NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,493, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 331 aw INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO (Statewide) and LEO SULLIVAN., (Sep. 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 29, 1994)

The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. [19 LC ¶66,308] 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.

In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by causing the Company to terminate Charging Party Leo Sullivan because he was not a current member of the Respondent, we also rely on Quality Mechanical, [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,216] 307 NLRB 64 (1992). As noted in that case, “a union may be held accountable for results triggered by what on the surface appears an innocent act which the union well knew would produce a desired result.” Id. at 66.

The judge’s remedy provides that the Respondent must make Sullivan whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from the date of his termination until 5 days after notification to the Company that it has no objection to the Company’s employing Sullivan. The Board has held that in cases where a union unlawfully causes an employer to discharge an employee, and there is no culpability on the part of the employer, the union will be required to make the employee whole for all losses of wages and benefits suffered by the employee as a result of the union’s discrimination against the employee until the employee is either reinstated by the employer to his or her former or substantially equivalent position or until the employee obtains substantially equivalent employment elsewhere. See Sheet Metal Workers Local 355 (Zinsco Electrical), [1980-81 CCH NLRB ¶17,836] 254 NLRB 773 (1981), enfd. in relevant part [99 LC ¶10,494] (716 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1983); Electrical Workers IBEW Local 99 (Electrical Maintenance), [1993-94 CCH NLRB ¶15,087] 312 NLRB 613 (1993). We therefore modify the remedy in this case to conform with Zinsco.

Because the recommended Order incorporates the remedy by reference and does not specifically mention the 5-day notification provision, it is unnecessary to modify the recommended Order.