Frank Pauley, as Agent for Local No. 1, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 1409 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

FRANK PAULEY, AS AGENT FOR LOCAL NO. 1, ETC. 1409
Frank Pauley , as Agent for Local Union No. 1, International
Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Work-
ers, AFL-CIO ( R. Gatwood Steel Erectors , Inc.) and James
Edward Warden
Local Union No. 1, International Association of Bridge , Struc-
tural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO ( John F.
Beasley Construction Company ) and Leon W. Kamphues and
Harry Lee. Cases Nos. 13-CB-1487 and 13-CB-1537. June 10,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 12, 1964, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents
had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as
set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Charging Party Leon W. Kamphues and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and the General Counsel
filed a supporting brief. The Respondents filed an answering brief in
support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that
the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges filed by James Edward Warden on July 10, 1963 , against
Frank Pauley, as agent for Local Union No 1, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent
Union or Local 1, and by Leon W. Kamphues and Harry Lee against Local 1, on
152 NLRB No. 146.
789-730-66-vol 152-90
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
October 4, 1963, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 13, issued a consolidated amended complaint on
December 16, 1963, against Pauley and Local 1, alleging that each of the Respondents
had engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(1) (A) and 8(b)(2)
of the Act. The Respondents, in their answer, denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Ivar
H Peterson in Chicago, Illinois, on January 29, 30, and 31, 1964. The General
Counsel and the Respondents were represented at the hearing, and were afforded
full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the
record, and to file briefs. Respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint is disposed
of in accordance with the findings below.' Briefs filed by counsel for the General
Counsel and the Respondents have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
R Gatwood Steel Erectors, Inc , an Illinois corporation, herein called Gatwood,
has its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged in
the erection of structural steel in the building and construction industiy. During the
past calendar year, Gatwood performed services valued at $100,000 for Gerber Orna-
mental Iron Works, an enterprise engaged in the fabrication of structural steel which
annually purchases and ships to jobsites in Illinois goods and materials from outside
the State of Illinois valued in excess of $50,000
John F Beasley Construction Company, a Texas corporation, herein called
Beasley, is engaged in the erection of steel in the building and construction industry,
and maintains a district office and warehouse in Chicago, Illinois. During the past
calendar year, Beasley performed services having a gross value of approximately
$10,000,000, about 80 percent of which was performed in States other than the State
of Illinois.
I find that Gatwood and Beasley are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 1, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act. Frank Pauley is financial secretary-treasurer of Local 1 and, I
find, is an agent of Local 1.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that at all time material Gatwood and the Respondent Union
had an arrangement, understanding, or practice requiring membership in or clearance
by the Respondent Union as a condition of employment of employees hired by Gat-
wood, and that on or about July 8 and 11, 1963, Respondent Pauley, pursuant to this
understanding, arrangement, or practice, refused to clear and refer Warden for
employment at Gatwood because of his lack of membership in the Respondent Union.
Thereby. it is alleged, both Respondent Pauley and Respondent Union restrained and
coerced employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1) (A) and caused or attempted to
cause an employer to discriminate in violation of Section 8(a)(3), thus violating
Section 8(b)(2). The complaint further alleges that the Respondent Union refused
to clear and refer Kamphues and Lee for employment at Beasley, on or about Octo-
ber 2, 1963, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 8(b)(2).2
The Respondents contend that the record fails to establish that there was any
arrangement, understanding, or practice whereby Gatwood or Beasley was required
1 At the hearing, I reserved ruling on the motion of counsel for the General Counsel to
strike the testimony of Phillip Cancelli. Being now persuaded that the testimony was
not properly admissible as bearing on the credibility of the Charging Party, James
Warden, the motion is now granted and the testimony (appearing at transcript pages 340
to 340) is hereby stricken
2 There Is no allegation that the Respondent Union and Beasley had an arrangement,
understanding, or practice requiring membership in or clearance by the Respondent Union
as a condition of hire. However, counsel for the General Counsel contends in his brief
that the facts here show such an arrangement, understanding, or practice on the part
of Beasley and the Respondent Union.
FRANK PAULEY, AS AGENT FOR LOCAL NO. 1, ETC . 1411
to hire employees by referral from or clearance by the Respondent Union and also
point out that as to Beasley there is no allegation to that effect in the complaint. In
substance, they maintain that, in the absence of any exclusive hiring arrangement,
the practices and policies of the Respondents here involved are in no way violative of
the Act but, to the contrary, are purely internal union matters protected by the proviso
to Section 8(b) (1) (A).
A. Contractual arrangements and hiring policies of the Employers involved
1. Gatwood
Gatwood has an agreement with the International Union, which provides that
Gatwood "agrees to abide by the General Working Rules of this Association and to
pay the scale of wages, work the schedule of hours and conform to the conditions of
employment" in the localities where it performs work. Pursuant thereto, Gatwood
follows in the Chicago area the wages and conditions set forth in a contract between
Local 1 and Associated Steel Erectors of Chicago. The Gatwood-International agree-
ment contains a provision obligating the employer "to employ Journeymen in any
territory where work is being performed or is to be performed in accordance with
the Referral Plan in force and effect in the jurisdiction of the local Union," which plan
is set forth as an Appendix to the agreement. However, this hiring hall arrangement
is operative only if it has been adopted by the local union in whose jurisdiction work
is performed. Local 1 has not adopted the hiring plan set forth in the International
agreement , and J. L. Floyd, president of Gatwood, testified that neither in Chicago
nor in other areas where his company has operated has an exclusive referral plan
been in effect.
According to Floyd, Gatwood has no arrangement with Local 1 which prevents hir-
ing from any source. He testified that he has "instructed superintendents to hire
through any media they can secure qualified help." Floyd, as well as Marvin
Homeyer, Gatwood's superintendent, testified men were hired at the company garage
if they appeared there when additional men were needed, by calls to the homes of
individuals, and by calls or visits to the Respondent Union's hall. They denied that
membership in Local 1 or clearance by it was necessary to obtain employment.
2. Beasley
Beasley is a member of Associated Steel Erectors of Chicago and, as such, is a
party to the contract between that association and Local 1. This agreement does not
set forth any requirement that employees be referred or cleared by the Respondent
Union and, as stated above, the complaint does not allege there existed between
Beasley and the Respondent Union any arrangement, understanding, or practice to
that effect.
On the only project of Beasley here involved, the maintenance and repair of a 750-
foot radio tower for Station WGN in Chicago, the four men needed on this job were
hired by Beasley's superintendent, R. J. Holland. He testified that he called the office
of Local I and advised the office girl of the requirements of the job. Holland's request
was filled. He testified that no ironworkers were hired on the WGN project from any
source other than Local 1, and that although he customarily hired through the union
hall, because in his experience that was the best source of skilled men, he was free
to hire from any source he wished.
B. Respondent Union's referral and permit practices
Employers within the jurisdiction of Local 1, including Gatwood and Beasley, on
occasion call or visit the Union's office or hall in order to secure ironworker employ-
ees. When such a request is made, a "work call" slip is filled out and signed by
Pauley, the financial secretary-treasurer, or one of the business agents. The slips
are read to the ironworkers gathered at the union hall seeking employment, and
are either issued to the men interested in filling the request by Pauley, a business
agent, or an office secretary or placed on a table or the half-door shelf separating
the union office from the hallway meeting area . In the event several individuals
desire a particular job, either the men interested decide who will take the assign-
ment or Pauley makes the determination of who shall be referred. Preference is
given to members of Local 1. If members of Local 1 are not interested or available,
members of other locals of the International are referred and are given an official
work permit . These are effective for a 2-week period and may be renewed. If a
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
member of a local other than Local 1 is hired without first having obtained a work
permit and this becomes known to the union job steward , the man is told by the
steward to secure a permit If he does not do so, he is subject to internal charges
and a fine.3 There is no evidence that any employee , after having been hired, was
thereafter terminated as the result of any action by a job steward
C The events i elating to Warden
James Warden, a member of Local 469 of the International in Jackson, Missis-
sippi, came to the Chicago area in June 1963 seeking employment as an ironworker.
Warden went to the hall of Local 1 and there picked up a work order for Kenwood
Construction Company and asked Pauley if he could go out on the job. Pauley asked
for Warden's union book and called attention to the fact that it did not have a June
dues stamp. Warden then obtained a money order for June dues and showed it to
Pauley. However, Pauley declined to send Warden on the job although, so Warden
testified, men from a local other than Local 1 were sent out on jobs. The following
day, June 18, Pauley did issue Warden a work permit for Kenwood, effective until
June 30. He worked for Kenwood 3 or 4 days.
In the ensuing 2 weeks, Warden on a number of occasions asked Pauley for
referral to various jobs, but was refused although it appears that other nonmembers
of Local 1 were sent out on the specific jobs sought by Warden. In rejecting War-
den's request for referral to one employer, CST, Pauley told Warden "to get out,"
that "you are a Mississippi guy, and I am not going to have any Mississippi guys
working out of Local 1."
About July 3 Warden obtained work with Midwest Steel Erectors, without secur-
ing a permit from Pauley, and worked there until about July 9. According to
Warden, he had been told by Midwest that clearance would be obtained for him the
Monday after he first went to work (July 8). Midwest's field superintendent, John
Zahorik, who had hired Warden, testified he had made no promise to obtain clear-
ance for Warden, and I credit his testimony to this effect.4
While still employed by Midwest, Warden, on or about July 8,5 encountered
Gatwood Superintendent Homeyer in front of the union hall; Homeyer asked War-
den if he wanted to go to work and gave him a W-2 income tax withholding form
and told him to go to an Addison address where Gatwood was working on a school
project. Warden, however, told Homeyer that he "wanted to clear through the hall."
In explanation of not accepting the job proffered by Homeyer, Warden testified he
desired to obtain clearance through the union hall in order to avoid possible charges
and a fine, because he was then working at Midwest without a permit "and what was
the sense of taking another chance." Warden then saw Pauley and asked for a
permit to work for Gatwood; Pauley, according to Warden's uncontradicted testi-
mony, refused in a tone of voice that was "pretty rough." Warden had no further
contact with Homeyer that day, nor did he go to the Gatwood Addison project
Three days later , on July 11, Warden, in company with his brother who was a
member of Local 1, again met Homeyer at the union hall. Warden's brother
inquired whether Homeyer needed men; receiving an affirmative reply, Warden's
brother, according to Homeyer, said, "If I had a letter, we could clear it through
the union hall and we'd be out on the job " Homeyer then told them to go to the
Gatwood office and "pick up" a letter, and he telephoned Thomas Moran, Gatwood's
office manager, that he was sending two men for a letter. He also testified he would
have sent Warden out on the job without a letter. When the Wardens arrived at the
Gatwood office, Moran had ready, except for inserting names, a letter for each of
them, addressed to Local 1, stating that Gatwood wished to offer employment to the
8 The International constitution provides that a member "who goes into the jurisdic-
tion of any local union to work and fails to immediately notify in person or by mail the
financial secretary of such local union that he is in their jurisdiction, shall be fined the
sum of $50 00 plus $2 00, for each 15-day period said member has worked in such juris-
diction and plus all local assessments for the entire period such member has worked in
such jurisdiction."
4 Warden, recalled as a witness after Zahorik testified, was unable to identify Zahorik
as the person who undertook to obtain clearance for him at Midwest
e Warden was uncertain about the date of this meeting, first stating it was July 7,
which was a Sunday The more likely date is July 8, in view of the circumstances and
particularly since Warden on the evening of July 8 wired the International protesting
the treatment given him by Pauley.
FRANK PAULEY, AS AGENT FOR LOCAL NO. 1, ETC. 1413
bearer "if he can be issued a Local working permit." Upon ascertaining that only
James Warden, but not his brother , wanted a letter , Moran filled in Warden's name
and gave him the letter , with the understanding the Wardens were going back to
the union hall, clear through , and then call Moran to be directed to the job.
Upon arriving at the union hall with the letter given him by Moran , Warden saw
Pauley. According to Warden , the following exchange took place:
A. I said , "Pauley, I got a letter here to go to work."
So, Frank started coming over and he acted like he was mad and his face
was turning colors, reached over, and I thought he was going to tear the letter up
and he said , "I am still not going to let you go to work . The best thing for you
to do is leave town and not come back."
Q. Where did you have the letter at that time?
A. I had it in my hand.
Q. What, if anything , did you do next?
A. I left, then.
Q. Did you at any time go to Gatwood Construction Company on that day?
A. Not after I got the letter, no, sir.
Warden's testimony as above set forth is uncontradicted , and I credit. Pauley was
not questioned about the conversation , although he did testify that prior to the
hearing he had not seen the Gatwood letter (which was introduced in evidence) and
that Warden had neither waved a folded paper in front of him nor attempted to
hand him such a document.
In September , Warden was told by his brother that Pauley would "put me to
work." He returned to the union hall and on a number of occasions was thereafter
issued work permits by Pauley or one of the office secretaries for employment by
various employers , including Industrial Steel , Gatwood, American Bridge, and CST.
While employed at Gatwood , Superintendent Homeyer on occasion obtained work
permits for him.
