American Wire Weavers' Protective Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 977 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

AMERICAN WIRE WEAVERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION 977
maintenance employee and we include him in the unit. As to the
employees who sell paint over the counter, the record is devoid of
evidence that they perform any other duties. The parties have agreed
to exclude certain salesmen. As these employees are essentially sales-
men, we shall also exclude them from the unit.
Collectors: These men come to the office every day to obtain a list
of customer accounts for the purpose of making collections. They
work exclusively outside the plant, and the Employer exercises no
control over their hours or the manner of work. They are paid a
salary and a commission on their collections. We find that the duties
of the collectors are closely related to those of the salesmen, as are
their conditions of work and we exclude them from the unit.
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant
at Ponce, Puerto Rico, including refrigeration mechanics; utility
men who do plumbing and electrical work, install TV antennae and
paint and do repair work; chauffeurs who drive trucks, load and
unload merchandise; the warehouse clerk, the parts clerk, the delivery
boy in the paint department, but excluding all outside salesmen, paint
department clerks, office clerical employees, apprentices or trainees,
collectors, professional employees, TV mechanics,3 watchmen, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' In accordance with the agreement of the parties , we find that the TV mechanics are
independent contractors and not employees , and we therefore exclude them from the unit.
American Wire Weavers' Protective Association , AFL-CIO, and
Ohio Division No. 2, American Wire Weavers ' Protective Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO and The Lindsay Wire Weaving Company.
Case No. 8-CD-12. May 15,1958
DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of
Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and de-
termine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen...."
On October 31, 1957, The Lindsay Wire Weaving Company, herein
called Lindsay or Employer, filed with the Regional Director for the
120 NLRB No. 130.
483142-59-vol. 120-63
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Eighth Region a charge against American Wire Weavers' Protective
Association, AFL-CIO, and Ohio Division No. 2, American Wire
Weavers' Protective Association, AFL-CIO, herein jointly called
AWWPA or Union, alleging that AWWPA had engaged in and was
engaging in certain activities proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of
the amended Act. It was charged, in substance, that AWWPA had
induced and encouraged the employees of Lindsay to engage in a strike
or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to handle or
work on goods with an object of forcing or requiring Lindsay to
assign particular work to employees who are members of AWWPA
"rather than to employees in any other labor organization or in any
other trade, craft, or class."
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act' and Sections
102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as
amended, the Regional Director investigated the `charge and pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all parties. I The
hearing was held before John C. Fischer, hearing officer, on January 8
and 9, 1958. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the
hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. Lindsay and the AWWPA filed briefs with the
Board.
The AWWPA has requested oral argument. The request is hereby
denied because the- record and the briefs adequately present the issues
and the positions of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The Lindsay Wire Weaving Company is engaged in the manu-
facture of Fourdrinier paper mill wire cloth. It has two plants in
Cleveland, Ohio, the Aspinwall plant and the wire mill across the
street from the Aspinwall plant. It also has a plant at Mentor, Ohio.
Lindsay annually ships goods valued in excess- of $4,000,000 to points
outside the State of Ohio. We find that Lindsay is engaged, in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. American Wire Weavers' Protective Association, AFL-CIO,
and Ohio Division No. 2, American Wire Weavers' Protective Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the
Act.
3. The alleged dispute :
A. The facts
Lindsay normally employs about, 375. employees at its Aspinwall
plant, 6f whom approximately. 130 are wire weaver journeymen and
apprentices who have been represented by AWWPA for the purposes
AMERICAN -WIRE WEAVERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION 979
of collective bargaining since about 1920.1 Bargaining for Lindsay's
Aspinwall weavers has been on an associationwide basis.a The last
contract for a definite term which covered all of Lindsay's Aspinwall
weavers was effective from September 22, 1954, to September 22, 1956.
It had a provision for year-to-year renewal thereafter, absent termina-
tion by either party on 90-day notice.
This September 1954 contract specified methods and practices the
employers were to follow in conducting the wire-Weaving portions of
their operations. For example, the 1954 contract provided that the
ratio of apprentices to journeymen weavers was to be 1 to 7, that the
apprenticeship period was to be 4 years, and that there was to be "no
change from the established practices in each shop in the nature of
the work that the . . . [weavers] have been doing in connection with
the manufacture and production of Fourdrinier wires and Cut
Cloth." 3 The "nature of the work" the weavers performed consisted
of eight basic steps: winding-on, threading-in, lining the loom, start-
ing the wire cloth, timing the loon, actual cloth weaving, periodic
repair of weaving defects, and cutting out.
In midterm of the September 1954 agreement, on November 3, 1955,
the employer Association called a meeting with the AWWPA for the
purpose of discussing new methods of operating wire-weaving looms.
The employers asserted that progress in the pulp and paper industry
(their sole customer for wire cloth) necessitated changes in produc-
tion techniques, manpower restrictions, and wage structure imposed
by the AWWPA's 1954 contract. The employers proposed that they
be permitted to use new methods of operating wire-weaving looms.
They suggested that there be no restrictions on the number of looms
a weaver could operate simultaneously and that the employers be
permitted to operate looms with new job classifications. The em-
ployees in these new job classifications were to perform one or more,
but less than all, of the eight loom operations which weavers were
then performing. The employers' proposals were to be put into
effect gradually so as not to affect the jobs of the weavers then work-
1 Employees in the Aspinwall machine shop and at the wire mill are represented by
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, and employees in the Aspinwall fin-
ishing department are represented by Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers Union,
AFL-CIO.
2 The members of the Association identified in the record are : Appleton Wile Works ;
Cable Wire, Inc , Cheney-Bigelow Wire Works ; Eastwood-Nealley Corporation ;
McCluskey Wire Works ; The Lindsay Wire Weaving Company ; W . S Tyler Company-;
and "Wisconsin."
Also, the Union's constitution and bylaws provide, in part •
Article II . 25 So far as is permitted under applicable law, members of this
,Union shall perform no work or services in any shop under the jurisdiction of the
Union which permits looms to be operated or a weaver 's work to be performed by
any person other than members in good standing of this Union or recognized
apprentices '
Article XIII . . . 13 2 No member of the Union shall perform any work in any
shop where the following regulations are not observed . .. 13.6. No extra appren-
tices shall be granted to any manufacturers without the prior consent of a majority
of [AWWPA's] Executive Board.
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing. The AWWPA answered, in effect, that it would consider the
employers' proposals. .
Lindsay started construction of its Mentor plant in June 1955 with
the intention of instituting one aspect of the employers' subsequent
November 1955 proposal-using several job classifications on each
wire-weaving loom in the place of a single craftsman weaver. Lind-
say's purpose in constructing the Mentor plant was to increase
production and to improve its competitive position vis-a-vis Appleton
Wire Works, another member of the multiemployer Association,
which was using the new job classifications at its Montgomery,
Alabama, plant.' In May 1956, a representation hearing was held
before a hearing officer of the Board upon a petition filed by Interna-
tional Association of Machinists Lodge 1130, District 54, AFL-CIO,
for a unit of machine shop, maintenance, and wire-drawing depart-
ment employees at the Mentor plant. The AWWPA appeared as an
intervenor, and, at the hearing, Lindsay expressed the intention, of
utilizing at least one new job classification, loom operators, at
Mentor.5
On June 21, 1956, the AWWPA sent the various members of the
employer Association, including Lindsay, a written notice that the
September 1954 collective-bargaining agreement would terminate on
its anniversary date. On August 2, the AWWPA requested the em-
ployers to meet for preliminary discussions before bargaining for a
new contract and advised that it would no longer participate in joint
negotiations with all the employers because Appleton and Lindsay
had "problems which differ from those of all other manufacturers and
must be dealt with separately." Lindsay. met with the AWWPA on
August 8, both jointly with the other employers and separately. The
AWWPA advised that if Lindsay did not assign AWWPA members
to do their traditional weaving work at Mentor, the terms of a
contract for the Aspinwall plant "would be more harsh."
Lindsay met with the AWWPA again on September 14, and the
AWWPA asked that Lindsay orally agree to transfer AWWPA
weavers from the Aspinwall plant to Mentor pending negotiation of
a new collective-bargaining agreement with Appleton. The AWWPA
promised to give Lindsay, in a subsequent written agreement, the
equivalent of the most favorable terms granted to Appleton. The
AWWPA expressed the expectation or hope that negotiations for a
new Appleton agreement would take 3 to 5 months and threatened a
strike at Aspinwall if Lindsay did not accept the AWWPA's pro-
posed oral arrangement. Lindsay accepted this interim agreement
'The AWWPA had a supplement to its September 1954 collective -bargaining contract
with Appleton, which covered employees at that employer 's Wisconsin plant. Under the
terms of the supplement , the AWWPA could cancel its contract for Appleton 's Wisconsin
plant weavers if Appleton retained , any "permanent" employees at its Alabama plant.
A "permanent" employee was defined as one retained for more than 4 months.
5 The Board dismissed the JAM petition as prematurely filed. 116 NLRB 456.
AMERICAN WIRE WEAVERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION 981
on the condition that the transfer of Aspinwall weavers to Mentor
be on a temporary basis. The next day the AWWPA postponed
further negotiations with the employer Association pending, execu-
tion of a new agreement with Appleton; and proposed that its mem-
bers continue to.work for the employers on a day-to-day basis under
the terms of the 1954 contract, except that the employers could hire
additional apprentices.
On October 16, 1956, Lindsay sent the AWWPA a copy of a docu-
ment, entitled "Conditions of Transfer" for Aspinwall weavers to
the Mentor plant. The "Conditions" were to serve as a reference for
Aspinwall weavers, indicated they were based on Lindsay's Septem-
ber 14 meeting with the AWWPA, and constituted a step that would
enable the AWWPA "to effect recognition for, the weaving depart-
ment" at Mentor. There followed a series of letters between the
respective counsel for Lindsay and the AWWPA and discussions
between Lindsay officials and the AWWPA shop committee for the
Aspinwall plant. These various communications established that
there were disagreements between Lindsay and the AWWPA with
respect to the details of their temporary agreement of September
1956. While the letters and discussions were continuing, Lindsay,
on October 15, 1956, assigned 'the first Aspinwall weaver to the Mentor
plant. The assignment lasted 3 weeks. On November 5, Lindsay
assigned a second weaver to Mentor for about 5 weeks. On December
10, it transferred two Aspinwall weavers to Mentor for the first actual
production work on running looms. '
Lindsay and the AWWPA met on December 13 'to clarify their
earlier September 14 conversations. This December meeting resulted
in a second document entitled "Conditions of Transfer"- of Aspinwall-
weavers to Mentor. These "Conditions" provided, in part, that 22
journeymen weavers ultimately were to be transferred from Aspin-
wall to Mentor -on a temporary basis: pending new and `separate agree-
ments between Lindsay and the AWWPA for the Aspinwall and
Mentor plants; the Aspinwall seniority of the transferees would not
be affected and would be continued for a suggested 6-month period
in the event the transfers became permanent; the "weavers' trade"'
would be recognized at Mentor together with the provisions of the'
1954 contract covering Aspinwall with an exception allowing addi-
tional apprentices; and development of a weaving department would
be consistent with (a) the current union agreement as limited, (b)
the "preservation of the weavers' trade," and (c) the strengthening
of the position of Lindsay and the employees in the industry. Dur-
ing the meeting, Lindsay's president stated that the transfer of 22
Aspinwall weavers to Mentor would establish the AWWPA's "rep-
resentation at Mentor." After this December meeting, Lindsay
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operated under the provisions of the December "Conditions" and
processed grievances with the weavers' Mentor shop committee.
The employer Association met with the AWWPA on January 9,
1957, but the employers decided that they could not negotiate a new
contract with the AWWPA until they had some indication of the
type of contract AWWPA was likely to sign with Appleton Wire
Works. About that time the AWWPA called a strike against
Appleton which apparently was using the multiple loom technique
at its Wisconsin plant and the loom operators process at its Alabama
plant. On April 9, 1957, the AWWPA advised Lindsay that it could
not reach a satisfactory agreement with Appleton and requested
Lindsay to negotiate a contract before it executed one with Appleton.
Meanwhile, in June 1957, an independent economist, who had been
suggested by the AWWPA and retained by the Association to exam-
ine the operations of, and the AWWPA's dispute with, Appleton,
submitted a report which convinced Lindsay officials that Appleton's
new methods were successful and desirable.
On July 22, 1957, Lindsay sent the AWWPA a letter stating, in
substance, that : A "temporary agreement" for transferring Aspinwall
weavers to Mentor had been reached in September 1956; the AWWPA
had agreed thereunder to grant to Lindsay contract rights and
privileges equivalent to those it would grant to Appleton ; since Sep-
tember 1956 industry conditions had changed drastically because
Appleton was using the multiple loom technique and was employing
loom operators; the economist's report established that Appleton's
"permitted departures from the traditional personnel required for
weaving Fourdrinier wires have been successful"; the AWWPA's
members working for Appleton were cooperating with and permitting
Appleton to gain a material competitive advantage over Lindsay;
Lindsay's temporary arrangement with the AWWPA had caused
increased problems for Lindsay; Lindsay desired to resolve those
"problems in complete cooperation with the AWWPA"; and on Sep-
tember 23, 1957, Lindsay would put into effect at Mentor different
wage rates and new job classifications for men running looms, remove
all restrictions on experimental work, depart from the "present rules
governing weavers' work," and continue the temporary setup pending
a full contract. Lindsay concluded its letter with a request for a
meeting.
The AWWPA answered this July 22 letter by suggesting a negotia-
tion meeting for September 9. Lindsay and six other members of the
employer Association met with the AWWPA on September 9, 10, and
11, with Lindsay participating with the other employers only as to
the Aspinwall plant.
Lindsay met separately with the AWWPA on September 11.
Lindsay's counsel advised that a year had passed since the AWWPA
AMERICAN WIRE WEAVERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION 983
had promised Lindsay collective-bargaining concessions equivalent
to those granted to Appleton, which was using multiple loom tech-
niques and loom operators. He stated that, starting September 23,
Lindsay wanted to use new job classifications at Mentor (loom opera-
tors, setup men, and wind-on crews), each to perform only portions
of the AWWPA weaver's traditional job. The AWWPA answered,
in substance, that it would seek to prevent Lindsay from using loom
operators at the Mentor plant. Lindsay's counsel thereupon reminded
the AWWPA of Lindsay's previous statement that it was "not going
to injure [its] present weavers and apprentices."
On September 13, 1957, the AWWPA sent Lindsay a proposed
contract and requested Lindsay to sign and return it before the 21st:
The proposal precluded the use of loom operators at Mentor and
Lindsay did not sign it. On September 18, Lindsay heard indirectly
that the AWWPA was meeting with some of the Association mem-
bers at New York City on September 20. Lindsay telegraphed the
AWWPA the next day that it could not attend the New York meet-
ing and offered to continue negotiations at some mutually convenient
time, either in group negotiations for its Aspinwall plant or sepa-
rately. On September 20, Lindsay posted at Mentor a work schedule
for September 23, providing for the same method of weaving that had
been followed since the Aspinwall weavers were transferred to Men-
tor. Apparently, it was Lindsay's intention to institute after Sep-
tember 23 the operational techniques outlined in its July 22, 1957;
letter to the Respondent, notwithstanding the earlier statement that
it would do so on that date. On September 21, 1957, the AWWPA
members went on strike, picketing at Lindsay's Aspinwall and Mentor
plants. - -
From the time Lindsay employees first started working at the
Mentor plant to the strike, a total of 12 Aspinwall weavers had been
transferred to Mentor. Before "the strike no one but a transferred
Aspinwall weaver; and therefore a member of the AWWPA, worked
on the looms at Mentor. When the strike was called, 8 AWWPA
members were working at Mentor; the other 18 or so employees at
Mentor at• that time were erecting equipment and working in the
finishing department. - -
• On September 23, 1957,-Lindsay sent notices to the eight AWWPA
weavers at Mentor reassigning them to Aspinwall. Lindsay started
operating its Mentor looms on October 21 with loom operators- who
were not AWWPA members. Under the auspices of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service, Lindsay and the AWWPA held
3 or 4 more unproductive bargaining sessions during October. By
December 16, 1957, Lindsay had six loom operators at Mentor. Three
looms were being run by employees who had worked at Mentor before
the strike in the machine shop and the finishing department; before
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the strike , Lindsay had requested the AWWPA to admit two of these
employees into its membership . The other three loom operators were
hired after the strike started. '
B. The contentions of the parties
Lindsay contends "that,' by the above-described conduct, the
AWWPA violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. The AWWPA
contends, in substance, that its conduct had but two objectives-the
preservation of existing recognition covering Mentor employees and
the acquisition of a satisfactory collective-bargaining agreement-
and that neither of these objectives is proscribed by Section 8 (b)
(4) (D).
C. The nature of the dispute; applicability of the statute
The problem for the Board in this case is to identify the funda-
mental dispute between Lindsay and the AWWPA. There is no
issue as to whether the AWWPA was to represent the weaving work-
ers at the Mentor plant.' Rather, the parties could not agree on a
collective-bargaining contract covering Mentor employees because
they could not get together on the job techniques-that is, the work
method-by which wire weaving was to be performed on the Mentor
looms . The AWWPA wanted Lindsay to install at Mentor the same
technique of operating the looms which had been used for many years
at the Aspinwall plant. Lindsay, on the other hand, desired to use
the work method involved in the introduction of its proposed new
job classifications.
Accordingly, the question posed is whether a dispute between' a
union and an employer over the method by which work is to be per-
formed constitutes. a jurisdictional dispute within. the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (4) (D). That section provides that it shall be an
unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-
(4) to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of
any employer to engage in, a strike ... where an object thereof
is: . . . (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign par-
ticular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in
a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in
another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class,
unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certifica-
tion of the Board determining the bargaining representative for
employees performing such work... .
It is unnecessary to detail the evidence establishing this fact because Lindsay has
admitted at page 35 of its brief, "It is plain that the intention was ultimately to give
the A. W. W. P. A. permanent recognition at Mentor."
AMERICAN WIRE WEAVERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION 985
Explicit in this statutory language is the concept of competition
between two distinct and separate groups of employees. This con-
cept derives directly from the traditional definition of the "jurisdic-
tional dispute" and the relevant legislative history of the Act. The
union conduct proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) is conduct having
as an object forcing or requiring an employer to assign work to one
group of employees "rather than to employees in another labor
organization or in another trade, craft, or class. . . ." The parties'
dispute in this case was, as found above, over the method of perform-
ing work on the Mentor looms. The AWWPA wanted its members
to do that work in a particular way; Lindsay wanted the same group
of employees-members of the AWWPA-to do the work by a dif-
ferent method. Up to the time the AWWPA members went on
strike, Lindsay did not propose and there was no other group of
employees competing for work on the Mentor looms. As noted above,
Lindsay intended to extend to the AWWPA permanent recognition
as the representative of the employees on the Mentor looms; this
intention indicates that no group' of employees other than AWWPA
members was even being considered for that loom work.'
Lindsay also contends that, irrespective of the nature of the dispute
which existed before October 21, 1957, when the first nonmembers of
the AWWPA started working on the Mentor looms, the AWWPA's
picketing since that- day has been in support of its demand that the
"weavers' work" be performed by the old methods and old employees
rather than by the new methods and the new employees now doing
that work and has thus become a proscribed jurisdictional dispute.
When the AWWPA started to picket in September 1957, not a
single nonmember of the AWWPA was working or had worked on
the looms. At its start, therefore, the picketing could' not have had
as an object the displacement of nonmembers of the AWWPA. 'It is
true that, after the replacement of some of the strikers, compliance
with the AWWPA's demands would inevitably have involved the
discharge of the replacements, but'this circumstance does not convert
an otherwise lawful strike into an unlawful jurisdictional strike a If
Lindsay's argument, were accepted, an employer could make any law-
7 Lindsay argues that the AWWPA's request for recognition at'Mentor was based upon
work to be performed and not upon an appropriate unit . Lindsay would have the Board
find that AWWPA's strike, assertedly in support of such a request, was for an object
proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D). We do not agree. Even if the unit of Mentor
employees which the AWWPA sought to represent is inappropriate for collective bar=
gaining under Section 9 of the Act-a matter which we do not decide-and its subsequent
strike was in support of that unit request, the AWWPA did not thereby violate Sec-
tion 8 ( b) (4) (D) of the Act. A mere demand for bargaining in an inappropriate unit
is not the equivalent of a demand for an assignment of work to one group of employees
rather than to another within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D ). Communications
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, et al. (The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph
Company ), 118 NLRB 1104.
8 Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 99, AFL, et al. ( Albers Milling
Company ), 90 NLRB 1015.
986 -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ful strike unlawful by hiring replacements for the strikers. In effect
all strikes could be outlawed at the will of the employer. There is
absolutely no evidence that. in proscribing jurisdictional strikes,
Congress so intended to limit the right to strike. Accordingly, we
reject Lindsay's contention that, whatever its nature at the start, the
strike became jurisdictional on and after October 21, 1957.
We conclude that the dispute in this case over the method of
performing particular work is not a dispute within the meaning of
Section 10 (k) and Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. Accordingly,
we shall quash the notice of hearing issued in. this proceeding.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM , dissenting:
I would not quash the notice of hearing in this case , but would find
that the instant dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion under Section 10 (k) of the Act, as there is reasonable cause to
believe that the Union had engaged in activities proscribed by Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (D ) of the Act, with an object of forcing Lindsay to
assign the weaving work at the Mentor plant to the skilled weavers
and their apprentices who are members of the Union rather than to
other less skilled employees . I would find further that the Union
is not lawfully entitled to force such work assignment by such
activities. -
It is not disputed that the Union's strike on September 21, 1957,
was precipitated by Lindsay's announcement that after September 23,
1957, it would break down the weaving operations at its Mentor plant,
heretofore performed by skilled weavers represented by the Union,
into several distinct operations , each to be performed by a relatively
unskilled classification ( loom operator, setup man, and wind -on man).
My colleagues view this as a dispute over the institution of a new
technique or method of work, rather than a dispute over the assign-
ment of work to one group of employees rather than another . I would
agree with this view if it were clear, as found by the majority, that
Lindsay proposed to use the same group of employees , i. e., the Union's
skilled weavers and their apprentices on the new operation. - I do,
not, however , so read the record . Although Lindsay indicated its
willingness to use the weavers and their apprentices in the new opera-
tion, the Union , as late as a week or so before the strike , manifested
its intention not to furnish any of its weavers or apprentices for the
new operation . Thus, on September 11, 1957, upon being advised of
Lindsay's intention to change over to loom operators at Mentor, the
Union 's counsel declared that "the weavers weren 't going to abdicate
their trade" and that the Union "would fight to its economic death to
prevent [Lindsay ] from using loom operators at [its ] Mentor plant."
I construe this as a rejection of any proposal by Lindsay that the new
PACEMAKER CORPORATION ` ' 987
categories be recruited from the ranks of the Union's weavers and
apprentices, as well as a refusal to accede to the new method of
operation. .
Apart from the Union's manifest unwillingness to cooperate in
Lindsay's plans by supplying its members to fill the new jobs, there
is another factor that militates against the likelihood that such new
jobs would be filled by the same persons or class of persons as manned
the looms before the strike, namely, the weavers and their apprentices.
It seems to me unrealistic to suppose that the weavers, highly skilled
craftsmen, steeped in craft tradition, would have lightly submitted to
downgrading to unskilled or semiskilled work at lower rates of pay.
It appears far more probable that they would, at least initially, have
resisted such downgrading by seeking other jobs 'in their craft and
would have accepted the new jobs at Mentor only as a last resort, if
at all. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that any assumption
that the new jobs would from the outset have been performed by the
same trade, craft, or class of employees as filled the old jobs is not
warranted on the present record. It is my view, therefore, that the
question in dispute was in essence not only whether Lindsay should
break down the jobs at Mentor from skilled to less skilled work, but
also whether the Mentor looms should be operated, on the one hand,
by weavers and their apprentices, or on this other hand, by such per-
sons as would be willing to work under the new conditions, who would
not necessarily be of the same class as the former, but quite likely
would be of a different class.9
' It is immaterial , in my opinion , that, in view of Lindsay 's willingness to employ
union members on the new jobs at Mentor , the new class of employees might be members
of the Union ( assuming , which seems questionable , that the Union would admit non-
craftsmen to membership ). That circumstance does not preclude a violation finding
here, since , as I read Section 8 (b) (4) (D), the dispute need only be between two
classes of employees , whether or not they are members of the same union . Nor is a
violation finding precluded by the fact that at the time of the strike the work in ques-
tion was being performed by the weavers, and the dispute related only to the future
assignment of such work to persons not yet identified. See Anning-Johnson Company,
113 NLRB 1237,1242.'
Pacemaker Corporation and International Union , United Auto=
mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW), AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-2301. May 15, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 28, 1957, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Intermedi-
ate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
120 NLRB No. 133.