Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1147 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

MORRISON -KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 1147
ing so, the Court noted that retail sales include sales to a pur-
chaser who desires "to satisfy his own personal wants or those of
his family or friends," while wholesale sales constitute " sales of
goods or merchandise `to trading establishments of all kinds, to
institutions, industrial, commercial, and professional users, and
sales to governmental bodies.' "
These criteria were adopted by the Board in J. S. Latta ct Son,
114 NLRB 1248, for purposes of applying the Board's jurisdic-
tional standards.' Applying them here, we find that the employer
is a nonretail establishment. As the Employer's inflow of approxi-
mately $70,000 satisfies the new inflow standards for nonretail en-
terprises as set forth in Siemens Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81,
the Board finds that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction over the Employer. Accordingly, the Employ-
er's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's tires sales and service establishment at
Houston, Texas, including recapping employees and inside and out-
side service employees, but excluding office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen, professional employees, inside and outside salesmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer does not dispute
the appropriateness of the unit sought. Accordingly, we find that
the aforementioned unit constitutes a unit appropriate for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
I In 1949, which was before the Board 's Latta decision issued, a definition of the term
"retail" was added to the Fair Labor Standards Act which , so far as the interpretation
of that statute is concerned , rejected the criteria set forth in Roland Electrical Com-
pany v. Walling, supra, 63 Stat. 917.
Morrison -Knudsen Company, Inc. and Denton R. Moore
International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, Local 341, AFL-CIO and Denton R. Moore.
Cases Nos. 19-CA-1405 and 19-CB-450. January 29, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Hearing upon the consolidated complaint herein was held before
Trial Examiner Howard Myers between September 9 and October
31, 1957. On September 13, 1957, at the close of the General Coun-
122 NLRB No. 136.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sel's case, the Trial Examiner orally granted a motion of the Re-
spondent Union, herein called the Union, to dismiss the consolidated
complaint as to it. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the Re-
spondent Company, hereinafter called the Company, and the
Respondent Union, hereinafter called the Union, had an unwritten
agreement, arrangement, or practice requiring that applicants for
jobs with the Company be cleared by, and join, the Union as a
condition of hire, and that such arrangement or practice violated
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) and 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.
In his original Intermediate Report herein, the Trial Examiner
found that the Company violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the
Act by withholding job assignments from five prospective employ-
ees until they had joined the Union and obtained job clearances
from it. He recommended, however, that all other allegations of
the complaint against the Company be dismissed, and, as noted
above, at the completion of the General Counsel's case, dismissed
the complaint as to the Union.
In his exceptions to the original Intermediate Report, the Gen-
eral Counsel urged that the evidence adduced at the hearing estab-
lished that the Union was a party to a closed-shop arrangement
violative of Section 8(b)(2) and (1) of the Act. In support of
this contention, the General Counsel pointed to the Company's prac-
tice, as found by the Trial Examiner, of requiring union clearance
and membership of applicants for employment, and to uncontra-
dicted testimony to the effect that (1) the Company was "allowed"
to specify the names of 50 percent of the employees to be dispatched
by the Union; (2) the Company inquired as to whether particular
job applicants were in good standing with the Union and accepted
substitutes from the Union if such applicants were not in good
standing; (3) on one occasion, a union job steward told a new
employee that his first financial commitment was to pay his dues
to the Union or he would be put off the job; and (4) on another
occasion, the business agent of the Union told a prospective em-
ployee that he would be given a dispatch slip as soon as he com-
pleted his application for membership in the Union.
On July 31, 1958, the Board issued a Decision and Order Re-
manding Case,' in which it found that the foregoing evidence was
.sufficient to establish a prima-facie case of violation by the Union
of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and 8(b) (2) of the Act through participa-
tion with the Company in an illegal closed-shop and hiring-hall
arrangement, and that the Trial Examiner had, therefore, erred in
dismissing the complaint as to the Union; and the Board in that
1121 NLRB 247.
MORRISON -KNUDSEN COMPANY , INC. 1149
Order remanded the case to the Trial Examiner for further pro-
ceedings consistent therewith.
Pursuant to that Order, the Trial Examiner on August 22, 1958,
advised all parties to the proceeding that the hearing was reopened
and would resume on September 8, 1958. On September 5, the
Union advised the Trial Examiner that "it rests and requests that
the Supplemental Intermediate Report be based on evidence pres-
ently in the record." Whereupon, on the same day, the Trial Ex-
aminer canceled the notice of hearing and advised all parties that
the hearing was closed.
On. September 26, 1958, the Trial Examiner issued his Supple-
mental Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the copy of the Supplemental Intermediate Report attached
hereto. He also found that the Respondents had not engaged in
certain' other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, as
set forth in his original Intermediate Report, and recommended
dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel,
the Respondent Company, and the Respondent Union filed excep-
tions to the Supplemental Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, and the Sup-
plemental Intermediate Report, copies of which are attached hereto,
the exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report as modified by the Sup-
plemental Intermediate Report, subject to the following additions
and modifications :
1. In the original Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found
that the Company violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by
conditioning the employment of Abolins, Crowe, Garnes, Bleeck,
and Wyman upon their joining the Union and obtaining clearance
from it. The Company did not except to these findings, and we
adopt theme.
