Pipe Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 748 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pipe Lines, Inc., Richardi Construction Co., Inc. and Asphalt
Hot Mix, Inc . and Dominick F. Amedeo. Case No. 1-CA-4188.
December 31, 1963
,DECISION AND ORDER
On September 24, 1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Decision in the above case, finding that the Respondent has en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to this Decision and a supporting brief.
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 [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
Decision and the entire record in this case,' including the exceptions
and brief,2 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.'
'Following the issuance of the Trial Examiner ' s Decision , the Respondent filed with
the Board a "Request To Introduce Further Evidence " asking that it be allowed to intro-
duce evidence respecting the Board 's jurisdiction and that the General Counsel be required
to "present evidence to prove the issue of jurisdiction . . . . " At the hearing herein, the
Respondent withdrew those paragraphs of its answer which responded to the jurisdictional
allegations in the complaint . Under Section 102 20 of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended , the withdrawal had the same effect as an admission that the juris-
dictional allegations are true, and the Trial Examiner acted properly in relying upon those
undenied allegations . The Bedford-Nugent Corp , 137 NLRB 573, 574 As good cause
has not been shown why we should not adopt the findings of the Trial Examiner, the
request of the Respondent is denied
2 As the record , exceptions, and brief, in our opinion , adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties , the Respondent ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied.
3 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein, the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent , Pipe Lines , Inc., Richard! Construction Co., Inc. and Asphalt Hot
Mix, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by Dominick F. Amedeo on May 27
and July 11, 1963 , respectively, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board on the latter date issued and served his complaint and notice of hearing.
145 NLRB No. 77.
PIPE LINES, INC., ETC. 749
Thereafter the above-named Respondent filed its answer. The complaint alleges
and the answer denies that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Springfield , Massachusetts, on
August 26, 1963, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel
and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to
argue orally, and to file briefs . Briefs have been received from General Counsel
and the Respondent.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Pipe Lines, Inc., Richardi Construction Co., Inc., and Asphalt Hot Mix, Inc., are
Massachusetts corporations . Each of these corporations maintains an office and
place of business on Berkshire Avenue in Springfield , Massachusetts.
Pipe Lines is engaged in the business of buying , selling, and distributing rock,
rock dust, and related products in the construction industry. Richardi is engaged
in the general building and construction business . Asphalt makes, sells , and dis-
tributes asphalt, building and road surfacing materials , and related products.
Pipe Lines , Richardi , and Asphalt are affiliated businesses with common officers,
ownership, directors, and operators and constitute a single integrated business
enterprise. The said directors and operators formulate and administer a common
labor policy for the three Companies, affecting the employees of the said Companies.
Collectively the three concerns are referred to herein as the Respondent.
The Respondent annually: (1) performs services valued at more than $50,000 in
States other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; (2) derives revenue of more
than $50,000 for services to firms which themselves are engaged in interstate com-
merce; and (3) receives materials valued at more than $50,000 directly or indirectly
from points outside Massachusetts.
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Building Materials,
Heavy and Highway Construction Employees, Local Union No. 404, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
The chief issue raised by the complaint stems from the sudden discharge of
Dominick F. Amedeo on May 20, 1963, General Counsel contends that he was
dismissed unlawfully , and to discourage membership in the above -named labor
organization . The Respondent denies this allegation and claims that be was dis-
missed because he was "unreliable and negligent in the performance of his duties."
B. Relevant facts
Amedeo was hired as a truckdriver by the Respondent early in April 1963. His
immediate supervisor was Armand Lemieux, head mechanic and a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act.
In the early part of May, after discussing with other drivers the possibilities of
organizing a union, Amedeo approached a representative of the Teamsters , obtained
authorization cards from him, and distributed such cards among his fellow drivers.
Amedeo's testimony is undisputed that a few days after this he heard Richard
Richardi , one of the Respondent's officials , tell Lemieux, "If there's any guy in here
that's gonna start a union , which I don't go for , he can get out."
As a witness, Lemieux finally admitted that one of the truckdrivers told him that
Amedeo had asked him to join the Union.
Early Monday morning, May 20, as Amedeo reported for work, he was told by
Lemieux that "Dick" did not want him to "work no more." Amedeo asked why.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lemieux replied that he did not know, he merely worked there. Richardi was not
there at the time. Amedeo went for a cup of coffee, returned, found Richardi
present, approached him, and said: "I understand that you don't want me to work
here any more," and asked why. It is undisputed that Richardi replied: "You've
been raising double hell on the trucks here," and then added, "Furthermore, you're
doing a lot of big-mouth talking around here about the union. I don't need you.
I don't need your union, and I can get along without guys like you around here.
You're done."
Amedeo has not been reinstated.
C. Conclusions
The following facts, established by undisputed testimony or admissions, in the
opinion of the Trial Examiner fully support the allegation that Amedeo's discharge
was for the purpose of discouraging union organization among the drivers of the
Respondent- (1) Richardi's remark to Lemieux that anyone starting a union could
"get out"; (2) Lemieux's discovery, through another driver, that Amedeo was or-
ganizing, and (3) Richardi's declaration to the driver that he was "done" because
of his "big-mouth talking" about the Union.
Under these circumstances it appears unnecessary to set out here the details of
the testimony of Lemieux and Mrs. Florence Holmberg (Gewinner), the latter an
official of each of the three corporations. They were the only two management
witnesses to testify. Their testimony is both self and mutually inconsistent and
contradictory. It seriously conflicts with statements previously given by them to a
Board agent. Only arbitrary selection from their shifting claims would find con-
sistency in any matters relating to Amedeo's hire, employment, or discharge. The
Trial Examiner can rely upon no part of their testimony.
It is concluded and found that the Respondent discharged Amedeo for the unlawful
purpose of discouraging union membership, and thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the Trial
Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer Amedeo immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned , absent said discrimination , from the date of his discharge to the date
of offer of full reinstatement , less his net earnings during said period . Backpay
shall be computed in accordance with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest thereon as prescribed in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716.
Because of the serious nature of the unfair labor practices here involved, it will
be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers , Building Ma-
terials, Heavy and Highway Construction Employees, Local Union No. 404, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the employment of Dominick F. Amedeo, to
discourage membership in the above -named labor organization , the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
PIPE LINES, INC., ETC. 751
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire
record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Pipe Lines, Inc., Richardi
Construction Co., Inc. and Asphalt Hot Mix, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers, Building Materials, Heavy and Highway Construction Employees,
Local Union No. 404, or in any other labor organization, by discharging, laying off,
refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or
tenure of employees or any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Dominick F. Amedeo immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth above, in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine
the amount of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under this Recommended
Order.
(c) Post at its operations in Springfield, Massachusetts, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the First Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps it has taken to comply
therewith.2
IIn the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
21n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in General Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers, Building Materials, Heavy and Highway Construc-
tion Employees, Local Union No. 404, or in any other labor organization of our
employees, by discharging, laying off, refusing to reinstate, or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
7 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Dominick F. Amedeo immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position , and make him whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him.
PIPE LINES, INC.,
RICHARDI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
ASPHALT HOT MIX, INC.,
Employer.
Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street , Boston , Massachusetts, Tele-
phone No. 523-8100 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
General Dynamics , Fort Worth , a Division of General Dynamics
Corp . and Aeronautical Industrial Lodge 776, International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1810.
December 31, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 24,1963, Trial Examiner Wellington A. Gillis issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint but recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs, and the Re-
spondent also filed a brief in answer to the exceptions and supporting
brief of the General Counsel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
145 NLRB No. 81.