Reply – Re: THE CEMENT (CONCRETE) LEAGUE & ALJ Greens 5-21-15 Decision & the...
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: THE CEMENT (CONCRETE) LEAGUE & ALJ Greens 5-21-15 Decision & the NLRB Boards 2-16-16 Decision & Order; EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC Hiring Hall, the HARTE, McMURRAY & CLARKE legacy vs. 50-50%, 67-33% & 90%-10% vs. the McCarron, Walsh, Berman & Torrance Conversion of the BLUE CARD to the WHITE CARD 8(f) to illegal 9(a) Agreement w/o Proof or the req'd. NLRB Board Election
— by Ted Ted
 - cont. -
page 754 NLRB Board Decision & Order dated April 30,1986
(remains good law and has never been over-turned)

A. The Exclusivity of the Hiring Hall

Respondent contends that its hiring hall herein is nonexclusive in nature, because in order for such an arrangement to be considered exclusive, "all" hiring authority must be reserved to the Union. I do not agree. {As the authors above falsely claim with respect to 100% FULL MOBILITY}

It is well settled that a hiring is deemed to be exclusive where the union retains exclusive authority for referrals for some specified period of time, such as 24 or 48 hours, before an employer can hire on its own. Mountain Pacific Chapter AGC, 119 NLRB 883 (1957); Boilermakers Local 587 (Stone & Webster), 233 NLRB 612, 614 (1977); Carpenters Local 78 (Murray Walter), 223 NLRB 733, 734-735 (1976). Thus to the extent that that union retains such exclusive authority during this period, it operates an exclusive hiring hall.

Similarly, an exclusive hiring hall can also exist where an employer has the contractual right to bring in a certain number or percentage of employees onto a job. Bricklayers Local 8 (California Mason Contractors), 235 NLRB 1001, 1003 (1978). Thus the employers herein have given up and delegated to Respondent the right to hire the first employee on the job and 50 percent of the remainder after the employer selects a second employee.

I conclude that to such an extent an exclusive hiring hall is contemplated by the agreement. Heavy Construction Laborers Local 663 (Robert A. Treuner), 205 NLRB 455, 456 (1973).26 Since the record is bereft of any evidence that the terms of the contract have not been adhered to, I conclude that to the extent specified, Respondent operates an exclusive hiring hall, and is subject to the obligations and requirements which flow from such a finding.27

B. The Obligation to Permit Inspection of and Supply
Information Regarding Respondent's Referral Records

It is well settled that a union which operates an exclusive hiring hall breaches its duty of fair representation in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it arbitrarily denies requests of its members for job referral information, where such requests are reasonably directed towards ascertaining whether such members have been properly treated in connection with the operation of the hiring hall. Operating Engineers Local 324 (AGC of Michigan),
226 NLRB 587 (1976); Bartenders Local 165 (Nevada Resort), 261 NLRB 420 (1982); Electrical Workers IBEW Local 575 (Coleman Electric), 270 NLRB 66, 69-70
 The Board has found violations with respect to the denials of various types of requests in this connection, such

page 755
as inspecting the hiring hall lists,28 copying the lists,29 or even asking the union to compile and furnish hiring hall information.30

Even where a union operates a nonexclusive hiring hall, the Board has found that the union still owes a duty of fair representation towards those who seek to utilize its services. Bricklayers Local 8, supra at 1005-1008; Plumbers Local 13 (Mechanical Contractors of Rochester), 212 NLRB 477, 479 (1974); Crouse Nuclear Energy Services,
240 NLRB 390 (1979).

This duty has been held to have been violated where the union in a nonexclusive hiring hall discriminatorily refuses its members access to and services of the hiring hall because they have engaged in intraunion political activity. Operating Engineers Local 4 (Carlson Corp.), 189 NLRB 366 (1971); Teamsters Local 923 (Yellow Cab), 172 NLRB 2137 (1968); Crouse Nuclear, supra. The Board has also found the duty of fair representation to have been violated where the operator of a nonexclusive hiring hall refused to permit the utilization of the hiring hall, because of other arbitrary reasons, such as the fact that the applicant was not a union member or because he worked for a nonunion contractor, Plumbers Local 13, supra, or because of his nonunion status and because he refused to pay a fine to a sister local. Bricklayers Local 8, supra.

In the instant case the evidence is more than sufficient to support a finding that the various requests of the Charging Parties were denied because of activities in opposition to the policies of Respondent and its incumbent officials, including their reelection.