United Association of Journeymen, Plumbers, Local 525

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 451 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, PLUMBERS , LOCAL 525
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada , Local Union No. 525,
AFL-CIO (Reynolds Electrical and Engineering
Co., Inc.) and Raymond R. Petrin . Case 31-CB-
1678
June 16, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On March 31, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Maurice M. Miller issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to, the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, Local Union No. 525,
AFL-CIO, Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Or-
der, as modified herein:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 2(c) and
reletter the remaining paragraphs accordingly:
"(c) Make Raymond R. Petrin whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered as a result of the unfair
labor practices found herein in accordance with the
formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
1 We find merit to the General Counsel's exception to the Administrative
Law Judge's failure to order that Respondent make Petnn whole for wages
he lost as a result of its unfair labor practices . We shall modify the Order
and notice accordingly.
218 NLRB No. 77
APPENDIX
451
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing, during which all parties were given
an opportunity to present evidence and argument, it
has been determined that we violated the law by
committing an unfair labor practice. In order to
remedy such conduct, we are being required to post
this notice. We intend to comply with this require-
ment, and to abide by the following commitment:
WE WILL NOT threaten our members or travel
card holders employed within our trade or
geographical jurisdiction with loss of employ-
ment, because of claims that they have failed to
demonstrate compliance with union regulations
or union constitutional provisions which could,
conceivably, affect their membership status or
travel card eligibility.
WE WILL NOT require or coerce members or
travel card holders to request leaves of absence
from their positions, purportedly to resolve
questions raised with respect to their union
membership or travel card status.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce members or
travel card holders employed within our trade
and geographical jurisdiction, in any like or
related manner, with respect to their exercise of
rights which Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act guarantees.
WE WILL send a written notice to Raymond R.
Petrin, stating that we have no objection to his
employment with Reynolds Electrical and Engi-
neering Co., Inc., at its Mercury, Nevada, test site
job locations, and that we will not question his
reemployment or reinstatement.
WE WILL permit Raymond R. Petrin to sign our
current out-of-work register, and grant him
preferential dispatch rights to available positions
with Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co.,
Inc., at its Mercury, Nevada, test site job
locations, for which he may be qualified, and we
will make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered as a result of the unfair labor
practice we have been found to have committed.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND PIPE
FITTING INDUSTRY OF
THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, LOCAL UNION
No. 525, AFL-CIO
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAURICE M. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge: Upon
a charge, filed October 4, 1974, and duly served, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
caused a complaint and notice of hearing, dated November
26, 1974, to be issued and served on United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local
Union No. 525, AFL-CIO, designated Respondent Union
within this Decision. Therein, Respondent Union was
charged with committing an unfair labor practice affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136,
73 Stat. 519). Within Respondent Union's duly filed
answer, certain factual matters set forth in General
Counsel's complaint were conceded. Respondent Union,
however, denied the commission of any unfair labor
practice.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to the issues
was held before me in Las Vegas, Nevada, on February 3,
1975. The General Counsel and Respondent Union were
represented by counsel; complainant, likewise, noted his
appearance. Each party, was afforded a full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence with respect to pertinent matters. Since
the hearing's close, Respondent Union's counsel has filed a
brief; General Counsel's representative, has, however,
notified me that no brief would be filed in General
Counsel's behalf.
Upon the entire testimonial record, documentary evi-
dence received, and my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., with whom
complainant worked throughout the period with which this
case is concerned, should be considered - so General
Counsel contends - engaged in commerce and business
activities which affect commerce. In that connection,
General Counsel's complaint sets forth certain relevant
factual declarations. These Respondent Union denies,
however, for lack of knowledge. Within a letter, directed to
both General Counsel's representative and Respondent
Union's counsel, which I received for the present record
without protest, Reynolds' senior legal counsel describes
his firm as a construction contractor, performing work at
the Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nevada, with a gross
annual volume of business in excess of $1 million, and with
annual purchases of goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from outside the State of Nevada, for
use within that State. Respondent Union's counsel,
'following the letter's receipt, noted for the record that
Respondent Union .has no basis upon which to dispute,
presently, these factual declarations. With matters in this
posture, I find that Reynolds was, and remains, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
engaged in commerce and business activities which affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Statute. Further, with due regard for presently applicable
jurisdictional standards, I find assertion of the Board's
jurisdiction herein warranted and necessary to effectuate
statutory objectives.
