Local Union 191, IUEDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 18, 1970181 N.L.R.B. 715 (N.L.R.B. 1970) Copy Citation LOCAL UNION 191, IUE Local Union 191, affiliated with International Union Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO; and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and General Electric Company International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and General Electric Company. Cases 10-CB-1729 and 10-CB-1777 March 18, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On September 5, 1969, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs, and the Respondents filed a 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 this case to a three-member panel. 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, and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations 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 Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. 'We agree with the Trial Examiner that it is unnecessary to pass on the issue of the liability of the International Union for the strikes We therefore do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s provisional finding that the International Union would not have been liable for any violation which might have inhered in the strikes TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FREDERICK U REEL, Trial Examiner This proceeding, consolidated by order of the Regional Director, and heard at Atlanta, Georgia, on May 26 through 28, 1969, 715 pursuant to charges filed May 8, 1968, and November 22, 1968, and complaints issued September 6, 1968, and April 15, 1969, presents primarily the question whether certain strikes at the Rome, Georgia, plant of the Charging Party, herein called the Company, were for the purpose of modifying an existing collective-bargaining agreement, and hence violated Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, because Respondents failed to give notice to the Federal and State mediation services as required by Section 8(d)(3), and "failed to continue in full force and effect, without resorting to strike, all the terms and conditions" of the aforesaid contract, pursuant to Section 8(d)(4) of the Act. Upon the entire record,' and after due consideration of the briefs and supplemental letters filed by the parties, I make the following. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The interstate nature of the business of the General Electric Company, and the status of the Respondents International and Local as labor organizations, is established by common knowledge as well as by the pleadings . The instant case concerns the Company's plant at Rome, Georgia, the Company' s relations there with the Respondent Local 191 , herein called the Local, and the construction of the Company 's contract with the Respondent International , herein called the IUE. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction The Local in this case filed a set of grievances in 1966 and a second set in 1967, which taken together, encompassed nearly 90 percent of the Rome bargaining unit, requesting in each case a four-step wage increase. After some consideration, the Company rejected the grievances, and the Union thereupon called a series of "one day" or "weekend" strikes in support of its demands. The General Counsel and the Company urge that the so-called "grievances" were an attempt to obtain a general wage increase, that such an increase is not negotiable under the contract and may not be the subject of a lawful strike, that the strikes represent an effort to secure a modification of the contract, and that the Local therefore violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. A better understanding of the issues can be achieved if we examine the general wage structure and the contract between the parties before turning to the events of this case B. The Wage Structure and the Contract I The wage structure The Company and the IUE engage in bargaining on a national level and enter into contracts applicable to all the company plants at which the IUE or one of its locals is the bargaining representative One such contract covered the 3 years commencing September 30, 1963, and terminating October 2, 1966; the next contract covered the period from October 3, 1966, to October 26, 1969. The 'Respondents ' motion to correct certain typographical errors in the transcript was unopposed, and is hereby granted 181 NLRB No. 111 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD provisions of these contracts with which we are here primarily concerned are common to both contracts, and indeed have been found in several previous agreements between these parties. The negotiators at the national level, however, have not traditionally been concerned with local wage rates. The national negotiators will bargain over wage increases to be applied throughout the Company - e.g., a fixed percentage and minimum number of cents per hour - and for periodic increases of such a nature during the life of the contract. The IUE has made unsuccessful efforts to eliminate a geographic differential under which rates vary for similar work depending upon whether the plant is in the northern or southern section of the United States, but apart from that local wage rates have not been discussed at the national negotiations. Although local wage rates are not a subject of national bargaining, the national contract regularly contains a "wage agreement" which, in addition to providing for periodic raises, cost of living adjustments, and such matters, sets forth a detailed "table" of rates applicable to all the company plants in which the IUE or one of its locals represents the employees This table in the 1963 and 1966 contracts lists approximately 40 different basic rates of pay, without any indication as to what class or type of work is to be paid any particular rate. However, at each plant subject to the contract the rates must conform to the national agreement. For example, at the Rome plant the lowest rate, known as R-8, is paid for janitors, and the highest rate paid is R-26, or 18 steps farther up the contract scale. The R-8 rate at Rome is not necessarily the same as R-8 at some other plant, and thus appears to be a somewhat arbitrary designation. But when, as in this case, the Local asks for a "4 step increase," this, if granted, would raise an R-8 to R-12, or four steps higher on the national pay table When the Company opens a new plant, it sets the wage rates at that plant, being guided by wage rates applicable in the particular community. As a matter of practice, however, the rates at such a plant are in accord with the rate table in the contract, so that if and when the IUE or a local becomes the bargaining representative at that plant, the then current contract becomes applicable without the necessity of adjusting any of the rates 2. The "limited strike," grievance , and other pertinent provisions of the national contract Article XXVIII in both the 1963 and 1966 contracts between the Company and the IUE recites that the agreement in question is "in full settlement of all issues which were the subject of collective bargaining between the parties in national level collective bargaining negotiations ..." The article continues- Consequently, it is agreed that none of such issues shall be subject to collective bargaining during the term of this Agreement and there shall be no strike or lockout in connection with any such issue or issues, provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed to limit or modify the rights of the parties hereto under Article VI, Section 1, and Article XIV of this Agreement. Article XIV prohibits strikes "unless and until all of the respective provisions of the successive steps of the grievance procedure set forth in Article XIII shall have been complied with. "= Finally article VI, section 1, which perhaps lies at the heart of the instant problem, reads as follows Any question which affects hourly rates, piecework rates, or salary rates of individuals or groups shall be subject to negotiation between the Local and local management. The Company's official interpretation of this section, published in 1956, reads as follows (emphasis supplied): This provision has historically been contained in national collective bargaining agreements to reflect the fact that while matters of general increase applicable to all employees in a bargaining unit are negotiated for and contracted for on a national basis, the hourly-rates, piecework rates, or salary rates of individuals or of groups within a single bargaining unit may nonetheless be made the subject of local negotiation during the term of the contract. This provision or its general equivalent has been in national contracts for more than ten years, and under it, both union and Company representatives have recognized the appropriateness of the union presenting requests for wage rate adjustments of individuals or groups of workers through the grievance procedure with the matter following the usual grievance steps. At the same time, by historical practice, as well as the language of the provision itself, this section does not permit the raising of a grievance demanding a general wage increase for all employees in a bargaining unit It is, instead, limited to the rates "of individuals or groups" within a unit In effect, the settlement of national negotiations carries with it a general freezing of the basic wage rate schedules in all local plants, subject only to the negotiation of claimed inequities within such schedules The phrase "shall be subject to negotiation," of course, merely means that the union has the right to request and obtain negotiation on the matters referred to. It does not prevent management from taking routine action in administering plant operations which would affect rates until after it had submitted and negotiated its proposed action with the union. To the contrary, the Company, under its right to manage the business, may institute action within the scope of the provision (that is, action which affects rates) except as specifically limited by the contract, e.g., Article VI, Section 4(b) and (e) and Section 6, or any statutory obligations. Questions involving claimed inequities in the rates of individuals or groups within a plant may be raised under this provision by the local union In the event such questions are not initially settled to the satisfaction of the union, the resulting dispute or grievance must proceed through the various steps of the grievance procedure. As indicated above, however, demands for general wage increases covering all employees in a bargaining unit may not be made and are not to be considered as within the terms of this provision, such questions being reserved for national negotiation (See Article XXVII)3 While the section merely makes changes affecting hourly rates, piece rates and salary rates subject to 'Further limiting the right to strike, the contract provides that the "unless" clause quoted above shall not apply to matters submitted to arbitration or if 12 months have elapsed since the Union received the Company's final decision