Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

108 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardalso allowed for referrals out of the order that persons signed theout-of-work register to meet affirmative action goals and to accommodateemployer requests for named employees, many ofwhom were without written documentation.In dismissing this allegation, the Board stated: "These practicesmay lend themselves to abuse, allowing a union to disguise favoritismor patronage in referrals; they are not, however, sufficientin themselves to prove such abuse." The Board adopted thejudge's fmding that the hiring hall was operated in a nonviolativemanner, relying on his fmdings that the union representativesought in good faith to determine the qualifications of applicantsat the hiring hall; the lack of evidence or allegation that theunion preferred its own members in referrals; and the lack of evidencethat there was discrimination based on the exercise of Section7 rights, race, sex, or any other impermissible basis.Regarding the allegedly discriminatory fees, the majoritynoted that every employee paid a 5-cent-per-hour-worked servicefee. In addition to that hourly amount, nonmembers of the unionpaid $5 per week "applicant service dues" during part of theperiod in question and $10 per week in another period. Membersof "sister locals" paid "travel service dues" of $2.50 and $5 perweek in corresponding periods. In the same periods, members ofthe local union paid dues with weekly equivalents that rangedfrom $2.30 to $3.The judge had dismissed this allegation based on his reading ofOperating Engineers Local 825 (Homan Co.). 125 There, the GeneralCounsel had not established the cost of operating the hiringhall, a step that the Homan majority found necessary to determinewhat a fair charge to individuals using the hall would beand therefore what a disproportionate and unlawful chargewould be. The Morrison-Knudsen majority distinguished Homan,noting that in Homan there was only a "rough equivalency" betweenmembership dues and nonmember fees. In contrast, thenonmembers in Morrison-Knudsen paid approximately twice theamount that local members paid. In such a circumstance, the majorityfound that the General Counsel made out a prima faciecase that nonmembers were paying more than their pro ratashare of operating the hiring hall and that the burden should shiftto the union to rebut the inference of discrimination. With regardto the members of "sister locals," the majority similarly foundthat the General Counsel had made a prima facie case for theperiod in which the "travel service" dues were approximatelydouble the members' dues. However, the complaint was dismissedas to the allegation covering the period in which the"travel service dues" were approximately the same as memberdues."5 137 NLRB 1043 (1962).