As the judge correctly noted, in the context of a union’s operation of an exclusive hiring hall, it is well settled that a union is obligated to provide those seeking work through the hall with relevant information regarding referrals so that employees may be assured of fair treatment.
See, e.g., Operating Engineers Local 3 (Kiewit Pacific Co.), 324 NLRB 14 (1997); Boilermakers Local 197 (Northeastern State Boilermaker Employers), 318 NLRB 205 (1995); and Operating Engineers Local 513 (Various Employers), 308 NLRB 1300 (1992).
Further, in the context of a union’s operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall, the Board has held that a union may not retaliate against a member seeking to obtain referrals because he or she engaged in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act.
See, e.g., Carpenters Local 626 (Strawbridge & Clothier), 310 NLRB 500 fn. 2 (1993); Carpenters Local 537 (E. I. du Pont), 303 NLRB 419
As the judge recognized, in Teamsters Local 460 (Superior Asphalt), 300 NLRB 441 (1990), the Board set forth the established principle that no duty of fair representation attaches to a union’s operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall. As the Board, at 442, stated:
Where a union has a nonexclusive referral arrangement with an employer, the union has no exclusive status relating to potential employees. Individuals can obtain employment either through the union’s hiring hall or through direct application to the employer. Without the exclusive bargaining representative status, the statutory justification for the imposition of a duty of fair representation does not exist.
As the Board further set forth in Carpenters Local 537 (E. I. du Pont), supra at 420, “No duty of fair representation attaches, however, to a union operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall because the union lacks the power to put jobs out of reach of workers.”
"Without the exclusive bargaining representative status, the statutory justification for the imposition of a duty of fair representation does not exist."Thus; "with" the Exclusive Bargaining Representative status (NLRA Sec. 9(a)), the statutory justification for the imposition of a duty of fair representation does exist.
Your legal beagles, Murphy, Jones & McGorty with the direct knowledge & consent of the Benefit Trust Funds, the Contractor Associations, the UBCJA International and their corporate counsel; notwithstanding the EST, President & Vice Presidents role in every contract, however limited by McCarron - executed Exclusive Bargaining Representative or NLRA Section 9(a) contracts across the Board
; thus, the phony Cement League Test Case proffered & funded by the International and the NLRA Sec. 8(f) NRCC is of no legal force or effect as both ALJ Greens ruling and the Boards D & O run afoul of known precedents long established and enforced.