Crouse Nuclear Energy Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 390 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Crouse Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. and Samuel F.
Buttner, Jr.
Local 214, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO (Crouse Nuclear Energy Ser-
vices, Inc.) and Samuel F. Buttner, Jr.
oI)cal 214, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO (Walsh Construction Compa-
ny) and Thomas Cotter. Cases 3-CA 8168, 3 CB
3116, and 3 CB 3042
January 29, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MEMBERS PENEI.LO
AND) IRtflSI)ALE
On October 24, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Jerry B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Crouse Nuclear
Energy Services, Inc.. and the General Counsel filed
exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional l.abor Relations Board ats 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 2 of the Administrative Law Judge, and
to adopt his recommended Order as modified
herein.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that Respondent, Crouse
Nuclear Energy Services. Inc., infield, Pennsylva-
nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and
Respondent, Local 214, Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL CIO, Oswego, New
York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph B. (b):
(hb) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by lawful agreements permit-
ted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph B. 2(b):
240 NLRB No. 51
"(b) Notify Walsh Construction Company and
Thomas C'otter in writing that it has no objection to
referring Cotter for employment with Walsh: in ad-
dition, notify the above-named individual, in writing,
that henceforth it will not restrain or coerce him by
unlawfully infringing upon his rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act and that he will have full use of
its hiring hall facilities without discrimination in con-
nection with referrals for employment."
3. Substitute the attached notices for those of the
Administrative Law Judge.
Respondent ('rouse has excepted to the Administrative L[aw Judge's
finding which discredited the testimony of its assistant site superintendent.
Walt nds, with respect to the alleged economic reason for Buttner's dis-
charge- It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administra;tve
,a .lJudge's resolutions with respect to credibihlity unless the clear prepon-
derance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are
ilnctrrect. Standard D)ri ilal Produc i. Inc. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188
I- 2d 362 3d ('ir. 1951) We have carefullI examined the record and find no
basis for reversing his findings. In view of the substantial evidence to sup-
port the Administrative Lawr Judge's finding that EndN's testinimon in this
regard was unworthv of belief. we need not clnsider Respondent ('rouse's
contention that he improperl relied, in part. upon rEndy's failure to assert
an s economicle reason for Buttner's discharge at the pretrial investigation
cl)nference.
2 he Administrative L.aw Judge quotes Board language in Internatonal
( 'nion f ( OPL''raiingX Lnineer. LI.ocal /i. .4 T1. ('10 i H ilham Murphy). 204
NLRB 681 (1973), to support his corlclusion that Respondent nion vio-
lated Sec. 8(b(1 )(A) of the Act when it refused to refer Thomas (Cotter for
eniplomnient at Walsh ('onstruction ('Companyv The quoted passage, how-
eser. refers to violations of Sec 8(h)(2) ad does not address the issue of
whether the niorn violated Sec 8(b)(I )(A) despite the General ('ounsel's
failure to prove that the nion caused or attempted to cause Walsh to
refuse to hire ('Cotter Nevertheless, we agree with the Administrative L.aw
Judge's conclusion that the Union's discriminator) refusal to refer ('otter
for employment because of his association with a member of a rival faction
violated Sec. 8(b)( I)(A) of the Act. A union nmust iffer to all of its members
"the same access to and use f those services which it prrsvides members to
facilitate their acquisition of eiplos ment. as for example. a hiring hall. and
maly iot treat certain members disparatel because they have engaged in
actillties which are protected b the Act." Hi.uling ind Portabhle Engineers.
lxwcal No 4 (he (aIrlon ('CrpirationJ IX89 NRB 366. 367 (1971). That
('otter may have been able to obtain a job from Walsh despite the UInion's
acilon does nt negate the coercive impact of the t nion's refusal to refer
him tio such job. See ('haujfeur' If 'nin Local 9.', lniernalional Brolherhood
,t ear.steri. (harffuir.i tirehoiustnemn and JHelper ifA4 nrerica Yellow (abh
('onprl')J. 172 NRB 2137, 2138 (1968). his act clearl demonstrated to
('otter and other union members that their chances for employment might
be hindered if they support a particular group f union officials ;nd. there-
fore, ctoerced them n the exercise of their Sec. 7 rights in violation >of Sec.
8(b)( I )(A)
Although the Administrative Law Judge correctly concluded that a
brotad cease-and-desist order against Respondent Union was warranted in
this case. he inadvertently failed t s provide in his recommended Order.
Wre hereby correct this inadvertent error and modify the Order accordingly.
In addition, we will modify par. 2(b) of sec. B of the Administrative Law
Judge's recommended Order to conform It to the Board's customar remedy
for iolations of the kind found herein See Internaiional Brotherhood f
Biiermakerr. Irn Shiphuilder. Blaksmiths., Forrer and Helpers Lobal
Iidge 'No. I69. 41l. ('10 Ril/e Stloker ('irprailon). 209 NRB 14(1 141
(1974).
CROUSE NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. 391
APPENDIX A
NoTrwc- To E,,MPI Oye.F
PosIE.D) tBY ORI)R () I HiL
NATIONAl IlABOR RI ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE wil.L NOt discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees in regard to hire or ten-
ure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment because of their union or protected
concerted activities, except as might be permit-
ted by lawful agreements in accord with Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
Wl wlll N in an, other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by lawful agreements in accordance
with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WIr WILL offer to Samuel F. Buttner, Jr., im-
mediate and full reinstatement to his former po-
sition or, if such position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights previously
enjoyed, and jointly and severally with Local
214, Laborers International Union of North
America. AFL CIO, make him whole for any
loss of pay or other benefits suffered b reason
of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining. members of any
labor organization, except to the extent provided by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(ROUTSE NUL(I.EAR EN: R(;Y SRVI(':S. IN(
APPENDIX B
NoT l('E To MLMBERS
Pos-rED BY ORDIR O() lIE
NATIONAL LABOR REI.AIIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WI.LL NOI cause or attempt to cause Crouse
Nuclear Energy Services, Inc., or any other em-
ployer, to discriminate against any of its em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
except as might be permitted by lawful agree-
ments in accord with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WEl WII.L NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act except to the
extent as might be affected by lawful agreements
permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL. notify Samuel F. Buttner. Jr., and
C('rouse Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.. by letter,
that we have no objection to the employment of
Samuel F. Buttner. Jr.. by Crouse Nuclear Ener-
gy Services, Inc.
Wl vi1.1i notify Walsh Construction Compan y
and Thomas ('otter in writing that we have no
objection to referring him for employment at
Walsh; in addition, we will notify Cotter in writ-
ing that, henceforth, we will not restrain or
coerce him by unlawfully infringing upon his
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and
that he will have full use of our hiring hall facil-
ities without discrimination in connection with
referrals for employment.
WI wrt. jointly and severally with ('rouse
Nuclear Energy Services. Inc., make Samuel F.
Buttner. Jr.. whole for any loss of payI suffered
bhs reason of the discrimination against him.
Lo(.X1 214, LBORERS IN I ERNI I()NAI UNION()
OF NOR I AMtIRI(,A . AFL-CIO
DECISION
STAILeMFNI [OF THE (CASI.
JERRY B SNE, Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, was heard pursuant to due notice
on March 22 and 23, 1978. at Oswego, New York.
The charge in Case 3 (B 3042 was filed on September
30, 1977. The charge in Case 3-CA 8168 was filed on Oc-
tober 12, 1977. The charge in Case 3-CB 3116 was filed on
January 23, 1978. The order consolidating cases and the
consolidated complaint were issued on January 31. 1978.
The issues concern whether Respondent Union caused Re-
spondent Crouse to discharge Buttner on September 16,
1977. and whether Respondent Union thereby violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act and Respondent
Company thereby violated Section 8(a)t3) and (I) of the
Act. The issues also concern whether Respondent UInion
refused to refer Cotter to work at Walsh Construction
Company and thereby violated Section 8b)(l)(A) and (2)
of the Act.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding. Briefs have been filed by all parties and
have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINOIN()S (of FA('I
I IHE BI SIN SS 01- lilE MPI OYER
The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and ad-
An all part) "Stipulation ti ( rrect I rancripl" filed ith me on MNa
22. 1978. s marked as A.J LExh I and i rccled into the record The
stipulat.in is ppro,.ed fnd the tranripi , c;-,rdinol s correcicd
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
missions, stipulations, and statements narrowing the issues
in the case.
(a) Respondent Crouse Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.,2
is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation
duly licensed to do business under the laws of the ('om-
monwealth of Pennsylvania.
(b) At all times material herein, Respondent Crouse has
maintained its principal office and place of business at Lin-
field, Pennsylvania, and is, and has been at all times mate-
rial herein continuously engaged at said place of business
and facilities and at various locations in the Eastern
United States in the construction industry.
(c) Annually, in the course and conduct of its business,
Respondent Crouse performs services valued in excess of
$50,000 for companies which, in turn, purchase goods val-
ued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of
New York.
(d) Walsh Construction Company, a Division of Guy F.
Atkinson Co., herein called Walsh, is, and has been at all
times material herein, a corporation duly organized under
and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California.
(e) At all times material herein, Walsh has maintained its
principal office and place of business at Thorndale Circle,
Darien, Connecticut, and is engaged in the construction
industry as a builder of nuclear power plants and commer-
cial buildings, and is, and has been at all times material
herein, engaged in construction at the Nine Mile 2 Nuclear
Plant project in Oswego, New York. During the past year
Walsh, in the course and conduct of its business operation,
performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for Stone
and Webster Engineering Corporation, which during the
past year purchased and received at its nine mile point
worksite, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
which were shipped from points outside the State of New
York directly to the nine mile point jobsite.
As conceded by Respondents and based upon the fore-
going, it is concluded and found that Respondent Crouse
and Walsh Construction Company each is, and has been at
all times material herein, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOIVED
Local 214, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.3
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Issues; Supervisory, or Agency Status
At all times material herein, the following-named per-
sons occupied positions set forth with their respective
names, and have been and are now agents of Respondent
Crouse at its PASNY jobsite, near Oswego, New York,
2 Sometimes referred to herein simply as Respondent (