D. Events relating to Kamphues and Lee
Leon Kamphues and Harry Lee, both members of Local 147 of the International
located at Fort Wayne , Indiana, came to the hall of Local I on October 2, 1963,
seeking employment as ironworkers . They observed one of the office secretaries
reading off work call slips to the men assembled in the hallway and directing the
men to the jobs if they accepted ; if a job had no takers , the work call slip was placed
on the half-door ledge separating the office from the hallway . Kamphues and Lee
selected a work slip from the shelf, dated that day, which indicated that two tower-
men were needed for a "Beasley -WGN Tower" job on Route 53.6 Kamphues and
Lee told the office girl they wished to go on the job, and presented their union books.
After ascertaining they were not Local 1 members and noting that Lee was a month
in arrears in dues,7 the office girl inquired of the other ironworkers whether any of
the local men desired the Beasley referral . Obtaining no response , she then told
the two men that she would contact a business agent. Kamphues and Lee overheard
the office girl tell the party she telephoned that "there were two out of town men
that want to go to work for Beasley on a tower job." After completing the call.
she returned to the men and , as Lee testified , told them "that the business agent
knows what is going out out there and he wanted local men on this job." 8
Kamphues and Lee left the union hall but returned shortly, after making some
telephone calls and having determined to file charges , and picked up the Beasley
work call slip which was still on the half-door shelf . They filed charges the same
6 As noted above , Beasley 's superintendent , Holland , had called the union hall for
men on this job.
7 Lee testified he offered to get a money order to cover current clues.
8 Kamphues testified the office girl attributed this statement to Pauley, although in his
pretrial statement he ascribed it to a business agent (not identified by name ), as did
Lee In his testimony Kamphues appeared somewhat uncertain and confused when he
testified the reference was to Pauley by name; I have , therefore , accepted Lee's version
as more reliable . Pauley was not present in the union hall on October 2, and testified
he did not talk to an office girl about the WGN tower job or to anyone about Kamphues
and Lee wanting to fill the order for it.
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
day. Thereafter, neither of them had any further contact with any representative of
Local 1, nor did either of them attempt to go to the Beasley job or otherwise obtain
work with Beasley.
E. Concluding findings
Upon a consideration of all the evidence , I am not persuaded that either Gatwood
or Beasley , the employers here involved , had an arrangement , understanding, or
practice with the Respondent Union which required employees as a condition of
being hired to be referred or cleared by the Respondent Union. Although Gat-
wood 's contract with the International contains a provision obligating the employer
to hire in accordance with a referral plan set forth as an addendum to the agi ce-
ment if that plan is in effect in the area where work is performed , the record here
shows that the Respondent Union has not adopted the plan contained in the Gatwood-
International agreement and that the referral provision is therefore inoperative as
to Gatwood. Gatwood does observe the terms of the contract between the Respond-
ent Union and Associated Steel Erectors of Chicago, although not a party thereto.
However, that agreement does not require that the employers party thereto hire
exclusively through the Respondent Union. In short, the written collective-bargain-
ing agreements to which Gatwood and Beasley are parties or adhere do not provide
that hiring is to be done exclusively through the Respondent Union or that only such
persons as are referred or cleared by the Respondent Union will be employed
Also negativing the existence of an exclusive hiring arrangement is the testimony
of representatives of the employers here involved, which I credit. Thus, both Presi-
dent Floyd and Superintendent Homeyer of Gatwood testified that Gatwood hires
at the company garage, by calling men individually , and by going to or calling the
union hall. They further testified that, without regard to the method of hire, union
membership , referral , or clearance is not made a condition precedent to actual
employment . Similarly, Superintendent Holland of Beasley testified that, in con-
nection with the WGN tower project which he supervised for Beasley , he was free
to hire from any source , although he in fact obtained all men needed on the job by
calling the union hall .9
It is, of course , clear that the Respondent Union did maintain a hiring hall
and, in response to calls for men from employers , referred its members to jobs in
preference to members of other locals of the International ; if members did not desire
the jobs or were unavailable, work permits were issued to such nonmembers of
Local 1 . It also appears that no objective criteria were observed by representatives
of the Respondent Union in selecting men to be sent out or in granting or refusing
work permits , except that members were given preference . Indeed , in the case of
Warden , the evidence shows and I find that the Respondent Pauley on more than
one occasion refused to issue him a work permit because of personal hostility
toward Warden . However , the Board has held that "the granting or withholding
of work permits in the absence of an agreement or understanding with an employer
requiring such permits as a condition of obtaining employment is an internal
union matter which is protected by the proviso to Section 8(b) (1) (A )." Carpenters
Local #40, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
etc. (Stop & Shop, Inc.), 143 NLRB 142, 143. Since I find that there was here no
exclusive hiring agreement or practice , the action of the Respondents in granting or
withholding work permits must be regarded as protected unless it can otherwise be
shown that the Respondents caused or attempted to cause an employer to discrimi-
nate within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3).
