Int'l Assn. of Bridge, Structural, Etc., Local 678

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 943 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ETC., LOCAL 678 943
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------- --------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap-
plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Tele-
phone No. 724-8356, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
International Association of Bridge , Structural & Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local Union No. 678 [W. R. Aldrich & Com-
pany] and Wilfred Smith. Case No. 15-CB-642. January 13,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 8, 1963, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief; the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' con-
clusions, and recommendations, with the following modifications:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Union
violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act by causing Smith's
i The Respondent has excepted to credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. As it
Is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect
to credibility unless, as Is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all relevant evi-
dence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect, we find insufficient basis for dis-
turbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc, 91
NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3).
145 NLRB No. 100.
'944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
termination for discriminatory reasons. We shall remedy this viola-
tion by ordering the Respondent Union to make Smith whole for zany
loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination against him from
December 10, 1962, to the date when his employment with Aldrich
would have terminated absent the discrimination caused by the Re-
spondent Union, the computation to be made in the customary man-
ner. Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be added to said
backpay to be computed as set forth in Isis Plru,'rmbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716. We shall also require that the Respondent Union
notify 'Smith and Aldrich that it has no objection to the hiring or
employment of Smith at the Welsh jobsite or any other project of
Aldrich within the Respondent Union's territorial area. Respondent
Union's liability for accrual of backpay shall cease 5 days after the
giving of such notification.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, International
Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Lo-
cal Union No. 678, Lake Charles, Louisiana, its officers, agents, rep-
resentatives, successors, 'and assigns, shall :
1. Cease 'and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause W. R. Aldrich & Company to
discharge, or in any other manner discriminate against, employees in
violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
.effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Wilfred Smith for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against him in the
manner set forth herein.
(b) Notify W. R. Aldrich & Company, in writing, that it has no
objection to the hiring or employment of Wilfred Smith at the Welsh,
Louisiana, project, or any other project within its territorial area,
and send a copy of the aforesaid notice to Wilfred Smith.
(c) Post at its business office and hall in Lake Charles, Louisiana,
copies and the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region, shall, upon being duly signed by the Union's representative,
be posted by the Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order" the words "A
Decree of the'United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ETC., LOCAL 678 945
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to its members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Promptly mail to said Regional Director signed copies of the
Appendix for posting, the Company willing, at its Welsh, Louisiana,
jobsite.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS, AND NONMEMBERS
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause W. R. Alrich & Company
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Wilfred Smith for any loss of pay he
may have suffered because of our causing W. R. Alrich & Com-
pany to discriminate against him.
WE WILL notify W. R. Aldrich & Company, in writing, that we
have no objectoin to the hiring or employment of Wilfred Smith
by W. R. Aldrich & Company at its Welsh, Louisiana, project,
or at any other jobsite within the territorial area of Local 678,
and send a copy of such notice to Smith.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL & ORNAMENTAL IRON
WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 678,
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No. 529-2411, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
734--070-64--vol. 145-61
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
The complaint herein (issued June 28, 1963; charge filed March 28, 1963) alleges
that Local 678 has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 519, by attempting to cause and causing W. R.
Aldrich & Company to discharge Smith and to refuse thereafter to reinstate him,
thereby discriminating against him, because he was not a member of the Respondent.
The answer, as amended, denies the allegations of unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan at Lake Charles,
Louisiana, on August 13, 1963. Pursuant to leave granted to all parties, briefs have
been filed by the General Counsel and the Union.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR)
1. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It was admitted and I find that the Company, a Louisiana corporation with principal
place of business in Alexandria, Louisiana, is engaged in the highway construction
business in that State; that during the 12 months preceding issuance of the com-
plaint it received more than $50,000 for services it performed inside the State of
Louisiana for customers located outside the State, which customers shipped goods
or performed services valued at more than $50,000 annually outside the State in
which they are located; that during the same period the Company purchased goods
and materials valued at more than $50,000, which were shipped directly to it in the
State of Louisiana from points outside the State; and that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act
It was admitted and I find that Local 678 is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Smith, previously employed by the Company at another project, was hired by
Superintendent Brown in the latter part of October 1962 as an ironworker to put in
reinforcement steel on the Company's Welsh project. I credit Smith's testimony that,
on the morning of November 23, Hebert, business agent of Local 678, introduced
himself to Smith while the latter was working, and asked what be was doing. When
Smith replied that he was putting in reinforcement steel, Hebert asked whether he did
not know that he could not do that on "this job" without a book or a permit card.
Smith pointed out that laborers had been doing that work before, but Hebert declared
that there was a work list at the union hall and that the local had men who could do
that work. (It is clear that there was no contract between the Company and 678
when Smith was hired, during this conversation, or when picketing thereafter
commenced.) Smith, who had lost his membership in another local of the same
International Union, in Baton Rouge, because he had failed to pay his dues, now asked
Hebert for reinstatement or that he sell him a work permit. Hebert replied that he
could not do this, and asked for the superintendent, whom Smith now pointed out.
Hebert also told Smith, in connection with his request for reinstatement, that he
would have to appear before the local's board at its next meeting. (It may help to
understand the findings made in this connection if we note now that Hebert, who was
not specific concerning time elapsed and could not recall dates, thereafter spoke with
Brown and that 678 established a picket line later that same day, as will be seen,
infra.)