on the grievance at step three Neither of these limitations is relevant here as the wage demands were not submitted to arbitration , and the 12-month period did not elapse 'Now article XXVIII See the Tyler arbitration referred to infra which quotes the then article XXVII LOCAL UNION 191, IUE negotiation upon request of the union, it is often sound practice to advise the local union representatives, or at least the stewards in the units affected, prior to making such changes effective. Advance explanation may often avoid misunderstanding and resulting grievances; and, as noted above, is specifically required by other provisions of the contract in specified circumstances. The leading case interpreting article VI, section 1, and the related provisions of the contract appears to be a decision by Arbitrator Horton in a matter arising at the Company's Tyler, Texas, plant in 1957. In that case the local union had filed wage grievances covering 97 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit (a larger percentage than that involved in the instant case), but - unlike the instant case - the raises requested were in differing amounts, and differing reasons were assigned in support of the several grievances The Company, as it did here, denied the grievances and expressed the view that the attempt to secure increases for 97 percent of the unit was "a contrived attempt on the part of the Local Union to negotiate a request for a general wage increase in violation of Article VI and Article XXVII [now XXVIII] of the National Agreement . . . " In sustaining the Union's position that the grievances were appropriately raised under the contract, Arbitrator Horton stated: Strong arguments exist and have been made by both parties in regard to the interpretation to be given the pertinent provisions of the current working agreement. After considering the provisions of the agreement and the facts of the case, the arbitrator concludes he must sustain the Union's position in regard to the issue Article XXVII contains exceptions to its application, among which is Article VI, Section 1 The words "any question" and the plural word "groups" must be given consideration. Unquestionably, the Company would not be required to entertain a unit-wide request for an across-the-board increase of so many cents per hour or a percentage increase of wage rates. The subject grievances involve approximately 97 per cent of an approximate total of 240 employees and 47 classifications. Thirty-nine of these grievances are based on comparable area rates or rates paid in other of the Company's plants, the former greatly preponderating. Eight of them are founded on the claim the rate is not commensurate with the skill required, inequities within the plant or that the pay is not adequate for the responsibility. A few of these also include the claim that the rate is below the area rate. They reflect no uniformity in the amount of increase requested nor of the grounds relied upon It is not inconceivable that under certain circumstances all groups within a unit would have as valid a claim for readjustment of wage rates as would a single group. Article VI, Section 1 mentions "groups" not "a group" or "majority of groups." Assuming the Company's position is correct, it occurs to the arbitrator that all groups within a unit could, in effect, secure negotiations of requests for wage adjustments by suffering only the inconvenience and disadvantage of additional time by the simple expedient of part of the groups filing grievances, additional groups filing their grievances a few weeks later and the balance of the groups withholding their grievances for a period of several weeks. This would meet the Company objection but would secure it little benefit. It is difficult to believe that an interpretation which could result in this type of situation was intended by the parties. The filing of the grievances and negotiations concerning them do not 717 admit their validity. In theory, those groups entitled to a rate adjustment should receive them and those who do not should have their grievances denied, but it does not appear to be reasonable that it was intended those groups entitled to an increase must be deprived of an opportunity to establish their claims because the balance of the groups chose to file similar grievances Another factor which influences the arbitrator is that if the Company's position is correct, where is the line of demarcation to be drawn - at 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 75 per cent of the total number of employees? In his opinion, the purpose of Article VI, Section I was to prohibit unit-wide requests for across-the-board or percentage increases C. The Wage Grievances 1. The filing and early discussion of the 1966 grievances On June 13, 1966, the Local presented to the company officials at Rome 101 wage rate grievances,' covering "incentive" (as distinguished from "hourly paid") jobs in the plant, and requesting as to each a four-step wage increase. At that time there were 109 or 110 incentive jobs in the plant, embracing approximately 600 employees; the 101 grievances covered approximately 450 of those employees. The Company replied on July 1, 1966, stating that it would undertake a job evaluation on each of tiie classifications. In due course the various grievances came up for discussion at various meetings between the Local and the Company in Rome during the summer, fall, winter, and spring of 1966-67. By May 11, 1967, approximately 25 of the 101 had been discussed, and the Company in each case took the position that the existing rate was proper. 2. The filing of the 1967 grievances On May 11, 1967, the Local filed an additional 102 wage grievances, requesting in each a four-step wage increase. This group covered only hourly rated jobs, and applied to approximately 500 employees. There were 216 classifications and approximately 1,100 employees in the plant; the two sets of grievances covered 203 of the classifications and approximately 950 employees. Also, between the two major sets of grievances, the Local had filed grievances covering three other classifications (two stockkeeper classifications and an iron core processor classification) affecting approximately 12 men (Two of those three involved requests for a five-step increase, the third like the "major" 203 requested a four-step increase.) Of the "missing" 10 classifications out of the 216, 2 involving approximately 100 employees had received two-step increases in May 1966, just prior to the filing of the first set of grievances, 2 more involved new jobs whose rates were established just prior to the May 1967 grievances; 4 were "vacant" - no employees were employed at those classifications; and the absence of 2 remains unexplained. 'The grievances were presented at the "second step," bypassing the first step This was not objectionable to the Company 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Continued discussion and "second step" disposition of the grievances Discussion of the first batch of grievances continued after the filing of the second group . At a meeting late in May 1967 the Union complained of the slow pace and asked for a final answer on the entire first group of 101 One week later , the Company , which up to that time had been discussing only the first group, wrote the Union rejecting all 102 of the second group , stating that each of the jobs was properly rated . Late in June 1967 the Company put both groups of grievances on the agenda for discussion , and told the Local that all 203 were rejected. The Union promptly referred them to the third step of the grievance procedure , which meant that they were to be discussed at the national level in New York At the third step meeting, however, in September 1967, the IUE produced a letter purporting to show that the Company's rates in Rome lagged behind wages paid by other employers in that area As this material had not been considered at the second step level , the grievances were "remanded " for further second step discussions. Further second step meetings were held in October, but the Company ' s position remained unchanged , and the 203 grievances were again sent to the third step. Two other grievances dealing with stockkeepers and iron core processors were included in the IUE's appeal to the third step , making a total of 205 grievances to be considered 4. The third step dispositions and the refusal to arbitrate The 205 grievances were the subject of a third step meeting in New York on October 24, 1967. A few days later the Company replied as to the entire group: "It is the Company position that the rates in question are proper for the work performed ." This was not the format customarily followed by the Company in rejecting what it believed to be grievances based on a demand for a "general wage increase ." In such cases the Company usually stated : "It is the Company position that the case is not an appropriate subject for the grievance procedure. However, without waiving our right to assert this position, we have discussed the matter with you." The IUE selected a group of 10 of the 205 grievances on which it requested arbitration under the contract, but the Company declined to arbitrate , relying on article XV, section 7(e) of the national contract which excludes wage rates from arbitration except by mutual agreement. The contract expressly recites that such matters "are assigned by the parties to local negotiations and not to arbitration." D. The Strikes The refusal to agree to arbitrate occurred on January 12, 1968. The Local promptly commenced a series of strikes, each lasting 1 day, and each being prefaced by notice to the Company that the Local was about to strike in support of a particular named wage grievance (sometimes two were named ) The strikes occurred during periods in which some employees were scheduled to work overtime , but these employees joined the strikes. In addition to the 1-day strikes , however , other "strikes" were called in support of these grievances which "strikes" consisted of refusals to work overtime. These strikes seriously affected the Company's production and management promptly took the position that they were illegal refusals to work overtime . Not until a negotiating session on March 7, 1968, did the Company officially take the position (previously privately held by some company officials ) that the wage grievances represented a demand for a "general wage increase" which the Company believes to be forbidden under the' national contract. The Local and the Company continued to discuss the, wage grievances and the recurring strikes at negotiating sessions during the winter and spring of 1968 The Company invoked disciplinary measures against employees who refused to work overtime , and continued to maintain that its rates were proper and that the Local was seeking a "general wage increase " The Local took the position that the rates were not up to those paid by other employers in the area , that the difficulties of the jobs and the skills required had increased , and that the demands and the strikes were not prohibited by the contract . Eventually the Local reduced its demands to a two-step wage increase for hourly workers and a comparable (but differently phrased) increase for incentive employees. The Company rejected the demands and commenced to invoke disciplinary penalties on participants in the "weekend strikes" as well as against those who refused to work overtime The strikes continued through May 31, 1968, and then ceased. The Company had announced a cancellation of the annual vacation shutdown and threatened to close the plant for a period of time if another strike occurred. The IUE had not authorized the strikes, no such authorization was required under, the then current IUE constitution However, in October 1968 the IUE sent the Local a check in an amount intended to replace money the Local had paid in strike benefits. E. Conclusions As I view the matter, there are three separate grounds, any one of which would be sufficient, which require dismissal of the complaint. 1. The parties all agree that strikes over the rejection of individual wage grievances are permitted by the contract Contrary to the position long espoused by the Company and here adopted by General Counsel, I cannot find anything in the national contract which precludes the IUE or one of its locals from pressing, during the life of the contract , wage grievances affecting all the employees in a bargaining unit Indeed , I believe that Arbitrator Horton's decision in the Tyler case rejects that construction. To be sure that decision states that the contract precludes "unit-wide requests for across-the-board or percentage increases " But such increases would necessarily be inconsistent with the rate table established in the national contract. Clearly, any wage increases requested during the life of the contract must conform with that table. Article VI, section 1, however, provides that the raising of "any question " which affects the wage rates of "groups" shall be subject to negotiation. As Arbitrator Horton stated 11. all groups within a unit [may] have as valid a claim for re-adjustment of wage rates as would a single group " He further states that under the Company' s construction, which he rejects, "all groups within a unit could, in effect, secure negotiations of requests for wage adjustments by suffering only the inconvenience and disadvantage of additional time" by spacing the filing of grievances LOCAL UNION 191, IUE 719 affecting all over several weeks And finally he notes that those entitled to an increase should not "be deprived of an opportunity to establish their claims because the balance of the groups chose to file similar grievances " In addition to the reasons urged by Arbitrator Horton, I note that we are here dealing with a statute which expressly protects the right to strike, and under familiar law waivers of such a statutory right are not to be lightly inferred but must be expressed and unequivocal. Here the parties went to great length to limit the no-strike clause, to permit strikes over wages once the grievance procedure was exhausted, and to preclude arbitration on wage grievances during the life of the contract because such matters remained subject to local negotiations. The Company itself admits (a) that the Local would have a right to strike in the event of a wage reduction,' and (b) that the Company could lawfully grant wage increases to all employees, as indeed it did in Rome in 1955 when it discovered its rates were out of line with others in the area. But I find nothing in the contract to warrant a distinction between a strike against a general wage revision downward, and one for a general revision upward, and as upward revision is permissible under the contract, a strike to achieve such a result would also seem permissible, unless expressly waived. In this connection it must be remembered that the wage rates are customarily set before the plant is organized, and a holding that the bargaining representative cannot press a grievance concerning all wage rates would seriously impinge on its effectiveness It is unrealistic to argue that all wage rates at a particular plant could be negotiated at the time a new national contract is negotiated . The pattern of bargaining, expressed in the national contract, is to leave wage rates to local negotiations General local wage supplements exist in only two of the Company's plants throughout the country, and the record is silent as to the time or manner of their negotiation. 2. Assuming I am in error in the foregoing discussion, and that the Company correctly interprets its contract as forbidding strikes over a grievance which rests on a demand for an increase for all employees in a bargaining unit, I would nevertheless dismiss the complaint in this case because the case does not concern a demand for a "general wage increase" within even that reading of the phrase. The Local here presented several separate grievances, one in 1966 covering 101 job classifications, one in 1967 covering 102 job classifications, and others filed between the major groups, covering an additional three job classifications The Company itself never took the position that these demands, even when consolidated at the third step, were a demand for a "general wage increase" until after the Local resorted to a series of crippling strikes, and indeed the Company in handling the grievances did not use the usual phraseology it employed when dealing with what it regarded as a demand for a "general wage increase." Aside from the Company's own 'At the hearing the Company unequivocally took the position that it could lawfully reduce all the rates at Rome, and that the Union could strike if the Company did so See the testimony of Hindle, Tr 114-115, and the comments of company counsel , Tr 311 In its brief to me the Company expressly disavows this position , and states that "Having consulted with [its ) labor relations counsel" it now believes that it would not have such a right under the contract This change of position would not seem to affect the concession that the Union could strike if the Company were to reduce wages, but merely to establish that the Union could also maintain an action under the contract I make no finding as to whether the Company ' s original or its subsequent interpretation of its contract is correct contemporaneous construction which thus militates against its present contention, I note that the combined grievances did not embrace approximately 100 winders, as well as several newly created classifications, and two others whose exclusion the Company could not explain As I see the matter, the Local filed one grievnace in 1966 for a group - the incentive workers. It deliberately excluded from this group a subgroup, the 100 winders. At that time according to uncontradicted testimony, the Local had given no consideration to the needs of another group - the hourly workers As to this group a separate grievance was filed a year later. This appears to me to be the raising of grievances as to "groups" as the term is used in article VI, section 1 of the national contract, and not "a grievance demanding a general wage increase for all employees in a bargaining unit," which the Company's published interpretation says that "section does not permit" (emphasis supplied) The percentage of Rome employees affected by the grievances here was considerably lower than the 97 percent affected by the grievances in the Tyler case 3 Assuming that I am in error as to both points discussed above, and that the contract forbade strikes over the grievances, I would nevertheless dismiss the complaint On these assumptions, the strikes were in breach of contract and were not within the area of protected concerted activity But this falls far short of showing that the strikes establish a violation of Section 8(b)(3). See International Union, UMW (Boone County Coal Corp I v NLRB, 257 F 2d 211, 214-215 (C.A.D C.) The grievances, if granted, would not have amended any term of the contract. On the contrary they requested relief within the terms of the contract, i.e., step increases to rates set forth in the contract By hypothesis, I will assume that a strike for this end was forbidden But such a strike was not to "amend" the contract, as would have been the case, for example, if the purpose of the strike had been to alter the rate structure. It is urged that the strike was to eliminate wage differentials which the parties had discussed at national negotiations but left in effect. If this were the purpose of the strike, then it would have contravened not only the no-strike clause, but also the "wrap-up" clause, and it would have been a strike to amend terms settled by the negotiations. But the grievances rested on a claim that the rates lagged behind those paid by employers in the area, and also that the fob content had changed, and did not rest on the geographic differential As noted above the Company retains the right to increase all wage rates, if in its judgment such action is warranted, and it did precisely that at Rome in 1955 The Company argues that it can take such action, but the Local cannot strike to compel it Even assuming this to be true - that such a strike would be in breach of contract because the wage grievances are for a "general wage increase" and, arguendo, outside the exception to the no-strike clause - the granting of step wage increases within the contract scale would not modify the contract, and therefore a strike for that purpose, even though "unprotected" would not be an attempt to modify the contract, requiring the notice prescribed by Section 8(d)(3) The foregoing analysis applies equally to the refusals to work overtime These may have been unprotected by Section 7, but they do not represent an attempt to modify the contract or a failure to observe its terms Obviously the Local was not seeking to alter permanently the terms of employment relating to overtime, but was engaging in a 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD strike, or partial strike, to pressure the Company into granting wage demands. 4. My view of the case renders unnecessary a finding as to whether the IUE shares with the Local any liability arising out of the strikes Assuming the issue were to be reached, I would hold that merely replenishing the Local's treasury months after the strikes ended is insufficient to establish the liability of the IUE for any violation of Section 8(b)(3) which might have inhered in the strikes. See United Construction Co v. Haislip Baking Co , 223 F.2d 872, 876-878 (C.A 4), IBEW (Franklin Electric Construction Co ), 121 NLRB 143, 146-148 I note that the 1967 constitution of the IUE recites that no action by any local in violation of a collective - bargaining agreement shall be deemed the action of the IUE unless it was "specifically authorized or ratified in writing by the International President ," and that not until the 1969 constitution was strike authorization by the International required CONCLUSION OF LAW The Respondents have not violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER The complaint should be, and hereby is, dismissed. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation