Cadillac Wire Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 1002 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
service of the first amended charges, and shall extend to all Respondents , including
Petersen , such moneys thereafter collected until abandonment by Respondent Unions
and Respondent Associations , its members , and the individual Employer Respondents
herein, of the unlawful hiring practices.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The respective members of the Respondent Associations and the individual
Employer Respondents herein are, and each of them is, engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Unions are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining and enforcing a collective -bargaining contract containing an
illegal hiring-hall arrangement , the Respondent Associations , their respective mem-
bers, and the individual Employer Respondents herein , have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Respondent Associations, their respective
members, and the individual Employer Respondents herein , have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. By maintaining and enforcing a collective -bargaining contract containing an
illegal hiring-hall arrangement , the Respondent Unions have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
6. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Respondent Unions have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Cadillac Wire Corp . and Epifnio Mandry and Steel , Metals,
Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen Local
810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America
Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Ware-
housemen Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Epifnio Mandry and Cadillac Wire Corp ., Party to the
Contract
Cadillac Wire Corp . and Jose A . Mandry and Steel , Metals,
Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen Local
810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America
Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Ware-
housemen Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Jose
A. Mandry and Cadillac Wire Corp ., Party to the Contract.
Cases Nos. 2-CA-6577, 2-CB-2583, 2-CA-6578, and 2-CB-2584.
August 26, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 27, 1959, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
128 NLRB No. 128.
CADILLAC WIRE CORP. 1003
Respondents had not engaged in and were not engaging in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a sup-
porting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and finds merit in certain of the General Counsel's exceptions.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent here-
with.
Since 1957, the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union
have been parties to a collective-bargaining agreement containing,
inter alia, a union-security clause 1 and an exclusive hiring hall pro-
vision. On or about October 10, 1958, the parties executed a modifica-
tion to their agreement,2 conforming the hiring hall provisions of the
contract to the requirements of the Mountain Pacific case.'
Because the Company's plant, in Yonkers, New York, is not readily
accessible by public transportation, the Union has been unable to refer
many applicants, pursuant to the agreement, from its Manhattan
hiring hall. Thus, of the 100 or so employees hired during the past
21/2 to 3 years, only two were referred to their jobs by the Union
through its hiring hall.'
1 "Txinn : As a condition of employment , all employees in the bargaining unit must
become members of the Union on the 30th day following the beginning of their employ-
ment or the effective date of the within agreement , whichever is later, and must there-
after maintain their membership in good standing as a condition of continued employment."
2 "FoonTH : The Employer will notify the Union by telephone confirmed in writing by
letter to be mailed the same day , of all requirements for newGhelp . The Union agrees to
furnish applicants , whenever possible , through its hiring hall , which is maintained for
both members of the Union and nonmembers of the Union at its offices at 75 East 13th
Street, New York 3, N.Y. The Employer retains the right to reject any job applicant
referred by the Union . This provision is not to be deemed or interpreted to be a require-
ment for a closed shop , as the hiring hall maintained by the Union as aforesaid is avail-
able to both Union and non -union applicants for jobs, and selection of applicants for
referral to jobs is on a non-discriminatory basis and is not based upon, or in any way
affected by Union membership , By-laws, regulations , constitutional provisions or any
other aspect or obligation of Union membership , policies or requirements.
"All newly-hired help shall obtain a referral card from the Union, and such referral
card . shall be issued without regard to membership or non-membership in the Union and
are issued only for the purpose of appropriate record-keeping and bookkeeping by the
Union.
"The parties agree that a copy of this paragraph shall be posted in places where
notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily posted in the
Employer's place of business , and a similar copy will be posted in the hiring hall main-
tained by the Union as aforesaid."
s Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, et al, 119 NLRB 883,
remanded 270 F. 2d 429 (C.A. 9).
* There is no evidence that any of the employees hired directly by the Company were
ever required to obtain a referral card from the Union.
1 004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When new help is needed, Peter Aiello, the Company's general
manager, requests the employees to bring in a relative or friend who
might desire employment at the plant. The hiring procedure is as
follows : Aiello inquiries as to the applicant's qualifications and dis-
cusses rates of pay.' He then informs the applicant of the union-shop
provisions of the contract and tells him that, if he is not already a
member of the Union, he will eventually have to join. He informs
the applicant of the Company's regular practice, which is to deduct
$6.50 in the second week from a new man's wages, $6.50 in the third
week, and $12 in the fourth week, thus completing the $25 initiation
fee required by the Union. In the fifth week, $8 is deducted, to pay
the first and second months' dues (at $4 per month).
Aiello then hands the applicant a W-2 (Federal income tax) form
together with a card which constitutes both an application for union
membership and a dues-checkoff authorization card, and he instructs
the applicant, who by this time has been hired, to see Clem Santoro,
the union steward .6 Santoro again explains the union obligations to
the new employee,? including the Company's "regular practice" of
deductions. He also tells the new man that he need not sign the union
'card immediately, that he has a day or two to read and understand
it before he must turn it in.8 It is uncontradicted that, within the
first 2 days of his employment, every new employee signs the union
card and returns it, along with the W-2 forms, to Santoro, who then
turns the cards over to the Company's bookkeeper. Thereafter,
moneys are deducted pursuant to the Company's "regular practice"
and are sent promptly to the Union.
The General Counsel contends that : (1) the hiring hall provision
,does not satisfy the requirements of Mountain Pacific because the
parties failed to post the required notices; s (2) the second paragraph
8 As most of the applicants are Puerto Rican , Aiello conducts many of the interviews
through an interpreter.
6 The General Counsel has excepted to the Trial Examiner 's finding that Santoro is not
a supervisor . Santoro, as union steward , is an agent of the Union . Further the entire
procedure , from the hiring of the employee by Aiello to the employee 's execution of the
union card at Santoro 's urging, results from a common plan between the Company and
-the Union . Accordingly , we find that a determination of Santoro 's alleged supervisory
status is unnecessary to our decision herein.
7 Like Aiello , Santoro often speaks to the new employees through an interpreter
8 Santoro testified that he told the new employees , "You can hold it [the union
membership -dues checkoff authorization card] for the next day . Try to make sure you
understand the card you sign."
9 "we believe , however, that the inherent and unlawful encouragement of union mem-
bership that stems from unfettered union control over the hiring process would be negated,
and we would find an agreement to be nondiscriminatory on its face , only if the agree-
ment explicitly provided that :
`(2) . . .
"(3) The parties to the agreement post in places where notices to employees and
applicants for employment are customarily posted, all provisions relating to the func-
tioning of the hiring arrangement, including the safeguards that we deem essential
to the legality of an exclusive hiring arrangement "
Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, et al., 119 NLRB
-883, 897.
CADILLAC WIRE CORP. 1005,
of the hiring hall modification essentially gives the Union a "veto
power" over the employment of employees already hired by the Com-
pany, in violation of Pacific Intermountain Express Company; to
and (3) the oral arrangement between the Company and the Union
constitutes illegal assistance and coercion because new employees are
forced to join the Union within 30 days of starting work. The Trial
Examiner found against the General Counsel on all points and
recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. The.
General Counsel has excepted.
(1) Mountain Pacific requires that the hiring hall provisions of a
collective-bargaining contract be posted as a condition precedent to.
its validity." The General Counsel contends that there is no probative
evidence that the parties ever posted the required notices. Both
Joseph Russo, the Company's president, and Milton Silverman,,
former president of the Union, testified that the parties had posted
copies of the modification set forth in footnote 2, supra. In the
absence of contradictory evidence, we find, contrary to the General
Counsel's contention, that the parties to the exclusive hiring agree-
ment posted the required notices.
(2) We further find, contrary to the General Counsel's contention,
that the referral clause of the exclusive hiring hall agreement 12 does
not, of itself,13 constitute an unlawful delegation of hiring control to.
the Union. The clause explicitly requires the Union to furnish a
referral card to newly hired help without regard to union member--
ship. We find that it does not, by its terms, place the employment
status of employees already hired by the Company under the control
of the Union.14
(3) We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Aiello's conduct
in informing each newly hired employee of the union-shop provisions
of the contract, explaining the Company's regular practice of deduc-
tions, furnishing him with a union membership-dues-checkoff author-
ization card, and then sending him to Santoro for a further discussion
of "Union obligations," all as a routine part of the hiring process,.
constituted assistance to the Union in violation of Section 8(a) (2)
and (1) of the Act.15 We further find that all the participants in the-
hiring process, particularly the applicants, understood that the sub-
10 Pacific Intermountain Express Company , 107 NLRB 837, enfd. as modified sub nom.
N.L.R B. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al., 225 F . 2d 343 (C.A. 8).
11 See footnote 9, supra
12 "All newly-hired help shall obtain a referral card from the Union , and such referral
card shall be issued without regard to membership or non-membership in the Union and-
are issued only for the purpose of appropriate record-keeping and bookkeeping by the-
Union."
13 No evidence was presented of any practice deviating from the requirements of this-
clause.
14 Cf Pacific Intermountain Express Company , supra; Imparato Stevedoring Corporation,_
113 NLRB 883 , enfd. 250 F . 2d 297 (C.A. 3).
15 See Alaska Salmon Industry , Inc., at al ., 122 NLRB 1552.
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stantially immediate execution of a union card was one of the condi-
tions of employment. In so finding, we are cognizant not only of
the complete success achieved by the parties in obtaining signatures
almost immediately from the unsophisticated employees, many of
whom spoke little or no English, but also of Union Steward Santoro's
admission that he told the new employees that they had a day or two
following their hire to sign the union card. Such a practice negates
any inference of voluntariness on the part of the employees. As the
hiring arrangement in practice required new employees to join the
Union prior to the expiration of the 30-day statutory period, we find
that the Respondents, parties to the practice, thereby violated Section
8(a) (3), (2), and (1) and 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act,
respectively.16
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent Company, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in and are engag-
ing in certain unfair labor practices, we shall require them to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the Respondent
Company unlawfully assisted the Respondent Union in obtaining
employee signatures to union membership-dues-checkoff authoriza-
tions, and that the Respondent Company and Respondent Union are
engaging in an unlawful practice whereby employees have been and
are being required to join the Union and pay dues sooner than they
may lawfully be required to do. As the unlawful assistance rendered
by the Company is not tantamount to domination'17 and as the extent
of the discrimination against employees is the amount that they were
forced to pay in dues for the first month of their employment, we
shall only order the Respondents, jointly and severally, to reimburse
the first month's dues to all employees hired from 6 months prior to the
filing of the charges herein. We shall also direct that any membership-
dues-checkoff authorizations unlawfully obtained from employees
prior to the 30-day statutory period are not to be honored in the future.
The record also shows that, during the first month of each employee's
employment, the Respondent Company deducted, in three install-
ments, the $25 initiation fee required by the Respondent Union, and
19 See Midwest Transfer Company of Illinois , 125 NLRB 84.
17 Cf. Vsrginia Electric and Power Company v . N.L.R.B., 319 U . S. 533.
CADILLAC WIRE CORP. 1007
forwarded such moneys to the Union. As all employees- would have to
have paid such fees pursuant to the lawful union-security clause, we
shall not order the Respondents to reimburse the aforementioned
employees for such initiation fees. However, if there be any em-
ployees who, during the applicable period, paid these initiation fees
but worked less than 30 days; the Respondents shall jointly and
severally reimburse such employees for the initiation fees so deducted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Cadillac Wire Corp. is engaged in commerce within the meaning
,of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehouse-
men Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By its practice of informing newly hired employees of the union-
shop provisions of the contract, explaining the Company's regular
practice of deductions, furnishing new employees with union cards,
and then sending these employees to the union representative, thereby
assisting the Union, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is
-engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
4. By jointly engaging in a practice whereby new employees were
required to execute union membership-dues-checkoff authorization
cards prior to the expiration of the statutory 30-day period, the
Respondent Company and the Respondent Union have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
,Section 8(a) (3), (2), and (1) and 8(b) (2) and (1) (A), respectively.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. The Respondent, Cadillac Wire Corp., Yonkers, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Contributing support to Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware
Fabricators and Warehousemen Local 810, International Brotherhood
,of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
^or any other labor organization, by its practice of informing newly
hired employees of the union-shop provisions of the contract, explain-
ing the Company's regular practice of deductions, furnishing new
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees with union cards, and then sending them to see the union
representative.
(b) Requiring newly hired employees to execute membership-dues-
checkoff authorization cards for the aforementioned Union, or any
other labor organization, prior to the expiration of the 30-day grace
period provided for in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(c) Checking off union dues for employees pursuant to member-
ship-dues-checkoff authorizations unlawfully obtained from employees
prior to the 30-day statutory period.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the aforesaid Union,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other 'mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain
from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Union, reimburse
all employees for moneys illegally exacted from them, in the manner
and to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, time cards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to determine the amount of the moneys
illegally exacted from the employees involved.
(c) Post at its plant in Yonkers, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A."'$ Copies of such notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by its authorized representative, be posted by the
Respondent Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
18 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
CADILLAC WIRE CORP. 1009
(d) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set
forth in (c), above, and a's soon as they are forwarded by the Regional
Director, copies of the Respondent Union's notice herein marked
"Appendix B."
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respond-
ent Company has taken to comply therewith.
B. The Respondent, Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabri-
cators and Warehousemen Local 810, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its
officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent Company to
discriminate against newly hired employees by requiring them to
execute membership-dues-checkoff authorizations cards for the above-
named Union, or any other labor organization, prior to the expiration
of the 30-day grace period provided for in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Company, reimburse
all employees for moneys illegally exacted from them, in the manner
and to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all membership, dues, and
other records necessary to compute the moneys illegally exacted from
the employees involved.
(c) Post at its offices, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members and applicants for employment are custo-
marily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix
B." 19 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent
Union's respresentative, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by Respondent Union for 60 consecutive days there-
after. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure
19 See footnote 18.
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director signed copies of Appendix B
for posting by Respondent Company, at its Yonkers, New York, plant,
as provided above. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the said
Regional Director, shall, after being signed by Respondent Union's
representative, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for
disposition by him.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken
to comply herewith.
MEMBERS RODGERS and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT contribute support to Steels, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen Local 810, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or to any other labor organization, by our
practice of informing newly hired employees of the union-shop
provisions of our contract with the Union, explaining our regular
practice of deductions, furnishing new employees with union
cards, and then sending them to see the union representative.
WE WILL NOT require newly hired employees to execute member-
ship-dues-checkoff authorization cards for the aforementioned
Union, or any other labor organization, prior to the expiration
of the 30-day grace period provided for in Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT check off union dues for employees pursuant to
membership-dues-checkoff authorizations unlawfully obtained
from employees prior to the 30-day statutory period.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
aforementioned Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
CADILLAC WIRE CORP. 1011
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any and all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL jointly and severally with the aforementioned Union
reimburse our employees for moneys illegally exacted from them.
All our employees are free to become, to remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of the above-named labor organiza-
tion or any other labor organization.
CADILLAC WIRE CORP.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF STEEL, METALS, ALLOYS AND HARDWARE
FABRICATORS AND WAREHOUSEMEN LOCAL 810, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CADILLAC WIRE
CORP., YONKERS, NEW YORK
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Cadillac Wire Corp.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, to discriminate against
newly hired employees by requiring them to execute membership-
dues-checkoff authorization cards for us, or for any other labor
organization, prior to the expiration of the 30-day grace period
provided for in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL jointly and severally with the above-named Company
reimburse the employees of Cadillac Wire Corp. for moneys il-
legally exacted from them.
STEEL, METALS, ALLOTS AND HARDWARE FABRI-
CATORS AND WAREHOUSEMEN LOCAL 810, IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 21, 1959, the General Counsel of the Board, on behalf of the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Second Region, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C. Section 151,
et seq. (herein called the Act), issued an amended consolidated complaint and notice
of hearing. The amended consolidated complaint was based upon charges filed by
Epifnio Mandry in Cases Nos. 2-CA-6577 and 2-CB-2583; and charges filed by
Jose A. Mandry, in Cases Nos. 2-CA-6578 and 2-CB-2584.1
The amended consolidated complaint (hereinafter referred to as the complaint),
alleges that Respondent Union, Local 810, by certain acts and agreements violated
Section 8(a)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) and the Respondent Company violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. Briefly the alleged violations as alleged are these:
Since 6 months prior to the filing of service of the charges, the Respondent Com-
pany, Cadillac Wire Corp., hereinafter sometimes called the Company, and the
Respondent Union, hereinafter sometimes called Local 810 or the Union, have
maintained in effect and in force a written collective-bargaining agreement relating
to the hire, tenure, and terms of conditions of employment of the Company's em-
ployees; that under that agreement the Company is required to secure its employees
exclusively from and through a referral system operated solely by the Union, and
that employees newly engaged by the Company are required to obtain a work
card and clearance from the Union prior to commencement of work; that this
agreement fails to incorporate, and the Company and the Union have failed to
put into effect, lawful standards or criteria for preference in referrals in employ-
ment, and that the agreement fails to incorporate explicit provisions respecting the
right of the Company to reject individuals referred pursuant to such agreement, or
provisions respecting the posting of notices relating to the functioning of the referral
provisions. The complaint alleges further that in addition to the written agreement
referred to above, the Company and the Union have engaged in a practice with
each other relating to hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of employment
by the Company of employees, under which newly hired employees, at the time
of their hire, have been required as a condition of employment to execute
written applications for membership in the Union and authorizations to the Com-
pany to deduct from the employees' wages, dues, initiation fees, and assessments
to be paid to the Union; that newly hired employees had been required as a con-
dition of employment to pay initiation fees and dues commencing within the second
week of employment with the Company, and that pursuant to this agreement, arrange-
ment, understanding, and practice the Union has required the Company to check
off initiation fees and dues from the wages of its employees, and transmit the same
to the Union, and the Company has done so.
1 The charge in Case No. 6578 and the charge in Case No. 6577 were filed May 1, 1959,
and served the same day. The charge in Case No. 2583 was filed June 9 and the charge
in Case No. 2584 was filed the same day. Each was served on June 11, 1959.
CADILLAC WIRE CORP. 1 0 1 3
The Union and the Company, by counsel, each filed timely answer to the com-
plaint, the answer effectively denying the substantive violations of the Act as
alleged in the complaint.
On the issues raised by the complaint and answers and pursuant to notice, a
hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner at New York, New
York, sessions being held on September 8, 9, 10, and 15, 1959. At the hearing, all
parties appeared and each was represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence bearing on
the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law and briefs, was afforded each party. Motions to dismiss the
complaint are disposed of by the findings set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, from his observation of the witnesses, and
after careful consideration, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
Cadillac Wire Corp. has been and now is a corporation with its principal office and
place of business at 131 Saw Mill River Road, in the city of Yonkers, State of New
York, and is now and has been continuously engaged in at its plant and place of
business in Yonkers in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of wire products and
related products.
During the year 1958, the Company, in the course and conduct of its business
operation, caused to be manufactured at its Yonkers plant and to be shipped from
that plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other than
the State of New York, products valued at in excess of $50,000.
The Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and warehousemen of Local 810,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL LABOR PRACTICES
A. Hiring of new employees
New employees generally are interviewed and hired by Peter Joseph Aiello,
general manager. At the interview, Aiello inquires as to their qualifications, dis-
cusses rates of pay, and informs them that the Union is the representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit and that there is a requirement that new employees,
if not already a member of the Union, must eventually pay an initiation fee. During
the times material hereto, it has been the regular practice of the Company for it
for the second, third, and fourth weeks of employment to deduct partial amounts
to make up a sum equal to the $25 initiation fee. The customary practice of the
Company has been as follows: to take off $6.50 from the wages of a new man the
second week, $6.50 the third week, and $12 the fourth week, thus completing the
initiation fee, and $8 the next week in order to take care of the first month's dues
and the second and the current month's dues.
It has been the practice of Aiello at the time of hiring to discuss the payment of
union dues. At the time of the interview, a new employee is handed a card which
constitutes an application for membership in the Union. According to Aiello:
When I interview them, I give them a card, I don 't pick up the card. The
shop steward picks up the card , I think, the same day they sign it voluntarily.
That makes it automatically that they want to join the Union.
At the time of this first interview , according to Aiello, he also hands new em-
ployees a Federal tax deduction form W-2, and at the same time instructs the man to
see the shop steward. Upon direct examination , Aiello said in response to a ques-
tion as to whether an employee had not signed a union application card on the
first day or so of employment:
To my knowledge , they all sign it. I want to bring out a point here. When I
hire sometimes I can't get them through the Union , I usually go around the
577684-61-vol. 128-65
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shop asking who has anybody to bring in. Usually a union member brings in
his cousin , a relative , or a friend . In this case, I don't know, it might be a
relative or a friend. It is explained to them it is a union shop, and when I
interview them they sign the card.
From the testimony of Aiello, it appears that during the past 21/z to 3 years some
100 employees have been employed from time to time, although the normal com-
plement of help is somewhere in excess of 40; that very few of the new employees
hired were hired through the Union, but that most of them were hired directly
from the outside and not through requests made by or from the Union. It appears
therefore that the Company checks off the first month' s dues, the first day of his
employment up until the next month's dues become due.
The procedure with respect to the hiring of new men is substantially supported
by the testimony of Clem Santoro, the union steward. According to him, after
either Aiello or Russo had talked to new employees, he was called in and introduced
to the new men, after which time he instructed the men according to their union
obligations; that there was a trial period of 30 days; that they would have their
union dues deducted out of their pay in three parts and that their initiation fee
would also be deducted within the first month of employment. It seems clear
enough from his testimony that the new men were instructed by him that dues
and initiation fees all would be deducted from their pay during the second, third,
and fourth weeks of their employment-$6.50 the second week, $6.50 the third
week, and $12 the fourth week. The Company concedes that the funds checked
off for initiation fees and dues were transmitted by the Company to the Union
within a very short time after being received-counsel for Local 810 did not so
concede. Santoro, to whom Aiello was accustomed to deliver union authorization
cards, W-2 forms, and the like, works in the shipping room under the direct super-
vision of President Russo. Santoro has not supervised anyone else in connection
with the loading, packing, or shipping of material except that a group of men may
be assigned to him by Russo for packing. Another leadman, according to Russo,
also works upstairs and Russo may, at times, assign a group of men to him. This
leadman, San Geistenstach, and Santoro each receives direct instructions from Russo
and does not have the right to hire, fire, or effectively recommend such hiring and
firing. It would appear, therefore, contrary to the contention of the General
Counsel, that Santoro, the union steward, is not, nor during the times material
hereto, was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Santoro testified that he
worked with varying groups of men, various sized groups of men-from 6 to 12-
that he has recommended promotions, that he has issued reprimands, that his pay
is $92 a week as against $69, $70, and $72 paid to other men working in the groups
referred to; and that he can arrange for overtime work without the consent of Russo.
B. The collective-bargaining agreement, the modification thereto, and the notice
The Union and the Company entered into a collective-bargaining agreement on
or about October 1, 1957, to run for a period of 2 years from that date through
September 30, 1959. This contract comprehensively covered hours, wages, working
conditions, and other terms and conditions of employment. This agreement pro-
vided in part:
FouRTH: The Employer will notify the Union by telephone confirmed in
writing by,a letter to be mailed the same day, of all requirements for new help,
and the Union agrees to furnish such help whenever possible, through its hiring
hall, which is maintained for both members of the Union and non-members
of the Union, at its offices at 75 East 13th Street, New York, N.Y., if the Union
fails to supply the required help within two working days after the request is
made, the Employer may hire such help from any source it may deem ap-
propriate. If such hiring is made through an agency which charges a fee for
its services, a new employee shall not be required to pay more than $10 for
the agency's services. Any fee in excess of $10 is to be paid by the Employer
All newly hired help shall obtain a work card from the Union before com-
mencing work, and work cards shall be issued without regard to membership
or non-membership in the Union At least once each week the Employer will
forward to the Union the names, classifications and rates of all newly hired
employees. This provision shall not be deemed or interpreted to be a require-
ment for a closed shop, as the hiring hall maintained by the Union is available
to both union and non-union applicants for jobs and is operated in a non-
discriminatory manner.
CADILLAC WIRE CORP. 1015
Prior to the expiration of that agreement the parties, on October 10, 1958, modified
in writing the paragraph "Fourth," quoted immediately above, as follows:
Paragraph "Fourth" is deleted and in its place there is substituted the follow-
ing provision: "FOURTH: The Employer will notify the Union by telephone
confirmed in writing by letter to be mailed on the same day, of all require-
ments for new help. The Union agrees to furnish applicants, whenever pos-
sible, through its hiring hall which is maintained for both members of the
Union and non-members of the Union at its offices at 75 East 13th Street, New
York 3, N.Y. The Employer retains the right to reject any job applicant
referred by the Union. This provision is not to be deemed or interpreted to
be a requirement for a closed shop, as the hiring hall maintained by the Union
as aforesaid is available to both union and non-union applicants for jobs, and
selection of applicants for referral to jobs is on a non-discriminatory basis and
is not based upon, or in any way affected by union membership, By-Laws,
regulations, constitutional provisions or any other aspects or obligation of
union membership, policies or requirements.
All newly hired help shall obtain a referral card from the Union, and such
referral cards shall be issued without regard to membership or non-membership
in the Union and are issued only for the purpose of appropriate record-keeping
and bookkeeping by the Union.
The parties agree that a copy of this paragraph shall be posted in places
where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily
posted in the Employer's place of business, and a similar copy will be posted
in the hiring hall maintained by the Union as aforesaid."
A copy of the modification of paragraph "Fourth" was posted on a bulletin board
at the Company's place of business and at the union hall, the notice itself being
written on the letterhead of Local 810. The notice so posted is headed "NOTICE"
and on the second line is the heading "Union Hiring Hall Provisions." After the
body of the notice appears the words "Please post and keep posted at all times." 2
According to the testimony of Joseph Anthony Russo, president of the Company,
the modification was handed to him at his office by Milton Leonard, a union repre-
sentative; Russo said he discussed it with one or more of his associates and a day
or two later delivered the Company's signed modification of the agreement to Milton
Silverman, a representative and former president of Local 810.
The General Counsel contends that by the very provisions of the collective
agreement of 1957-September 1959 and the modification of October 10, 1958,
both the Company and the Union were in violation of the Act. In other words,
General Counsel contends that each one of those documents shows an illegal hiring
hall arrangement. Further, that because a new employee is placed in the position
of having to obtain a referral card, and if he says he doesn't want to, the Union
has the right to tell the employer not to hire such a person because he has no
referral card.
The Company takes the position that there has been a total failure of proof in
support of the Government's case to show that any such compulsion as charged by
the General Counsel with respect to employees being required as a condition of
employment to execute or sign anything or being required as a condition of employ-
ment to pay fees and dues commencing with the second week of employment, or
that the Company has been required by the Union to check off fees and dues during
any particular time. It is argued on behalf of the Company that if a new employee
decided to join the Union, and despite the fact that fees and dues were checked off
after such decision, no inference can be drawn as to any compulsion by the Company
or by the Union; that mere fact in itself could not be the basis of an inference of
compulsion, but that it would be pure assumption, guesswork, and speculation.
In connection with the element of compulsion, as argued by the General Counsel,
he says that new employees, according to the testimony given by the Company's
general manager and by the Union's shop steward, were given no chance to refuse
to join the Union at the time they were employed and for over a period of 3 years
without exception, some 100 employees are shown to have gone through a routine
which gave them no way out to refuse to join the Union at once, or to sign a union
application card in order to get the job; it is argued further that there was no way
of escape within the statutory 30-day period for a new employee to avoid payment
of the initiation fee and 2 months' dues (including the first 30 days of employment),
At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel claimed surprise upon the produc-
tion of the modification of paragraph "Fourth" dated, as noted above, October 10, 1958.
He did not concede the posting of the notice.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
without indicating his desire to join the Union. It further is argued that although the
agreement provides that, under safeguards, the employer turned first to the Union
for referrals, nevertheless, as a practical proposition, according to the testimony, in-
stead of the Union furnishing the men in the first place, the man came first and
under the contract he had to get to the referral card-ergo, that is where the element
of compulsion comes in.
Counsel for each party has argued as to whether or not an inference can be drawn
either way as to the failure of the General Counsel to call the two Charging Parties,
Epifnio and Jose Mandry. It was argued on behalf of the General Counsel that no
inference damaging to his case can be drawn since the record as a whole adequately
demonstrates that both the Union and the Company were in violation of the Act by
virtue of the very existence of the contract, and further on the basis of the testimony
regarding the compulsion placed upon new employees to pay initiation fees and dues.
On the other side, it is pointed out that the charges were filed by one Charging Party
on May 1, 1959, and by the other on June 9, the basis of the charges being that
from on or about March 12, 1959, to on or about April 23, the above-named
Employer deducted union initiation fees and union dues from their pay in the amounts
of $25 and $8, respectively, and notwithstanding the fact that the Charging Parties
had been employed less than 30 days when the initial sum of $12.50 was withheld
from their pay, and notwithstanding the fact that the Charging Parties at no time
signed checkoff cards authorizing the Employer to deduct union and initiation fees
and dues from their wages; that in fact one of the Charging Parties had executed an
application for membership in the Union on March 3 and the other on March 13.3
It is argued therefore that these men were voluntary members of the Union at the
time each of them signed the charges and that although they were in the courtroom
at the time of the hearing herein, they were deliberately not called to testify because
it was apparent on the record itself that their credibility would be impaired and the
facts against them would disclose that they had authorized their dues and initiation
fees to be checked off at or within a short time after they signed the applications
for union membership; that the inference is that had they testified that they were
compelled to sign application-for-membership cards and that they were forced into
it and that they could not get a job until they did so and the further fact that they
were not called, imposes a clear presumption that they could not have so testified
had they assumed the stand.
It is argued on behalf of Local 810 that the collective-agreement entered into
October 1, 1947, as modified on October 10, 1958, at all times was proper and not
violative of the law in the light of the decision of the Board in Mountain Pacific
Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, Inc., et al., 119 NLRB 883. It is said
on behalf of the Union that subsequent to the time this case was decided in 1958, the
General Counsel deferred enforcement in particular cases, and extended the time
in which all unions and employers were given to comply with the criteria laid down
in that case, such moratorium extending from February to June and then to November
1958.4 Further, it is argued that the modification of the collective agreement between
the Union and the Company of October 10, 1958, during this amnesty period, was
proper and corrected any inherent infirmity contained in paragraph "Fourth" of the
original agreement. Thus, it is said, the General Counsel, on the facts adduced at
hearing, has wholly failed to prove a prima facie case.
C. The written agreement and its validity
The complaint herein, referring to the agreement entered into October 1, 1947,
alleges in substance that it fails to incorporate and Respondent Company and Re-
spondent Union have failed to put into effect, lawful standards or criteria for pref-
erence in referrals for employment, and fails to incorporate explicit provisions
respecting the right of the Company to reject individuals referred pursuant to such
agreement, and respecting the posting of notices containing all provisions relating
to the functioning of the exclusive referral provisions.
However, as shown above, the parties did enter into an agreement dated October
10, 1958, amending paragraph "Fourth" of the original agreement which, the Trial
Examiner finds, was violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and 8(a)(3) of the
Act, until so amended.
The decision and order of the Board in Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated
General Contractors, Inc., supra, remanded N.L.R.B. v. Mountain Pacific Chapter
etc. (C.A. 9) for further consideration 270 F. 2d 425, is definitive here on the ques-
8 The union application card signed by each of these men authorized the checkoff of
union dues and initiation fees.
A Statements of the General Counsel, 43 LRRM 40, 43 LRRM 63, 66.
CADILLAC WIRE CORP. 1017
tion of whether or not, notwithstanding the illegality of the provisions of the October
1, 1957, contract, the Respondents were in conformance with the Mountain Pacific
standards after October 10, 1958.
The Mountain Pacific decision stated that an arrangement under which an employer
agrees to hire all of its employees through a union violates the Act, unless the
arrangement includes certain provisions (safeguards) which obviate the unlawful
encouragement of union membership otherwise inherent therein. The Board did
not in Mountain Pacific change the principle that an exclusive hiring arrangement
constitutes discrimination which unlawfully encourages union membership within
the meaning of the Act. The Board there adhered to its prior holding that an em-
ployer engaged in discrimination which encourages union membership, within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (3), by entering into an exclusive hiring arrangement binding
the employer to hire only men referred by the union and prohibiting him from
hiring men not preferred by the union; that such a provision is illegal on its face,
without regard to the practices under it because by its terms it causes the employer
to discriminate in hiring between employees with union work permits and those
who do not have such permits and that this dicrimination encourages union member-
ship. The Board further affirmed the principle that a union which is a party to
such an agreement violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2). E.g., N.L.R.B. v. United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 517,
AFL (Gil Wyner Construction Co.), 230 F. 2d 256-258 (C.A. 1); N.L.RB. v.
Gottfried Baking Co., Inc., et al., 210 F. 2d 772, 777-780 (C.A. 2). The provisions
constituting an arrangement which would it is thought negate the unlawful encour-
agement of union membership, as intended in Mountain Pacific, is summarized in
the concurring opinion of Member Jenkins in Local 363, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc. (Anchor Welding & Manufacturing Com-
pany et al.), 123 NLRB 1877:
First, the selection of applicants for referral to jobs must be on a nondis-
criminatory basis, and not based upon, or affected by, union membership,
bylaws, rules, regulations, constitutional provisions, or any other aspect of
obligation of membership, policies, or requirements. Second, the employer
retains the right to reject any applicant referred by the Union. And third, the
parties to the agreement must post at customary places all provisions relating
to the functioning of the hiring arrangement, including the safeguards deemed
essential to the legality of an exclusive hiring arrangement.
Following this summary, in his concurring opinion, Member Jenkins goes on to
explain what is required by each one of the three safeguards he summarized. The
Board issued its order, together with a dissenting opinion by Member Murdock, in
Mountain Pacific, on September 14, 1957. Thereafter the Board issued its decision
in that case. Almost immediately after the Board's Decision and Order (March 27,
1958), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board announced or
suggested that suitable time should be given unions and employers to conform to
the principle enunciated and be given a reasonable time to correct any agreement
or arrangement which did not conform to the safeguards set out in Mountain Pacific.
Thereafter, the General Counsel announced a moratorium until September 30, 1958,
in pending cases wherein it might have been charged that employers and unions that
engaged in unfair labor practices by virtue of illegal hiring hall arrangements con-
tained in collective agreements; subsequently, he announced an extension of that
policy to November 1, provided, however, that parties to such illegal contracts on
or about September 30 were engaged in negotiations looking forward to putting into
effect the safeguards laid down in Mountain Pacific. Footnote 4, supra.
The Respondents herein contend, and the Trial Examiner agrees, that the amend-
ment to the collective-bargaining agreement made October 10, 1958, met the require-
ments laid down in Mountain Pacific. Consequently, the Trial Examiner finds that
the Respondents, insofar as the "hiring-hall" provisions between them is concerned,
were in compliance after the date of the amendment to the original collective agree-
ment. The first charge hearing on this issue, having been filed on May 1, 1959, the
6 months' limitation of Section 10(b) of the Act is applicable, so that, notwithstand-
ing settled law to the effect that the existence of an unlawful contract is sufficient in
and of itself to establish the element of coercion in the payment of moneys pursuant
to the requirements of such a contract, no violation herein can be found within the
6-month period prior to the filing of the first or any other charge.
D. The oral agreement , arrangement, or understanding with respect to hiring
practices; wage deductions
It was customary, after the formation of the Respondent Company some 3 years
ago, and after the making of the collective agreement by the Union and the Company
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on October 1, 1957, for either General Manager Aiello or President Russo to hire
new employees after an interview. It appears that only two or three new employees
during these terms were referred by the Union to the Company, and that company
representatives generally hired new employees at the plant. The record shows fur-
ther that most of the employees were Spanish-speaking persons and many of them
traveled to and from work in automobile pools, because the plant is situated in a
rather remote part of Yonkers, New York. One question to be determined here
is whether, upon hiring, when a new employee signed a union application or
authorization card and agreed to the deduction of dues prior to the 30-day statutory
union shop, he did so as a volunteer and that he knew what he was doing, or whether
there was an implied compulsion in the sense that he was instructed that he must
join the Union and pay initiation fees and dues before the expiration of the 30-day
period provided by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
The General Counsel takes the position that the collective agreement as amended
does not meet the requirements of the Act or the principles set out in Mountain
Pacific, supra, and Pacific Intermountain Express Co., 107 NLRB 837, and therefore
the mere existence of the contract itself and particularly its requirement for the
new employee to obtain a referral card is enough to show that the oral agreement,
arrangement, or understanding-the hiring practices at the plant-and the practice
or custom engaged in in hiring, must necessarily result in a finding of unfair labor
practices in this respect.5
That the mere existence of these provisions in the agreement as amended on
October 10, 1958, is sufficient to show illegal hiring practices is not correct if, as
found above, the collective agreement was valid on its face after October 10. It
is the view of the Trial Examiner that something more must be shown to prove
that the Employer, acting in concert with the Union, engaged in unlawful practices
in that possibly the Employer instructed, solicited, or told new employees they must
join the Union at the time of their employment. No inference can be drawn, assum-
ing the validity of the collective agreement after October 10, that there was a per se
violation merely because of the existence of the amended agreement. A more serious
question arises with respect as to actually what did occur at the time a new employee
was hired. The Trial Examiner has set out at some length above what Aiello told
these people at the time he hired them and also what Santoro, the shop steward,
told new employees after they had been turned over to him. Whether an inference
may be drawn that employees at the time of their hiring were misled, or were
compelled or instructed to join the Union, on the factual record, is doubtful. Not
a single employee was called to testify in this respect: whether he or she voluntarily
signed a union application card at the time of his or her employment, what instruc-
tions were given by Aiello or Russo regarding his or her obligation to join the
Union, or any other element which might provide a basis for a finding of fact in this
respect.
Obviously if a finding were made on the basis of real fact or a right of correct
inference, then the question would naturally arise regarding the legality of the method
of payment of initiation fees and dues by new employees in the manner set forth
above; that is, payroll deductions during the second, third, fourth, and fifth weeks
of their employment-to cover the payment of the dues for the first month of their
employment together with initiation fees.
Upon the basis of the facts related above, the Trial Examiner expressly finds first,
that the collective-bargaining agreement entered into between the Union and the
Company on October 1, 1947, as amended October 10, 1958, was valid after the
date of the amendment and consequently in view of the 6-month limitation contained
in Section 10(b) of the Act, the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
growing out of the existence of that collective agreement as modified must be dis-
missed; and second, that in the absence of a showing by the preponderance of testi-
mony and on the whole record that the practice or custom of hiring new employees
under the oral agreement, arrangement, or understanding between the Union and
the Employer was illegal, the complaint should be dismissed for lack of proof that
new employees were compelled to join the Union at the time of their employment
and to consent to the deduction of initiation fees and dues.
Upon the basis of the findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
s There is no testimony in the record regarding whether any new employee ever was
refused or applied for a referral card The practice or custom referred to in effect would
make such a referral card unnecessary, since invariably the new employee signed a card
applying for membership in the Union at or about the time he was accepted for
employment.
CRUIS ALONG BOATS, INC. 1019
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of Cadillac Wire Corp. constitute trade, traffic , and commerce
among the several States, within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
2. Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen Local
810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Cruis Along Boats, Inc. and District 50, United Mine Workers
of America , Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2940. August 26, 1960
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on January 29,
1960, in the above-entitled proceeding under the direction and the
supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region among the
employees in the appropriate unit. Upon completion of the election,
the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of
approximately 98 eligible voters, 93 were cast, of which 44 were for,
and 38 against, the Petitioner, and 11 ballots were challenged. The
challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election. No objections to the election were filed by the parties.
In accordance with the Board's Rule's and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the challenged ballots and
on April 15, 1960, issued and served upon the parties his report on
challenges, in which he found that two of the individuals whose ballots
were challenged properly belonged in the unit, and the remaining nine
were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. As all 11 of the
above individuals had been specifically included within the unit by the
Board's Decision and Direction of Election, pursuant to a stipulation
of the parties at the hearing, the Regional Director made no recom-
mendation as to the disposition of the challenges, pending a Board
ruling as to the effect of the stipulation. The Employer filed timely
exceptions and a supporting brief as to the Regional Director's find-
ings that the above nine individuals were supervisors.
The Regional Director in his report raises the issue of whether the
Board should honor the stipulation entered into by the parties at the
hearing to include the above 11 individuals in the unit in light of his
'investigation. At the original hearing the parties, pursuant to an
off-the-record discussion, agreed that the 11 individuals in question
"do not have the authority to hire or fire, effectively recommend such
1 Unpublished.
128 NLRB No. 115.