J. H. Hamlen & Son, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 902 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. H. Hamlen & Son, Inc. and Coopers International
Union of North America , AFL-CIO ' and Local
Union No. 83, Coopers International Union of
North America , AFL-CIO.2 Case 26-CA-3354
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The International and Local 83 are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
January 23, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Upon a charge filed on May 2, 1969, by the
International , the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director
for Region 26, on July 23 , 1969, issued a complaint
which was amended on July 29, 1969, alleging that
J. H. Hamlen & Son , Inc., Respondent herein, had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and
(2) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended . Thereafter , Respondent filed an
answer admitting certain allegations of the
complaint , but denying the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
On September 8, 1969 , all parties to this
proceeding entered into a stipulation by which they
waived a hearing before the Trial Examiner, and on
September 9 filed a joint motion that this case be
transferred directly to the Board for the issuance of
findings of fact , conclusions of law , and a Decision
and Order . On September 11, the Board granted the
motion and issued an Order approving the
stipulation and transferring the case to the Board.
Thereafter , briefs were filed by Respondent, the
International, and the General Counsel.
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 this case to a
three-member panel.
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, the
briefs, and the entire record in this case , the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent , a corporation which has its plant and
place of business in Little Rock, Arkansas, is
engaged in the lumber and cooperage business.
During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the
complaint , Respondent manufactured, sold, and
shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from its plant to points located outside the State of
Arkansas . We find that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
' Herein called the International.
'Herein called Local 83.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Since 1943, when Respondent recognized Local 83
as the bargaining representative of its production
and maintenance employees , these two parties have
entered into a series of collective-bargaining
contracts.
On August 16, 1965 , the International filed a
petition seeking to represent the unit employees. On
October 5, 1965, the Regional Director found that
Local 83 was "a functioning labor organization and
[was] not defunct for contract -bar purposes," and
dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed
more than 90 days before the expiration of the
contract then in effect.
On October 27, 1965 , Local 83 and Respondent
signed a Memorandum of Understanding amending
the existing contract by providing for a wage
increase effective 2 days earlier.
On May 11, 1966, Local 83 and Respondent
entered into a contract for the period from July 1,
1966, through July 1, 1969.
On June 3, 1966, the International advised
Respondent that Local 83 "has been placed under
trusteeship" because of the latter ' s "inadequate
performance of collective- bargaining agreements and
inadequate negotiations for new agreements."3 On
December 27, 1966, the International "reaffirm[ed]
the existence of the trusteeship " and reiterated its
request that Respondent "conduct all future business
with the union" through the trustee . Respondent did
not reply to these communications.
On December 6, 1967, Local 83 and Respondent
signed a Memorandum of Understanding which
provided for certain changes in wage rates.
On January 16, 1969 , Local 83 requested a
meeting with Respondent to discuss wage rates.
These parties decided on January 23 to postpone
negotiations until the contract of a competitor, E. L.
Bruce Co., was settled in March 1969.
On February 25, 1969, the International filed a
petition seeking to represent Respondent's unit
employees . Three days later , the Regional Director
dismissed the petition because it was untimely filed
more than 90 days prior to the terminal date of the
existing contract.
On March 4, 1969, Local 83 notified Respondent
that it had ascertained by means of a poll that a
majority of Respondent ' s unit employees wanted
Local 83 to commence negotiations for a new labor
agreement.
'The International invoked those sections of its Constitution dealing with
the obligations of its local unions which were subject to its jurisdiction.
180 NLRB No. 145
J. H. HAM LEN & SON, INC. 903
On March 10 , 1969, the International wrote
Respondent that it had a "substantial interest"
among the employees and demanded that no
bargaining take place "until this matter is settled by
an NLRB election."
On March 14 , 1969, the International wrote
Respondent as follows:
Reports that you have initiated collective
bargaining negotiations with Local 83 . . . have
been confirmed.
Please be advised that Coopers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, has
instructed its Local 83 to end negotiations
immediately if they are to continue without the
assistance and cooperation of the International
Union . Local 83 has been advised that a
trusteeship can be imposed upon it if it continues
to disregard the provisions of the International's
Constitution.
As you are aware , Coopers International Union
has petitioned for an election . This petition will be
refiled and reinstated at the proper time, due to
the rulings of the NLRB in Memphis . You may
recognize the Coopers International Union and
commence bargaining immediately . If you have
any questions concerning this matter , please do
not hesitate to call upon me.
On March 14 , 1969, the International also wrote
Local 83 as follows:
Reports that you have been engaged in
collective bargaining with J. H. Hamlen & Son
have been confirmed . I wish to inform you that
your bargaining in this matter is completely
contrary to the International Constitution and to
[the] specific directive of the International Union.
Please be advised that your continued failure to
abide by the International Constitution in regard
to collective bargaining and in regard to several
other matters can no longer be tolerated.
Procedures will be initiated under Section 92 of
the International Constitution to impose a
trusteeship in the event that these acts do not end
immediately.
The International Union urges you to cease
attempting to negotiate a contract without its
cooperation and assistance . If the employer will
agree to recognize the International Union then
negotiations can begin forthwith.
On March 13 , 18, and 20 , 1969, Respondent and
Local 83 held negotiation sessions . On March 25,
Respondent , which was aware of the International's
intention to file a new petition , and Local 83 signed
a Memorandum of Understanding that , inter alia,
extended the existing contract for a 3-year period
after July 1, 1969, and granted wage increases to be
effective April I, 1969.
On March 25 , 1969, Respondent "verbally"
notified its employees through Local 83
representatives that there was a possibility of a
petition being filed by the International and, if this
occurred , it would not be legal for Respondent to
put the wage increase in effect until after the
election was held. Respondent also informed its
employees through Local 83 that the wage increases
provided in the March 25, 1969, Memorandum of
Understanding would be effective retroactively from
April 1, 1969, only if Local 83 prevailed in the
election, and that if the International won, the
Memorandum would not be valid.4
On March 28, 1969, Local 83 informed
Respondent that a majority of the employees polled
voted approval of the new agreement.
On April 3, 1969, the International filed a
representation petition with the Board. On April 23,
a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent
Election was signed by the International, Local 83,
and Respondent, and was approved by the Regional
Director. The election was held on May 6 and the
ballots were impounded in view of the filing of the
present unfair labor practice charges by the
International.
The General Counsel and the International
contend that since March 25, 1969, Respondent has
rendered unlawful aid, assistance, and support to
Local 83 in order to forestall and counteract the
International ' s organizational campaign among the
employees. Respondent argues, inter alia , that the
complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because
the situation herein is "an intra-union affair" which
involves an international and its constituent local
rather than unrelated rival unions.
We find merit in Respondent's position. As
indicated above, the Constitution of the
International contains rules governing its locals and
provides that the International may suspend or
revoke the charter of a local or place it under a
trusteeship in the event a local does not comply
therewith.
It is clear from the foregoing that the
International has attempted to exercise its authority
over Local 83 by seeking to discipline the latter for
alleged infractions of the International Constitution.
As the dispute herein is essentially intraunion in
nature , we find that it would not effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this
proceeding. Accordingly, we shall order that the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. J. H. Hamlen & Sons , Inc., is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor
practices as alleged in the complaint.
'All the terms of the Memorandum except the wage increases became
effective as of July 1, 1969
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board orders that the complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.