Northside Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 34 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find nothing legally improper in these remarks by Redfearn, certainly insofar as
they express a hope and belief, which he was entitled to entertain, that the Union
would be voted out in 1964. Nor do these incidents establish, as the General Counsel
contends, that they were "part of a plan" conceived by Respondent in 1963 "to
eliminate the Union from Respondent's operations " If these conversations had been
held with employees who favored the Union, in an attempt to induce them to change
their loyalties, a more difficult problem might be presented. But here, Quimby
had previously told Redfearn that he "didn't care for the Union," and Wirtz, when
told by Redfearn at the time he was hired that it was a union shop, informed him
that he "could live with [the union] or without it."
The only interrogation which, in his brief, the General Counsel contends was
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, was Redfearn's interrogation of Quimby,
during the first day of his employment, how he "felt about the union." However,
it is not every interrogation of employees concerning their union views which must
be found violative of the Act. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, upon which
the General Counsel relies, dictates that "the test is whether under all the circum-
stances, the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with the employees
in the exercise of their rights.6
The interrogation of Quimby occurred at some point during a longer conversation
and the record does not disclose whether it was before or after his inquiry afore-
mentioned that Redfearn "explained that the employees were union and it was a
closed shop." If it occurred after Quimby was informed of his obligation to become
a union member it cannot be concluded that Redfearn's inquiry as to how Quimby
"felt about the Union" tended "to restrain or interfere with [him] in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by the Act." Blue Flash Express, Inc., supra. In any event, in view
of all the circumstances existing here, including Redfearn's "close relationship with
the workers, and their long continued practice of free discussion of union [affiliation]
in his presence and with him, I conclude that his limited queries of a few employees 7
about . . their union views does not constitute substantial proof of coercion such
as to warrant action under the Act." Mitchell Standard Corporation, 140 NLRB 496,
507; Howard Aero, Inc., 119 NLRB 1531.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the cases, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety.
6 See also N.L R B. v. J. E McCatron, et al, d/b/a Price Valley Lumber Co , et at., 216
F. 2d 212, 216 (C A 9), where the court summarized the rule as follows "Interrogation re-
garding union activity does not in and of Itself violate Section 8(a) (1) . . . . In order to
violate Section 8(a) (1) such interrogation must either contain an express or implied threat
or promise, or form part of an overall pattern whose tendency is to restrain or coerce."
7 The record discloses that Redfearn made a similar inquiry of Wirtz
J. B. Guedri , Sr., J. B. Guedri , Jr., Charles Millhiser , II, Claire
M. Rosenbaum , and Mildred M. Heltzer , Partners, d/b/a North-
side Electric Company and Charles H. Poindexter . Case No.
5-CA-25417. February 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 27, 1964, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not
151 NLRB No. 14.
NORTHSIDE ELECTRIC COMPANY 35
engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support
thereof. The Respondent thereupon filed a brief in answer thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members
Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
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 entire
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions, and the briefs, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.'
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 Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that
the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
1 In adopting the finding that Poindexter was discharged for cause, and not in violation
of the Act, we do not rely upon the Trial Examiner's analysis and conclusions with respect
to the effect of the existing contract grievance procedure and its utilization . Further, we
do not construe Spielberg Manufacturing Company , 112 NLRB 1080, or Denver- Chicago
Trucking Company , Inc., 132 NLRB 1416, as standing for the proposition that certain dis-
putes arising between labor and management should be determined by further collective
bargaining in accordance with the procedures set forth in the collective -bargaining agree-
ments between the parties ; these cases hold, rather , that the Board ,. under certain circum-
stances , will honor the decisions of arbitrators
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act, was heard pursuant
to notice at Richmond, Virginia, on January 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and February 3 and 4,
1964, with all parties present before Trial Examiner Lee J. Best Based upon a charge
filed on or about August 8, 1963, by Charles H Poindexter (an individual), herein
called the Charging Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
on November 7, 1963, issued a complaint against Northside Electric Company (a
partnership ), herein called Respondent , alleging in substance that the Respondent on
or about June 10, 1963, engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act by dis-
charging Charles H. Poindexter (employee) because of his membership in, assistance
to, and activities on behalf of, Local Union No. 666, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, or because he engaged in
concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion, and interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The Respondent filed an answer thereto
on November 15, 1963, denying that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act, and also denying all allegations of unfair
labor practices . As a further affirmative defense, the answer of Respondent alleges
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Poindexter was discharged for good cause, and that such issue has been fairly
and regularly processed, resolved, and settled pursuant to the collective-bargaining
agreement between Respondent and the Union.
All parties were represented by counsel, afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues
involved, to present oral argument on the record, and to thereafter file written briefs
with the Trial Examiner, all of which have been given due consideration. Motion
of counsel for the General Counsel to correct the transcript of record is hereby
granted to the extent that on line 4, page 1152, the word "Coxon" is substituted for
the word "Poindexter," so that the question asked will read, as follows:
Q. Now while Poindexter was shop steward, did Mr. Coxon ever ask you if
you wanted the shop steward's job back?
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses
on the stand, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Northside Electric Company is a partnership engaged in the electrical contracting
business with its principal office and place of business in Richmond, Virginia. The
partners are J. B. Guedri, Sr., J. B. Guedri, Jr., Charles Millhiser II, Claire M. Rosen-
baum, and Mildred M. Heltzer. During a representative period of 12 months im-
mediately prior to issuance of the complaint herein, Respondent, in the course of its
business operations, caused goods, materials, and products valued in excess of $50,000
to be shipped to its place of business in the Commonwealth of Virginia directly from
sources outside Virginia; and during the same period performed services valued in
excess of $50,000 for other business enterprises engaged in the shipment of merchan-
dise throughout the several States. I find, therefore, that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 666, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, existing in
whole or part for the purpose of representing employees in dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and conditions of work. Representatives of the Union include Business Manager
Grover W. Wiley, International Representative Frank W. Adams, and International
Vice President H. B. Blankenship.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Collective- bargaining agreement
The Respondent is a member of the Virginia Chapter, National Electrical Con-
tractors ' Association , Inc., and operates under the provisions of a collective -bargaining
agreement between that association and Local Union No. 666, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO . The current contract was entered into
March 18, 1947, and amended from time to time through March 27, 1963, to re-
main in effect until April 1, 1965, and from year to year thereafter unless changed
or terminated by either party notifying the other in writing at least 60 days prior
to the anniversary date thereof as to the nature of any changes desired.
The current contract contains provisions pertinent to the issues in this case, as
follows:
ARTICLE I
*
Section 4. There shall be no stoppage of work either by strike or lockout
because of any proposed changes in this Agreement, or disputes over matters
relating to this Agreement. All such matters must be handled as stated herein.
Section 5. There shall be a joint conference committee of three (3) repre-
senting the Union and three (3) representing the Employer. It shall meet
regularly at such stated times as it may decide. However, it shall also meet
within forty-eight (48) hours when notice is given by either party. It shall
select its own Chairman and Secretary.
NORTHSIDE ELECTRIC COMPANY 37
Section 6. All grievances or questions in dispute shall be adjusted by the
duly selected representatives of both parties to this Agreement. In the event
that these two are unable to adjust any matters within forty-eight (48) hours,
they shall refer same to the Joint Conference Committee.
Section 7. All matters coming before the Committee shall be decided by a
majority vote. Four (4) members of the Committee, two (2) from each of
the parties hereto, shall be a quorum for the transaction of business, but each
party shall have the right to cast the full vote of the membership and it shall
be counted as though all were present and voting.
Section 8. Should this Committee fail to agree, or to adjust the matter,
such shall then be referred to the Council on Industrial Relations for the Elec-
trical Construction Industry for the United States and Canada. The decision
of the Council shall be final and binding on both parties hereto.
ARTICLE II
Section 8.
1. The Union shall be the sole and exclusive source of referrals of appli-
cants for employment.
2. The Employer shall have the right to reject any applicants for employment.
ARTICLE III
* * * * *
Section 9. Journeymen in direct charge of work supervising or directing
three (3) or more journeymen shall be classified as foremen. Job foremen
shall not take charge of more than one job at any time, nor more than ten (10)
journeymen. On jobs where two (2) foremen are employed, the employer
shall employ a general foreman.
A general foreman shall supervise no more than five (5) foremen on any
one job; however, a general foreman can supervise more than one (1) job at
different locations On jobs where a general foreman is employed, he shall
supervise all overtime work.
* * * * * * s
Section 13. Workmen shall report at any job or shop in the jurisdiction of
the Union at the regular starting time, and shall remain at work during the
regular working hours, unless otherwise instructed by the employer.
* * * * * * s
Section 19. The representative of the Union shall be allowed access to any
shop or job at any reasonable time where workmen are employed under the
terms of this Agreement, and said representative shall be given the same pass
or button as was issued to workmen employed under this Agreement.
* * * * * * *
Section 21. On jobs having a Foreman, workmen are not to take directions
or orders, or accept the layout of any job from anyone but the Foreman.
The collective-bargaining agreement contains no provisions with respect to the
appointment or duties of a shop steward, but article IX, bylaws of Local Union
No. 666, reads, as follows:
Stewards
Sec. 1. Stewards may be appointed at any shop or job in the jurisdiction
of this Local Union by the Business Manager. Such Stewards shall work
under his direction and be subject to his authority. The Business Manager
may remove any Steward at any time when he considers the best interests of
the Local will be served thereby.
Sec. 2. Duties of Stewards shall be:
To have a copy of the IBEW Constitution, these bylaws, and Working
Agreement and rules with them at all times.
To see that Union membership is encouraged, and all workmen at their
respective shops or jobs have paid up dues receipts or valid working cards
of the Local Union.
To see that all overtime at any shop or job is equally and impartially
allotted to the members employed there, insofar as practical.
To report any encroachment upon the jurisdiction of this Local Union.
To report to the Business Manager any violation of our laws, rules or
agreements.
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To perform such other duties as may be assigned to them by the Business
Manager.
Sec. 3. Stewards shall in no case cause a stoppage of work. In case of
any trouble on a job or at a shop, Stewards shall immediately notify the Busi-
ness Manager.
B. Alleged discrimination
The Respondent was and still is engaged in the installation of electrical equip-
ment in approximately 14 factory buildings of the Du Pont project at Spruance,
Virginia. The worksite embraces more than 100 acres of land, and throughout this
area the Respondent employs a number of separate working crews under the super-
vision of foremen designated pursuant to article III, section 9, of the collective-
bargaining agreement set forth above. All supervisors and employees on the job,
from the electrical craft superintendent down to the lowest paid apprentice are mem-
bers of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and have signed an
obligation to abide by the constitution and laws of the I .B E.W. and its local unions;
to further the purposes for which the I .B.E W. is instituted ; and to bear true allegiance
to it and not sacrifice its interest in any manner . By reason of this obligation and
the referral system upon which employees and members are dependent for their
employment , all supervisors of the Respondent express an allegiance to the Union
equal to or greater than their legal obligation to the employer . From all the evi-
dence in this case , I am convinced that the Respondent and all of its supervisors.
are prounion in every respect , and desire to maintain the existing working agree-
ment and relationship with the Union . It is practically inconceivable , therefore,
that the Respondent has any desire or would attempt to discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment to discourage membership in this labor organization
A majority of the partners representing the Respondent herein are also loyal mem-
bers of the I.B.E.W. Supervisors maintaining membership in Local No 666,
I.B.E.W ., include Craft Superintendent Carland C. Horne, Assistant Superintendents.
Clarence S. Coxon and Fred R Pettway, General Foremen Eddie King and Thomas
W Stone, Jr., Foremen Albert S. Crouch, Jr., Emmett W. Gathright , Joseph E.
Keller, Jr., Wilmer G. Lester, Harry F. Zahn , and Thurlow R. Conway
The latest employment of Charles H. Poindexter by the Respondent dates back to
February 1960, when Grover W. Wiley ( business manager of Local No. 666)
insisted that Poindexter be given another chance, although on at least two prior
occasions he had been discharged for cause from jobs at Continental Baking Com-
pany and American Tobacco Company . He had also been discharged by Clarence S.
Coxon ( general foreman for E. C. Ernst Company ) in 1956 or 1957 from original
construction work at the present Du Pont plant . In 1962 Poindexter was elected
as a member of the executive board in Local No . 666; and thereafter in November
1962, was appointed by Business Manager Grover W. Wiley to represent the mem-
bers of Local No. 666 as shop steward on the Du Pont job . He also continued to,
work as a journeyman electrician for the Respondent at the hourly wage provided
in the current collective -bargaining agreement . Prior to this appointment , Poindexter
and Albert S. Crouch had been working together as a journeyman team under the
so-called "Buddy System," and had become very close friends Crouch received an
appointment as foreman in October 1962, and was instrumental in securing the
appointment of Poindexter as shop steward . Poindexter thereafter worked under
the supervision of Foreman Crouch until February or March 1963, when Crouch
requested his transfer to some other crew, because Poindexter 's excessive absence
from work on union business was reducing the effectiveness of his working crew.
Crouch testifies that Poindexter did not work with tools on the job more than 2 hours
per day; and that his whereabouts were unknown most of the time, although he was
being paid for a full 8-hour day. Thereupon , General Foreman Thomas W. Stone,
Jr., with the concurrence of Assistant Superintendent Clarence S. Coxon, transferred
Poindexter to the working crew of Foreman Emmett W Gathright at the ripe shoo
in the "bottom" near the gate . Thereupon , Pomdelter became very angry with,
Foreman Crouch and declared that he was being crucified. Thereafter , while a
member of Foreman Gathright 's crew, Poindexter continued to spend most of his
time roaming the entire working area , talking to employees, and interesting himself in
matters considered by him to be for the best interests of the Union ; but no formal
grievances were ever submitted to the Employer or the Union under the grievance
procedure provided in the contract . Foreman Gathright also complained and reported
the situation to General Foreman Stone and Assistant Superintendent Coxon. It is
admitted by Poindexter himself that at a foremen 's meeting in March 1963, he was
given specific instructions to report to his foreman at any time he left his place of
work, and also to report to the foreman in charge of any area into which he went
NORTHSIDE ELECTRIC COMPANY 39
on union business With the latter instruction, however, he refused to comply,
because Business Manager Wiley instructed him not to do so. Furthermore, he re-
fused to divulge to supervisors of the Respondent the nature of his business when
accosted in various working areas on the Du Pont job, and his answer to such inquires
was that he was engaged in union business, and preferred to look after it himself with-
out assistance from supervisors of the Respondent. The acknowledged philosophy of
Shop Steward Poindexter was that he was free as a matter of right to leave his place
of work at any time to go anywhere to discuss union matters with the employees of the
Respondent. His fellow members of the Union, including members who were em-
ployed as foremen or higher supervisors by the Respondent, seem to share the same
view that it was more important to protect and strengthen the prerogatives of the
Union than it was to promote the interests of their employer who actually paid the
wages for work performed by the employees Finally in the latter part of April
or early in May 1963, Poindexter was transferred to the working crew of Foreman
Joseph E. Keller, who gave him positive instructions not to leave his job without
first reporting and obtaining permission to do so For a few days Poindexter complied
with these instructions, but then reverted to his old habits of leaving his place of
work at will without reporting to anyone Foreman Keller talked to him several times
and threatened to take punitive action if he did not stay on the job more Keller
reported the situation to General Foreman Stone. Stone discussed the situation with
Assistant Superintendent Coxon; and Coxon in turn discussed it with Craft Super-
intendent Carland C. Horne. Coxon finally made up his mind to discharge Poindex-
ter, but preparatory thereto called Business Manager Grover W. Wiley and Shop
Steward Poindexter to his office to discuss the situation. Business Manager Wiley tried
to persuade Poindexter to resign his position as shop steward, and said: "Charlie,
you are putting yourself in the position that you are definitely going to be fired, and
there will be nothing that the Union can do for you." Thereupon, Assistant Super-
intendent Coxon told Poindexter in the presence of Business Manager Wiley that he
was definitely going to be fired unless the situation improved immediately.
C. Events of June 7, 1963
From the undisputed testimony of Foreman Joseph E. Keller, Jr., it appears that
Charles H. Poindexter left his work without permission during the morning of Fri-
day, June 7, 1963, was absent for approximately 11/2 hours, but returned to work and
was present during the lunch period from 11:54 a.m. to 12:24 p.m. Immediately
following this lunch period, Foreman Keller conducted his working crew as a group,
including Charles H. Poindexter, across the street to receive their paychecks. From
there Foreman Keller went to a foremen's meeting at the office of Assistant Super-
intendent Clarence S. Coxon at I p.m , and left his working crew in charge of J. W.
Hall as temporary foreman. Thereafter at 2 p in. Foreman Keller returned to work
with his crew and found that Charles H Poindexter was again absent, and did not re-
turn to his work at any time during the remainder of that day.
On Friday, June 7, 1963, Clarence S Coxon was acting as the electrical craft
superintendent during the absence of Carland C. Horne. At 9.15 a.m. Coxon held a
staff meeting in his office, and again at 1 p.m. held a meeting of all foremen on the
job. By reason of another meeting with a group of design engineers scheduled to be
held at 2 p in., he proceeded at that time to the trailer office of Area Engineer Bob
Olson in the vicinity of an old abandoned carpenter shop in the construction shop
area. While at this location, an efficiency inspector or work sampler of the Du Pont
Company (Kemper P. Cline) approached him to inquire who was in charge of the
old carpenter shop. This aroused the curiosity of Coxon, so he immediately proceeded
to this old building. Upon entry thereto, he discovered two juorneymen electricians
(Charles B. Sprouse and Arthur C Faires) and Shop Steward Charles H. Poindexter
engaged in conversation with no work going on Sprouse and Faires were sitting
down and Poindexter was standing nearby. Neither was engaged in any work at
that time. Coxon inquired what was going on, and was informed by Sprouse and
Faires that they were waiting for further instructions from their foreman (Harry F.
Zahn), who was attending the foremen's meeting. Poindexter made no explanation
of his presence there other than the usual contention that he was attending to union
business. Coxon then departed, and Poindexter remarked to his companions- "I
reckon we'll hear about this " Thereafter, on Monday, June 10, 1963, the Respondent
discharged Arthur C Faires, Charles B. Sprouse, and Charles H Poindexter for
loafing on the job The termination record of Poindexter signed by C. S Coxon
recited that "This man was idle in the old carpenters' shop having conversation with
two other men. He had no work or no business there."
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. Grievance procedure under the contract
Thereafter, on June 13, 1963, Business Manager Grover W. Wiley invoked an
investigation and hearing before the joint conference committee pursuant to article I,
sections 5 and 6, of the current collective-bargaining agreement. Faires and Sprouse
at or before the hearing announced that they had no grievance to present, but the
joint conference committee beard all available evidence with respect to the discharge
of Charles H. Poindexter. After due investigation and deliberation, a ballot was
taken on the question whether Charles H. Poindexter was justifiably discharged.
There were three ballots voting "No" and three voting "Yes." Consequently, the
chairman declared a split decision. There was no appeal or referral thereafter to
the council on industrial relations for the Electrical Construction Industry for the
United States and Canada, as provided for in article I, section 8, of the current work-
ing agreement. In lieu thereof Poindexter on June 22, 1963, addressed a letter to
International Vice President H. B. Blankenship, as follows:
DEAR SIR AND BROTHER : Following is a running account of a situation that
now exists between my Local and myself.
I was appointed Steward by Brother Wiley on the Du Pont Job and since
have run into trouble trying to enforce the agreement and By-Laws.
While trying to enforce the Union Laws, I was fired by Brother Coxon who
is Superintendent and a member of our Local. Several of the members work-
ing there I have had to bring charges against because of their violation of our
agreement.
Brother Wiley said the Contractor I was working for said if I didn't drop
all charges, I would be sued. At the present I am unemployed. I am told I
am building a concrete wall around me because word gets around that other
Contractors won't hire me. When I was fired from the Du Pont job, 41 men
came to the Union Hall the next morning. We aired our views and they
expressed that they were satisfied with me as Steward. At the same time the
men were asked if they left the job on their own accord or if the Steward told
them to leave. Everyone agreed he left because the Steward was fired and not
that they were told to leave. Everyone agreed he left because the Steward was
fired and not that they were told to leave or walk off. They were told to go
back to work because I was to go before the Grievance Committee. The
Grievance Committee met and their decision was split 3 to 3. About a week
later I was called by Brother Wiley and told he was getting all the Officers to-
gether because Brother Frank Adams was in town and he wanted to discuss a
few things and maybe touch on the decision of the Grievance Committee At
this meeting I felt as if I was on trial. The discussion about the Grievance
Committee lasted about 2 hours.
Please at your earliest moment look into this case as I feel that I now need
legal advice
Yours truly,
(S) CHARLES H. POINDEXTER.
Thereupon, the International vice president referred the matter to International
Representative Frank W. Adams, requesting him to make a thorough investigation
of the circumstances and to furnish advice to Charles H. Poindexter. After making
such an investigation, International Representative Adams on July 6, 1963, posted
a letter to Poindexter, as follows:
DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: Pursuant to letter of assignment from Vice President
Blankenship dated June 26, 1963, following receipt of your letter to him dated
June 22, 1963, in regards to you being fired from the Du Pont job I have made
a very careful investigation.
You are aware of the fact that I was exposed to a discussion of the circum-
stances surrounding your experience in a meeting at the Local Union office
when you were present, following which I went out in the hall with you and
tried to give you some friendly advice to drop the issue because to pursue it
further would only add insult to injury and you would be the loser in the end.
My further investigation has confirmed those things suspected and said to
you on the above mentioned occasion. I will now say that I want to add em-
phasis to my previous advice on this matter.
The circumstances leading up to the time you were fired and those following
which involve questionable acts on your part all of which you are fully aware
because I talked with you about them, prompts me to again advise you to drop
NORTHSIDE ELECTRIC COMPANY 41
the issue. You are not to assume from this advice that a Steward is condemned
for trying to see that our working rules and laws are lived up to when he goes
about the matter according to the limited authority vested in him.
The Local Union is advised by a copy of this letter not to assist you any
further with this issue.
Remember the advice is that to pursue this issue further can only hurt you
and cast reflection on the innocent.
Good luck.
Fraternally yours,
cc: Vice President Blankenship
Mr. G. W. Wiley, Business Manager
Local Union No. 666 IBEW
(S) FRANK W ADAMS,
Frank W. Adams,
International Representative.
Pursuant to charges filed by Clarence S. Coxon before the International Union,
Charles H. Poindexter was tried, convicted, and disciplined by a decision of Inter-
national Vice President H. B. Blankenship on January 3, 1964, as follows:
DECISION OF H. B. BLANKENSHIP ON CHARGES FILED AGAINST
CHARLES H. POINDEXTER BY CLARENCE S. COXON
Clarence S. Coxon, a member of Local Union 666, filed charges with this
office under date of September 20, 1963, against Charles H. Poindexter, a mem-
ber of the Executive Board of Local Union 666, alleging violation of Arti-
cle XXVII, Section 2, sub-sections 8, 15, and 19 of the IBEW Constitution and
Article IX, Section 3 of the Local Union by-laws. At the hearing on the charges,
Coxon withdrew the charge of violating Article XXVII, Section 2(8) of the
IBEW Constitution.
A hearing on these charges was conducted in Richmond, Virginia on Novem-
ber 20, 1963, by International Representative F E Clark.
At the hearing, James A. Creamer, Jr , acting as counsel for Poindexter,
raised the point that the charges had not been timely filed as required by our
Constitution. He also demanded, at the hearing, that the hearing on the charges
be postponed.
Evidence shows that Coxon was not aware of the alleged violations until
September 5, 1963. He filed charges on September 20, 1963. The charges
were timely. Poindexter was sent a copy of the charges filed against him
on September 25, 1963. On October 16, 1963 he replied to those charges.
He received notice of the hearing date on November 7, 1963. He did not
request a delay in the hearing until the hearing had begun on November 20,
1963. Representative Clark properly refused to grant the delay.
Testimony and evidence produced at the hearing shows conclusively that the
actions of Poindexter have severly damaged the reputation of the IBEW and
Local Union 666. It has reflected on the good name of each of its members.
He has pursued this course against the advice and counsel of many of the
officers and members of the IBEW. The IBEW and its members are proud
of the reputation as a responsible organization that has been established through
more than 70 years of dealing with the employer and his customers. We
cannot permit any one to remain in a position to continue to render such damage.
DECISION
Charles H. Poindexter is guilty of violating Article XXVII, Section 2, sub-
sections 15 and 19 of the IBEW Constitution and Article IX, Section 3 of the
by-law of Local Union 666.
He is hereby removed from his office as a member of the Executive Board
of Local Union 666 and shall not be permitted to serve as an officer, or as a
steward, of any IBEW local union for a period of five (5) years from the date
of this decision.
Decision rendered:
January 3, 1964.
(S) H. B. BLAN*ENSHIP,
H. B. Blankenship,
International Vice President.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
It is clear from all the evidence in this case that Charles H. Poindexter was dis-
charged for neglecting his work as an employee of the Respondent-not for the
purpose of discouraging membership in the Union. The Respondent partners and
all of their supervisors profess loyalty to the trade union movement and seeks to
promote the practices and procedures of collective bargaining. Officials of the Union
attest to the fact that Respondent has never exhibited any hostility to the union organ-
ization or its membership.
It is clear that as shop steward, Charles H. Poindexter was merely an assistant to
the business manager of Local 666, and was not authorized to exercise any super-
vision whatever over the employees of the Respondent during working hours. Only
by consent of the employer may an employee perform the duties of shop steward
on company time, if it interferes with duties to be performed for such employer.
The Respondent herein had a legal right to restrict the activities being performed on
behalf of the Union during working hours by Shop Steward Charles H. Poindexter,
unless such restrictions be imposed to discourage membership in a labor organization.
The Respondent clearly had no such motive. Neither can it be said that Poindexter
as an individual employee was engaged in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act.,
Furthermore, the existing collective-bargaining agreement provided a procedure
for the initial processing of grievances and disputes before a joint conference com-
mittee, and thereafter a final determination by referral to the council on industrial
relations for the Electrical Construction Industry for the United States and Canada,
whose decision would be final and binding upon all the parties. After the joint con-
ference committee herein failed to reach an agreement, the matter could well have
been referred to the council on industrial relations for a final decision, but the Union
came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the contentions of Poindexter, and
advised him to drop the issue. Nevertheless, Poindexter disregarded such advice and
filed a charge on August 8, 1963, alleging unfair labor practices against the Respond-
ent. The real issue in the case appears to be the determination of what rights and
privileges should be accorded to a shop steward to attend to union business during
working hours at the expense of an employer. It seems clear that such an issue must
be determined through the processes of collective bargaining, and not by the filing of
unfair labor practice charges before the National Labor Relations Board. The existing
collective-bargaining agreement provides procedures and machinery for the deter-
mination of such disputes and should be followed.2
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon the entire
record in the case, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
1 See Pathe Laboratories, Inc., 141 NLRB 1290.
2 See Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 10,80; and Denver-Chicago Trucking
Company, Inc., 132 NLRB 1416.
Central Maine Power Company and International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-7?C-
80692. February 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer John R. Cole-
man. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, Employer and
Petitioner filed briefs.
151 NLRB No. 4.