared below Odom's on the re- ferral register. Odom complained to Helton without avail. Thereafter, Odom took his complaint to Business Agent Neidhardt. Again, Odom was unsuccessful. Ray Helton agreed with Odom's testimony that Odom asked for a job before the referral was called. Helton tes- tified that Odom failed to speak up during the referral and, consequently, two men, Steward and Switzer, that appeared below Odom on the register received jobs. Helton admitted that Odom then complained first to him, then to Neidhardt. Both Wayne Steward and Larry Switzer were called by Respondent and testified about the July 15, 1982 re- ferral Switzer testified that, subsequent to his claiming the B & B job, Odom came to him and said that he did not feel he (Odom) "was done right about the job." In addition to the events surrounding Odom's request for a job on July 15, Ray Helton admitted hearing a rumor that Odom had heart trouble. Odom testified, and Neidhardt corroborated, that he told Neidhardt in Octo- ber 1982 that the "diagnostic clinic . . . told him that [he] had to have coronary problems corrected." Odom told Neidhardt that he needed work in order to qualify for medical insurance.'4 Both Neidhardt and Helton admitted that on an occa- sion involving another employee, Gene Turner, they both assisted in obtaining employment for Turner be- cause Turner's wife was dying of cancer. Turner needed to work close to home and Neidhardt testified Turner needed to qualify for insurance. Additionally, Respondent's recording secretary, Paul Loftin, was called to testify by Respondent. On occasion, "from time to time," Loftin calls the job referrals for Re- spondent at the union hall. Loftin testified that occasion- ally someone claims a referral even though it has already been assigned to an employee ranked lower on the regis- ter. According to Loftin, "extra paperwork [is required] when you start writing and somebody steps up and says, `wait a minute, I'm ahead of him' you just have to tear that up and start over again." 3. Conclusions As shown above, I have found that in most Instances the General Counsel failed to sustain the difficult re- quirement of proof in this hiring hall referral case. How- ever, as to the July 15 referral to B & B, I am con- vinced, and find, that Respondent improperly denied Odom the referrals given to employees Steward and Switzer That referral followed the intraunion election by only a few weeks and it is clear that Odom was treat- ed in a disparate manner. Odom told Helton before the referral that he wanted a job if Helton reached his name on the list. Helton did reach and pass Odom's name. Even though Odom did not speak up at the time his name or page" was called, Helton was admittedly aware that Odom wanted a job. Moreover, the testimony of Paul Loftin reveals that Re- spondent occasionally tore up referral paperwork when an employee belatedly requested an assigned job on the grounds they preempted the selected employee on the register. Respondent offered no explanation as to why Odom was not given one of the B & B jobs when he complained immediately after two of the jobs were as- signed to employees below him on the register. Additionally, although the timing may not have coin- cided with the July 15, 1982, B & B referral, I find that Respondent's animus toward Odom was demonstrated in the disparate way he was treated regarding his heart condition. When it came to their attention that member Gene Turner's wife had concern, Helton and Neidhardt took steps to aid Turner in finding work. Certainly, their compassion in that instance is commendable. However, no similar action was ever taken regarding Odom even though Odom finally went to Neidhardt and pointed out his need for insurance because of his heart condition. Therefore, I am convinced, and find, that Respondent illegally refused to refer Odom to the B & B job in July 1982, and that Respondent thereafter failed to aid Odom in accord with its past practice of assisting employees in medically difficult circumstances. H H. Robertson Co., 263 NLRB 1344 (1982); Polls Wallcovering Co., 262 NLRB 1336 (1982); and Longshoremen ILA Local 1408, 258 NLRB 132 (1981). CONCLUSION OF LAW By failing and refusing to refer W. S Odom Sr. to a job at Brock & Blevins on or about July 15, 1982, and failing and refusing to take steps similar to steps taken in the case of member Gene Turner during the terminal ill- ness of Turner's wife to refer Odom for employment with employers party to collective-bargaining agree- ments with Respondent, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. i4 order to qualify, an employee must work at least 100 hours in the is Odom contends that Helton was calling names rather than pages and that Helton never called Odom's name month immediately before the effective month of Insurance 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action My recommended Order will require Respondent to make W S Odom Sr whole with interest for any loss of earning he may have suffered by reason of Respond ent s discrimination against him in the manner prescribed in F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950) and Flon da Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 16 I shall also rec ommend that Respondent take reasonable steps similar to those taken in the case of Gene Turner to obtain em ployment for W S Odom Sr On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed17 ORDER The Respondent International Association of Bridge Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers Local Union No 798 its officers agents and representatives shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Restraining or coercing employees because they ex ercise their Section 7 rights (b) Causing or attempting to cause employers to dis criminate against employees in retaliation for exercising their Section 7 rights (c) Failing and refusing to refer employees for employ ment because employees exercise their Section 7 rights (d) In any other like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Make W S Odom Sr whole for any loss of earn ing incurred by reason of its failure and refusal to refer Odom for employment wiht Brock & Blevins Co on or about July 15 1982 in the manner provided in the sec tion of this decision entitled The Remedy (b) On request by W S Odom Sr take all necessary steps to refer Odom for employment in the manner pre viously undertaken to refer Gene Turner for employ ment during the illness of Turner s wife as provided in the section of this Decision entitled The Remedy 16 See generally Isis Plumbing Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962) " 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 is offices and meeting hall frequented by its members copies of the attached notice marked Appen dix 18 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15 after being signed by the Respondent s authorized representative shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are cus tomanly posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered de faced or covered by any other material (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days of the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply 18 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 WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees because they exercise the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause any employ er to discriminate against employees in retaliation for ex ercising their Section 7 rights WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to refer employees for em ployment because employees engaged in intraunion polit ical activities or otherwise exercise rights guaranteed them by Section 7 WE WILL make W S Odom Sr whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered with interest because of our discrimination against him WE WILL take all necessary and appropriate steps to refer W S Odom Sr for employment in the manner pre viously used to refer an employee for employment under similar circumstances WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS LOCAL UNION No 798