Corrugated Structures, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 523 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

CORRCUGATED) STRUCTURES. INC.
Corrugated Structures, Inc. and David E. Howard
and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 96
a/w Sheet Metal Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO
International Association of Bridge and Structural
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 103 and Jon
Goldman. Cases 25-CA-9550, 25-CA-9780,
and 25-CB-3461
September 29, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MENIIERS
JENKINS ANI) PNI.I O
On July 31, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Richard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent Em-
ployer and the Respondent Union filed exceptions
and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
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, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that the Respondent Employer (herein also called
the Employer) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discharging employee David Howard
for complaining to Sheet Metal Workers Local
Union No. 96, hereinafter Local 96, concerning a
reduction in pay, 2 and by discharging employees
Jack Ankrom and Michael Gourley because of
their membership in Local 96. We further find that
such conduct violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act as
it was designed to and tended to encourage mem-
bership in the Respondent Union (herein also called
Iron Workers), and to discourage membership in
Local 96. For the reasons set forth below, howev-
er, we do not adopt the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that the Employer violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally reducing
the wages of certain employees and by withdraw-
I he Admlllstral le [. Li. , Judge recormn inded Ihal he Board IsSUe a
hroad clC-;ltld dcisl ,order requiring the R otllldclll Frnplryer 10i Ceasc
and derist frrm vililaling the Act "in an olther manlier" tlorcv er, c
dt, not find lhe Rpondrtent Fnpl er", clonducl in this tase egregiorus
enough io 'uarrain the iilfrlCC er' such il i ordcr Conrecquctil . arc hall
substitute the Board\ na rrr languiage, rquiring the R cspilndeil Em-
ploer to ceaJC ailnd desij fronl ,lillaing Ihe Act "in any like ir related
mlanr," for I he pro~lriswill reconrlnlclnded D) the Aldnlliii r;i I c Law
Judge See Il,u A,,ot, I'rdi, /l, 242 NI R I 1357 119791
' No exceptins %were filedl I( this flnliig of hle Adllrinirlrratic I.;ls
Judge
252 NLRB No. 79
ing recognition from Local 96. We also do not
adopt hos finding that the Iron Workers violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by entering into and maintaining
a collective-bargaining agreement with the Em-
ployer when it knew that the Employer had a valid
contract with Local 96.
The Employer is engaged in the construction in-
dustry. On January 27, 1976, it and Local 96 en-
tered into a prehire agreement pursuant to Section
8(f) of the Act. 3 The contract was not limited to
any particular job or jobsite, and contained, inter
alia, a union-security clause requiring that employ-
ees, as a condition of employment, had to become
members of Local 96 within 8 days of being hired.
On December 16, 1977, when employees David
Howard and Robert Webb were working at the
Frontier-Kemper jobsite, which was covered by
the bargaining agreement, the Employer's presi-
dent, Kempf, brought Howard and Webb their
paychecks and told them their pay had been cut
below the contract rates because they were neither
experienced nor fast enough to be paid union scale.
Thereafter, on February 15, 1978, the Employer
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with
the Iron Workers. That Union was aware at that
time of the agreement the Employer had with
Local 96. At a prejob conference held on February
24, 1978, concerning a Rockport Power Plant pro-
ject, Kempf announced that the Empoyer was as-
signing its work there to employees represented by
the Iron Workers. Since mid-February 1978, the
Employer's employees have worked under the Iron
Workers contract.
In finding that the foregoing conduct of the Em-
ployer and the Iron Workers violated the Act as
set forth above, the Administrative Law Judge nec-
essarily found that Local 96 was the actual major-
ity representative, not just the 8(f) representative,
of the Employer's employees. 4 In reaching that
result, he concluded that the Employer employed a
stable work force; that Local 96 represented a ma-
jority of that stable work force; that Local 96's ma-
jority, therefore, was established during the rele-
vant period with respect to all the Employer's
worksites; and that, consequently, majority status
need not be shown for each jobsite. The evidence,
S S() of the Act permits employers and lahbor orgarllzations in he
building anrd coinstructlon industry to enter intor collectl -hargairiing
agreementts co erlg Cmplloecs nt )et hired Curpt. l.rnumlrn and .Sofi
le lo.,al Un.ln No, 1247 of he Brotrhrxd f Painiers. Dccoiraor & IPa.
pe'rhutigr Ij -Iorlritcu If--CIO lndar Punt arnd Rug C(renrrl. 15
NIRB 1 951 I thh)
S .\ L R B. Locaul Union \. It)3, lnrrlcrnartional 41 cirrlior or
Bridge, .Struciuraul & Ornamental lrun WIorAer. .41L-(10 llgdon ot-
rrutrrtin . 434 S 335 (19781. holding i eCffect unrionr reCCogIiiton and
ai hargallrlig agreement under SeC 8(f) do ot hc the shanlC i.ltUl% ¥ith
rC'spcct to ther priolsilns of Sec 8 i as rclgnition ard .a riOll qtlenlt 'Oii-
trac h, rl onirpi I rcprehcntirliorn
523
DECISIONS OF NATIONA LA3O()R RELATIONS BOARD
however, with respect to the Employer's work
force does not support a finding that at any rele-
vant time Local 96 represented a majority of a sub-
stantial, stable work force of the Employer's em-
ployees. Thus, 38 different employees worked for
the Employer from January 1976 to mid-February
1978. Four were employed for over a year, six for
only a day, and a majority of the remainder for less
than 2 months. Three of the four long-term em-
ployees were apparently Local 96 members. But at
the times involved herein, there were three other
employees who worked throughout the period and
who, insofar as the record indicates, were never
discharged or laid off. None of them was a Local
96 member and, thus, with respect to this more or
less stable core group of employees, only three
members out of the seven employees involved be-
longed to Local 96. Consequently, to the extent it
can be said there was a stable or core work force,
Local 96 did not represent a majority of that group
at times material-and it can be added it did not, at
such times, represent a majority in the total work
force. Indeed, the facts present a picture of a con-
stant ebb and flow of the Employer's work force,
with only an insubstantial number of employees
being continuously or regularly employed, and
with Local 96's support among the employees
being nothing more than a fortuitous consequence
of who happened to be on the payroll on a given
day. In short, we find that the Employer did not
engage a stable work force and that Local 96 in
consequence has not established itself as the major-
ity representative of the Employer's employees.
Therefore, in order to establish that the Employer
and the Iron Workers violated the Act as alleged,
it must be demonstrated that Local 96 enjoyed ma-
jority status at the Frontier-Kemper jobsite and the
Rockport Power Plant, the specific locations
where the unlawful conduct with which we are
here concerned is alleged to have occurred.
With respect to Frontier-Kemper the record in-
dicates that at the time that Howard's and Webb's
wages were unilaterally reduced below those speci-
fied in the applicable 8(f) contract they were the
only employees of the Employer working at that
jobsite. There is no evidence that either Howard or
Webb was a supporter of Local 96.5 The Employer
switched its prehiring agreement from Local 96 to
the Iron Workers on February 15, 1978. However,
' We have found that Howard was engaged in a protected union actis-
ity when he complained to Local 96 about a cut in his pay below speci-
fied contract rates However, the fact that Howard sought to vindicate
his perceived rights under the contract does not estahlish that. having a
choice, he would support representation by Local 96. Further, the record
fails to show that Howard paid union dues or, in any other manner, sup-
ported l.ocal 96. But, even if Howard were held to be in favor of that
Union, still it would not have had, insofar as the record shows, majority
support n the Frontier-Kemper job
the only jobsite mentioned in the record involving
the change is the Rockport Power Plant. The Gen-
eral Counsel's evidence setting forth which em-
ployees were working at the Employer's various
jobsites failed to include Rockport. Thus, there is
no evidence to indicate whether Local 96 enjoyed
majority status at that site or at any other jobsite at
the time the Employer executed its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Iron Workers and rec-
ognized that Union as the representative of its
Rockport employees, or at any relevant time there-
after. Therefore, we find that Local 96 did not
enjoy majority status at the Frontier-Kemper job-
site when wages were unilaterally reduced and that
the General Counsel has failed to prove that Local
96 enjoyed majority support at any of the Employ-
er's jobsites when the 8(f) agreement was executed
with the Iron Workers. Accordingly, we find that
the Employer did not violate the Act as alleged by
unilaterally reducing the wages at the Frontier-
Kemper jobsite and by withdrawing recognition
from Local 96 and recognizing and executing an
8(f) contract with the Iron Workers, and that the
Union did not violate the Act by entering into such
agreement. We shall, therefore, dismiss the 8(a)(5)
and (1) and 8(b)(1)(A) allegations of the complaint
and the 8(a)(2) allegation insofar as it relates to the
foregoing alleged violations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent
Employer, Corrugated Structures, Inc., Evansville,
Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Sheet Metal
Workers Local No. 96, a/w Sheet Metal Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, or encouraging membership in the In-
ternational Association of Bridge and Structural
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 103, or any other
union, by discharging employees because of their
union membership or relationship to any union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer David Howard, Jack Ankrom, and Mi-
chael Gourley immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions or, if such positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
524
CO()RRUGATED SRUCTURES. INC
and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination practiced
against them, in the manner set forth in that section
of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision enti-
tled "Remedy."
(b) Post at its premises at Evansville, Indiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of the Re-
spondent Employer, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent Employer immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent Employer to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent Employer has
taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act and Section 8(a)(2), of the Act
except as specifically found, and that the Iron
Workers violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
6 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
Stales Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Hoard" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court o Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National I.abor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because
of their membership in or support of Sheet
Metal Workers Local Union No. 96, a/w
Sheet Metal Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in In-
ternational Association of Bridge and Structur-
al Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 103, or any
other union, by discharging employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer David Howard, Jack
Ankrom, and Michael Gourley immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions or,
if such positions no longer exist, to substantial-
ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and wv: wit i make them
whole for any loss of earnings, plus interest,
they may have suffered as a result of our dis-
crimination against them.
CORRUGATED STRUCTURES, INC.
DECISION
SA1TEM1N-I OF 1.HI CASE.
RlcHRI)X L. DENIsON, Administrative Law Judge:
This consolidated proceeding was heard at Evansville,
Indiana, on August 8 and November 20 and 21, 1978.
The charges in Cases 25-CA-9550, 25-CA-9780, and
25-CB-3461 ere filed on January 5. April 10, and
August 9, 1978, respectively. The consolidated com-
plaints, issued May 31 and September 15, 1978, allege
that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by laying off David Howard, Michael
Gourley, and Jack Ankrom because they assisted the
Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 96, a/w Sheet
Metal Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,' and
were not and did not become members of the Interna-
tional Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, Local 103;2 and by unilaterally lowering
its employees' wage rates to discourage membership in
Local 96. It is also alleged that Respondent Employer
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally reduc-
ing wage rates, and by refusing to bargain with and
withdrawing recognition from Local 96 on or about De-
cember 1, 1977, and thereafter on February 28, 1978, rec-
ognizing and entering into a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Respondent Union, which was thereafter
maintained and enforced, during a time when Local 96
was and is the exclusive collective-bargaining agent of
Respondent Employer's employees. It is further alleged
that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(2) and
(1) of the Act by giving assistance to Local 103 by re-
ducing wages; laying off Howard, Gourley, and
Ankrom, to discourage membership in Local 96; refusing
to bargain with and withdrawing recognition from Local
96; and recognizing and signing a contract with Local
103. Finally, it is alleged that Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by entering into and main-
taining a collective-bargaining agreement with Respond-
ent Employer at a time when Local 96 had a valid col-
lective-bargaining agreement with that Employer. Re-
spondents' answers deny the unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaints.
Upon the entire record, including consideration of the
briefs and my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
I Hereafter referred to as Local 96.
2 Hereafter referred to as Local 103, or Respondent Union
525
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO()ARD
FINI)INGS OF FACT
I. JURISI)ICTION
Respondent Employer, sometimes referred to hereafter
as the Company, or Corrugated, is an Indiana corpora-
tion with a principal office and place of business at Ev-
ansville, Indiana, from which it engages in the business
of steel building erection in the construction industry at
various jobsites. During the past 12 months, a representa-
tive period, in the course and conduct of its business op-
erations, Corrugated performed services valued in excess
of $50,(000 at points outside the State of Indiana. During
the same period of time Corrugated also provided serv-
ices valued in excess of $50,000 to CDI, Inc., of Terre
Haute, which in turn purchased goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside
the State of Indiana. Respondent Employer is now, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Local 96 and Local 103 are each labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. TH-IE UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES
A. The Supervisory Status of Robert Morgan
Robert Morgan worked as a job foreman for Respond-
ent on several different jobsites utilizing a crew of three
or four employees whose work he laid out and directed.
As the sole jobsite supervisor, Morgan kept the employ-
ees' time sheets, and checked to see that the work was
done properly and that his men were working and doing
their jobs. In the performance of his duties Morgan used
a company truck, which was not available to rank-and-
file employees. The record shows that he provided Com-
pany President Tony Kempf with evaluations of employ-
ees' performance which Kempf acted upon. In addition
the record shows that Morgan told employees when to
report to work, issued checks to employees, and termi-
nated employees pursuant to instructions from Kempf.
Based on this undisputed evidence, it is clear that Robert
Morgan possessed and exercised certain of the attributes
of supervisory authority described in Section 2(11) of the
Act. I therefore find that, at all times material herein, he
is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
B. The Reduction in the Wages of David Howard and
Robert Webb, and the Discharges of David Howard,
Jack Ankrom, and Michael Gourley
Since about mid-1975, Corrugated has been an employ-
er in the building and construction industry engaged in
the business of erecting corrugated steel buildings at job-
sites in the vicinity of Evansville, Indiana. In accordance
with Section 8(f) of the Act, Respondent Employer and
Local 96 signed what is commonly known as a "prehire"
collective-bargaining agreement on January 27, 1976.
Under this contract, not limited to any particular job or
jobsite, Local 96 agreed to refer journeymen and appren-
tice sheet metal workers to the Company, and Corrugat-
ed agreed to require employees to become members of
Local 96 within 8 days of hiring, as a condition of em-
ployment.
On November 7, 1977, David Howard was hired by
the Company, and told to report for work by Foreman
Robert Morgan. Howard was disturbed by the fact that
he had not been referred through Local 96, and, on his
first day at work, expressed a desire to Corrugated's
President Tony Kempf to be cleared by Local 96. Kempf
said not to worry about the matter. He said he felt sure
he could get a permit for Howard in a few days. When
Howard asked about clearance again, shortly before
Thanksgiving, Kempf replied that it might take a little
longer because of Local 96 workers were out of work
and the hall was nearly full.3
Howard and Robert Webb were working on Job Fore-
man Robert Morgan's crew at the Frontier-Kemper job-
site on December 16, 1977, when, at about quitting time,
Kempf arrived with the employees' paychecks. Kempf
told Webb and Howard that he was cutting their pay a
couple of dollars an hour because of complaints that
Howard and Webb were not experienced or fast enough
to make union scale.4 Howard reported the pay cut to
Local 96 Business Agent Art Parady by telephone on
Sunday, December 18, 1977. The next day Parady visited
the jobsite, and through an examination of the check
stubs determined that the wages of Howard and Webb
had in fact been reduced. Later Morgan reported Par-
ady's visit to Kempf, including the information that
Howard had notified Parady about the wage reduction.
Kempf instructed Morgan to terminate Howard.5 When
Parady arrived back at his office following his visit to
the jobsite, he notified Kempf by telephone that the re-
duction in the wages of Howard and Webb below scale
violated the contract. He insisted that Kempf produce
his books in order that Parady could determine the total
number of employees being paid below scale, and how
much Kempf owed them. The books were never pro-
duced.
Later that same evening, Morgan discharged Howard
by telephone, stating that in his opinion Howard was
fired for contacting Parady. Since it is undisputed that
Respondent Employer unilaterally changed the wages of
employees without prior notice to and bargaining with
the Union, I find that Respondent Employer's conduct in
this respect violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I
also find that Respondent Employer violated Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by discharging David Howard
for his union and protected concerted activities in com-
plaining to Parady about the wage reduction. In addition
to the circumstances surrounding Howard's discharge, as
described above, Kempf admitted that Howard was ter-
minated immediately after he learned that Howa,d had
complained. Moreover, in his testimony, Kempf failed to
give any reasons for Howard's termination. Robert
Webb, who chose not to complain about the reduction in
' Ho,).ard's undisputed version of these conversations is credited.
Neilther the pay cut nor the asserted reason is disputed Floward is
credited
s These findings, concerning what "sas reported to Kempf by Morgan
are based on the admissions of Morgan and Kempf
526
CORRUGATED STRUCFURES, INC.
his wages, was not terminated. A clearer case of unlaw-
ful discrimination under the Act would be hard to find.6
Following his referral by Local 96 in August 1977,
Jack Ankrom, a 30-year member of Local 96, was em-
ployed by the Company. Ankrom was discharged over
the telephone by Kempf on January 14, 1978. Kempf
said Ankrom should pick up his check the following day.
Kempf stated that he was "tired of messing around with
the Sheet Metal Workers," and was going to put iron
workers on his jobs. Michael Gourley, another long-time
Local 96 member hired by Corrugated in August 1977,
received an almost identical phone call from Kempf in
mid-February 1978. Kempfs testimony did not dispute
that of either Ankrom or Gourley. Kempf offered no ex-
planation whatsoever for the discharge of these two em-
ployees. Therefore, as is also the case with respect to
David Howard, I find that Respondent Employer violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Jack
Ankrom and Michael Gourley because of their union
membership.
Almost immediately after Ankrom's discharge, iron
workers began to appear on Corrugated's jobs. In fact,
Kempf offered Ankrom the opportunity of obtaining an
Iron Workers' permit in order to continue to work for
the Company, but Ankrom remained loyal to his union
and refused. Corrugated then signed a collective-bargain-
ing agreement with the Respondent-Union, Local 103.'
Business Agent Charles Hill admitted that he knew of
the relationship between Local 96 and Corrugated prior
to February 15, 1978. Kempf admitted that the charge
filed by Howard and the grievance filed by Parady influ-
enced his decision to bring in Local 103 in spite of his
existing contract with Local 96. Thus, at the prejob con-
ference at the commencement of the Rockport Power
Plant project on February 24, 1978, in the presence of
Parady, Hill, and others, Kempf announced that he was
assigning his phase of the work to Local 103. Despite
Parady's objections, Kempf thereafter confirmed the as-
signment by letter, and since mid-February 1978, iron
workers have worked on the Company's jobs under
Local 103's contract, including payments to Local 103's
health and welfare and pension funds.
The Board has held that under an 8(f) prehire agree-
ment an employer may withdraw recognition from the
union and/or make unilateral changes in working condi-
tions without violating Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, since
no presumption of majority status arises under Section
8(f), provided the union does not actually achieve major-
ity status. R. J. Smith Construction Co., Inc., 191 NLRB
693, 695 (1971). The Board likewise holds that if the
union achieves majority status at any time after an exist-
After Howard filed his charge in the instant case and after Parady
filed a grievance on his behalf, Howard was paid by he Company for the
difference in his wages at he reduced rate and the amount he should
have received at union scale under he contract Howard also received a
favorable decision with respect to his grievance in late February 1978.
7 Although Kempf denied that Local 103's Businress Agent Charles Hill
ever promised hin a fair share of apprentices and qualified journeymen in
return for switching unlons. Kemp's affidavit so states, and I do nt
credit his denial The circumstances surrounding Respondent's action in
exchanging one union for another does not support the delimals of either
Kempf or Hill, and I do not find hem t be credible wi tnesses im this
regard
ing 8(f) agreement is signed, any reneging on contractual
provisions or unilateral changes by the employer is sub-
ject to the prohibition of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Against this background of well-established Board prece-
dent, Respondent Employer cites the case of Dee Cee
Floor Covering, Inc., etc., 232 NLRB 421 (1977), wherein
the Board held that in order to establish a violation of
Section 8(a)(5) a union must demonstrate its majority
status at the jobsite in issue, notwithstanding evidence
that it represented a majority at previous jobsites. The
General Counsel argues that the Dee Cee case is distin-
guishable from the instant case on the basis that Re-
spondent herein did not conduct its operations on a one-
jobsite basis, but hired a stable work force. I find the
General Counsel's argument persuasive, and the distinc-
tion he draws to be a significant one. Documentary evi-
dence submitted by the General Counsel shows that
during the relevant period Respondent Employer's work
force achieved a significant degree of stability, and that
employees moved from one job to another with little or
no distinction based on a particular jobsite. The accuracy
of this conclusion is reinforced by Local 96 remittance
reports prepared by the Company. I therefore find that
the Dee Cee case is not controlling, and that the remain-
ing question to be considered is the Union's majority
status with respect to all the Company's employees. An
examination of the Local 96 remittance reports for the
relevant period, which lists on a monthly basis the em-
ployees who worked for the Company, and Corrugated's
contributions to the respective Local 96 funds on each
employee's behalf, reveals that at all times material
herein the Union maintained a majority status. Thus, for
example, at its theoretically lowest ebb in the month of
November 1977, even if one were to questionably ex-
clude from consideration applicants for membership,
travelers, and any employees who otherwise did not pay
dues that month, the Union still maintained a majority of
7 out of 13 employees. It is therefore clear that Local 96
had and maintained its majority status during the period
in issue, and therefore Respondent Employer's unilateral
reduction of the wages of Howard and Webb, withdraw-
al of recognition from Local 96, and subsequent recogni-
tion of Local 103, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. This same conduct by the Company and, in addi-
tion, the discharges of Howard, Ankrom, and Gourley,
was clearly designed to assist Local 103 by encouraging
membership in the Iron Workers and by discouraging
membership in Local 96. Thus, Respondent Employer
also violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Finally, since the
undisputed evidence clearly demonstrates that Local 103
entered into and maintained a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Company at a time when Local 103's
Business Agent Charles Hill knew that Local 96 had a
valid contract with Corrugated, Respondent-Union vio-
lated Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act.
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. Corrugated Structures, Inc., is, and at all times ma-
terial herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
527
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 96, a/w
Sheet Metal Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
and International Association of Bridge and Structural
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 103 are each labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By unilaterally lowering its employees' wages and
by discharging David Howard, Michael Gourley, and
Jack Ankrom for the purpose of discouraging member-
ship in Local 96, Respondent Employer violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. By unilaterally reducing employees' wages, as re-
ferred to in paragraph 3, above, by withdrawing recogni-
tion from Local 96 and thereafter recognizing and enter-
ing into a collective-bargaining agreement with Local
103 at a time when Local 96 was and continued to be the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
Company's bargaining unit employees, Respondent Em-
ployer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.'
5. By assisting Local 103 by means of the acts de-
scribed in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, Respondent Em-
ployer violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
6. By entering into and maintaining a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Respondent Employer at a time
when it knew that Local 96 and Respondent Employer
had a valid collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent
Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent Employer and
Respondent Union each has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to
order that Respondents cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent Em-
ployer discriminatorily discharged David Howard, Jack
Ankrom, and Michael Gourley, I find it necessary to
order that Respondent offer them immediate and full re-
instatement with backpay computed on a quarterly basis
' The appropriate unit is: "All employees at its various jobsites as de-
scribed in the agreement between Corrugated Structures. Inc., and Sheet
Metal Workers Local Union No. 96, a/w Sheet Metal Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO."
with interest as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977), 9 from date of discharge to date of
proper offer of reinstatement. Respondent Employer will
also be ordered to make whole any employees who suf-
fered a loss of earnings by reason of Respondent Em-
ployer's unilateral reduction of wages by payment to
them of a sum of money equal to that which the employ-
ee normally would have earned in accordance with the
above formula. Respondent Employer will also be or-
dered to withdraw recognition from Respondent Union
and cease giving effect to the contract with Respondent
Union, or any supplement, extension, or renewal thereof,
covering Respondent Employer's employees. Nothing
contained herein, however, should be taken to require
Respondent Employer to vary wages, hours, or other
substantive conditions of work established under that
agreement to the benefit of employees. Respondent Em-
ployer will also be ordered to recognize and bargain in
good faith with Local 96.
It having been found that Respondents each unlawful-
ly executed, maintained, and enforced an agreement cov-
ering Respondent Employer's employees under which
those employees were required to join and maintain
membership in Respondent Union, it will be ordered that
Respondent Employer and Respondent Union jointly and
severally reimburse the employees for the dues, fees, and
other moneys they were required to pay by reason of the
union-security provision in the contract, with interest in
accordance with the F. W. Woolworth Company and Flor-
ida Steel Corporation formula, supra. Employees who
were already members of Respondent Union when em-
ployed by Respondent Company shall not be entitled to
reimbursement. Identification of such employees will be
made in compliance proceedings, if necessary. "'
Because of the serious nature of the violations found to
have occurred and their substantial impact upon the em-
ployees affected, I find a broad cease-and-desist order is
necessary.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
9 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
'0 Davis Industries, Inc.. e al., 232 NLRB 946 (1977).
528