According to Hebert, Smith followed him as he was leaving and asked him for a
book; although it does not appear from Hebert's account that he actually saw Smith
at work, be testified that Smith was doing carpenter's, not ironworker's, work. While
he testified that he did not know that Smith was doing ironworker's work, Hebert did
not question Smith concerning his admitted request for an ironworker's book when he
was allegedly doing carpenter's work.
That same day or the next, Hebert spoke with Brown. He testified that he was
accompanied by one ironworker who later went to work on this job, but that he did
not ask that Smith be discharged. I do not credit Hebert's version which, from the
other testimony received, would have the Company, although it sought Smith's
continued employment, discharging him allegedly because of a union demand when
no such demand was made!
Hebert would have it that he spoke to Brown about replacing laborers who
were doing ironwork. I credit Brown's testimony that Hebert referred to "men,"
without limitation to laborers. With Hebert anxious to obtain preference for mem-
INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ETC., LOCAL 678 947
hers of 678, I do not believe that his concern was limited to a jurisdictional problem
with the laborers and that he ignored the presence of an ironworker who was not
a member of 678. (I have found that Hebert knew that Smith was putting in rein-
forcement steel.)
In this connection, since Hebert was making a demand (his parting remark to
Brown, "Well, I may be able to," in connection with doing something "about it,"
and the immediate establishment of a picket line indicate that he did not merely
express a hope or mild desire) for employment of his local's men, and since Smith
was the only ironworker on the job at the time, the Company's understanding that this
demand and the picketing applied to all who performed ironworker's work was
reasonable, this including and affecting Smith even if Hebert had not known that he
was doing such work; and the Company's layoff of Smith with pay and later discharge
were caused by such demand and picketing. These findings are consonant with the
facts that the picket signs charged the Company with being unfair to Local 678 and
that the settlement with the Company covered work done by members of the local and
which Smith had performed. Permitting anyone else to do this work was deemed
unfair, and Local 678 took steps against this when Hebert spoke to Brown and
then by setting up a picket line the very day of that conversation. The pickets were
withdrawn after about 2 days, when 678 was satisfied by an agreement pursuant to
which ironworker's work was assigned to members of 678, who were sent by the local
to the job and there put to work.
In his conversation with Brown, Hebert proceeded to "straighten the Company
out." He charged that Brown had men working who were not "right with the
Local"; they did not have cards, and what was Brown going to do about it? When
Brown replied, "Nothing," and that he would first have to see his superior, Hebert
declared that he might be able to do something about it; and the picket line was set
up within a few hours.
Here again, to the extent that Hebert's version is different, I do not credit it. He
testified that he spoke with Brown a day or two after his conversation with Smith, and
at that time said that he "would like" to see ironworkers on the rods, allegedly refer-
ring to laborers doing such work; he did not mention Smith or ask that he be
discharged. Aside from the factual finding already made in this connection, and
whatever the laborers were doing, we have seen that Hebert's demand and the
picketing were reasonably construed by Brown as applying to Smith, the only
ironworker on the job.
Having thus noted the Union's acts, we come now to the effect thereof. Smith
mentioned, without describing them, conversations which he had with Brown on the
afternoons of November 23 and 26. Thereafter they had six more conversations,
between November 28 and December 10, which he detailed. The weather pre-
vented work at the beginning of the following week. On Wednesday, the 28th
(after the settlement of the company-union dispute and withdrawal of the picket
line), Brown told Smith that Local 678 would not permit him to employ Smith,'
and that he would try to get it to sell Smith a work permit. Thereafter, at Brown's
direction and warning of trouble, Smith stayed away from the job, Brown agreeing
to pay him nevertheless. Smith was paid through the week ending December 7.
According to Smith, Brown twice told him that the Union had refused to sell
Smith a permit, and as late as December 7 said he would try again on Saturday,
the 8th, to get a book or permit for Smith. Brown testified that he talked to Hebert
only once about a work permit for Smith. Whether or not Brown told Smith that
he had talked to Hebert about it more than once, the latter did not deny having such
a conversation with Brown.
Finally, on Monday, December 10, Brown told Smith that it was up to the latter
to get a book or permit, and that the Company could not "carry" him any longer.
While the Company's discrimination, caused by the Union, began on November 28,
backpay runs from December 10. I find that the Union since November 23 at-
tempted to cause, and since November 28 did cause, the Company to discriminate
against Smith and to discharge him on December 10.
III. THE OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Local 678 set forth in section II, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Aldrich described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
'This was received with respect to the Company's termination of Smith's employment,
not as proof of the Union' s acts.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Local 678 has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices affecting commerce , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies °of
the Act.
It has been found that Local 678 , by attempting to cause and causing Aldrich to
lay off and to discharge Smith because of his lack of membership in Local 678,
restrained and coerced employees and caused the employer to discriminate, in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A ) and (2 ) of the Act . I shall therefore recommend
that Local 678 cease and desist therefrom . I shall further recommend that 678
make Smith whole for loss of pay sustained by reason of the discriminatory action
aforementioned , from December 10, 1962 , computation to be made in the customary
manner.2
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Bridge , Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers,
Local Union No. 678 , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
2. By causing and attempting to cause Aldrich to discriminate in regard to hire
and tenure of employment and terms and conditions of employment in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act , Local 678 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, Local 678 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
2 Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 311
U.S. 7; F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294.
National Welders Supply Company, Inc.' and Drivers , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 71, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Petitioner.2 Case No.
11-RC-1789. January 13, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held in Charlotte, North Carolina, before
Hearing Officer Charles Williamson. The Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
z The Petitioner 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
145 NLRB No. 97.