2. In his Supplemental Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner
found that the Company and the Union participated in an arrange-
ment that required applicants for jobs as laborers to obtain, as a
condition of employment , dispatch slips from the Union , which were
issued only after application had been made for membership therein.
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find, contrary to the contention of the Respondents,' that the
record amply supports this finding, at least with respect to hirings
by the Company at Anchorage, Alaska, in connection with work
done under the Company's cost-plus contract with Western Elec-
tric Company. Accordingly, we find that, by maintaining with
respect to such hirings a practice of conditioning employment on
membership in, and clearance by, the Union, the Company violated
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act and the Union violated Section
8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.'
THE REDIEDY
In the Supplemental Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner
recommended that the Respondents jointly reimburse Abolins,
Crowe, Garnes, Wyman, and Bleeck for all initiation fees and dues
paid by them. The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Exam-
iner's failure to recommend joint reimbursement of initiation fees
and clues paid by all members of the Union employed pursuant to
the illegal hiring arrangement found herein. We find merit in this
exception. By the aforesaid unlawful hiring arrangement, the
Respondents have unlawfully coerced employees to join the Union
in order to obtain employment, thereby inevitably coercing them
into the payment of initiation fees, union dues, and other sums. In
order adequately to remedy the unfair labor practices found, the
Respondents should be required to reimburse employees of the
Company for any initiation fees or dues, and other moneys, which
have been unlawfully exacted from them as the price of their em-
ployment. Therefore, as part of the remedy we shall order the
Respondents, jointly and severally, to refund to the employees of
the Company hired at Anchorage, Alaska, for work under the
Western Electric contract mentioned above, all initiation fees, dues,
and other moneys paid by them to the Union as the price of their
employment. We believe that these remedial provisions are appro-
2 The Union contends that there is no direct evidence that the unlawful practice found
herein was anything but unilateral action on the part of the Company . However, we
believe the evidence set forth in our Decision and Order Remanding Case and in the
Supplemental Intermediate Report sufficiently establishes union participation in an un-
lawful practice whereby any hirings of laborers by the Company at Anchorage under the
western Electric contract were limited to union members approved by the Union. While
the Company was permitted to request a limited number of individuals by name, they
were not hired unless they were approved by the Union as members in good standing.
The Company contends , in effect, that the purpose of its requirement of union clearance
was merely to eliminate unqualified applicants and to give notice to the Union of the
identity of those hired . However, it is clear, as we have found , that employment was
conditioned not only on union clearance but also on union membership . Accordingly, we
find no merit in this contention.
3 The General Counsel excepts to the failure of the Trial Examiner to find that the
Company unlawfully gave preference in hire to union members over 26 local applicants
at the Big Mountain project. However , the record shows only that these 26 were not
hired until several months after they applied. We find insufficient basis in the record
for holding that the hiring of these 26 was delayed because of their lack of membership
in the Union , rather than for the economic reasons testified to by the Company.
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 1151
priate and necessary in order to expunge the coercive effect of the
Respondents' unfair labor practices 4 The liability of each ' Re-
.spondent for reimbursement shall begin 6 months prior to the date
of the filing and service of the charge against it, and shall extend
to all such moneys thereafter collected.-'
The unfair labor practices found herein demonstrate on the part
of the Respondents such a fundamental antipathy to the objectives
of the Act as to compel an inference that the commission of other
unfair labor practices may be anticipated in the future. By condi-
tioning employment on membership in, and clearance by, the Un-
ion, the Respondents have resorted to the most effective means at
their disposal to defeat what the Supreme Court has termed the
"principal purpose of the Act," namely, its guarantee to employees
of "full freedom of association and self-organization." The Wallace
Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 323 U.S. 248. Accordingly, it will be rec-
ommended that Respondents be ordered to cease and desist from in
any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing, employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. The Respondent, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Maintaining, or otherwise giving effect to any understanding,
arrangement, or practice with International Hod Carriers, Build-
ing and Common Laborers Union of America, Local 341, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, whereby applicants for employment
must join such labor organization and obtain clearance or dispatch
slips from it as a condition of employment with Morrison-Knudsen,
except in accordance with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner encouraging membership in Local 341,
or in any other Labor organization, or otherwise interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
4 Tellepsen Construction Co., 122 NLRB 564; Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express,
Incorporated , 121 NLRB 1629 ; Broderick Wood Products Company, 118 NLRB 38, enfd.
261 F. 2d 548 (C .A. 10, 1958 ) ; J. S. Brown -E. F. Olds Plumbing & Heating Corporation,
115 NLRB 594; Coast Aluminum Company, 120 NLRB 1326.
5 As the Trial Examiner originally dismissed the complaint insofar as it alleged that
the Respondent Union 's conduct violated the Act, we shall exempt the period between the
date of the original Intermediate Report and the date of the Supplemental Intermediate
Report herein.
U The Trial Examiner recommended only a proscription of interference, etc., in any
manner related to the unfair labor practices found herein. The Company excepted to
such proscription as too broad. We find no merit in this exception. See North East
Texas Motor Lines, Inc., 109 NLRB 1147, 114'8, 1150.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
teed in Section 7 of the Act, except in a manner permitted by
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Jointly and severally with Local 341, refund to all its present
and former employees hired at Anchorage, Alaska, for work under
its cost-plus contract with Western Electric Company, Incorporated,
all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid as a condition of
membership in Local 341 in the manner and to the extent set forth
in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post in conspicuous places at its principal offices in Anchorage,
Alaska, and at all its job sites within the jurisdiction of Local 341,
including places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A."'
