Sutherlin Machine Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 511 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

SUTHERLIN MACHINE WORKS, INC. 511
Sutherlin Machine Works, Inc. and Iron Workers Local No. 29,
International Association of Bridge, Structural , Ornamental
and Reinforced Iron Workers , AFL-CIO; Hoisting and Port-
able Engineers Local No. 701 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO; Local 401, International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths,
Forgers & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; Local 1961, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America , AFL-CIO;
and Lane-Coos -Curry-Douglas Counties Building and Construc-
tion Trades Council , AFL-CIO.' Case No. 36-RM11-292. Decem-
ber 18, 1963
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 Robert J.
Wiener. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Fanning].
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. Iron Workers Local No. 29, Boilermakers Local 401, Carpenters
Local 1961, Hoisting and Portable Engineers Local No. 701, and
Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Building and Construction
Trades Council are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons :
The Employer-Petitioner is nonunion. It began the construction
of fuel storage and distribution facilities for Martin Bros. Timber
and Container Corporation on a site at Oakland, Oregon. On March
21, 1963,.the Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Building and Con-
struction Trades Council started to picket the project. The picket
sign read, "Sutherlin Machine Works Job Not Being Done Under
Conditions Enjoyed by Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Building Trades
Council" and "Have No Dispute With Any Other Employer." Dur-
ing the picketing, which continued to May 29, 1963, the employees of
another neutral project contractor (Albina) stopped working. Mean-
1 Hereinafter referred to as the Iron Workers, Engineers , Boilermakers , Carpenters, and
Building Trades Council, respectively, or in similar abbreviated manner
145 NLRB No. 55.
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
while, on March 29, 1963, representatives of three components of the
Building Trades-Iron Workers, Boilermakers, and Carpenters-
called on H. K. Halvorsen, Jr., vice president of the Company. Ac-
cording to a union representative, they asked Halvorsen "whether
he intended to run a union job." According to Halvorsen, they "asked
[him] to sign a Building Trades agreement to cover the employees on
[his] construction job at Oakland." In any case, it is agreed that
Halvorsen's response was negative.
On April 15 the Employer filed an RM petition, amended the fol-
lowing day, for a unit of construction crew employees on the job.
On April 18, 1963, Boilermakers, Building Trades Council, and Iron
Workers informed the Company by separate letters that their purpose
and intent in picketing was to inform the public that the Company's
employees were working under conditions substandard to those en-
joyed by members of unions affiliated with the Building Trades Coun-
cil, and disclaimed any interest in entering into a labor contract or
representing the employees.
On May 27, 1963, Burton of the Boilermakers contacted Halvorsen
by telephone and suggested a willingness to remove the picket from
the job if Halvorsen signed a Building Trades contract. Halvorsen
refused. At 10 a.m. on May 29, 1963, the picketing stopped and the
employees of the neutral contractor, Albina, returned to work. There-
after, on June 5, 1963, the Employer filed a second amended petition.
The Iron Workers on June 7, and the Boilermakers, Carpenters, and
Building Trades Council, on June 10, wrote letters to the Company
in which they not only confirmed their earlier disclaimers of interest
of April 18, but again affirmatively disclaimed any interest in rep-
resenting any of the employees covered by the Company's second
amended petition?
The question before us is whether there is a present subsisting
claim for recognition which raises a question concerning representa-
tion . The record is clear that since May 29, 1963, the Unions have
engaged in no picketing of the Employer, nor have they engaged in
any other conduct that may possibly be construed as evidencing a con-
tinued claim for recognition. We therefore find that the aforemen-
tioned disclaimers of interest, filed on June 7 and June 10, were bona
fide. Concluding, as we do on that basis, that there is no present
20f the labor organizations involved , only the Iron Workers and Engineers appeared at
the hearing . The Boilermakers , Carpenters , and Building Trades Council made no appear-
ance although served with notice of the hearing . The Engineers moved to dismiss the
petition as to it on the ground that at all times material to the instant proceedings it has
not been a member of the Building Trades Council . The Company has declared on this
basis that it has no objection to the elimination of the Engineers from the proceeding. As
the Engineers is not a proper party in interest in this proceeding , and the Petitioner has
so conceded , we dismiss the petition as to the Engineers without prejudice.
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. 513
claim for recognition sufficient to support the Employer's petition
for an election, we shall dismiss the Employer's petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER LEEDOM, concurring :
I concur in the dismissal of the petition. In view of the complete
cessation on May 29, 1963, of what I would find to be recognitional
picketing, I agree that the Unions' subsequent disclaimers were un-
equivocal4 I would, however, consistent with the well-established
Board practice as illustrated in the Franklin Square case, note that
the Board will entertain a motion requesting reinstatement of this
petition in the event the Unions, within 6 months from the date of
this Order, engage in conduct inconsistent with their disclaimers.
3In view of our disposition of the case, we do not pass upon the question of whether
the picketing which ceased on May 29 , 1963, or the demand for the signature of a Building
Trades contract on May 27, 1963 , were inconsistent with the original disclaimer of
April 18, 1963.
4 Richard T. Baylis et at. d/b/a Franklin Square Lumber Co., 114 NLRB 519.
Roadway Express, Inc. and William J. Burns. Case No. 13-CA-
4711. December 18, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 3, 1963, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Inter-
mediate Report recommending that the complaint herein be dismissed,
as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.' Thereafter, the
Charging Party filed exceptions. to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief. On August 7, 1963, the Board remanded the case
for findings and conclusions with respect to the merits of the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.' Pursuant to the remand,
the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental Intermediate Report on
September 4, 1963, finding that Respondent had not engaged in the
1 The Trial Examiner specifically recommended that the Board give conclusive effect to
an arbitration award rendered by the Central States Joint Area Committee. The com-
mittee consisted of an equal number of union and employer representatives with no im-
partial participant . Acting under the terms of the Teamsters ' Central States Area,
Over-The-Road Motor Freight Agreement , the committee unanimously decided to uphold
Respondent Roadway 's discharge of Burns, the Charging Party herein . Burns , in protest-
ing his discharge under contractual grievance provisions , duly advised a Regional Director
of the Board that this step had been taken to prevent forfeiture of his claim even though
he did not believe he would receive a fair hearing.
2 In recommending that the arbitration award be honored and that the complaint be
dismissed , the Trial Examiner did not pass upon the merits of the 8 ( a) (3) charge alleged
in the complaint . The Board in remanding the case for findings and conclusions on the
merits , deferred consideration of the arbitration issue until presented with a complete
record.
145 NLRB No. 51.
734-070-64-vol. 145-34