Carpenters Local 215 (Grace Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 1043 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

LOCAL 215, [UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
Local 215, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America (Grace Company) and Dallas E.
Griswold. Case 25-CB-3184
April 20, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS. MURPHY, AND TRUESDAI.E
On February 12, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Youngblood issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief and a motion to reopen,
and the General Counsel filed a response to Respon-
dent's motion and exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to
modify his remedy so that interest is to be computed
in accordance with Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977) (see, generally, Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)), and to adopt his
recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that Respondent, Local 215, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lafayette, Indiana, its officers, agents, and represen-
tatives, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
I In its motion, the Respondent seeks to reopen the record to introduce in
evidence alleged changed facts rendenng. it contends, various portions of the
Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order moot. In its exceptions,
Respondent does not challenge the Administrative Law Judge's findings and
conclusions that it violated Sec. 8(bX I XA) of the Act. Rather, it seeks certain
changes in the recommended Order assertedly to conform it to the changed
circumstances, evidence of which it seeks through its motion to place in
evidence. The matters Respondent seeks to raise at this time concern gener-
ally certain alleged partial compliance with provisions of the Order. render-
ing those provisions moot, and a change of position by the discriminatees,
assertedly rendering certain requirements of the Order no longer applicable
to them. It is clear that Respondent is not contending that the recommended
remedial provisions are not properly tailored to the violations found; rather,
it is raising issues concerning its compliance obligations allegedly affected by
events occurring subsequent to issuance of the recommended Decision and
Order. But matters concerning compliance are properly considered and re-
solved at the compliance stage of the proceeding. Accordingly. we deny
Respondent's motion to reopen and overrule its exceptions.
DECI SION
SIA IMEN1 ()F T11 CASt.
JAMI.S T. Yot:N(HI.Oo), Administrative Law Judge: The
complaint, which issued on November 29. 1977, and was
amended on December 28, 1977. and at the hearing, alleges
that ocal 215, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America (herein called the Union), violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act by threatening employees and
members with loss of employment and other unspecified
reprisals because they filed charges with the National Labor
Relations Board (herein called the Board) and the Respon-
dent International and by causing internal union charges to
be filed against Dallas E. Griswold, and prosecuting him on
said charges, and imposing fines and other disciplinary pen-
alties because he filed charges with the Board and gave
testimony under the Act and engaged in protected con-
certed activity under the Act and under the Labor Manage-
ment Reporting and Disclosure Act, including running for
office and supporting candidates in opposition to incum-
bent union officials and pursuing procedures under the La-
bor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act to chal-
lenge certain of the Respondent's conduct, all because the
Respondent believed said members and employees had
done so or would do so. Respondent filed an answer to the
complaint admitting its status as a labor organization and
the agency status of its officers and stipulated to the juris-
dictional allegations of the complaint, but denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices. A hearing was held in
this matter on January 9-11, 1978, in Lafayette, Indiana.
Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Respondent,
which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor. I hereby make
the following:
FINI)INGS () FA( I
A. The Facts
1. The alleged threat to William V. Fox
William V. Fox. a member of Respondent, testified that
in April or May of 1977' he made an inquiry of the Board
over his son becoming an apprentice with Respondent. He
testified that he was getting some "hustle" on the job over
taking his son in as an apprentice. This "hustle" came from
Charles Leaf. a union member, who was also superinten-
dent on the job where he was then working. On May 20
Fox was laid off from that job. Apparently, he was in-
formed at that time by Charles Leaf that Kenneth Runkle,
the union business agent. wanted Fox to go to another job
on Monday. May 23. Because this job would have been
only for a day or two, Fox chose not to accept the job. Fox
testified that on Monday morning, May 23, he received a
telephone call from Business Agent Runkle. Runkle wanted
to know why he had not taken the job. Fox informed
Runkle that he would have to come to the union hall.
I Unless otherwise specified. all dates refer to 1977
241 NLRB No. 167
1043
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Following the telephone conversation with Runkle. Fox
went to the union hall. According to Fox, they discussed
the reasons for his layoff, and finally Fox told Runkle that
he had to go because he had a few telephone calls to make.
Fox testified that later in the day, around 5 p.m., he re-
ceived another call from Runkle. Runkle informed him that
he had a bridge job on Main Street in Lafayette and that he
could go there to work. Fox replied that he could not go
there because he had made a call, and he had to be at home
the next day to receive his answer. Fox testified that Runkle
wanted to know who he had called, and Fox told him that
he had called the International Union and that he had
talked to International President Sidell. Fox testified that
Runkle knew that he had not talked to Sidell, and he finally
told Runkle that he talked to somebody under Sidell. Fox
testified that Runkle told him that he should have gone
through the union hall, through channels, and that Runkle
said, "You know, there is more ways than one to bench
you." Fox testified that Runkle also told him that they had
done Fox a favor, "for your son and everything." Fox fur-
ther testified that Runkle said, "We are aware that there is
a letter that you wrote to the NLRB on the boy."
Runkle was not specifically questioned about this conver-
sation with Fox. He did testify briefly concerning Fox's lay-
off and the 2 or 3 days he was out of work and his final
acceptance of work on Thursday, May 26. He was, how-
ever, asked this question:
Q. Now, there has been testimony here that you
made threats to Mr. Griswold, Mr. Funk-I guess not
Mr. Funk, Mr. Griswold and Mr. Fox and you have
heard that testimony, haven't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Runkle was then asked if he had ever threatened Gris-
wold, Fox, or Forrest Funk and he answered in the nega-
tive. He also testified that he had never at any time threat-
ened any of the members of the Union.
On June 7, Fox filed a charge with the Board in Case 25
CB-3034. The substance of that charge is as follows:
I. I feel I was laid off of Ely Lilly job on May 20,
1977 because I was engaged in union activities for a
new business representative in our local.
2. I feel this layoff was in agreement by my B.A.
[business agent] and Charlie Leaf superintendent for
Kettlehut Construction even though there was still
work available for me with 13 permit men still there
and I had been there for 9 months and in the first
bunch hired there.
3. In phone talks from May 23 to May 25, 1977 in
one talk on the phone, the BA told me that there was a
lot of ways a person could be benched or not work.2
2 This charge was dismissed. In a summary report, dated August 12, Wil-
liam T. Little, Regional Director for Region 25 informed Peter Bullard, the
attorney for Griswold, as follows:
SUMMARY REPORT
The instant charge, filed on June 7, 1977, alleges that the Union
caused the Charging Party to be laid off from a construction job, and
that he was threatened by the Union Business Representative with
being kept from further work. The Charging Party further alleges that
the reason for the above action was his support of a new candidate for
Business Representative of the Local.
The evidence shows that the Business Representative did request this
Employer, as well as others in the area, to release "local men" early
2. The alleged threats to Dallas Griswold and William V.
Fox and the alleged unlawful internal union charges
brought against Griswold
Dallas E. Griswold at the time of the hearing had been a
member of' the Union for approximately 8 years. During
the ear 1977. he worked at what is known as the Staley job
in Lafayette, Indiana, and from about August 1977 he
worked on that job for an employer by the name of Grace
Company. In April 1977 Griswold was nominated for the
position of business representative and financial secretary
of the Union. The then business representative and finan-
cial secretary. Kenneth Runkle, was also nominated for the
same position. Griswold and Runkle were the only candi-
dates for the position of business representative and finan-
cial secretary. After he was nominated, Griswold spoke to
the then president of' the Union, Royce Whitehead, for per-
mission to look at a list of the membership of the Union. He
was given permission, but was told that he would have to
check with Teddy Holderfield, the recording secretary of
the Union. The next evening Griswold contacted Holder-
field and informed him what Whitehead had said and asked
him if he could see a list of the members. Holderfield in-
formed him that he would make a list for him. The same
evening. Griswold went to Holderfield's home, and Holder-
field wrote a list of the names of the members and give it to
Griswold. Griswold testified that there were approximately
210 members listed on the list he obtained from Holder-
field. Griswold testified that he took the list on the job with
him and questioned President Whitehead about certain of
the members, where they lived and how he could get in
touch with them. He said that a few days after his conversa-
tion with Whitehead, he contacted Business Agent Runkle
to ask if he could see a list of the members. Runkle supplied
him with a list of members in addition to the one he had
been supplied by Holderfield, and he was informed by
Runkle that he could see the list, but he could not leave the
hall with it. At this point Griswold took the list from
Runkle and compared it with the names that Holderfield
had given him. He stated at that time that he found six
when the construction job was "winding down." It appears that this is a
customary practice that occurs when a particular job "winds down,"
because the Local desires to place its members at other jobs which, in its
opinion, will provide longer employment than the job that is ending.
This is an attempt to minimize the amount of lay-off time between jobs
for Local members. The Charging Party was laid off by his Employer in
this manner. Two days thereafter, he was called by the Business Repre-
sentative and offered two new jobs, both of which he turned down. A
day or two later, the Charging Party was referred out to another job
which he accepted. When the aforementioned job ended, the Charging
Party was again "referred out" for employment by the Union.
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, does not preclude
unions and construction employers from implementing and following
job referral procedures, as long as such referrals are not based on unlaw-
ful considerations. In the instant case there were several job offers and
referrals made to the Charging Party. The record further reveals that the
system of early release of "local" employees is done to enhance their
employment opportunities and, in any event, was not disparately ap-
plied to the Charging Party. Additionally, the alleged threat of "bench-
ing," in the telephone conversation between the Business Agent and
Charging Party was in reality an explanation of the current referral
system being applied to all "local" employees. There is insufficient evi-
dence that the Local's actions were based upon unreasonable, arbitrary,
invidious or otherwise unlawful considerations. Accordingly, the charge
will be dismissed.
1044
LOCAL 215, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
different names on the list Runkle had given him that were
not on the list he had obtained from Holderfield.
On June 2 the Union held its election of officers, and
Griswold was defeated by Runkle, by a vote of 107 to 33.
When the results of the election were made known on June
2, Griswold protested the election because, he stated, there
were more members in the hall than he had on his list and
he did not recognize most of the members that were there at
that time. He stated that Holderfield called him a damn
liar, that his list was complete, and that the members were
on the list. He stated that he then took his list and com-
pared it with Holderfield's list, and when it did not com-
pare, Holderfield softly apologized. Griswold testified that
there were probably about 30 names on Holderfield's list
that were not on the list that he had.
On June 5 Griswold sent a letter to Mr. Sidell, president
of the International Brotherhood of Carpenters. protesting
the June 2 election. On June 7 Griswold also filed charges
with the Board making essentially the same complaint
about the June 2 election as he had made in his protest to
the International.
Shortly after filing the charge with the Board, Griswold
retained Attorney Peter W. Bullard to represent him. Gris-
wold furnished Bullard, as well as the Board, a copy of the
membership list he had obtained from the Union. On June
14 Griswold received a letter from the International Car-
penters Union, advising that because he had requested an
investigation of the matter by a Government agency, no
useful purpose would be served by an investigation by that
office. On June 16 Griswold filed with the executive com-
mittee of the Union an official notice of protest and griev-
ance of the June 2 election, alleging essentially the same
comments about the June 2 election that he had made in
the June 5 protest to the International and the June 7
charge filed with the Board.
On June 29 Griswold sent International President Sidell
a letter stating that he had been informed by the Board that
they could take no action on the charge he had filed on
June 7. He also informed Sidell that on June 16 he had filed
a formal protest of the election with the executive board of
the Union and that he was officially appealing the failure of
the executive board to set aside the June 2 election for busi-
ness representative or to otherwise respond to his protest.
On July 7, at a union membership meeting, Griswold was
furnished a written reply to his formal protest and griev-
ance from the executive board of the Union, which in sub-
stance stated that the executive board had found that the
June 2 election was conducted in all respects in accordance
with the constitution and bylaws of the United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Also at this
July 7 meeting, Griswold was asked to return the member-
ship list given to him by Holderfield, and he responded by
saying "[i]t was in the hands of another person."'
By letter dated July 7 International President Sidell in-
formed Griswold that he had received Griswold's protest
directed to the election of June 2 that the local Union had
5The record reflects that the list given to Griswold by Holderfield was
what is commonly known as a rollcall list or attendance list. The difference
between that list and the complete membership list is that the rollcall list
does not include pensioners or retirees. Thus, the membership list would be a
larger list than the rollcall list which was provided Gnswold and would
contain the names of all members entitled to vote.
been requested to file an answer to the statements in his
protest, and that further consideration would be given his
protest.
On July 21, at another union membership meeting, Gris-
wold was again asked by Holderfield to return the member-
ship list, and Griswold responded in the same manner as he
had before that the list was in the hands of another person.
On the same date Griswold sent a letter to Union President
Haynes requesting various information from Respondent to
aide him in presenting and properly preparing his case
pending before the International Union. Also, on the same
date, Griswold sent a letter to the International Union re-
questing that it forward him a copy of the Union's answer
when it was received by the International and also re-
quested copies of other documents which are filed with or
considered by the International in the matter. By letter
dated July 25 Griswold and Respondent were informed by
the Regional Director for Region 25 that his charge in Case
25-CB-3033 was dismissed.
On August 4 Griswold attended another union member-
ship meeting. Holderfield again requested Griswold to re-
turn the membership list, and Griswold replied that it was
in the hands of his attorney. Then the Board's dismissal
letter was read to the membership. Following this, accord-
ing to Griswold, Business Agent Runkle got up and made a
statement that he had been on pins and needles for approxi-
mately 2 months and he was tired of running the local by
the book and not being able to place the men on different
jobs, "and he didn't want any more charges from NLRB
from Mr. Griswold, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Funk." Griswold
was corroborated in this testimony by witnesses Fox and
Funk.
During the August 4 meeting, according to the testimony
of Griswold, Runkle made a statement to the membership
that charges could be brought against Griswold for giving
the membership list to unauthorized persons. At that time
Runkle also made a motion that charges be brought against
Griswold if he did not bring the list back. The motion was
voted on by the membership, and Griswold was given until
August 18 to return the membership list, or charges would
be brought against him. According to Griswold, Funk, and
Fox, Runkle followed them out of the meeting and told
Griswold that he was making all kinds of mistakes because
he did not know the International's laws.4 Again Griswold
was corroborated by Fox and Funk. Again, Runkle was not
specifically questioned about these remarks, and again he
generally denied ever threatening Griswold, Fox, or Funk
or any other member of Respondent.
On August 4 the International dismissed Griswold's pro-
test or appeal. On August 9 Griswold sent a letter to Inter-
national President Sidell and the Union requesting the In-
ternational to intervene and instruct the officers of Local
215 that they had no right to demand the return of the
membership list while this case is pending. On August 15
Griswold was advised by the International that he should
return the membership list to Local 215, and the Interna-
tional again informed Griswold that it had dismissed his
' The General Counsel contends that Runkle was clearly threatening Grins-
wold and others with reprisals by Respondent because charges had been filed
with the Board, in violation of Section 8(b)(XA).
1045
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
protest on August 4. By letter dated August 15 Griswold
requested that the decision of President Sidell in dismissing
his protest be appealed to the general executive board of
the International. By letter dated August 19 Griswold was
informed by the general secretary of the International that
decisions of the general president on protests directed to the
conduct of nominations or elections or election procedures
shall be final, and not subject to appeal, and no further
action could be taken with respect to this matter.
On August 18, at a membership meeting, Holderfield
again asked Griswold if he had the membership list, and
Griswold replied in the negative.
On September I the Union's executive board entered the
following in its minute book:
September 1, 1977, 8 members present. The meeting
was called to order by President Haynes. It is the opin-
ion of the Executive Board not to pursue any charges
against Brother Griswold and Brother Fox concerning
their grievances and protests that they have filed until
all means are exhausted with the NLRB and the Inter-
national Office.
Additionally, the minutes reflect that the executive board
also voted to call Griswold to appear before the executive
board on September 8 to explain why he did not comply
with the Union's orders. I assume this refers to the order to
return the membership list. On September 2 Griswold re-
ceived written notice from the Union to appear before its
executive board on September 8. Griswold attended the ex-
ecutive board meeting on September 8, and again Holder-
field asked him if he had the membership list. Griswold
stated that the list was in the hands of his attorney. Accord-
ing to Griswold, Runkle then stated that he should not have
had the list in the first place because it was not authorized
and that he should not have given it to an unauthorized
person. The Union's vice president then told Griswold that
action could be taken against him, and executive board
member Prough said that nobody on the job wanted to
work with the "SOB" if he kept protesting.
On September 13 Griswold filed a complaint about the
June 2 election with the Department of Labor. Notwith-
standing the decision of the executive board of September
I, on September 15, at another membership meeting, an
executive board recommendation that charges be filed
against Griswold was read to the membership. This recom-
mendation was approved by the membership, and on Sep-
tember 15 Holderfield prepared written charges on behalf
of Respondent against Griswold. These charges were pre-
sented to the executive board at its meeting on September
23; and on October 6, at another executive board meeting,
the charges against Griswold were finalized, and a decision
to proceed with the charges was reached. On or about Octo-
ber 6 Griswold received the written charges and a notifica-
tion to appear at Respondent's membership meeting on Oc-
tober 20.
In substance, the charges alleged that Griswold gave the
membership list to an unauthorized person without the con-
sent of the Local and violated the obligation of the Local.
On October 20, at a membership meeting, a trial committee
was selected. On October 21 Griswold filed the instant
charge with the National Labor Relations Board. On No-
vember II Respondent conducted a hearing on the charges
against Griswold. When the proceedings opened, Griswold
was asked by Mr. DeLaney, the chairman of the trial com-
mittee, "How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty?" Gris-
wold replied, "Guilty of the charges." After further discus-
sion, Griswold informed the chairman that he wanted to
make a clarification and wanted to change his plea to "not
guilty." Ultimately the five members of the trial committee
found Griswold guilty and recommended that Griswold be
fined $50 on each offense and pay all costs of the trial and
that he also return the list of names that was given to him
by Teddy Holderfield or be suspended from the Union until
the list of membership names was returned. On December
1, at another membership meeting, the Local's membership
was informed that Griswold had been found guilty of the
charges and of the penalty recommended by the trial com-
mittee, and the membership voted to impose the penalty as
recommended by the trial committee. Thereafter, Griswold
filed an appeal with the International based on the action
taken against him by Respondent. He also posted $50 as an
appeal bond. As of the time of the hearing, the aforesaid
penalty had not been paid by Griswold, and no penalties
had been imposed on him because of his appeal pending
before the International.
B. Discussion and Conclusion
At the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the
complaint to allege that on or about May 23 Respondent,
by its officer and agent Kenneth A. Runkle, threatened em-
ployees and members with loss of employment and other
reprisals because they sought redress with the Board and/or
Respondent's International Union.
In support of this allegation of the complaint, the Gen-
eral Counsel relied upon the testimony of Fox concerning
his conversation with Runkle of May 23, in which Runkle
informed Fox that he was aware of the fact that Fox had
filed a letter with the Board and that he had not gone
through channels with regard to his appeal to the Interna-
tional and that Runkle had said, "[T]here is more ways than
one to bench you."
Respondent argues that this conversation and statement
about being benched were a part of the charge filed by Fox
on June 6 and ultimately dismissed by the Regional Direc-
tor on August 12 because he found no violation based on
the threat of benching and that it should not be considered
again.
I do not know what evidence was considered by Regional
Director Little in his earlier dismissal, but it is clear that
that charge as well as the current allegation in the com-
plaint are based on essentially the same conversation be-
tween Runkle and Fox. It would appear from the Regional
Director's summary report that Fox did not at that time
give any information which would indicate that the threat
to bench Fox was made in connection with his conversation
concerning his son and filing a letter with the Board or in
connection with his informing Runkle that he had discussed
this problem with the International. It would appear from
the summary report that the only mention of benching was
made in connection with the allegations made in the
charge. It seems that Fox has enlarged his earlier state-
1046
LOCAL 215, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
ments and now states that the threat to bench him was
made in connection with his discussing with Runkle his
contacting the Board and his discussion with the Interna-
tional. As I indicated earlier, Runkle did not attempt to
clarify this issue. As a matter of fact, Runkle was not ques-
tioned concerning these conversations; he was asked only if
he had made any threats to Griswold, Fox, or Funk, and he
denied making any threats.
Under these circumstances, I credit the testimony of Fox
and do not accept the denial of Funkle that he threatened
any member of Local 215. It would appear that the Re-
gional Director was satisfied that the additional informa-
tion offered by Fox concerning the May 23 conversation
with Runkle was in fact given and apparently this informa-
tion was not elicited from Fox in the initial investigation of
the charge that was dismissed.'
Therefore, as this threat to bench Fox was made in con-
nection with Runkle's remark to Fox that they were aware
of the fact that he had written a letter to the Board and
Runkle's statement to Fox that he should have gone
through channels before going to the International, Re-
spondent was threatening Fox with loss of employment or
other reprisals because he contacted the Board and the In-
ternational Carpenters Union, in violation of Section
8(b)( I )(A).
The complaint also alleges that Respondent, by its officer
and agent Kenneth A. Runkle, on or about August 4, at a
regular meeting of Respondent, threatened employees and
members with loss of earnings and other unspecified repri-
sals because they filed unfair labor practice charges with the
Board and because Respondent believed they had done so
or would do so.
The evidence to support this allegation stems from the
August 4 union meeting in which the Board's dismissal let-
ter to Griswold's charge was read to the assembled mem-
bership. And following the reading of this dismissal letter,
Runkle stated that he had been on pins and needles for 2
months, that he was tired of running the Local by the book
and not being able to place men on different jobs, and that
he did not want any more charges from the Board, Mr.
Griswold, Mr. Fox, or Mr. Funk. And during this same
meeting, following these above statements, Runkle in-
formed the membership that Griswold should be brought
up on charges for not returning the membership list to the
Local, and Griswold was threatened with charges unless he
returned the membership list by August 18. Additionally,
during this meeting, Mr. Funk informed Runkle that he did
not "refer" any charges, which precipitated an argument
between Runkle and Funk. Also, after the meeting, Runkle
told Griswold that he was making all kinds of mistakes
because he did not know the International's laws.
It is quite evident to me that Runkle was very dissatisfied
with the fact that Fox and Griswold had both filed charges
with the Board. His statements that he had been on pins
and needles for 2 months and could not run the Local the
way he wanted to, and had to run it by the book because of
these charges, clearly indicates that he was not pleased with
Fox and Griswold. His remarks that he did not want any
more charges from the Board, Griswold, Fox, or Funk
5 It is my understanding from the testimony of Fox that that charge, at
least at the time of the hearing. was on appeal.
clearly showed his hostility towards those individuals. It is
my conclusion that by these statements Runkle was clearly
threatening Griswold, Fox, and others with reprisals by Re-
spondent because they had filed charges with the Board,
and such threats are clearly violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A)
of the Act.
The remaining allegation of the complaint is that the Re-
spondent filed charges against Griswold and imposed pen-
alties on Griswold and threatened to suspend him from
membership in the Union unless he returned the member-
ship list, in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A), because he filed
charges with the Board and gave testimony under the Act
and engaged in protected concerted activity under the Act
and under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclo-
sure Act, including running for union office and supporting
various candidates in their campaigns for union office in
opposition to incumbent union officials, pursuing proce-
dures under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclo-
sure Act to challenge certain of Respondent's conduct, and
because Respondent believed said member and employee
had done so or would do so. In effect the General Counsel
is contending that the assigned reason for bringing the
charges was a pretext and that the true reason for bringing
the case against Griswold was that he filed charges with the
Board, with the Department of Labor, and with the Inter-
national Union and ran for a union office against the in-
cumbent business agent, Runkle.
I have no doubt that Respondent or any other labor or-
ganization is free to enforce its own constitution, bylaws,
and other rules by internal sanctions and that the Act does
not involve the Board in judging the fairness and wisdom of
the particular union rules, particularly where that rule im-
pairs no policy Congress has embedded in labor laws.
Therefore, as the Union's action, at least on its face, ap-
pears to be an exercise of its internal affairs, it is not my
function to determine whether the Union had a legitimate
interest in bringing the charges against Griswold, or
whether the trial itself was fair, or if others as well as Gris-
wold should have been brought up on charges. Thus. I do
not decide, as suggested by the General Counsel, whether
Respondent had a legitimate interest under its constitution
in disciplining Griswold for allegedly violating section 55(7)
of that constitution.
However, in view of the threats which I have found to be
violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) made by Respondent's Busi-
ness Agent Runkle to Fox, Griswold, and others at the Au-
gust 4 meeting relating to their filing of charges with the
Board, thereby demonstrating Respondent's hostility
toward the filing of charges by both Griswold and Fox, and
in the same meeting threatening Griswold with charges if
he did not return the membership list, it is my view that
these threats are clearly violative of Section 8(h)(l)(a) and
reflect that Respondent, by its business agent. was inform-
ing the membership that it did not like its members to file
charges with the Board and that such action might bring
reprisals by the Union.
Therefore, because of Respondent's hostility toward
Griswold and Fox as reflected b the threats, it is my con-
clusion that the assigned reason for the bringing of the
charges by Respondent against Griswold and the imposi-
tion of penalties and the threats to suspend Griswold from
1047
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership if he did not return the membership list was
clearly a pretext. Accordingly, it is my conclusion that by
bringing the charges against Griswold and imposing disci-
plinary penalties, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of
the Act, and I so find.6
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in
connection with the operations of employers engaged in in-
terstate commerce, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, and traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that
it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully cited and
fined Dallas E. Griswold because of his having filed charges
with the National Labor Relations Board and the Depart-
ment of Labor and internal union charges, I shall recom-
mend that the fine and other discipline assessed against
Griswold be rescinded and that Griswold be reimbursed for
any fine he has paid, including the $50 appeal bond he paid
on December I, with interest, and that all reference and
other evidence in Respondent's records and files relating to
the proceeding against Griswold be expunged and that the
Respondent restore Griswold to full membership status and
good standing in the Respondent Union.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 215, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Grace Company, Inc., with its principal place of
business in Lafayette, Indiana, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
3. By threatening employee Fox with benching him and
loss of work because of his having contacted the National
Labor Relations Board regarding his son, and because he
had contacted the International Union rather than going
through the Local union hall regarding his layoff, Respon-
dent, through its business agent Runkle, on May 23, en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees Griswold, Fox, and others
with reprisals because they filed charges with the National
6 It is my conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding
that Respondent engaged in this conduct because Griswold ran for a union
office in opposition to incumbent Business Agent Runkle. Griswold's trouble
started after he filed charges with the Board.
Labor Relations Board, Respondent, through its business
agent Runkle, on August 4, engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
5. By bringing charges against Dallas Griswold and im-
posing fines and other disciplinary penalties against him
and threatening to suspend him from membership because
Griswold had filed charges with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, the Department of Labor, and the Carpenters
International Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and the entire record in this proceeding and
pursuant to the provision of Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER7
Respondent, Local 215, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, Lafayette, Indiana, its officers,
agents. and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employee Fox or any other
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act by threatening them with being
benched or with loss of employment because of their having
contacted the National Labor Relations Board or having
filed grievances or protests with the International Union
rather than going through the local union hall.
(b) Restraining or coercing Dallas Griswold, William V.
Fox, or any other employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act by threatening
them with reprisals because they filed charges with the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.
(c) Restraining or coercing employee Dallas Griswold or
any other employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act by bringing union charges
against them, imposing fines and other disciplinary penal-
ties, and by suspending them from membership because
they filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board
or the Department of Labor and because they challenged
the Union's election procedures by filing charges with the
National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Labor,
and the International Carpenters Union.
(d) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees or union members in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind any fine that was imposed against Dallas
Griswold and expunge any and all references and other
evidence in Respondent's records and files relating to the
proceeding against Dallas Griswold and make Dallas Gris-
I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.46
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
1048
LOCAL 215, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
wold whole by reimbursing to him any sums paid toward
any fines or appeal bonds, with interest thereon.
(b) Restore Dallas Griswold to full membership status
and good standing in Respondent and expunge from its
records all references to any suspension of Griswold from
membership in Respondent.
(c) Post at its main office and hiring hall located in Lafa-
yette, Indiana, and at any other meeting places it operates
for members for referral, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being
duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, and
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
' In the event this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
Court of ppeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had the opportunity to
present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce William V. Fox or
any other employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act by threatening
them with being benched or with loss of employment
because of their having contacted the National Labor
Relations Board or having filed grievances or protests
with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join-
ers of America rather than going through the union
hall of Local 215, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Dallas E. Griswold,
William D. Fox, or any other employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
by threatening them with reprisals because they filed
charges with the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employee Dallas E.
Griswold or any other employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act by
bringing internal union charges against them, imposing
fines and other disciplinary penalties, and by suspend-
ing them from membership because they filed charges
with the National Labor Relations Board or the De-
partment of Labor or because they challenged the
Union's election procedures by filing charges with the
National Labor Relations Board, the Department of
Labor, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees or union members in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WII. rescind any fine that was imposed against
Dallas E. Griswold and expunge any and all references
and other evidence in our records and files relating to
the proceeding against Dallas E. Griswold and make
Dallas E. Griswold whole by reimbursing to him any
sums paid toward any fines or appeal bonds, with in-
terest thereon.
WE WILL restore Dallas E. Griswold to full member-
ship status in good standing in our union and expunge
from our records all references to any suspension of
Dallas E. Griswold.
LOCAL 215, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN-
TERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA
1049