Loc. 723, Intl. Bro. of Electrical Wkrs.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

LOC. 723, INTL. BRO. OF ELECTRICAL WKRS. I
Local 723, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC and Delores K. Murray,
Florence G . Robertson, and Irma L. Smith. Cases
25-CB-1836,25-CB-1836-2, and 25-CB-1859
Upon the entire record and my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses as they testified, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
August 23, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On April 24,1974, Administrative Law Judge John
G. Gregg issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed limited
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a 'three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Local 723, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC,
La Porte, Indiana, its officers , agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
DECISION
JOHN G. GREGG, Administrative Law Judge: This case was
tried before me at La Porte, Indiana, on February 19, 1974,
based upon charges duly filed and consolidated complaint
issued January 25, 1974. The issue litigated was whether as
alleged in the complaint the Respondent violated Section
8(bXI)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act by restrain-
ing and coercing employees of the Employer in their exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by certain
acts hereinafter set forth. The Respondent denied the com-
mission of unfair labor practices.
All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence . Subsequent to the trial herein under
date of March 15, 1974, the General Counsel moved to
correct the record in certain particulars . That motion is
hereby granted. A brief was filed herein by the General
Counsel.
1. JURISDICTION
The Employer , General Telephone Company of Indiana,
is an Indiana corporation with place of business at La Porte,
Indiana , herein called the facility , engaged in the business
of a telephone public utility. During the past 12 months, a
representative period , the Employer in the course and con-
duct of its business operations purchased, transferred, and
delivered to its facility goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 which were transported to said facility directly
from States other than the State of Indiana. I find that at
all times material, General Telephone Company of Indiana
has been and is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
Respondent ("Local 723") is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The consolidated complaint alleges essentially that by its
officers and agents, the Respondent Union threatened to
inflict bodily injury on certain employees and members of
the family of employees of the Employer if they refused to
engage in a strike or work stoppage in violation of the
collective-bargaining agreement; threatened to fine certain
employees who were members ; and threatened certain em-
ployees who were members of the Respondent Union with
unspecified reprisals, and physical damage to their property
if they refused to engage in the aforesaid strike or work
stoppage . For the reasons explicated hereinafter , I find and
conclude that the Respondent Union did violate Section
8(bXI)(A) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
A. Responsibility of the Respondent Union for the Unlawful
Conduct of Certain Individuals
The complaint alleges that at the times material herein
Gay Schmidt, local union business manager; June Baugher,
local unit president ; Judy Hartford , local unit vice presi-
dent ; Martha Bozek, local unit secretary ; Rita Griffith,
steward ; and Sandy Nixon and Wilma Huge , local unit
executive committee members , all occupied the aforesaid
positions and were agents of the Respondent Union acting
on its behalf within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
The record discloses that at the La Porte facility, Local
Union 723 maintains a local unit with officers . At the trial
it was stipulated that the aforementioned individuals at the
times material herein occupied the positions as indicated.
However, the Respondent denies that at the times material
herein they acted as agents of the Respondent or on its
behalf within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
An analysis of the testimony and exhibits of record in-
cluding the constitution and bylaws of the Respondent
Union reveals provision for local units and local unit offi-
cers and establishes the duties of local unit officers, de-
213 NLRB No. 3
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
scribed in uncontradicted and credited testimony generally
as similar to the duties of the corresponding officers of the
Local Union. It is clear to me from the record herein that
the Respondent Union was the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative for the traffic department employees at the La
Porte facility, that the local unit officers held office pur-
suant to the constitution and bylaws of the Respondent and
were clothed with authority to act on its behalf. It is also
clear that as treated more fully herein the business manager
and local unit officials under the aegis of the business man-
ager of the Local Union embarked on a course of conduct
making it clear that the Respondent supported the ongoing
CWA strike, and its picket line and that those members of
the local unit who did not support this would be subject to
reprisals. I find the conduct of the aforesaid individuals as
found herein to be well within the scope of their actual and
apparent authority, and conclude that at the times material
herein and with respect to the allegations of the complaint,
the aforementioned individuals were acting as agents of the
Respondent Union, within the meaning of Section 2(13) of
the Act. Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487
(1948).
B. The Facts
The record discloses that Local 723, International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, the Respondent
herein, has been the collective-bargaining representative for
traffic department employees at the La Porte, Indiana, facil-
ity of General Telephone Company of Indiana, the Employ-
er herein, since June 1, 1973. The Employer and the
Respondent have been and are presently parties to collec-
tive-bargaining agreements covering traffic department em-
ployees at the facility, the current agreement has been in
effect since October 1, 1973, the prior agreement was in
effect on an extended basis during the period from June 1,
1973, until October 1, 1973 , when the current contract was
executed.
Delores K. Murray, Florence G. Robertson, and Irma L.
Smith, the Charging Parties herein , are each employed by
the Employer at the La Porte facility in the traffic depart-
ment as operators and are each represented by the Respon-
dent Union, each being members thereof from some time
prior to June 1 , 1973, until January 1974, when they notified
the Union by letter that they had resigned in September
1973. On July 21, 1973, the Communications Workers of
America commenced a strike against the Employer at the
La Porte facility, the strike continuing until about October
1, 1973.
Gay Schmidt, business manager of the Respondent
Union, testified that about a month and a half after the start
of the strike he sent out letters to members of the Respon-
dent Local referring to the CWA strike and stating in perti-
nent part that "During the past few weeks while CWA has
been on strike most of you have exercised your rights as
individuals and have chosen not to cross picket lines. Not
crossing a picket line is a basic Union principle and the
courts have upheld your right to exercise it, . . . In regard
to the loss of pay for refusal to cross picket lines we have
informed the Company that the Union feels this is a viola-
tion of 6.3 of the contract. . .
Schmidt testified that the local unit at La Porte had regu-
lar meetings . The numbers of meetings conducted during
the period July 26, 1973, through August 23, 1973, as reflect-
ed in the record herein contain pertinent entries indicating
that Schmidt reported that CWA Local Union 5803 was
striking General Telephone and "that this Local Union
(723) would honor all legal picket lines." Also pertinent is
the entry that "none of our people will sit in for manage-
ment as of Monday morning 7/30/73 for the duration of the
strike by CWA Local Union 5803." Additionally, the record
exhibit reflects the following statement by Schmidt, "My
professional opinion is this, (1) we honor all legal picket
lines, .. .
Schmidt testified that the CWA strike ended about Octo-
ber 1, 1973. On November 5, 1973, he sent letters to Mur-
ray, Robertson , and Smith , the Charging Parties herein,
stating that during the CWA strike they were guilty of con-
duct unbecoming a union member and were to appear be-
fore the executive committee to explain their actions. If
they did not appear "the Committee will proceed as if you
were present and any disciplinary action or fines will be
administered."
In testifying as to the reason why he sent the letter of
charges to Robertson , Murray, and Smith , Schmidt advert-
ed to certain job bid procedures covering operators and
stated that union officials had been advised that individuals
who had crossed the picket line were working in violation
of the bid procedures, that if the Union permitted these
individuals to violate the contract because of the CWA
strike a harmful precedent could be set. Schmidt stated that
if these individuals had not crossed the picket line they
would not have received charges.
Florence Robertson testified that on July 18, 1973, she
attended a meeting of employees at the Holiday Inn at La
Porte where Schmidt and other union officials Baugher,
Hartford, Griffith, Bozek, and Nixon were present. Accord-
ing to Robertson , Schmidt instructed the employees that in
the event the CWA set up picket lines the Respondent
Union's members were to go to the picket line and ask to
talk to the picket captain "and ask him if you can cross his
picket line. Of course he is going to say 'no,' ... Go back
home or to a telephone, call your chief operator and tell her
you are available for work if she can get it for you." Accord-
ing to Robertson , Schmidt said to a man sitting alongside
him "I am not too happy about honoring a CWA picket
line."
Robertson testified further that on July 23, 1973 , she rode
to work with Judy Hartford, local unit vice president. Hart-
ford asked whether she had gone to work the preceding day.
When Robertson said she had Hartford said "Aren't you
ashamed of yourself? You know better than that." Accord-
ing to Robertson , Hartford told her "We are not supposed
to go to work."
Robertson stated that she told Hartford that "we cannot
honor a sympathy strike" to which Hartford responded that
it was not a sympathy strike. According to Robertson, Hart-
ford told her "Do you know you could have bodily harm
done to you? Did you know you could have your husband-
do you know things could happen to your friends and your
family?"
Robertson testified that she attended a meeting of em-
LOC. 723, INTL. BRO. OF ELECTRICAL WKRS. 3
ployees on July 23 at June Baugher's house, where about 30
operators were present together with local unit officers
Baugher, Griffith, Bozek, and Huge. According to Rob-
ertson, Baugher went into detail about how they were to
stay home from work and how to file for unemployment.
Robertson stated that in a telephone conversation with
Griffith two weeks after the strike started she told Griffith
she was unhappy about honoring the CWA picket line to
which Griffith replied, "Well Florence if you feel that way
about it why don't you go to work but you are going to have
to suffer the consequences." Robertson testified that while
she had stayed off the job for about 3 weeks she then re-
turned to work. She received a notice of conduct unbecom-
ing a union member on November 5, 1973.
Delores Murray testified that on July 23, as she went to
work with other individuals, they met Judy Hartford and
June Baugher who were in another car at the parking lot.
Both Hartford and Baugher told them they didn't have to
go to work, with Judy Hartford stating that they could also
be fined by the Union for each day they worked.
Murray also testified concerning a meeting at June
Baugher's residence where according to Murray, Baugher
called her a "scab" and stated that every person who had
worked and was working was a "scab." According to Mur-
ray at this meeting Judy Hartford told her they were going
to hold a "Kangaroo Court" and fine her $50 for each day
she worked. Murray testified she received a letter of charges
from the Union dated November 5, 1973.
Judy Hartford testified that the meeting on the evening
of July 23, 1973, at June Baugher's house was more like a
social gathering with 15 to 20 individuals present, that it was
not a regularly called meeting of the Union. She did state
it was called because the girls were calling Baugher all the
time and union officials, asking what to do and "June decid-
ed to have a little social gathering and have them over."
Hartford testified she gave no written instructions to any-
one about what to do about picket lines . Hartford stated it
was Murray who used the term "Kangaroo Court."
Analysis, Findings and Conclusions
The pertinent collective -bargaining agreement between
the Respondent and the Employer provides in pertinent
part that the Union agrees that its members will not engage
in any sympathy strikes during the term and life of the
contract.
Careful consideration of the testimony and exhibits of
record herein and careful analysis of the facts as found
herein reveal , and I find , that the Respondent Union delib-
erately set in motion a course of conduct designed to
achieve support of the CWA strike and picket line by Gen-
eral Telephone traffic employees , members of the Respon-
dent Union , a course of conduct clearly in violation of the
Respondent Union's collective -bargaining agreement.
In so finding I have taken into account the Respondent's
continuous support of the strike as evidenced by Schmidt's
statements and instructions contained in the record herein
clearly instructing members to follow a course of conduct
which would result in their refraining from crossing the
picket line while making it clear that the Respondent was
honoring the CWA picket line. Additionally I have consid-
ered the statements made by Baugher, Hartford, and Grif-
fith to the Charging Parties herein.
Viewing each statement made by the agents of the Re-
spondent Union relative to the Charging Parties and the
CWA strike, at first blush there appeared to be very little
basis for a finding herein that the Respondent through its
agents , had indeed threatened the Charging Parties, particu-
larly since when the alleged threats are viewed on an isolat-
ed basis questions do arise as to whether they are couched
in terms of mere statements of belief or statements of fact
rather than statements strongly suggesting consequences
which could be influenced by the Respondent. However,
when viewed in their totality and against the factual back-
ground of this case, that is the existence of a CWA strike,
the fact that the Respondent Union supported the strike, the
fact that the officers of the Respondent continuously and
vividly depicted and reminded the Charging Parties of the
possible adverse consequences which could or might flow
from their failure to observe the picket line, which state-
ments included adverting to physical harm for themselves
and their families, the convening of a kangaroo court and
the imposition of fines, all lead me to find and conclude that
the Respondent Union, through its agents, restrained and
coerced employees of the Employer in their exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
As to the conflicting testimony of Delores Murray and
Judy Hartford relative to the statements concerning the
holding of a kangaroo court and the imposition of fines
based on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses
as they testified, I credit Murray's version. She testified in
a straightforward, convincing manner while on the other
hand Hartford did not impress me as straightforward, was
strained in her attempt to portray the meeting of July 23,
1973, as a social gathering while clearly having provided the
basis for the meeting as a multitude of calls by the members
to the officers for information and clarification relative to
their conduct during the CWA strike. Similarly Baugher,
when testifying, displayed a reluctance to respond to ques-
tions when confronted with material in minutes of union
meetings and claimed to have no recollection of certain
remarks adverted to in the minutes. Accordingly, I find that
Hartford did indeed tell Murray, who had then crossed the
picket line, that they were going to hold a kangaroo court
and fine her $50 for each day she worked and that Baugher
did make the statements attributed to her by the Charging
Parties herein.
Finally, and a most significant fact, is the Respondent
Union's dispatch of letters to the Charging Parties herein on
November 5, 1973, which when viewed with the foregoing
course of conduct of honoring the picket line in violation of
the collective-bargaining agreement and of threats to traffic
department employees who were members of the Respon-
dent Union, compels a finding that the Respondent Union
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) as alleged in the complaint. The
letters dispatched by the Respondent Union on November
5, 1973, are clear and unequivocal, they state flatly that the
Charging Parties during the CWA strike were guilty of con-
duct unbecoming a union member and advert to discipli-
nary action and fines. While there was some attempt to
relate these letters to conduct other than that involved here-
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in, that is that the Respondent had dispatched the letters to
try to find out if the Charging Parties were working during
the strike in violation of certain bidding procedures in the
contract, I reject this argument not only because it is weak
and unconvincing in view of the control of work assignment
in these circumstances by the Employer, and because the
record provides no evidence other than Schmidt's testimony
which I do not credit, that the Uniod indeed charged the
parties herein for that reason; and also because the dispatch
of the letters comes chronologically at a time when the
Charging Parties, despite the efforts of the Respondent to
achieve an honoring of the picket line, had crossed the line
and worked during the strike. I am convinced from this
record that the letters were sent for the purpose of disciplin-
ing the Charging Parties herein and although no discipline
was actually administered , the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1XA) of the Act. Local 1101 Communications Workers
of America AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 208
NLRB No. 32 (1974); Glazier's Local Union No. 1162, affili-
ated with the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, Paper-
hangers, Glaziers and Glassworkers of America, AFL-CIO
(Tusco Glass, Inc.), 177 NLRB 393 (1969).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
threatening bodily harm to employees and members of their
families, and by threatening reprisals through kangaroo
courts and fines because said employee members of the
Respondent refrained from honoring a CWA picket line
supported by the Respondent in violation of its collective-
bargaining agreement with General Telephone Company.
2. The unfair labor practices described above affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it should be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following:
ORDER'
Respondent, Local 723, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, its officers, agents,
representatives , successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining and coercing members of said Local 723,
by threatening them and members of their families with
bodily harm and threatening them with reprisal through
kangaroo courts and fines because they fail or refuse to
honor a picket line maintained by another union supported
by the Respondent in violation of its collective-bargaining
agreement with the General Telephone Company.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of any right guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office and meeting hall of Respon-
dent Local 723 copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by
the representative of Respondent Local 723 shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and furnish to the Regional Director for Region
25, sufficient signed copies of said notice for posting by the
employers herein, if willing, at places where notices to their
employees are customarily posted.
1 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , recommendations and recommended Order which follow herein
shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted
by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objec-
tions thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
2 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial before an Administrative Law Judge, at which
all sides gave evidence , it has been decided that we have
violated the National Labor Relations Act, and we have
been ordered to post this notice.
We give you the following assurances:
WE WILL NOT threaten bodily harm and reprisals such
as kangaroo courts and fines to members who crossed
CWA picket lines which we supported in violation of
our collective-bargaining agreement with the General
Telephone Company.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce members in the exercise of any right guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
Dated By
LOCAL 723, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO-CLC
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
LOC. 723 , INTL. BRO. OF ELECTRICAL WKRS. 5
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
anyone . ed to the Board's Office, ISTA Center-6th Floor, 150 W.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , 317-633-8921.
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning