Coast Aluminum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1326 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2: By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Perry
E. Walker, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization , the Company
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination, by warning and threat to employees because of union
activities , and by interrogation concerning such activities , thereby interfering with,
restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Coast Aluminum Company and Wayne B. Helton and Miscellane-
ous Woodworkers Local No. 530, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, and Los Angeles County
District Council of Carpenters , AFL-CIO,1 Parties to the Con-
tract . Case No. 21-CA-3625. June 6, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 30, 1957, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Local #530, and the
District Council, Parties to the Contract, filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report with a supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the modifications noted below.
1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Coast Aluminum Com-
pany, the Respondent herein, is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the
Board to assert jurisdiction. In so finding, however, we rely solely s
1 Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, was added as a Party
to the Contract at the hearing.
!'Local #530 and the District Council, Parties to the Contract, also requested oral
argument . The request is denied , as the record , including the exceptions and brief, ade-
quately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
'We do not rely upon the Trial Examiner 's finding that Coast Aluminum, the Respond-
ent herein , Saul Pick , Inc., and Acme Plywood Company constitute a single employer for
the purpose of asserting jurisdiction over the Respondent.
120 NLRB No. 173.
COAST ALUMINUM COMPANY 1327
upon the evidence that from March 15, 1956, at which time the Re-
spondent began operations, until January 1, 1957, the Respondent
purchased and directly received from out-of-State materials valued
at $457,279.06. On the basis of this figure projected over a 1-year
period, the Respondent's yearly out-of-State purchases would exceed
the required amount of $500,000.4
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act by (1) entering into and main-
taining in effect a union-security contract, dated August 1, 1956, with
Local #530, and Los Angeles District Council of Carpenters, and the
supplemental agreement dated December 18, 1956; (2) distributing
among the employees at the plant during working hours membership
application cards of Local #530, urging employees to sign the same,
and collecting the cards after they had been signed and turning them
over to Local #530; (3) President Pick's November 6 speech to the
employees in which he advised them that Local #530 "was the only
[union] he would recognize" and threatening employees with loss of
certain benefits if they did not accept Local #530 as their collective-
bargaining representative; and (4) President Pick's statement to em-
ployee James in November 1956 that Local #530 was the union he
felt that the employees should have ; and (5) President Pick's other
threatening remarks to employees, as detailed in the Intermediate
Report. We do not, however, agree with the Trial Examiner that
the Respondent has dominated and interfered with the administra-
tion of Local #530 or the District Council. There is no evidence that
the Respondent was either in a position to control the organization
or the functioning of Local #530 or the District Council, or that any
representative of the management took any part in the internal affairs
of these organizations, or attempted to influence its policies.' Accord-
ingly, we will dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges the domina-
tion of Local #530 or the District Council by the Respondent.
Local #530 and the District Council attempt to justify the execu-
tion of the 1956 contract on the ground that the three companies
controlled by Saul Pick constitute a single employer and an appro-
priate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining; that the 1956
contract with Coast Aluminum was nothing more than an extension
of a similar agreement with the two other companies to the employees
of Coast Aluminum; and that therefore the employees of Coast
Aluminum merely constituted a normal accretion to a multiplant unit.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find no merit in this contention. The
parties to the 1956 contract never contemplated, nor did they in fact
4 Carpenter Baking Company, Inc., 112 NLRB 288; Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative,
110 NLRB 481.
s Cf. Ephraim Haspel, 109 NLRB 37, 40, enfd. 228 F. 2d 155 (C. A. 2) ; Nutone,
Incorporated, 112 NLRB 1153; Adhesive Products Corporation , 117 NLRB 265.
1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engage in , bargaining with respect to Coast Aluminum employees on
any basis other than a single-plant unit. Nor did they contemplate
the 1956 contract to be an extension of any other contract. The 1956
contract designated Coast Aluminum Company alone as the Employer
whose employees were to be covered by the contract. Neither the Saul
Pick, Inc., nor Acme Plywood contract was mentioned in that con-
tract. Indeed, since about 1949 separate contracts covering employ-
ees of these two companies were negotiated and executed on a single-
plant unit basis. Moreover, for the past few years, the contracts with
Saul Pick, Inc., were negotiated in behalf of that company by an
employer association, of which the company was a member. Further-
more, it is questionable whether a three-company multiplant unit
would meet the Board's standards of appropriateness as the com-
panies make different products and their employees have different
skills and do not interchange.
3. Local #530 and the District Council except to the Trial Exam-
iner's finding that the execution of the recognition agreement dated
May 1, 1956, and the union-security contract dated August 1, 1956,
constituted violations of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1), on the ground
that the execution of these agreements took place more than 6 months
prior to the filing and service of the charges herein and that there-
fore under Section 10 (b) of the Act, the Board is precluded from
making such a finding.
The original charge in this proceeding, alleging violations of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1), was filed on January 8, 1957. It was never
served on Local #530. An amended charge, alleging violations of
Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) was filed on January 28, 1957, and
served on the Respondent on January 30, 1957. The amended charge,
however, was not served on Local #530 until February 20, 1957. As
the recognition agreement of May 1, 1956, was entered into more than
6 months prior to the service of the amended charge on the Respond-
ent, we find merit in the exception of Local #530 and the District
Council and will dismiss the complaint insofar as this allegation is
concerned. However, the union-security contract was executed on
or after August 1, 1956, or within the 6-month period immediately
preceding the service of the amended charge on the Respondent.'
The exception, therefore, is without merit insofar as it relates to the
execution of the August 1, 1956, contract.
6 Local # 530 and the District Council contend that because they were not served with a
copy of the amended charge until February 20, 1957, or more than 6 months after the
execution of the contract dated August 1, 1956, the latter, if an unfair labor practice,
cannot be so found by the Board. We find no merit in this contention . Section 10 (b) is
explicit in its language . It outlaws only those unfair labor practices which occurred
"more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of
a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made . [ Emphasis
supplied .] Here , there has been no charge made against Local #530 or the District
Council . Parker Brothers and Company , Inc., 101 NLRB 872, footnote 4.
COAST ALUMINUM COMPANY
REMEDY
1329
As we have found, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondent did not dominate and interfere with the administration of
Local #530 or the District Council we will not direct the Respondent
to disestablish these organizations as representatives of any of its
employees. However, we will adopt the Trial Examiner's recom-
mendation that the Respondent withdraw all recognition from Local
#530 as well as from the District Council, as the representative of its
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, and that the Re-
spondent cease and desist from giving effect to its union-security con-
tract of August 1, 1956, with Local #530 and Los Angeles District
Council, or any extension or supplement thereto, and from in any
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in their
right to self-organization.
As we have found that the Respondent assisted Local #530 and
the District Council by entering into a union-security agreement in
violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act, and has by various
and sundry acts required its employees to join'Local #530 we shall,'
in order to expunge the illegal effect of the Respondent's unfair labor
practices, direct the Respondent to reimburse individual employees
for any dues or initiation fees, which the Respondent deducted from
their earnings pursuant to any agreement with Local #530 and Los
Angeles District Council or checkoff authorizations from such
employees.8
ORDER
Upon the record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Coast Aluminum
Company, Gardena, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with, assisting, and contributing financial or other
support to Miscellaneous Woodworkers Local #530, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or Los An-
geles County District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO.
(b) Recognizing the above-named labor organizations as the rep-
resentative of any of its employees for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining, unless and until said labor organizations shall have demon-
7 Although the complaint does not specifically allege that the dues were collected under
unlawful checkoff authorizations , we find that it is within the authority of the Board to
order the reimbursement of dues withheld from the employees ' earnings as illegal and con-
trary to public policy. Virginia Electric and Power Company v. N. L. R. B., 319 U. S.
533, 539.
8 Adhesive Products Corporation , 117 NLRB 265 ; Hibbard Dowel Co., 113 NLRB 28;
Virginia Electric and Power Company v . N. L. R. B., 319 U. S. 533.
488142-59-vol. 120-85
1330- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strated their exclusive majority, representative status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election among the Respondent's employees.
(c) Performing,,enforcing, or giving' effect to its agreement, dated
August 1, 1956, with the,said Local #530 and Los Angeles County
District Council-of Carpenters, or to, any renewal, modification, or
supplement thereof, or to any -superseding agreement, unless and until,
the aforesaid labor organizations shall have been certified as the ex-
clusive bargaining,, representative of the said Company's employees
in an appropriate unit.
-,(d),. Promising its employees benefits or, threatening them with re-
prisals in. order to influence them in their choice of bargaining repre-
sentatives.pr in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its -employees; in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-,
tion, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to, bargain col-,
lectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage-
in' concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or
other mutual aid or protection, or 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 con-
dition. of-employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is found will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
-- (a-) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Miscellaneous
Woodworkers Local No. 530, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or Los Angeles County District
Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, or any successor thereto, as the
exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining, unless and until the said labor or-,
ganiz'ations shall have demonstrated their exclusive majority repre-,
sentative status pursuant to a "Board=conducted election among the
Respondent's employees.
(b) Reimburse its employees for any dues or initiation fees de-
ducted from their earnings and paid to, or being retained for; the
said labor organization by paying to each of them a sum of money-
equal to the total of such dues or initiation fees deducted from his or_
her earnings. -
(c) Post immediately in its plant at Gardena, California,- copies
of the _ notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." s Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the'Regional Director for the-Twenty-
first Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
' 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."
.COAST ALUMINUM COMPANY 1331
Reasonable steps shall be taken by' -Respondent to insure that the
said notices are not altered, defaced, • or covered by any other ma-
terial. ' - -
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent dominated or interfered -with the administration of
Local #530 and the District Council and that it entered into unlawful
recognition agreement of May 1, 1956, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
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 interfere' with or contribute financial or other
support to Miscellaneous Woodworkers Local #530, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or
Los Angeles District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL withdraw and. withhold all recognition from-the said
labor organizations, or any successor thereto, as the exclusive
representative of our employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining, unless and until the said labor organizations shall
have demonstrated their exclusive majority representative status
pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the Respondent's
employees. •
WE WILL NOT give any force or effect to any agreement, we may
now have with Miscellaneous Woodworkers Local #530, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters • & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
and ' Los 'Angeles County District Council of Carpenters,
AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits or threaten reprisals in order to
influence our, employees in their choice of bargaining representa-
tives, or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in-the exercise of their right to self-organization;
to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities -for the purposes of
collective' bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all of such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a'conditibn -of employment,
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE wuLL reimburse the employees whose dues and fees in Mis-
cellaneous Woodworkers Local No. 530, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, have been checked
off pursuant to checkoff authorizations from said employees, or
pursuant to the August 1, 1956, agreement between Coast Alu-
minum Company, Local No. 530, and Los Angeles County District
Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, and any extension, renewal,
modification or supplement thereof, or any agreement superseding
it, for the amounts deducted from their earnings.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any
labor organization or to refrain from such action except to the extent
that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with
Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. We will not discriminate in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment against any employee because of membership in, or ac-
tivity on behalf of, any labor organization.
COAST ALUMINUM COMPANY,
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Wayne B. Helton, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board , herein called the General Counsel 1 and the Board, by the
then Acting Regional Director of the Twenty -first Region (Los Angeles , California),
issued his amended complaint , dated July 18, 1957, alleging therein that Coast Alumi-
num Company , herein called Respondent , had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the charges , the amended complaint , and notice of hearing were duly
served upon Respondent , the Charging Party, and upon Miscellaneous Woodworkers
Local No. 530 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO,2 party to a certain collective-bargaining contract with Respondent .3
i This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
At the hearing the name of the labor organization was corrected to read as set forth
above.
During the course of the hearing , counsel for Los Angeles County District Council of
Carpenters, herein called the Council , moved that it be made a party to the instant pro-
ceeding on the ground that it too was a party to the contract referred to in the pleadings.
The motion was granted without objection . Thereupon the Council requested to be allowed
to adopt as its answer to the amended complaint the answer previously filed herein by
Local 530. Said request . was granted.
COAST ALUMINUM COMPANY 1333
Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that : ( 1) On or about May 1, 1956,
Respondent and Local 530 entered into a written agreement by which Respondent
recognized Local 530 as the bargaining representative of Respondent 's employees
although Respondent and Local 530 well knew that Local 530 did not represent said
employees; (2) on or about August 20, 1956, Respondent and Local 530 entered
into a written collective -bargaining agreement covering Respondent 's employees
despite the fact that Respondent well knew that Local 530 had not been selected nor
designated the exclusive collective -bargaining representative by a majority of Re-
spondent's employees ; ( 3) during October and November 1956 , Respondent 's officers
and managerial personnel interrogated the employees regarding their union affiliations
and sympathies ; (4) and by certain other stated acts and conduct Respondent inter-
fered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Respondent and Local 530 each filed a due and timely answer to the amended
complaint denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held from July 29 to August 7, 1957, at
Los Angeles, California. The General Counsel and Local 530 were represented by
counsel , Respondent by its president . 4 Full opportunity was afforded the parties to
be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses , to introduce pertinent evidence,
to argue orally at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence , and to file briefs on
or before August 27, 1957.5 Briefs have been received from the General Counsel
and from counsel for Local 530 which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Coast Aluminum Company, a California corporation, has its principal offices and
plant at Gardena, California, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
-distribution of aluminum building products; such as, casement windows, sliding doors,
and louver windows. From the time it commenced business, on or about March 15,
1956, until January 1, 1957, Respondent's direct out-of-State purchases of raw mate-
rial amounted to $457,279.06. A projection of this approximately 8'-month figure
over a 1-year period shows that Respondent' s annual direct out-of-State purchases of
raw material were more than $500,000. It is thus clear, and the Trial Examiner
finds, that under the Board's jurisdictional standards, Respondent now is, and during
all times material was, engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that
it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this
proceeding.6
Not only has the Board jurisdiction under the so-called "projection" theory, but
the record clearly establishes, as counsel for Local 530 and the Council conceded
at the hearing and in his brief, Respondent's business operations and those of Saul
Pick, Incorporated, and Acme Plywood Company are so integrated and intertwined 'r
to warrant a finding, which the Trial Examiner now makes, that the three concerns
comprise a single employer of the employees here involved.
Upon the above facts, the Trial Examiner finds, whether viewed under the so-called
"projection" theory or because of its relationship with Saul Pick, Incorporated, and
Acme Plywood Company, Respondent now is engaged in, and during all times
material was engaged in, commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Miscellaneous Woodworkers Local No. 530, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership
Counsel filed an answer to the amended complaint for Respondent but he did not appear
at the hearing.
5 At request of counsel for Local 530 the time to file briefs was extended to September 4,
1957.
5 See Bafrit Lumber Company, Inc., 111 NLRB 657; American Television, Inc. of
Missouri, 111 NLRB 164 ; Carpenter Baking Company, Inc., 112 NLRB 288; Wildwood
Lumber Company, 114 NLRB 986 ; Miller Container Corporation, 115 NLRB 509.
7 For example , Saul Pick is the president , sole stockholder ( at the time of the hearing),
and dictator of the labor relations and overall business policies of the three establishments.
•1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'employees of Respondent. Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters,
with which Local 530 is affiliated, is composed of the various Carpenter locals
located in Los Angeles County. -
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The domination of, interference with, and support of Local 530; interference,
restraint, and coercion
1. The sequence of the pertinent facts s
Saul Pick, president, directing head, and at the time of the hearing sole stockholder
of Respondent, Saul Pick, Incorporated, and Acme Plywood Company, testified, and
the Trial Examiner finds, that in 1949, shortly after Saul Pick, Incorporated, com-
menced business operations, R. R. McKinzie, a business representative of Local 530,
called upon him and stated, "You know you cannot supply any merchandise if you
are not union shop"; that he replied, " I am not aware of it" adding, that he had only
been in this country for 2 years; that McKinzie then said , "Well, you have to sign a
contract," to which he retorted, "Well, if I have to, if this is the law, I will do it,"
that he then signed a union-shop collective-bargaining contract with Local 530 cover-
ing the employees of Saul Pick, Incorporated; that since 1949, Saul Pick, Incorpo-
rated, has had collective-bargaining contracts with Local 530 which have been
negotiated through an association of which said Saul Pick, Incorporated, is a mem-
ber; 9 and that for some years past Acme Plywood Company has had union-shop
collective-bargaining contracts with Local 530 which were entered into without
negotiations.
Pick further testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Respondent was incor-
porated in August 1955, but did not commence operations until about March 15,
1946; 10 that on May 1, McKinzie, Joe Benfatti, another official of Local 530, and
Nick Cordill, a business representative of the Council, called upon him and that
the following then transpired:
Those gentlemen [McKinzie, Benfatti, and Cordill] came in and they said,
"You know you cannot use any products on any subdivision which are not
made by Union help." I said, "I am quite aware of it." And they said, "What
you want to do about it?" I say, "I want first to tell you we just started our
business. We have ninety, eighty or ninety per cent turnover every day. It
would be impossible for me to, as now, turn, pass out cards, because we don't
know how many is staying and how many are not staying." We couldn't find
any experienced employees. We advertised in all the agencies and newspapers
and couldn't get any experienced help, and I was telling them the situation
as exactly it was, and they agreed. They said, they will give us a ninety days
of extension until we know how many we are going to keep and who is going
to go. Mr. McKinzie had cards and he left them with me and he asked me
if he could go into the plant and hand out the cards. I said it is a waste of your
time and our time because we had a turnover of between eighty and ninety
per cent every day. -
s Certain evidence was, adduced, at the hearing relating to events occurring more than
6 months before the filing and service of the original charge herein. Said evidence was
received, not as a basis for any finding of unfair labor practices, but solely for such effect
-It-might have in elucidating, evaluating, and explaining the character and quality of
'Respondent's alleged illegal conduct after the cutoff date. It is well settled that Sec-
tion 10 (b) of the Act allows consideration of related acts transpiring prior to the statutory
limitation date for the purpose of throwing light on the specific conduct within the period
-in issue. N. L. R B. v. Fredrica Clausen, etc., '188 F. 2d 439 (C. A. 3); N. L. R. B. v.
General Shoe Corporation, 192 F. 2d 504 (C. A. 6) ; Superior Engraving Company v.
N. L. R B., 183 F. 2d 783 (C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B. v. White Construction and Engineering
Co., Inc., 204 F. 2d 950 (C A. 5) ; N. L. R B. v. Ozark Dam Constructors, etc., 203 F. 2d
139 (C. A. 8) ; Banner Die Fixture Company, 109 NLRB 1401 ; Florida Telephone Corpora-
tion; 88 NLRB 1429; Sun Oil Company, 89 NLRB 833. It is also well settled that to prove
Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices it must be shown that the acts and
,conduct- relied upon occurred within the 6-month period or extended into said period.
Joanna Cotton Mills Co. v.,N. L.. R. B., 176 F. 2d 749 (C. A • 4) ; Stewart Warner Corp. v.
N. L. R B., 194 F. 2d 207 (C. A. 4)•; Superior Engraving Company v. N. L. R.•B., supra;
Universal Oil Products Company, 108 NLRB 6& -
,?Each of these contracts contain a union-shop provision.
10 Unless otherwise noted all dates hereinafter mentioned refer to 1956.
COAST ALUMINUM COMPANY 1335
Before Cordill, McKinzie, and Benfatti left Pick's office on May 1, Cordill
,dictated and Pick and McKinzie signed, on behalf of their respective organizations, -
a document reading as follows: 11
INTERIM AGREEMENT
This Interim Agreement made and entered into this 1st day of May, 1956,
between WOODWORKERS' LOCAL UNION #530, hereinafter referred to
as the Union and the COAST ALUMINUM COMPANY, 1435 West 178th
Street, Gardena,, California, hereinafter referred to as the Employer.
The Employer agrees to recognize Woodworkers' Local #530 as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent for.all production and maintenance employees
employed at the Company at 1435 West 178th Street, Gardena, California.
This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until August 1st, 1956,
during which time the Company agreed to meet with the Union and negotiate
a contract covering wages, hours • and other working conditions for the em-
ployees to become effective August 1st, 1956.
COAST ALUMINUM COMPANY,
By (Signed) SAUL PICK,
WOODWORKERS' LOCAL #530,
By (Signed) R. R. MCKINZIE,
Business Representative.
On or shortly after August 1, McKinzie, Benfatti, and Pick met in Pick's office.
There, McKinzie, after exhibiting to Pick a copy of a contract which had been
entered into by Local 530 and a manufacturer of window frames, stated that
Respondent would have to enter into an agreement containing the same wage scale
as called for in the proffered contract. Then McKinzie said that before executing
such a contract he would like to go into the plant and distribute membership
application cards to Respondent's employees. Pick, after remarking that he did
not care to have McKinzie disrupt production by soliciting memberships during
working hours, stated, according to his undenied• and credited testimony, "Instead
of your going [into the plant], you can leave the cards in my office. I will call in
Mr. Clark, who is the superintendent from this plant, and I will give him those
cards to hand them out to employees; if they want to sign, fine, and after they
sign or don't sign, return them to you." Upon McKinzie's acquiescence to said
suggestion, Pick called Clark into the office and in the presence of McKinzie and
Benfatti, Pick handed Clark the cards McKinzie had given him and then instructed
Clark to hand the cards to the employees "and have them signed and returned to
Mr. McKinzie."
General Foreman Morse Hazelrigg testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that
in November Clark handed him some Local 530.membership application cards with
"instructions . . . to distribute these cards to the employees for their consideration
and observation," and then -inform the employees, "If they so desired to sign
and return" the cards to him; that when he handed the cards to the employees in
the window frame department, over which he was general foreman, he said to
each employee in substance, "You are being given this card for your consideration
.to sign and return to the office, if you so desire"; that Clark became provoked
with him because he had not "pressed" the employees into signing the cards; and
that when he informed Clark that it was "distasteful" to him to solicit union mem-
bership, Clark remarked, to quote Hazelrigg, "If he had known that, he'd have
done it himself instead of me."
Respondent, Local 530, and the Council entered into a union-shop agreement
covering Respondent's employees in certain specified classifications. Although this
agreement is dated August 1, 1956, and was to be operative from January 1, 1957,
until June 30, 1959, there is no positive,nor definite evidence as to when Pick and
McKinzie actually executed it save ,that neither one signed said agreement until long
after the date it bears. 'The record clearly indicates, and the Trial Examiner finds,
'.that when Pick and McKinzie executed said agreement each. well knew that Local
530 had not been selected or designated the statutory representative of the employees
'involved.
In December, Pick informed McKinzie that, because Respondent was in financial
difficulties, it intended to sell to a Kansas concern Respondent's extrusion department
n Pict testified without contradiction, and the Trial Examiner finds, that before this
'document wvas''executed, McKinzie admitted, that_•Local, 530 had -no-,membeis among
jtespondent's employees. }
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and requested that the effective date of the collective-bargaining agreement which
they had executed be changed from January 1 to the latter part of January 1957.
In accordance with said request, McKinzie, under date of December 15, 1956, wrote
Pick as follows:
This letter will confirm our Agreement that the contract between Woodworkers'
Local #530 and Coast Aluminum Company dated effective January 1, 1957,
will not finally become effective until January 28, 1957.
Several employee-witnesses testified to certain statements made to them by Pick,
Clark, and Hazelrigg in November 1956. It would serve no useful purpose to set
forth here at length said testimony, most of which is undenied, for it is but further
and other credited evidence of Respondent's violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2)
of the Act, particularly with respect to Respondent's open disregard to its employees'
'statutory right to select a collective-bargaining representative of their own choosing.
2. Concluding findings
The right of employees, under Section 7 of the Act, "to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing . . . [and] to refrain from any or all of such activities" is effectively imple-
mented by Section 8 (a) (1) and (2). These provisions forbid employers to
"interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7," and likewise prohibit employers from dominating, interfering with,
or supporting labor organizations of their employees. The employer's economic
hold over his employees, which inheres in their relationship, is thereby neutralized
in matters of organization and representation, which are peculiarly the concern
of the employees. Interdictions against employer intrusion in such matters are
essential if employees are to be free from the coercive influence of their employers,
for employees are, as the courts have repeatedly found, not insensitive to the ad-
vantages in their employment that they consider are likely to flow from their choice
of a representative to coincide with the wishes of their employer, nor the disad-
vantages which may attend their choice of a representative opposed by their employer.
And for the same reason, employees cannot be expected to derive the full benefit
from their protected right of self-organization if they believe, from circumstances
which the employer created or for which he was fairly responsible, that their repre-
sentative, however chosen, is subject to the employer's compulsive will. Con-
sequently, the Act prohibits all forms of employer assistance to, or domination of,
his. employees' labor organizations and interference in their organizing campaigns
which might operate to preclude an uninhibited exercise by employees of their
collective-bargaining rights.12
In open disregard of its duty to abstain from interfering with its employees'
rights of self-organization and to the selection of an exclusive collective-bargaining
representation, Pick, Clark, and Hazelrigg foisted upon the employees a labor
organization which met with Respondent's approval. Not only did Pick enter-into
a recognition agreement with Local 530 on May 1, 1956, when each party to said
agreement knew that Local 530 was not the statutory representative of the em-
ployees involved, and later entered into a joint union-shop contract with Local 530
and the Council, 'despite the fact that the parties thereto were aware that neither
labor organization represented the employees covered by said agreement , but Hazel-
rigg advised the employees in his department to join Local 530, and Clark, not
only advised the employees to sign Local 530 membership applications, but threat-
ened at least dne employee with discharge if she attempted to bring another labor
organization into Respondent's plant . Furthermore, the credited evidence also
reveals that Pick in his November 1956 speech to the employees threatened them
With loss of certain benefits if they did not accept Local 530 as their collective-
bargaining representative. At the same time Pick further stated that Respondent
would not deal with any labor organization other than Local 530. The Trial
Examiner therefore finds that, upon the record as a whole, Respondent dominated
and interfered with the administration of Local 530, and contributed support to it
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act, thereby interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. The Trial Examiner further finds that Respondent also
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act (1) by entering into the May 1 recognition
agreement ; (2) by entering into the August 1 illegal union-security agreement with
a See N . L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584 ; International ds8ociation of Machinists,
etc. v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72; N. L. R. B. v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner company, 315
U. S. 685; N. L. R. B. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 319 U. S. 50.
COAST ALUMINUM COMPANY" ' ^ ^ 1337
Local 530 and the Council; (3) by threatening-an employee with discharge if she
attempted to bring another labor union into the plant; (4) by the statements made
by Pick in his November 1956 speech to the employees that he would deal only
with Local 530; and (5) by Pick's November 1956 threats to the employees that
they would lose certain benefits if they did not accept Local 530 as their exclusive
collective-bargaining representative.
The contentions of Local 530 and the Council that the employees of Respondent,
Saul Pick, Incorporated, and Acme Plywood Company constitute- a unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining are without merit. In the first place, the parties
to the May 1 recognition agreement never considered nor contemplated that the
agreements then in existence between Local 530 and Saul Pick, Incorporated, and
Local 530 and Acme Plywood Company were to cover Respondent's employees for
if they did they would not have drawn up ,a document specifically designating Re-
spondent as the employer of the persons to be covered by said agreement. Further-
more, the 1956 union-security agreement between Local 530, the Council, and
Respondent again specifically refers to Respondent as the employer involved. In
addition, the record is perfectly clear that the parties never contemplated that the
1956 contract was to be an extension of the Saul Pick, Incorporated, and the Acme
contracts for, as Pick's undenied and credited testimony shows, the 1956 contract
resulted from negotiations he, himself, conducted with McKinzie, during which he
and McKinzie went over various contracts submitted by McKinzie and only after
great thought had been given to the terms thereof and their applicability to Respond-
ent's business, did he sign the 1956 contract. Furthermore, the credited testimony
of Pick clearly discloses that Saul 'Pick, Incorporated, has been a member of an
employer-association since 1949 and that since that date said association has nego-
tiated all labor contracts for Saul Pick, Incorporated.
Local 530 and the Council point to the fact that the amended complaint alleged
and the proof adduced at the hearing shows, that Respondent, Saul Pick, Incorpo-
rated , and Acme Plywood Company are integrated enterprises and therefore their
employees must necessarily constitute an appropriate unit under Section 9 (b) of
the Act. With this reasoning the Trial Examiner cannot concur.
Ofttimes the Board will consider the volume of business transacted by two or
more employers solely for jurisdictional purposes, and then when it comes to
determining whether the Act had been violated the Board considers said employers
as separate and distinct entities and not as a single employer of the employees in-
volved. For example, in so-called secondary boycott cases, the Board will take
into consideration for jurisdictional purposes not only the operations of the primary
employer, but also the operations-of any secondary employers to the extent that
the fatter are affected by the conduct involved. However, when determining
whether the Act had been violated the Board in those cases considers the employers
involved as separate entities.13 .
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and such of them as, have been found to constitute unfair labor
practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act, the Trial Examiner will recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
As found above, Respondent dominated and interfered with the administration
of Local 530 and contributed support to it. The Trial Examiner is convinced, and
finds, that Respondent's continued recognition of Local 530 constitutes a continuing
obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them under the
Act. Therefore, in order to ^ effectuate the policies of the Act and to free the
employees from the effects of Respondent's unfair labor practices, the Trial Exami-
ner will recommend that Respondent withdraw all recognition from Local 530 as
a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning
18 See the line of cases beaded by International Brotherhood of Teamsters (McAllister
Transfer, Inc.), 110 NLRB 1769.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions
of- employment and to completely disestablish it as such representative.
As previously found, Respondent's conduct in executing the May 1, 1956, recog-
nition agreement and thereafter the 1956 contract constituted unlawful assistance to
Local 530. This contract has been a means whereby Respondent has utilized the
unlawfully dominated and supported Local 530 to frustrate self-organization and
to defeat genuine collective bargaining by the employees. The Trial: Examiner,
therefore, recommends that Respondent cease and desist from giving effect to said
contract or to any renewal, extension, modification, or suppl'ementthereof.. Nothing
herein shall be taken to require Respondent to vary the wages, hours,, seniority, and
other substantive features of its relations with the employees, -themselves, which
Respondent has established in performance of the said contract or any revision,
extension, renewal, or modification thereof. -
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by Respondent are
of such a character and scope that in order to insure the employees here involved
their full rights guaranteed them by the Act it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist from in any manner interfering with,, restraining, and coercing his
employees in their right to self-organization.
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. Miscellaneous Woodworkers Local No. 530, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, and Los Angeles County District Council of
Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of Local 530 and by
contributing support to it , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2), of the Act.
3. By entering into and giving effect to the 1956 contract with Local 530 and
the Council , which contract was executed in violation of the Act, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is-
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the,.
Act.
5. 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.]
Grace Chemical Company, Division of W. R. Grace & Co.' and
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Build-
ers, Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, and Interna-
tional Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioners. Cases
Nos. 32-RC-1099 and 392-RC-1100. June 6, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
John E. Cienki, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error, and are hereby affirmed.
-Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board'
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a - three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
1 The Employer's name appears as corrected at the hearing.
120 NLRB No. 166.