II. THE RESPONDENT UNION
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local Union No. 525, AFL-CIO, now
is, and at ' all times material herein has been, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act,
as amended, which admits certain Reynolds' workers to
membership. Throughout the period with which this case is
concerned, William J. Weber and Jack Mogannam have
functioned as Respondent Union's business representative
and the organization's job steward at Reynolds' Mercury,
Nevada, test site, respectively; they have been, and remain,
Respondent Union's agents, functioning on its behalf, I so
find, within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Statute.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Issue
This case presents a single, clear-cut question: Whether,
during the last few days of July and the first half of August
1974, Respondent Union's business representative and job
steward restrained and coerced complainant herein by
telling him that, should he fail to "straighten out" his union
membership and his status as a travel card holder, he
would lose his job; by telling him, subsequently, that, since
he did not have the proper type of union membership or
dues book, he would have to leave his position; by telling
him, further, that, should he continue to work, Respondent
Union's members would "walk off' their jobs in protest;
and by telling a Reynolds supervisor that, since he lacked a
proper union membership or dues book, he would have to
relinquish his position. Respondent Union's representa-
tives substantially concede their concern over certain
possible irregularities, which, with due regard for their
organization's constitution and bylaws, could have con-
ceivably generated questions with respect to Petrin's union
membership and travel card status. Both Business Repre-
sentative Weber and Job Steward Mogannam deny,
however, that any threats or further remarks , reasonably
calculated to restrain or coerce complainant herein, were
made when these questions were discussed.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, PLUMBERS , LOCAL 525 453
B. Facts
1. General Counsel's Case
a. Background
(1) Complamant's union history
Complainant became a United Association member, so
he testified, sometime during 1947; he was then designated
a building and construction trades plumber-pipe fitter
journeyman, holding membership with a Burbank, Califor-
nia, building and construction trades local. His member-
ship, specifically with the Burbank local, continued for
some 8 to 10 years. (Petrin, while a witness, testified that
his relationship with the Burbank local had continued for
some 14 or 15 years; he could not recall his Burbank local's
number. I do not, however, consider his memory lapses
with respect to these matters significant.) Sometime
between 1955 and 1957, complainant transferred his
membership to some East Coast local, with a State of
Maine headquarters; this local, so Petrin recalled, was
likewise considered a building and construction trades
branch. His second local affiliation was retained until
sometime during 1961; within that year, so Complainant's
testimony shows, he transferred his membership, joining a
third local with Portsmouth, New Hampshire, headquar-
ters . (Petrin could not, while a witness, recall this third
local's number. That number has since been changed. The
record, however, warrants a determination, which I make,
that its jurisdiction covered plumbers and pipefitter
tradesmen working within the United States Navy's
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, facility.) Sometime during
1965, so complainant testified, he ceased work within the
plumbing and pipefitting trade; the record is silent,
however, with respect to whether he then procured a
regular union withdrawal card, or whether, having done so,
his card was periodically renewed. Between 1965 and 1973,
Petrin performed no plumbing or pipefitting work. During
this period, further, he maintained no national or local
union membership.
Sometime during 1973's latter months, complainant
herein, then a Las Vegas, Nevada, resident, sought
reinstatement, by letter, with his former Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, local. That local, however, was presumably no
longer extant ; his letters, which had specified the local's
former number, were returned. Petrin thereupon wrote the
United Association's Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Within their reply he was notified that he was being
"assigned" to Local 788, his former Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, local's successor. He was told to send that
designated local $112, following which he would be
reinstated . Petrin, so his testimony shows, complied. (Upon
this record, no determination can be considered warranted
with respect to whether complainant was thereupon
reinstated or reinitiated. The United Association's consti-
tuition, section 182(a), provides that a withdrawal card
holder, whose card has been periodically renewed, may
"reinstate his membership" by paying a nominal reinstate-
ment fee. However, a former member, whose withdrawal
card has lapsed, and who thereafter seeks reinstatement,
must pay his local' s normal "initiation fee" required from
new members and must be reobligated. Petrin's testimony
herein will not warrant a definitive determination with
regard to which particular procedure Local 788 followed.)
The local, thereafter, sent complainant his union member-
ship book. Therein, Local 788 was designated a United
Association Metal Trades branch. Petrin, despite his prior
qualification as a building and construction trades journey-
man, was designated a metal trades journeyman; January
1, 1974, was shown as his initiation date.
Shortly thereafter Petrin communicated by letter with
Raymond R. Hall, Local 788's business agent ; he reported
that he was currently a Las Vegas, Nevada, resident, and
requested a travel card which would permit him to work
within Respondent Union's jurisdiction. His request was
granted. The card, signed by Business Agent Hall in Local
788's behalf, bore a January 1, 1974, issue date . Therein,
complainant was, inter alia, designated a plumber-pipefit-
ter "initiated" by the designated local on March 9, 1965;
further, Hall reported that he had paid "all dues and
assessments" through January 1974. Together with his
travel card, complainant received a letter marked "To
whom it may concern," which had been prepared on Local
788's stationery; therein Business Agent Hall verified
Petnn's union membership in good standing with his
January 1974 dues paid.
(2) Complainant's employment history
On January 7, 1974, complainant visited Respondent
Union's Las Vegas hall. There, he presented Business
Representative Weber with his new union membership and
dues book, his travel card, and Business Agent Hall's letter.
He paid his travel card dues, so the record shows, for 5
January weeks, and signed Respondent Union's out-of-
work list. (While a witness herein, Weber could not recall
seeing Petrin's union book on this occasion. Since
complainant had just received his Local 788 book, with a
January 1974 dues stamp affixed, I conclude that it was
available for presentation. Such a presentation would
normally have been required. I credit Petrin's testimony
therefore regarding its presentation, despite Weber's
presently professed failure of recollection.)
On February 25, so Respondent Union's record shows,
complainant was dispatched to IPM Corporation's nearby
Moapa Valley project. He worked there, so I find, for some
2 weeks; Respondent Union's work card record, with
respect to Petrin, reflects a March 11 termination date.
(While testifying herein, complainant and Business Repre-
sentative Weber recalled the circumstances surrounding
the former's March 11 termination differently. For present
purposes, however, their divergent recollections need not
be recapitulated or reconciled.)
On Friday, March 15, Weber dispatched complainant to
Reynolds' Mercury, Nevada, test site . There, he reported to
General Foreman Payne; the latter, in turn, presented him
to Jack Mogannam, Respondent Union's job steward.
Complainant presented his dispatch slip, plus a record
showing his travel card dues paid. However, he did not, so
I find, present his union book, wherein his "paid in full"
membership status with Local 788 could have been
verified. (While a witness, Petrin testified that Mogannam
reviewed his union book when he reported for work; the
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
job steward testified, however, that Petrin's union book
was not presented for review . The book, when proffered for
the present record, contained a March 1974 dues payment
stamp , which Local 788's business agent had initialed
March 14 ; with due regard for this circumstance, I
consider it less than likely that complainant 's union book,
which would have been mailed from Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, would have reached him by March 15, when
he was dispatched and reported for work. Petrin's
testimony that Mogannam reviewed his book when he
reported , therefore, reflects a failure of recollection, in my
view.)
Subsequently, Respondent Union's job steward, so the
record shows , periodically requested Petrin's union book.
(In discharging his steward duties, Mogannam regularly
prepared a monthly report ; therein he was required to
record names and card numbers for all travel card
members currently working on Reynolds ' Mercury, Ne-
vada, project, within the area for which he was responsible,
together with notations showing the last month for which
their home local dues and travel card dues had been paid.)
The record , considered in totality, warrants a determina-
tion, which 'I make, that complainant did finally present his
book, pursuant to Mogannam's request, during April 1974;
the job steward , so his credible testimony shows, thereupon
questioned Petrin's January 1 , 1974, initiation date shown
therein . According to Mogannam , complainant declared
that Local 788 had sent him a so-called "wrong" book;
Petrin, while a witness, proffered no contradictory testimo-
ny. The subject of complainant's presumptively mistaken
initiation date was not, however, pursued further.
During May, when Respondent Union's job steward
again requested Petrin to produce his union book, the
latter could not; the book, he reported, had once more
been returned to Local 788 for dues record purposes and
had not yet been returned. However, during a subsequent
contact, which Petrin placed sometime during late May or
the first part of the following month, Mogannam was able
to review complainant's union book. With respect thereto,
Petrin testified:
He saw my book and he looked at my book and he
says, "It's a metal trades book. You can't be working
here with a metal trades book. That's a shipyard book."
I said, "I don't recognize this because I have worked in
many places with this book and I am under the same
national as anybody else." And Mr. Bill Weber
accepted my book in January, accepted my travel card;
I didn't see any problem with my book. Then he asked
me if I ever held a building trades book, and I said I
did a long time ago, but the national assigned me to 788
and that's where I stand right now. He said, "You
should get that book changed ; try to get it changed."
That was the last statement for a while. -
With respect to subsequent developments , when Respon-
dent Union's job steward conducted his July 1 book check,
the record is silent ; so far as can now be told, Mogannam's
presumptive belief that Petrin 's union membership book
and travel card were not quite regular, somehow, was not
recapitulated.
b. Restraint and Coercion
On Tuesday, July 30, so complainant testified, Business
Representative Weber and Respondent Union's job stew-
ard visited him at Reynolds' Mercury, Nevada, jobsite. The
business representative first queried Petrin with respect to
whether he was currently maintaining a private business
while working within the trade. (Complainant was con-
fronted with a printed business card designating the Clark
County Water Conditioning Association, presumably a
vendor of water softeners and purifiers, which listed R. J.
Kellogg, owner ; J. Kaled, manager ; and Ray Petrin,
supervisor.)
Petrin denied any outside business occupation. He
declared that before he had decided to seek trade work
within Respondent Union' s jurisdiction , he had considered
joining a water softener business ; that business cards for
the firm had been printed; but that he (Petrin) had never
really joined the firm. When, according to complainant's
testimony, Weber declared his intention to summon him
(Petrin) before Respondent Union' s executive board, the
plumber-pipefitter reiterated his contention that he was not
currently connected with any business firm. With respect
to their further conversation , however, complainant's
testimony reads as follows:
Then he says, "Let me see your book, your union
book." I said , "My union book is at my home local. I
don't have it with me at the present. I am paying my
dues and I sent my book back to my home local." And
he says, "It's a metal trades book." I says, "If it is_ a
metal trade book, you accepted it." And he says, right
then he says, "I should pull you off the job now." Then
he changed the subject; he turned around and he says,
"You are off the job by Friday."
Respondent Union's business representative then left.
Later that day, according to Petrin's testimony, Mogan-
nam returned . While they were leaving complainant's work
area, Respondent Union's job steward suggested that he
should request 10 days' leave, fly back East, and get his
book "straightened out" there . Petrin demurred , noting
that Weber had "accepted" his book when it was first
presented . 'Complainant commented further, so his testi-
mony shows , that Nevada had a so-called right-to-work
law; that he could not be required to leave his job; and that
he proposed to continue work. Then, so Petrin recalled:
Mr. Mogannam said, "If you do, we will walk out."