As found above , the Respondent Pauley on July 8 and 11 refused to give Warden
a work permit to go on a job with Gatwood With respect to the July 8 incident,
Superintendent Homeyer had offered Warden a job and had not conditioned that
offer upon Warden first obtaining a work permit. Warden, however, did not accept
the job but, because he was then working for Midwest on a nonpermit basis and
wished to avoid the possibility of charges and a fine, told Homeyer that he "wanted
to clear through the hall." When Warden saw Pauley, the latter refused to give
him a work permit. Warden did not, following this refusal, see Homeyer or go
out to the jobsite. There is no showing that Pauley spoke to Homeyer or that the
latter would have refused Warden employment , because he had not obtained a permit,
had Warden appeared for work at the jobsite From these circumstances , and par-
9 As stated above , the complaint did not allege that Beasley had an exclusive hiring
arrangement , understanding, or practice with the Respondent Union
FRANK PAULEY, AS AGENT FOR LOCAL NO. 1, ETC . 1415
ticularly since there was no arrangement or practice in existence between Gatwood
and the Respondent Union requiring a permit as a condition of employment, I think
it would be strained to conclude that Pauley's refusal to issue a permit to Warden
caused or attempted to cause Gatwood to discriminate against Warden.
Nor do I believe the events of July 11 spell out a statutory violation with respect
to Warden. On this occasion, Warden and his brother sought and obtained a letter
from Gatwood's office manager, Moran, stating in effect that Warden would be given
employment if a work permit were issued to him by the Respondent Union. How-
ever, Superintendent Homeyer, with whom the Wardens had initially spoken that
day and who had said he was in need of men, had not made actual employment con-
ditional upon a permit being issued by the Respondent Union. From the testimony
of Warden, as well as Moran and Homeyer, it seems evident that the Wardens initiated
the chain of events which resulted in Moran giving Warden the letter, apparently
because they believed, erroneously, that a permit was necessary in order to obtain the
job. In concluding above that no arrangement existed between Gatwood and the
Respondent Union requiring union clearance as a condition of being employed, I
have not overlooked the fact that the Moran letter, read literally and in isolation, is
susceptible of a contrary construction. However, Moran was not responsible for
hiring, and the total circumstances surrounding the issuance of the letter as well as
the credited testimony of Gatwood representatives concerning Gatwood's hiring prac-
tices, persuade me that no exclusive hiring arrangement or clearance requirement
existed. Absent such an arrangement, Pauley's refusal on July 11 to give Warden
a permit, not accompanied by any communication from Pauley to Gatwood that
Warden not be employed, cannot be said to have caused or attempted to cause Gat-
wood not to employ Warden.
As found above, Beasley did not have an arrangement, understanding, or practice
requiring that men as a condition of being employed be cleared or referred by the
Respondent Union. With respect to the failure of Kamphues and Lee to be referred
to the WGN tower job of Beasley on October 2, the record shows that Beasley's super-
intendent, Holland, had called the union hall for two towermen, that Kamphues and
Lee sought to be sent out on the job, and that their request was rejected by the office
girl, after she had made a call to an unidentified business agent, and reported to them
that the business agent wanted local men on the Beasley job. There is no showing
that any representative of the Respondent Union communicated with the Beasley
representative concerning Kamphues and Lee, and the two men did not attempt to
obtain employment by going to the jobsite or otherwise contacting Beasley Under
these circumstances, and especially in view of the lack of any agreement or under-
standing between Beasley and the Respondent Union requiring a work permit as a
condition of obtaining employment, it follows that the Respondent Union did not
cause or attempt to cause Beasley to discriminate against Kamphues and Lee, in
violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (I) (A) of the Act.
Having found that the Respondents have not engaged in any of the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint, it will be recommended that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.lo
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. R. Gatwood Steel Erectors, Inc., and John F. Beasley Construction Company,
are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Local Union No. 1, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act, and Frank Pauley is an agent of said organization
3. The Respondents have not engaged in any unfair labor practices as alleged in
the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
101 have considered the argument made in his brief by counsel for the General Counsel
to the effect that the refusals of the Respondents to clear and refer the Charging Parties
fall within the ambit of the principle established in Miranda Fuel Company , 140 NLRB
181 The principle there established is not apposite here and I find this argument lacking
in merit.