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of
the Nineteenth Region of the Board, shall, after being signed by its
duly authorized representative, be posted by Morrison-Knudsen im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Morrison-Knudsen to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set
forth in (b) above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the
Regional Director, copies of the Respondent Union's Notice herein,
marked "Appendix B."
(d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
B. The Respondent, International Hod Carriers, Building and
Common Laborers Union of America, Local 341, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall.:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Maintaining, or otherwise giving effect to, any understanding,
arrangement, or practice, with Morrison-Knudsen, or with any other
employer, whereby applicants for employment must become mem-
bers of, and obtain clearance or dispatch slips from, Local 341 as a
condition of employment with the Morrison-Knudsen, except in
accordance with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Morrison-Knudsen, or any
other employer, to discriminate against employees or applicants for
employment in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
T In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
MORRISON-KNIIDSEN COMPANY, INC. 1153
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except in
a manner permitted by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with Morrison-Knudsen refund to all
present and former employees of Morrison-Knudsen hired by it at
Anchorage, Alaska, under its cost-plus contract with Western Elec-
tric Company, Incorporated, all initiation fees and other moneys
paid as a condition of membership in Local 341 in the manner and
to the extent set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its offices in Anchorage, Alaska, and at all job sites
of Morrison-Knudsen within the jurisdiction of Local 341 copies of
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B." 8 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by its duly authorized repre-
sentative, be posted by Local 341 immediately upon the receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 341
to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region
signed copies of the notice for posting, at all job sites of Morrison-
Knudsen within Local 341's territorial jurisdiction, as provided
above herein. Copies of said notice, to be furnished to Local 341
by said Regional Director, shall, after being signed by Local 341's
representative, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for
disposition by him.
(d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.
6 See footnote 7.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND ALL APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT
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, we hereby notify our employees and applicants for
employment that :
WE WILL NOT maintain, or otherwise give effect to, any under-
standing, arrangement, or practice, with International Hod
505395-59-vol. 122-74
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carriers, Building, and Common Laborers Union of America,
Local 341, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, whereby
applicants for employment are required to join such labor
organization, and obtain clearance by it, in order to obtain
employment with us, except in accordance with Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, encourage membership in
any labor organization or otherwise interfere with, restrain, or
coerce, employees or applicants for employment in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection and to refrain from any or all such activities, except
to the extent that such right might be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
,employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse all employees hired by us at Anchorage,
Alaska, for work under our cost-plus contract with Western
Electric Company, Incorporated, for all initiation fees, dues, or
other moneys paid by them to Local 341 at any time after
April 25, 1956, as a condition of membership.
All our employees and applicants for employment are free to be-
come or remain members of the above-named union or any other
labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be af-
fected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the
amended Act.
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------- --- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS, AND TO EMPLOYEES OF AND APPLICANTS
FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC.
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, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT maintain, or otherwise give effect to, any under-
standing, arrangement, or practice, with Morrison-Knudsen
Company, Inc., or any other employer, whereby applicants for
employment must become members of the undersigned local
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 1155
union and obtain work clearance or dispatch slips from such
local union as a condition of employment , except in accordance
with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Morrison -Knudsen
Company, Inc., or any other employer , to discriminate against
employees or applicants for employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
or prospective employees of Morrison -Knudsen Company, Inc.,
or any other employer , in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, except in a manner permitted by Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL return to all employees of Morrison -Knudsen Com-
pany , Inc., who were hired at Anchorage, Alaska , for work
under its cost-plus contract with Western Electric Company,
Incorporated , all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid
us by them at any time after April 12, 1956 , as a condition of
membership.
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS , BUILDING AND
COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL
341, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon two separate charges duly filed on October 9, 1956, by Denton R. Moore,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively
called the General Counsel' and the Board, by the then Acting Regional Director
for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued his consolidated complaint,
dated August 2, 1957,2 against Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., herein called
M-K, and International Hod Carriers, Building, and Common Laborers Union of
America, Local 341, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 341, alleging that M-K had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, as amended, herein called the Act, and that
Local 341 had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
More specifically, the consolidated complaint alleged that (1) during the 6-month
period immediately preceding the filing of the charges herein, October 9, 1956, and
at all times thereafter, M-K and Local 341, had an unwritten agreement, arrange-
ment, or practice whereby (a) applicants for jobs as construction laborers with
M-K were obligated to be cleared by Local 341 as a condition of hire, (b) Local
341 was obligated at times to procure employment with M-K for its members in
preference to nonmembers, and (c) M-K, during the 1956 construction season,
1 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
2 On the same day, the aforesaid Acting Regional Director issued and served upon the
parties an order consolidating the above-numbered cases.
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
used the facilities and dispatching personnel of Local 341 to determine the qual-
ifications of applicants seeking jobs as construction laborers with it; (2) during the
aforesaid 6-month period, and thereafter, the parties herein had a written agree-
ment which permitted Local 341 to discipline its members in the employ of M-K
without limitation; (3) Local 341, while functioning as hiring agent for M-K, did,
on or about June 11, 1956, require eight named applicants for jobs with M-K to
seek membership in said labor organization as a condition of hire and dispatch
to M-K's job sites ; and (4) under the aforesaid agreements , arrangements, or prac-
tices, M-K refused to treat as eligible for employment as construction laborers at
its Big Mountain construction site near Lake Iliamna, any local applicants at Big
Mountain until such time as Local 341 had given preference to its members and
to others then accepted as members, who desired dispatch for such employment,
and thereby deferring until mid-August the employment (except for casual em-
ployment as cargo handlers) 26 named local applicants.
M-K and Local 341 each duly filed due and timely answers to the consolidated
complaint denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on various days between Septem-
ber 9 and October 31, 1957, at Anchorage, Big Mountain, and Iliamna, Alaska,
and at Seattle, Washington, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The
General Counsel, M-K, and Local 341 were represented by counsel and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to
introduce pertinent evidence, to argue orally at the conclusion of the taking of the
evidence, and to file briefs with the Trial Examiner. A brief has been received
from counsel for M-K which has been carefully considered.
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case- in-chief, counsel for Local 341
moved to dismiss the allegations of the consolidated complaint with respect to his
client for lack of proof. The motion was granted over the objection of the General
Counsel. A similar motion was made by counsel for M-K to dismiss the con-
solidated complaint as to M-K, which was denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC.
M-K, an Idaho corporation, having its principal offices and place of business in
Boise, Idaho, is engaged in the engineering and construction business in several
States of the United States and in the Territory of Alaska from which it derives
an annual income in excess of $10,000,000. One of the projects in which it was
engaged in Alaska at the time of the hearing herein was the construction of certain
defense facilities for the United States Government for which it is paid in excess
of $1,000,000 a year.
Upon the above undisputed facts, the Trial Examiner finds that M-K is en-
gaged in, and during all times material herein was engaged in, commerce within
the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the
Board to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of A merica,
Local 341, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of M-K.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF M-K
A. Prefatory statement
The sole question to be resolved here is whether M-K violated the Act when
it requested the four University of Washington athletes named in the complaint
and who testified herein, and others, to join Local 341 and to be cleared and
dispatched by it, before M-K would put them to work at one of its Alaskan job
Sites.3
B. The pertinent facts
The credited evidence discloses that Maris A. Abolins, Ronald S . Crowe, Joel
1. Garnes, and Robert Bleek , athletes who were preparing to enter the University
8 As noted above, the Trial Examiner, at the conclusion of the General Counsel's
case-in-chief, dismissed the consolidated complaint with respect to Local 341. Since the
Trial Examiner is convinced , and finds , that the allegations of the consolidated complaint
with reference to the refusal of M-K "to treat as eligible for employment as construction
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 1157
of Washington in the fall of 1956,4 and who had been promised employment in
Alaska for the summer by M-K as a result of requests made to M-K by the
University athletic department, arrived in Anchorage on June 10, and on the
following day called at the offices of Aner W. Erickson, M-K's Alaska district
manager and the person to whom the athletic department told said students to
contact. Because Erickson was not in the office when the four students arrived
they were ushered into Harold M. Haugen's office, the then office manager for
M-K's lump sum contract 5 and the person whom Erickson had previously in-
formed that he had promised employment to five college students.
Abolins testified that during the course of the interview he, Crowe, Garnes, and
Bleek had with Haugen,6 they were told by Haugen that they would have to go
through the union hall and then they would be dispatched to a job site. Abolins
further testified that because of the lapse of time between the date of his interview
with Haugen and the date he testified in the instant proceeding he could not re-
member Haugen's exact words but that the "intimation was unmistakable" that
what Haugen intended to convey to him and his three companions was that they
would have to join Local 341 in order to obtain a laborer's job with M-K.7
Crowe testified that at the above-referred-to interview, Haugen stated, to quote
Crowe, "he had expected us, that we had jobs, that there were a couple of steps
to go through and we would be sent out immediately. First, we would have to
see the Union, then [go] to M-K employment office for dispatch. . . . I don't
know what he said exactly. He said one of the first steps would be to go through
the union and then through the dispatch."
According to Garnes, Haugen stated at the aforesaid interview, to quote Garnes,
.,we would have to join the union before we could work." On cross-examination
by counsel for M-K, Garnes testified in part as follows:
Q. Mr. Crowe mentioned that he did not recall anyone telling them they
had to join the union, that Mr. Haugen advised that he check with the union.
Does your recollection differ from Mr. Crowe's?
A. I am quite sure Mr. Haugen said we had to join the union before we
could go to work.
laborers at Its Big Mountain construction site near Lake Illamna, any local applicants
at Big Mountain until such time as Respondent Local 341 had given preference to its
members and to others then accepted as members , who desired dispatch for such employ-
ment, and thereby deferred until mid-August the employment (except for casual employ-
ment as cargo handlers)" the 26 persons named In the consolidated complaint, have not
been sustained by the credited evidence, he recommends that said allegations be dismissed.
The Trial Examiner further recommends that the allegations of the consolidated com-
plaint that M-K permitted Local 341 unlimited authority to discipline its members in
M-K employ be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. In addition, the Trial
Examiner has given no. consideration as to whether the M-K employment application
(General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4) in use during the period in question, which applica-
tion specifically calls for the applicant to disclose his union affiliation was violative of
the Act for the sole reason that the consolidated complaint raised no such issue.
Unless otherwise noted all dates hereinafter refer to 1956.
This contract was administered separately and by different personnel officials than
the so-called White Alice contract. The employees working under the latter contract are
the only ones, except Haugen, involved in these proceedings.
e Neither Abolins, Crowe, nor Garnes could recall Haugen's name. The record, how-
ever, is manifestly clear, and the Trial Examiner finds, that the person who interviewed
Abolins, Crowe, Garnes, and Bleek on June 11 was, in fact, Haugen.
7 The following testimony elicited from Haugen on cross-examination by the General
Counsel bears significantly upon Abolins' interpretation of Haugen's above-referred-to
remarks :
Q. As soon as they [the four students] arrived you called the union ball and got
ahold of Harold Groothias and told them [sic] the boys were there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Harold came down and signed them up in the union?
A. That I am not aware of.
Q. Why do you think Harold came down to see them?
A. Well, I believe In most instances they always saw those men that we checked
through the union before they were dispatched.
Q. Isn't it obvious that the reason they [ sic] saw them was that he signed them
In the union?
A. I think that Is reasonable to expect . That would be one of the chief objectives
or Interest.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Did you question that?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Haugen if you had to join a union?
A. No, he just told us we had to.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said we had to join the union before we could go to work.
Q. Are you sure he didn 't say that you ought to check with the union?
A. No, he didn't say anything like that.
Q. Did he ask you if you wanted to join the union?
A. No, he didn 't ask us if we wanted to.
Haugen testified that he did not discuss "the question of union relationship" of
the four named students with them on June 11 and had "no recollection of saying
anything to them about a union or unions, except to the extent that I told them
that I would like to have them check through the laborer's local since they were
going out on one of the projects as a laborer. " He further testified that the
reason he asked the students to "check through the laborer 's local" was because,.
"That was simply a practice that had been going on for some time , principally,.
I suppose so that the unions would know who [were ) employed on our projects,.
how many union and how many non -union."
William A. Wyman, the fifth University of Washington athlete referred to in
the record , testified , and the Trial Examiner finds, that he arrived in Anchorage
on June 12 ; that the following day he went to the offices of M-K and saw either
Sean Brady, M-K's then assistant to the personnel manager, or C. E. King, M-K's.
assistant project manager on the White Alice construction job, and that the follow-
ing there ensued:
At any rate, whoever I talked to 8 asked me a few questions about the
football team and what not and told me that the other four men had gone
out yesterday and that I would be going out the following day and told me
that I would be going too, and told me that I would need a dispatch slip.
They said that I would have to get that from the local union , and they said'
that after I got my dispatch slip, I could go back to the hotel and wait until
the following morning when I could take a limousine out to the airfield and'
take a plane to the job site.
Wyman further testified , and the Trial Examiner finds, that upon leaving M-K's.
offices he went to Local 341, where he signed a membership application blank,
arranged to pay the required initiation fees and dues at a later date, received a
dispatch slip, and the following day was shipped to the Oniak job site.
In the light of the entire record which has been very carefully scrutinized by
the Trial Examiner , coupled with the fact that Abolins , Crowe, and Games each
particularly impressed the Trial Examiner as being one who was careful with the
truth and meticulous in not enlarging his testimony beyond his actual memory
of what occurred , while Haugen , on the other hand, appeared to be attempting
to conform his testimony to what he considered to be to the best interest of M-K,
the Trial Examiner finds the testimony of Abolins , Crowe, and Games, regarding
the June 11 interview with Haugen to be substantially in accord with the facts.9'
The Trial Examiner further finds that Haugen stated , in effect, at his June 11
interview with Abolins, Crowe , Games, and Bleek that they would have to join
Local 341 in order to obtain a laborer's job with M -K. This finding is buttressed'
by the following : ( 1) Prior to the five college students arriving in Anchorage,.
Haugen had telephoned Groothias , 10 business agent of Local 341, and told him,
to quote from Haugen's testimony , "These boys would be arriving soon and that
they had been promised employment and would be going out to one or more of
our projects as laborers"; (2) on June 11, Haugen telephoned Groothias and told'
8 King testified that after inquiring about the condition of the University of Wash-
ington's football team and after advising Wyman that he had a job, he took him to,
either Brady or to Personnel Manager Raoul Wargny , where he introduced Wyman and
then immediately returned to his own office. Brady testified but was not questioned
about Wyman.
8 This is not to say that at times Abolins , Crowe, and Garnes were not confused on
certain matters or that there were not variations in their objectivity and convincingness.
But it also should be noted that the candor with which each admitted that he could not
be certain as to the exact words used , only serves to add credence to what a careful study
of their testimony shows that they honestly believed to be the facts.
10 Also referred to in the record as Groothius and as Groothuls.
MORRISON -KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 1159,
him, to again quote Haugen, "The boys were in my office and would be dispatched-
to the job, either that day or the following day"; (3) Groothias' reply to the im-
mediately above quote, to further quote Haugen, "He would like to see them but-
he didn't want them to come to the hall.... He said the hall was full of men
and that he would like to come down to our yard and see them"; (4) Groothias'-
visit to the offices of M-K shortly after the above-mentioned telephone conversa-
tion where Haugen introduced Groothias to Abolins, Crowe, Garnes, and Bleek;
(5) Groothias' signing up the above-named four in Local 341, agreeing to accept
the required initiation fees and dues at a later date, and then driving them to the-
White Alice project personnel offices where, outside of Groothias' presence, they
were instructed to obtain Local 341 clearance and then returned to their motel to
await shipping orders.
C. Concluding findings
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act enjoins employers from practicing "discrimination in
regard to hire . . ." of employees so as to "encourage or discourage membership-
in any labor organization." 11 An employer, of course, violates this prohibition if
he maintains a closed shop, making membership in a union a prerequisite to
initial employment in his establishment.12 The statutory ban on discrimination.
with regard to hire likewise applies where an employer refers applicants for em-
ployment to a union to obtain a clearance before putting the applicant to work,
thereby transferring to the union the power to veto his employment of job ap-
plicants, at least as to those applicants for jobs who are not members of the
union, for it is obvious that an employer manifestly "encourage(s) membership
in the union when he requires nonmembers, as here, to obtain said union's clear-
ance as a prerequisite to obtaining a job.13
The evidence, as epitomized above, overwhelmingly supports a finding that
M-K reserved its laborer jobs arising out of its Anchorage offices for persons who'
were members of Local 341 or able to secure Local 341 clearance. Haugen made-
it clear to the four students he interviewed on June 11, that they would not be-
assigned to any job unless or until they had joined Local 341 and had received
its clearances.''
Upon the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner finds that by withholding job'
assignments to Abolins, Crowe, Garnes, Bleek, and Wyman until they, and each
of them, had joined Local 341 and had obtained job clearances from it, M-K
violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,15 and by engaging in such discriminatory hiring.
"The so-called union shop proviso In the Act was amended in 1947 so as to outlaw
union-security agreements making union membership a condition of employment at any
time prior to the 30th day following the beginning of such employment. The Senate
sponsors of this amendment declared that Its purpose was to abolish hiring practices
prevalent "in the maritime industry and to a large extent in the construction industry"-
which created "too great a barrier to free employment to be longer tolerated." (Emphasis
supplied.) S. Rept. 105, 80th Cong., 1st sess., p. 6 ; see also statement by Senator Taft
at 93 Cong. Rec. 3836.
' N.L.R.B. v. National Maritime Union of America, 175 F. 2d 686 (C.A. 2) ; N.L.R.B. v.
Arthur G. McKee and Company, 196 F. 2d 636 (C.A. 5) ; N.L.R.B. v. Daniel Hamm
Drayage Co., 185 F. 2d 1020 (C.A. 5) ; N.L.R.B. v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company , at at.,
193 F. 2d 324 (C.A. 9).
13 See N.L.R.B. v. Radio Officers' Union, 347 U.S. 17; N.L.R.B. v. Arthur G. McKee and
Company, supra; ef., Del E. Webb Construction Company v. N.L.R.B., 196 F. 2d 702
(C.A. 8).
14 hl-K contended at the hearing and In its brief that Haugen had no authority to hire
any person for the White Alice project inasmuch as this function was solely in the hands
of Wargny, the personnel manager of that project, subject, of course, to Erickson's In-
structions. Be this as it may, Haugen was the ranking M-K official on the scene at the
time when Abolins, Crowe, Garnes, and Bleek presented themselves for employment.
Without disavowing his authority to dispose of their applications, he arranged for'
Groothias to interview them at the M-K offices, and did not even intimate to the four
applicants that Wargny was the proper person for them to see. For Haugen's unlawful
conduct, described above, M-K was manifestly responsible, whether or not its agent over-
stepped undisclosed limitations upon his authority. International Association of Machin-
ists , etc. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 72; N.L.R.B. v. Security Warehouse A Cold Storage Co.,.
1,36 F. 2d 829 (C.A. 9) ; N.L.R.B. v. Acme Mattress Co., Inc., 192 F. 2d 524 (C.A.7)
and Section 2(13) of the Act.
15 See Northern California Chapter, The Associated General Contractors of America,
Inc., et al.. ,119 NLRB 1026.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices it interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees and prospective
employees in the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act thereby violating
Section 8(a)(1) thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of M-K, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with its operations, described in section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and such
of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that M-K has engaged in unfair labor practices, violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the record does not sustain the allegations of the consolidated
complaint that M-K unlawfully permitted Local 341 unlimited power to discipline
M-K employee-members and the allegations that M-K discriminatorily refused to
hire local inhabitants on the White Alice project, the Trial Examiner will recom-
mend that said allegations be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and of the entire record in
this proceeding, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. International Hod Carriers, Building, and Common Laborers Union of Amer-
ica, Local 341, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By encouraging membership in Local 341, by refusing employment to Abolins,
Crowe, Garnes, Bleek, Wyman, and others, unless and until they had joined
Local 341 and had received its job clearance, M-K has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees, and prospective em-
ployees, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, M-K
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The record does not sustain the allegations of the consolidated complaint that
M-K discriminated against local inhabitants on the White Alice project nor does
it sustain the allegations that M-K unlawfully permitted Local 341 unlimited
power to discipline M-K employee-members.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the Trial Examiner
granted the motion of counsel for Local 341 to dismiss the consolidated complaint
as to it.
On January 20, 1958, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report and
Recommended Order, herein called Report, finding that the Respondent Company,
herein called M-K, had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by, among other things,
withholding job assignments from five prospective employees until they had joined
Local 341. Thereafter the General Counsel duly filed exceptions to said Report.
With respect to the dismissal of the consolidated complaint, as to Local 341,
the exceptions alleged that the evidence adduced at the hearing fully established
that Local 341 was a party to a closed-shop arrangement violative of the Act.
In support of this allegation the General Counsel points to certain findings of fact
set out in said Report plus certain evidence not discussed therein.
On July 31, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 remanding the case to the
Trial Examiner "for further proceeding consistent with this Decision and Order
Remanding Case, including such additional hearing as may be necessary and the
1 A copy thereof Is hereby received in evidence as Trial Examiner 's Exhibit No. 1.
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 1161
preparation and issuance of a Supplemental Intermediate Report, setting forth his
findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommendations with respect to the
unfair labor practices by the Union alleged in the complaint and any modifications
in the Intermediate Report . which may be required in view thereof."
On August 22, the Trial Examiner sent the following telegram 2 to General
Counsel, to counsel for each Respondent, and to the Charging Party:
RE MORRISON-KNUDSEN ET AL., 19-CA-1405, CB-450 THIS HEAR-
ING IS HEREBY REOPENED AND WILL RESUME FOR PURPOSE OF
TAKING TESTIMONY AND HEARING ARGUMENT AT A ROOM IN
THE UNITED STATES COURT HOUSE BLDG IN ANCHORAGE,
ALASKA, AT 10 A.M. SEPTEMBER 8, 1958
On September 5, the Trial Examiner received the following telegram 3 from
the Union's counsel, copies of which were sent to the General Counsel and to
the Company's counsel:
RE: MORRISON-KNUDSEN, ET. AL. NLRB CASE NUMBERS 19-CA-
1405, 19-CB-450 RESPONDENT UNION RESTS AND REQUESTS THAT
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERMEDIATE REPORT BE BASED ON EVIDENCE
PRESENTLY IN RECORD
The same day, September 5, the Trial Examiner sent the following telegram 4
to the General Counsel, to counsel for each Respondent, and to the Charging
Party:
RE MORRISON-KNUDSEN ET AL., 19-CA-1405, 19-CB-450, NOTICE
OF RESUMPTION OF HEARING GIVEN AUGUST 22, 1958, IS HEREBY
CANCELLED AND THE HEARING IS CLOSED
The questions to be resolved in this supplemental report are whether (1) during
the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the charges herein, Oc-
tober 9, 1956, and at all times thereafter, M-K and Local 341, had an unwritten
agreement, arrangement, or practice whereby (a) applicants for jobs as construction
laborers with M-K were obligated to be cleared by Local 341 as a condition of
hire, (b) Local 341 was obligated at times to procure employment with M-K for
its members in preference to nonmembers, and (c) M-K, during the 1956 con-
struction season, used the facilities and dispatching personnel of Local 341 to
determine the qualifications of applicants seeking jobs as construction laborers
with it; (2) during the aforesaid 6-month period, and thereafter, the parties herein
had a written agreement which permitted Local 341 to discipline its members in
the employ of M-K without limitation; (3) Local 341, while functioning as hiring
agent for M-K, did, on or about June 11, 1956, require five named applicants
for jobs with M-K to seek membership in said labor organization as a condition
of hire and dispatch to M-K's job sites; and (4) under the aforesaid agreements,
arrangements, or practices, M-K refused to treat as eligible for employment as
construction laborers at its Big Mountain construction site near Lake Iliamna, any
local applicants at Big Mountain until such time as Local 341 had given preference
to its members and to others then accepted as members, who desired dispatch for
such employment, and thereby deferring until mid-August the employment (except
for casual employment as cargo handlers) 26 named local applicants.
There can be no doubt that if Local 341 engaged in such conduct it violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.5
Upon the entire record in the case, all of which has been carefully read, and
parts of which have been reread and rechecked several times, the Trial Examiner
makes, in addition to the findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommendations
made in the Report, and following findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Raoul Wargny credibly testified that from March 3 to until the latter part of
July 1956, he was personnel manager and, as such, hired persons for the M-K's
so-called White Alice construction job; that when a site superintendent would re-
quest his department for a certain laborer by name he would telephone Local 341
and ask if this particular person was in good standing and if he was "eligible to
be dispatched for hiring"; that if the said person was available and "eligible"
2 Copy thereof is hereby received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 2.
s Copy thereof is hereby received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 3.
Copy thereof is hereby received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 4.
6N.L.R,B. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , etc., 232 F . 2d 393 (C.A. 3) ;
N.L.R.B. v. Charles E. Daboll, Jr., 216 F. 2d 143 (C.A. 9) ; Pardee Construction Company,
115 NLRB 126. Also see cases cited in footnotes 12 and 13 of the Report.
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 341 "would dispatch him [to us] and we would process him and send him
-out to the site"; that if Local 341 "failed to dispatch" the requested person be-
cause he was not in good standing nor eligible he "would ask for a substitute";
and M-K was "allowed to specify the names of 50 percent of the persons to be
-dispatched by Local 341; that the five college students involved in this proceeding
were processed in the regular manner; that when said students reported for work
he told "them to go down to the union and join it and come back to the office";
,and that when they received the necessary dispatch slips and returned to M-K
they were processed and each was sent to a different job site.
Wargny credibly testified further that if a requested laborer was not a member
of Local 341, it would not clear him and he would not be put to work by M-K;
that before a laborer was put to work by M-K, he would have to have a Local 341
clearance or dispatch slip; and that on one occasion he requested Local 341 to
dispatch a certain named person but it refused to do so because he "was not a
member of the union and they had so many men on the bench that had priority
that they didn't want to accept any more."
According to the undenied and credible testimony of Morris A. Abolins, one of
the college students mentioned in the Report, Local 341's business representative,
Groothias, told him on June 12, when he and the three other students applied
for dispatch slips, to quote Abolins, "we would have to join the union [in order
to work for M-K] and . generally it is accepted practice for the individual,
'when he desires to join the union, to pay $50 initiation fee at the time he joins.
he was making a special exception in our case and he would let us go out
there owing him money. But he put it very clearly to us, that if we did not
,send the money in within the first or second pay check, he would come out and
get us"; and that after he had been at the Big Mountain job site 2 or 3 days he
had the following conversation with the Local 341 job steward:
He asked me if I had paid my dues and I said no. He said that I should
pay them with the first check that I got and send it [by] mail [or] give it to
him and he would send it on to Anchorage and pay it . . . I said that I had
a previous commitment. I said my first check would go for my fare up
here. . He said that my first commitment was, of course, the union or
they would put me out of a job. If it hadn't been for them I wouldn't be
out there. Well, I finally agreed that I should pay the union with my second
pay check which I did.
William A. Wyman, one of the University of Washington athletes referred to
in the Report, credibly testified that when he reported for work, at M-K on
June 13, he was told by an M-K official that he had to obtain a Local 341 clear-
ance before he could be put to work; that said official telephoned Groothias and
said that he was sending him to Local 341 for a dispatch slip; and that when he
.arrived there he asked Groothias for a dispatch slip and Groothias replied, "Well,
we will get the dispatch slip for you as soon as we fill out the application" for
membership in Local 341.
The facts summarized above establish that M-K and Local 341 were parties to
-an unlawful arrangement under which applicants for work were required to be-
• come members of Local 341 or be dispatched by Local 341 as a condition of
employment. The record further establishes that M-K acceded to Local 341's re-
quirement for dispatch slips as a condition of employment and that Local 341 was
aware of this fact. Such joint action by M-K and Local 341 establishes the
.existence of an arrangement requiring dispatch slips from Local 341, which were
only issued after application for membership therein had been made, as a condition
of employment by M-K.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner finds that by participating with M-K in an
agreement, understanding, and practice that required laborers who were not mem-
'bers of Local 341, and others, to obtain dispatch slips from Local 341 as a
-condition of employment, Local 341 has caused M-K to discriminate against its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. By engaging in such conduct,
'the Trial Examiner finds Local 341 has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2).6
Having found that Local 341 and M-K have violated the Act, the Trial Ex-
aminer will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take the fol-
See N.L.R.B. v. United Association of Journeymen, etc. (J. J. White, Inc.), 239 F. 2d
"327 (C.A. 3) ; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. (The Lane Construction Co.),
111 NLRB 952, enfd. 228 F. 2d 83 (C.A. 2) ; Alexander-Stafford Corp., 118 NLRB 79.
:See also Mountain Pacific, 119 NLRB 883.
WM. WOLF BAKERY, INC . 1163
lowing affirmative action (in addition. to those already recommended as to M-K
in the Report) which the Trial Examiner finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act.
It will be recommended that M-K and Local 341, jointly and severally, be
required to reimburse to Morris A. Abolins, Ronald S. Crowe, Joel I. Games,
William A. Wyman, and Robert Bleeck, the five University of Washington athletes
referred to in the record, any and all initiation fees and dues paid to Local 341
in order to obtain employment with M-K.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following (in addition to those already
made in the Report):
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. By performing, maintaining , or otherwise giving effect to an understanding,
:arrangement, and practice with M-K, whereby employees or applicants for em-
ployment who were not members of Local 341, as well as to those who were
members, must obtain clearance or dispatch slips as a condition of employment
with M-K, Local 341 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
2. By restraining and coercing employees and prospective employees of M-K in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Local 341 has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
,commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Wm. Wolf Bakery, Inc. and American Bakery and Confectionery
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
15-RC-1850. January 29, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER'
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before John H.
Immel, Jr., a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1: The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
,of the Employer?
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
Intervenor Local 369 advanced as a bar contract executed July 31,
1958, covering the requested unit of employees at the Employer's
T On November 18, 1958, the Board Issued a Decision and Direction of Election, in the
instant proceeding . On November 24, 1958, the Intervenor, Bakery and Confectionery
Workers International Union of America, Local 809, filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
Thereupon , the Board , on December 19,. 1958, issued an Order Granting Motion for
Reconsideration and Vacating Decision and Direction of Election , pending further con-
sideration of other issues in the case.
'District 50, United Mine Workers of America, also intervened herein.
122 NLRB No. 141.