Then he came back again and -told me again that I
should take ten days off and go back East and get my
book straightened out.
Shortly thereafter, while both men were riding a company
bus from their particular work area to Reynolds ' parking
compound, the job steward reiterated his prior comments
that Petrin should communicate with Local 788's business
agent forthwith ; that he should try to get his union
membership switched from a metal trades local to a
building and construction trades local as soon as possible;
and reiterated Weber's comment that, failing this , he would
be out of work by Friday.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, PLUMBERS, LOCAL 525 455
Thereafter, throughout the 10-day period which fol-
lowed, so complainant testified, Respondent Union's
steward continued to press his previously proffered
suggestions . Specifically, Petrin recalled that:
1. During a July 31 jobsite conversation, Mogannam
had asked whether he had "gotten in touch" with Local
788's business agent; and that, when he replied negatively,
Respondent Union's job steward had said, "If you don't
get it, you should take a ten days' leave" while going East
to seek a clarification with regard to his union status.
2. During a Monday, August 5 jobsite conversation,
Mogannam had reported, "Bill Weber is pressuring me.
You have to be out. You should have been out last week"
and that Respondent's job steward had then declared he
should "maybe" try to get Petrin a 10 days' leave of
absence.
3. During a late Wednesday afternoon, August 7,
conversation, while they were riding the company bus,
Mogannam had told him he would be required to appear
before Respondent Union's executive board (for a reason
which the steward could not specify) later that evening;
that Petrin, when he reached home, had been confronted
with a family emergency because his father-in-law had
suffered a heart attack and paralytic stroke; that he had,
promptly, telephoned Mogannam to report he could not
meet that night with Respondent Union's executive board;
and that Mogannam had promised to request a postpone-
ment.
Complainant missed work on August 8, the following
day. On Friday morning, August 9, when he returned,
Respondent Union's job steward, so he recalled, was told
about his father-in-law' s illness . With respect to further
developments that day Petrin's testimony reads as follows:
[He ] says that he had requested in front of the E-Board
to give me a ten days' leave of absence, but somehow
lie didn't get it. So, during the day, around 3:30 to 3:40
in the afternoon, that August the 9th, he drove off with
the truck ... and he came back about ten minutes
later and he says, Mr. Weber authorized me a ten days'
leave of absence starting on Monday, that Bill Weber
was sending a letter from the Union an emergency
letter, to Reynolds Electric to take me off my job for
ten days to go home and try to get my book straight
... I was in a daze. I didn't know which way to go. I
was planning on coming back to work Monday and I
was being forced with a leave of absence, so I said, I
says, "If that's what they want, I will take it, but this is
a right-to-work state and I shouldn't take it." And he
says, "Well, we will all walk out." He mentioned that
many times during that week. That if I went to work
without a Union card they would all walk out.
Later that afternoon, when Mogannam and Petrin while on
their way home reached Reynolds' parking compound,
they met General Foreman Payne. Respondent Union's
job steward declared that Petrin would not be reporting for
work the Monday following. "He is on an emergency leave
of absence," Respondent Union's job steward noted, which
Business Representative Weber had authorized. Mogan-
nam promised Payne that he would receive a notice, with
respect to Petrin's leave, on Monday morning. General
Foreman Payne declared, however, that complainant was
being transferred to a different "tunnel" working area.
Petrin promptly noted his concurrence; with respect
thereto, he testified as follows:
I thought I could get away from my leave of absence
the way it sounded. And Mr. Accada Payne says, "No,
go ahead and send a letter to me and I will send it to
Area 12 that Mr. Petrin is on a ten days' leave of
absence and not to worry about it" and he told Mr.
Mogannam to make sure that Bill Weber sent the letter
Monday morning to Mr. Accada Payne.
Both men then left the jobsite. On Saturday, August 10,
Petrinn received a letter signed by Respondent Union's
financial secretary, which had been dispatched previously,
August 8, by certified mail. He was therein summoned to
appear before Respondent Union's executive board on
August 21, bringing his United Association dues book.
Though Respondent Union's letter contained no enclosed
statement of charges, complainant was reminded that,
pursuant to the organization's bylaws and working rules,
members summoned to appear before its executive board
who failed to present themselves "shall be tried" despite
their absence.
Petrin, so his testimony shows, promptly telephoned the
chairman of Respondent Union's executive board, report-
ed that he was beginning a so-called "special" leave of
absence, and noted that he would therefore be unable to
appear on August 21 pursuant to Respondent Union's
summons. He was told that his appearance would not be
required.
On Monday, August 12, complainant telephoned Rey-
nolds' labor relations office, recapitulated his situation,
and declared that he would not be reporting for work.
However, on Wednesday, August 14, he received a
telephone call from a Reynolds spokesman who requested
his return. When Petrin asked whether he would have "any
kind of protection" following his return to work, his caller
suggested that he communicate with Reynolds' personnel
manager.
On Monday, August 19, complainant conferred with
Personnel Manager Bennett pursuant to his caller's
suggestion. He described his situation. Petrin's testimony,
with regard to their conversation, reads as follows:
Mr. Bennett says, "I understand your position, and I
hope you can understand my position. I cannot help
you against the Union. All I can tell you, you have the
right to go to work, but I cannot offer you any type of
protection." . . . I even asked Mr. Bennett if he had
another job to give me, to go to work and not interfere
in the Union. Mr. Bennett says, "There is no way I can
interfere with the Union contract." And I says, "I don't
want to go to work and cause a strike." I said, "If I go
to work tomorrow or the next day, I says, "They are all
going to walk off the job because Mr. Mogannam told
me." I says, "I don't want, to cause a strike ... "
Personnel Manager Bennett, thereupon, referred complain-
ant to his firm's personnel assignment officer. Petrin was
advised by the latter that his "leave" would be extended for
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 to 5 more days, so that he could "straighten out" his
union status.
According to Petrin, however, nothing of significance
directly concerned with his Local 788 membership or travel
card status transpired thereafter. On September 11,
complainant's employment at Reynolds' Mercury, Nevada,
test site was formally terminated.While a witness herein,
Petrin declared that he had resigned his position; Rey-
nolds, he reported, had been "good enough" to hold his
position open, despite his absence from work for more than
3 days, and he did not wish to risk discharge. On
September 17, so Respondent Union's work record for him
shows, complainant revisited its Las Vegas hall; there, he
paid his "travel card" dues for 10 weeks. His payment
covered 4 full calendar weeks beginning in August, 5.full
calendar weeks with September starting dates, and 1 full
October week. His travel card financial obligations, with
respect to Respondent Union particularly, were therefore
satisfied through October 12. Concurrently, so complain-
ant testified, he signed Respondent Union's out-of-work
list.
So far as the record shows, Petrie has never been
dispatched for work through Respondent Union's hall
since his September 17 visit. On October 4, 1974, he filed
the charge with which we are presently concerned.
b. Weber's conversation with Petrin
Respondent Union's business representative testified,
particularly with reference to his July 30 conversation with
complainant herein, that because Petrin had been designat-
ed a supervisor on the Clark County Water Conditioning
Association's purported business card, he had requested
the plumber-pipefitter to present himself before the
Union's executive board, where he could "explain" his
situation. Weber, while a witness, characterized his query
and suggestion as calculated to promote compliance with a
particular provision of Respondent Union's local bylaws
and working rules. (Article 40 of Respondent Union's
bylaws requires "any member wishing to go into any
business covered by [Respondent Union's] jurisdiction" to
appear before that organization's executive board before
doing so.) During their conversation, Weber, recalled,
complainant had been further requested to explain why
Job Steward Mogannam had "never" been presented with
his union membership and dues book. Thereupon, Petrin
had repeated, so Respondent Union's business representa-
tive testified, his prior declarations, reporting that his book
had been mailed back to his home local. With respect to
their further conversation, Weber testified,-in relevant part,
as follows:
2. Respondent Union's Case
a. Contentions
Within his brief, Respondent Union's counsel suggests
that Business Representative Weber and Respondent
Union's job steward, throughout the period now under
consideration, were concerned about certain deviations
from normal union procedure, presumptively chargeable to
complainant herein, which within their view generated
questions regarding his eligibility for dispatch to plumber-
pipefitter positions within Respondent Union's trade and
geographical jurisdiction. Also, Respondent Union's coun-
sel suggests that Business Representative Weber was
further concerned over Petrin's possible violation of
Respondent Union's bylaws and working rules, since he
was seemingly maintaining a trade-related "business"
connection while "working" within the plumbing and
pipefitting trade. Respondent Union contends that Web-
er's and Mogannam's conversational contacts with com-
plainant herein were confined to certain "legitimate"
questions , or representations, within these areas which
concerned them, bottomed upon both their United
Association's constitution and Respondent Union's work-
ing rules ; that their questions and verbal representations
should, therefore, be considered privileged, pursuant to the
Statute's 8(bxl)(A) proviso;, and that no threats or coercive
representations, calculated to restrain or coerce complain-
ant with respect to statutorily guaranteed rights, were
proffered in connection therewith. Petrin's contrary testi-
mony, so counsel suggests , should be considered a
fabrication, not worthy of belief.
I said, "You seem to have a little problem with your
book." Mr. Petrin at that time toldme, voluntarily told
me, "I have got to go straighten out my book." What
was the- problem with his book I don't know other than
he don't have one with him at the time .... He told
me he would go and straighten out the book, and the
book is evidently in Portsmouth, New Hampshire to
my, recollection . . . [And] he was going to go and
straighten that book out and find out what his stamps
- we never saw any stamps ... .
Respondent Union's business representative finally cate-
gorically denied requesting Petrin to leave his job, or telling
him that he would be required to do so, When queried
specifically, Weber declared voluntarily: that Petrin had
told him he was "going to fix up" his union book;
according to Respondent Union's business representative,
complainant was "going to fly back there" presumably to
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and "fly back here" there-
after.
Weber's testimony reflects his denial that Petrin-was
threatened. He was merely requested, so Respondent
Union's business representative claimed, to appear before
that organization's executive board to explain his putative
"moonlight" business connection. While a witness, Weber
further, specifically disclaimed knowledge with respect to
complainant's reason for leaving his Reynolds position. He
does not, so he contends, know the date on which Petrie
left. According to Weber's proffered recollection, com-
plainant has "never" come back to Respondent,.Union's
call to report himself out of work, has never been there to
sign the out-of-work list, and has never sought a further job
referral.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, PLUMBERS, LOCAL 525 457
c. Mogannam 's conversations with Petrin
Job Steward Mogannam, when questioned regarding his
several conversational contacts with complainant, recalled
first that Petrin had not been able to produce Local 788's
membership and dues book, when reporting for work, but
had presented his book, when requested, sometime during
the following month. During their consequent April
conversation, so Mogannam recalled, he had questioned
Petrin regarding two matters: First, he had questioned the
union book's recorded -January 1, 1974, initiation date;
second, he had questioned the fact that Local 788 was,
within Petrin's book, designated a metal trades branch,
rather than a building and construction trades local, within
the United Association's jurisdiction. (Respondent Union's
job steward considered these questions significant, so his
testimony shows, because, under section 158 of the United
Association's constitution, journeymen members of a metal
trades local "cannot work" within the jurisdiction of a
building and construction trades local, such as Respondent
Union herein. Further, pursuant to section 239(2) of the
designated constitution, travel cards "shall be issued"
solely to building trades journeymen requesting them, who
"must have held [United Association] membership" for at
least 1 calendar year "just prior" to their card's issuance.)
Petrin, so Mogannam testified, replied that Local 788's
business agent had mailed him the wrong book. The
steward claimed that he was waiting to see a proper
building and construction trades membership book, but
was never shown one. -
Mogannam further categorically denied proffering any
suggestion that complainant should take a leave of
absence. With respect to their successive conversations, the
steward testified comprehensively that:
Well, sir, since every month he couldn't present the
book, I said to him, "You should have it straightened
oat." So he said, he himself suggested the only way to
straighten it out was to go back to his Local and get his
book straightened out. So, that was the conversation
between him and I, but it was his own idea, his own
suggestion.
Further,- Respondent Union's job steward categorically
denied telling Petrin that, should he continue to work, all
the local men would walk off their jobs. Mogannam
reiterated, while a witness, his contention that complainant
had never been told he would have to leave his position.
He confirmed, monosyllabically, his counsel's suggestion
that the sole subject of their conversations had been related
to Petrin's presentation of his union book, for the purpose
of demonstrating thathis home local dues were being paid,
and that he was a -member of some building and
construction trades local rather than a metal trades local.
According to Respondent Union's steward, complainant
was merely told, that he should "get his book- squared
away" so that correct information with regard to his union
membership, and travel card status could be noted on
Respondent Union's monthly report form.
The steward was present, concededly, when Reynolds'
general foreman told complainant herein, presumably
during', their August 9 conversation, that he was being
transferred to another work area within the firm's Mercury,
Nevada, test site. According to Mogannam, Petrin was
notified that he, together with two other workers, would be
shifted; the steward's testimony, with respect to this
particular matter, contains no reference to a leave request
which had been made, or would be made, in Petrin's
behalf. While a witness, Mogannam declared that he has
never seen complainant on Reynolds ' jobsite since their
conversation with Reynolds' general foreman.
3. Discussion and conclusions
a. Credibility
With matters in this posture, Respondent Union's
counsel contends, as previously noted, that complainant's
various charges should be considered "mere figments of
[his] imagination" but nothing more . ^ Further, counsel
suggests:
... the conclusion is unmistakable that the charging
party had somehow managed to illegally acquire a
travel card, and was attempting to use this travel card
to gain certain advantages of union membership to
which he was not entitled. The conclusion is also
unmistakable, that the inquiries of Respondent's
representatives [with respect thereto] were legitimate
and reasonable . . . It is the opinion of the writer, that
[when these inquiries were conducted, and when Petrin
was requested to appear before the executive board of
the local union] the charging party realized that the
Respondent had discovered his fraud;- he became,
concerned and invented the threats and coercion in
order to cause these [Board] proceedings.
These contentions have been comprehensively and capably
briefed. I have not been persuaded, however, that Weber's
and Mogannam's congruent testimonial recitals , proffered
in their support , merit credence.
Considered in totality, complainant's testimony herein,
despite its occasional elliptical character, deserves cre-
dence, within my view, for several reasons. First : Because
Petrin, whose witness-chair demeanor impressed me
favorably, has provided a straightforward, logically con-
sistent narrative, proffered without guile, which Respon-
dent Union's counsel could not shake, particularly with
respect to material matters . Second : Because I find
counsel's purportedly conclusive suggestion , that com-
plainant's recital should be considered a mere imaginative
concoction, calculated to prevent frustration of some
putatively improper "travel card" stratagem, considerably
overblown. Nothing whatsoever, within the present record,
would warrant determinations herein that Petrin had
deliberately concealed , misrepresented , or withheld details
regarding his "reinstatement" with a United Association
Metal Trades local when he sought work within Respon-
dent Union's jurisdiction; that he was, personally, respon-
sible for whatever disparate misstatements regarding his
prior "initiation" date the Respondent Union 's representa-
tives may subsequently have discovered within his union
membership book and travel card; or that his (Petrin's)
travel card had either been solicited fraudulently, or
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provided knowingly, without regard for the United
Association's relevant constitutional provisions. And, were
I to' conclude, arguendo, that complainant was, neverthe-
less, mistakenly "assigned" reinstatement or reinitiation
privileges with a United Association Metal Trades local,
despite the fact that he was a qualified building and
construction tradesman planning to seek work within a
building and construction local's jurisdiction, such a
mistake (for which he could hardly be considered responsi-
ble) would not logically warrant his testimony's rejection.
Further, were I to conclude, arguendo, that Local 788's
business representative had, either mistakenly or improvi-
dently, given Petrin a travel card which he was not
constitutionally qualified to receive, his testimony with
respect to matters, material herein could not reasonably be
considered impugned thereby. Counsel's suggestion, that
complainant, concerned because Respondent Union's
representatives had discovered various discrepancies or
departures from regular union procedure which could
generate questions regarding his union membership status
and travel card eligibility, fabricated his Board-charge to
provide a smokescreen, by means of which he could escape
Respondent Union's prospective challenges, derives from
sheer surmise . I have not been persuaded . Third: Because I
find Weber's and Mogannam's penultimate testimony -
that Petrin himself decided to request a leave of absence,
voluntarily, during which he would presumably call upon
his East Coast home local and "straighten out" his union
membership status and travel card qualification - simply
incredible. Complainant had sought United Association
reinstatement or reimtiation through the mails; he had,
thereafter, solicited his travel card by mail; his monthly
Local 788 dues were, so the record shows, being remitted
through the mails. With due regard for his prior course of
conduct, no trier of fact could reasonably conclude,
consistently with Weber's and Mogannam's parallel
recollections, that Petrin would voluntarily undertake a
costly, time-consuming , cross-country trip merely to
correct some membership book and travel card discrepan-
cies which could not, legally, provide any valid basis for
challenging his job tenure. I fmd these considerations
cumulatively persuasive.
Within my view, therefore, complainant's contrary
testimony - that Respondent Union's steward was the
person who' broached a disputed "leave of absence"
suggestion ; that Mogannam was the person who coerced
the plumber-pipefittefs acquiescence with respect thereto,
by declaring that the latter's fellow test site workers would
"walk off" their jobs unless he (Petrin) took steps to,
regularize his union membership and travel card status;
and that Respondent Union's steward , finally, was the
person `who took the initiative with respect to communicat-
ing complainant 's coerced "leave of absence" plans to
Reynolds' general foreman - merits Board credence.
b. Substantive Conclusions
Complainant's testimony with respect to matters materi-
al herein, which I have found credible - despite the
countervailing considerations which Respondent Union's
counsel presently proffers within his brief -. warrants
determinations, which I make, that Business Representa-
tive Weber and Respondent Union's job steward did,
indeed, pursue the course of conduct described therein and
made the various statements , representations , and/or
demands with which they have been therein charged.
c. Conclusions
Within their total context, Weber's July 30 declarations
- that he should "pull [complainant] off' his Mercury,
Nevada, test site job, and that, "you [Petrin] are off the
job" within 3 days, thereafter - clearly constituted a
statutorily proscribed threat to procure complainant's
termination because he could not prove =qualifying union
membership, pursuant to certain United Association
constitutional provisions, purportedly required as condi-
tions precedent to qualification for plumber-pipefitter work
within a building and construction local's jurisdiction. The
business representative's representations , despite his failure
to specify the precise method by which Petrin's removal
from his job would be procured, necessarily implied that
some union action would be taken , calculated to cause his
termination . Such threatening statements , particularly
when construed with due regard for Nevada's relevant
right-to-work statute, could hardly have been considered
contractually and/or statutorily privileged. I find them
rather properly subject to Board interdiction. Compare
United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of, the
Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry, Local Union No. 137
(Hames Construction and Equipment Co., Inc.), 207 NLRB
359 (1973) (McKenna 's statement to Burch); Local Union
399, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO (Illinois Bell Telephone Company), 200 NLRB 1050,
1053-54 (1972) (Fitzgerald's letter to Galka); Laborers'
International Union of North America, Local Union No. 573,
AFL-CIO (F. F. Mengel Construction Company), 196
NLRB 440, 441, 442 (1972) (statements by Irby and
Maulding); Young & Greenawalt Co., and United Steelwork-
ers of America AFL-CIO, 157 NLRB 408, 429, 434 (1966)
(file's threat to Lancaster), in this connection . Steward
Mogannam's further suggestion that Petrin'should take 10
days' leave, during which he could visit-his East Coast
home local and "straighten out" his union membership and
travel card status , likewise, within its total context, pos-
sessed' a coercive thrust , in my view ; the steward's further
comment that complainant 's fellow workers would "walk
out" should he continue work without taking such,
suggested action, made the coercive implications of
Mogannam's prior , suggestion explicit. Compare United
Mine Workers of America District 30 and Local No. 9606,
United Mine Workers of America (Blue Diamond Coal
Company), 143 NLRB 795, 796 (1963), 'in this connection.
I find Mogannam's various representations ,- comments,
and suggestions - because of their coercive thrust -
likewise violative of law.
The steward's final declaration, that he had, without
bothering to solicit complainant 's prior concurrence,
procured "authorization" from Respondent Union's busi-
ness representative, for the latter's projected leave of
absence, which Weber would, shortly `thereafter, confirm
by sending a letter to complainant 's - jobsite ` superiors,
clearly reflected Respondent Union's determination to ride
roughshod over Petrin's previously manifested reluctance
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, PLUMBERS, LOCAL 525 459
to consider relinquishing his position. When complainant,
confronted with Mogannam's reiterated threat that his
fellow workers would "walk out" should he reject Respon-
dent Union's proffered "leave of absence" suggestion,
finally agreed that he would take such a leave, the
steward's maneuver, which I find clearly coercive, was
crowned with success. Petrin subsequently permitted
Respondent Union's steward to declare, while purportedly
functioning as his spokesman, that he would not be
reporting for work. With that "report" communicated to
complainant's general foreman, Mogannam, in my view,
compounded and capped his statutorily proscribed course
of conduct.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ON
COMMERCE
Respondent Union's course of conduct set forth in
section III, above, since it occurred in connection with
Reynolds' business operations described in section I above,
has had, and continues to have, a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States; absent correction, such conduct would
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
In view of these findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co., Inc., is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
engaged in commerce and business activities which affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act„ as amended.
2. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting ' Industry of the United
States and Canada , Local Union No. 525, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act, as amended, which admits certain employees of
Reynolds to membership.
3. When Respondent Union's business representative
and designated job steward declared that complainant
should be removed from , or relinquish, his current
position ; that he should take 10 days' leave therefrom,
during which period he could "straighten out" his
purportedly questionable union membership and travel
card status ; and that his fellow workers at Reynolds'
Mercury, Nevada, test site would "walk out" should he fail
to proceed consistently with their leave suggestion,
Respondent Union restrained and coerced Raymond R.
Petrin with respect to his exercise of statutorily guaranteed
rights . Further, when Steward Mogannam told complain-
ant that a period of leave had, willy-nilly, been "author-
ized" for him, procured his resigned acquiescence with
respect thereto, and subsequently told his supervisor that
such leave would be taken , his (Mogannam's) course of
conduct likewise constituted restraint and coercion . There-
by Respondent Union did engage , and continues to
1 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec.
engage , in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, as amended.
THE REMEDY
Since I have found that Respondent Union has commit-
ted, and has thus far failed to remedy, certain specific
unfair labor practices which affect commerce, I shall
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action, including
the posting of appropriate notices, designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Specifically, I shall recommend that Respondent Union
be required to send a letter to complainant, with a copy to
Reynolds, his former employer, stating that it has no
objection to his reemployment or reinstatement by that
firm. Consistently therewith, I shall recommend that
Respondent Union permit complainant to sign Respon-
dent Union's current out-of-work register, and grant him
preferential dispatch rights to available positions with
Reynolds at the latter firm's Mercury, Nevada, test site
locations, for which he may be qualified. (The record
warrants a determination that Respondent Union regularly
dispatches qualified registrants for plumbing and pipefit-
ting jobs within the building and construction industry. I
take official notice that most of these positions typically
involve short-term work, subject to termination when
particular construction projects are completed. Reynolds'
contract at Mercury, Nevada, however, presumably in-
volves long-term construction work which provides quali-
fied plumber-pipefitters with relatively permanent posi-
tions. Since Respondent Union's 8(b)(1)(A) unfair labor
practices, found herein, effectively restrained and coerced
complainant to "accept" the leave of absence from his
Reynolds position which Respondent Union's representa-
tives required him to take, and subsequently persuaded
him to relinquish that position, preferential dispatch to the
same or some equivalent position, which would permit a
restoration of his status quo ante, should be required, in my
view, to provide remedial relief.)
I have considered a possible further recommendation
that complainant should be made whole for pay losses
which he may have suffered by reason of his compliance
with Respondent Union's demand that he relinquish his
position, pending a regularization of his union membership
and travel card status. The present record, however, lays
no sufficient predicate, in my view, for such "make whole"
relief. No backpay recommendation has, therefore, been
made.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended.
ORDER'
Respondent Union, United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry
of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 525,
AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening members or travel card holders em-
ployed within its trade and geographical jurisdiction with
loss of employment, because of claims that they have failed
to demonstrate compliance with certain union regulations
or union constitutional provisions which could , conceiva-
bly, affect their membership status or travel card eligibility.
(b) Requiring or coercing members or travel card holders
to request leaves of absence from their positions , purport-
edly to resolve questions raised with respect to their union
membership or travel card status.
(c) Restraining or coercing members or travel card
holders employed within its trade and geographical
jurisdiction, in any like or related manner, with respect to
their exercise of statutorily guaranteed rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Send a written notice to Raymond R. Petrin, with a
copy dispatched to Reynolds Electrical and Engineering
Co., Inc., Mercury, Nevada, stating that it has no objection
to his employment with the company designated and will
not question his reemployment or reinstatement.
(b) Permit Raymond R. Petrin to sign its current out-of-
work register , and grant him preferential dispatch rights to
available positions with Reynolds Electrical and Engineer-
ing Company, Inc., at or near Mercury , Nevada , for which
he may be qualified.
(c) Post at its business office and meeting hall in Las
Vegas, Nevada, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."2 Copies of said notice , on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly
signed by Respondent Union's duly authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be 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 Respondent Union to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, within 20
days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
2 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by the National Labor Relations Board."
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant