Electrical Workers, Local 1547

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 331 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547 331
International Brotherhood of ]Electrical Workers, Lo-
cal 1547 (M & M Electric Company) and Danny
Greenland and Thomas Hill. Cases 19-CB-2499
and 19-CB-2508
June 29, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On March 31, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
William J. Pannier III issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed limited exceptions and brief and a brief
in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion. I
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board had delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
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 and hereby
orders that the Respondent, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547, Fairbanks,
Alaska, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in said recommended Order.
1 The Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby
denied, as the record, the exceptions, and the bnefs adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM J. PANNIER III, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard by me in Anchorage, Alaska, on January
13 through 16, 1976. On October 30, 1975,1 the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 19 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued an order consolidating cases, consoli-
dated complaint, and notice of hearing based upon unfair
labor practice charges filed by Danny Greenland in Case
Unless otherwise stated, all dates occurred in 1975
19-CB-2499 on August 27, and by Thomas Hill in Case
19-CB-2508 on September 11, and alleging violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., herein called the
Act.
All parties have been afforded full opportunity to ap-
pear, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to file bnefs. Based upon the entire record,
the briefs which were filed, and my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
At all times material herein, M & M Electric Company,
herein called M & M, has been an Alaska corporation
with an office and place of business located in Fairbanks,
Alaska, where it has been engaged in the business of elec-
trical contracting and installation. Moreover, at all times
material herein, M & M has been a member of, and has
been represented by, National Electrical Contractors Asso-
ciation Alaska Chapter, herein called NECA, an employer
association whose membership consists of various electri-
cal contractors in Alaska and which exists for the purpose,
inter aka, of representing employers in collective bargain-
ing with labor organizations.
During that past calendar or fiscal year, M & M pur-
chased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
which it received directly from firms located outside the
State of Alaska or which it received from firms located
within the State of Alaska which, in turn, received them
directly from outside the State of Alaska. Additionally,
during the past calendar or fiscal year, M & M sold goods
and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to firms
located outside the State of Alaska and to firms located
within the State of Alaska which, in turn, made annual
sales equaling or exceeding $50,000 to customers located
outside the State of Alaska or which, in turn, purchased
goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points located outside the State of Alaska. Finally, in
the aggregate, the electrical contractor members of NECA,
in the normal course and conduct of their business opera-
tions, annually purchase goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of
Alaska and/or make sales to or perform services for cus-
tomers located outside the State of Alaska which have a
value in excess of $50,000.
Therefore, I find, as admitted in Respondent's answer,
that at all times material herein M & M and NECA have
been employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At all times material herein , International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 1547, herein called Respon-
dent , has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
225 NLRB No. 72
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. ISSUES
1. Whether Respondent's conduct on August 22 and 23
was a permissible part of an effort to prevent M & M and
certain of its employees from violating hiring hall opera-
tions or whether these acts were taken with the object of
causing the discharge of these employees to demonstrate
Respondent's control over the labor relations policies and
practices of M & M and NECA, thereby encouraging
membership in and subordination to Respondent in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
2. Whether the discharge of six individuals on August 25
resulted from Respondent's prior conduct and, if so,
whether Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(2) of the
Act.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events of August 22
M & M is a corporation owned by three individuals:
Jerry and Tom Monson, who are brothers, and Dennis
Morrelli, who was primarily responsible for the day-to-day
operation of M & M during the period prior to the events
giving rise to the complaint. At all times material, Respon-
dent and NECA, of which M & M is a member, have
been parties to a collective-bargaining agreement, under
the terms of which Respondent is "the sole and exclusive
source of referrals of applicants for employment." There is
no contention that this provision or the manner in which
the hall is operated violate the Act.
The six alleged discriminatees had all been cleared by
Respondent for work with M & M-Danny Greenland as
a material handler in April or May; Alfred Lingo as a
journeyman electrician, although he subsequently was pro-
moted to working foreman,2 in early March; Thomas Hill
as a journeyman electrician in early August; and Larry L.
Holder, George Klink, and John Hatfield as journeymen
electricians on August 21, although they did not report for
work until the morning of August 22. During the day on
August 22, all six of these individuals worked on projects
for M & M and there is no contention that their work in
any way violated any collective-bargaining agreement pro-
visions or any regulations of Respondent. The workday
ended at 4:30 p.m. and, as normal, all of the M & M em-
ployees returned to M & M's office-trailer in Fairbanks.
There they encountered Respondent's Fairbanks assistant
business manager, Dan McLean, who appointed two addi-
tional stewards for M & M projects and then left. After
McLean's departure, most of the M & M employees de-
parted as well, leaving only Greenland, Hill, Holder, Klink,
and Hatfield to remain having coffee with Lingo. As they
talked, Lingo received a telephone call from Morrelli, who
said that work had to be performed immediately at the
Walsh construction site , located 3 miles outside of Fair-
banks behind the Van Horn Lodge, as the contractor want-
ed to progress with additional work and wanted M & M's
work to be completed that day.' Lingo told the men who
2 There is no dispute regarding the fact that in this capacity Lingo was a
supervisor within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act
were with him that they would have to perform the work
that night and, though reluctance was expressed by Holder,
Klink, and Hatfield, who had intended to celebrate
Holder's birthday by having a party, all five agreed to do
the work.
Greenland, Hill Klink, and Hatfield reported to the
Walsh site after having dinner and commenced work.
Holder reported to the site, but as he had received discon-
certing personal news during the dinner period, he merely
parked his truck, walked into the warehouse to notify Hat-
field that he did not intend to work, and walked to the
Lodge for a drink. Accordingly, Holder was not immedi-
ately aware that shortly after the other M & M employees
began work, McLean and several other individuals 4 en-
tered the warehouse with the admitted objective of disrupt-
ing further work because they believed that the M & M
employees were performing work in a manner and at a
time when, in Respondent's view, such work was not per-
mitted under the collective-bargaining agreement. Thus,
Klink testified that when he had been asked what was
going on and had said that the M & M employees were
working overtime, McLean had responded "the hall hadn't
been notified we was going to work overtime." Similarly,
Hatfield testified that he had been told by McLean "you
know what's going on, you're on this job illegally."
During the course of this confrontation, the M & M
employees were directed to leave the State of Alaska. For
example, Raymond R. "Gabby" Johnson admitted that as
events unfolded, he had told Klink to "get the blankety-
blank out of Alaska, that we didn't need their kind up here,
that they knew they had run over the referrals." Johnson
also acknowledged having made the same type of comment
to Hatfield:
I told him to get the blankety-blank out of Alaska, we
didn't need his kind in here running the referral
book-I told him "you sobs. know what you've done,
you've run over the referral books, we're all up here
trying to make a living, we're living in these high-
priced conditions, you people run over the book and
we g.d. don't like it and you can get the blankety-
blank out of Alaska!"
Johnson pointed out that he had been yelling that evening
and all witnesses testified that there had been considerable
yelling and name-calling directed at the M & M employ-
ees.
The directions to leave the State were reinforced by
threats concerning what would happen if the M & M em-
ployees chose to remain in the State. Both Klink and Hat-
field testified that Johnson and McLean had told Klink
3 Lingo testified that he and Morrelli had worked out an arrangement
whereby on certain projects each would independently prepare cost esti-
mates and, if Lingo's estimates were lower, the two would split the differen-
tial if, in fact, the costs proved to be below Morrelli 's higher estimates He
further testified that, to his knowledge, this arrangement, which provided
him with income in addition to that which he was paid under the collective-
bargaining agreement , did not violate the agreement or any regulation of
Respondent-an assertion which Respondent has not disputed
The estimates as to the number of persons with McLean varied consid-
erably , with the alleged discriminatees ' estimates being between 10 and 30
and with Respondent 's witnesses testifying that there were 10 people in their
group, although McLean admitted that his group outnumbered the M & M
employees by "about two-to-one "
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547 333
that he would be taken out in a box if he remained, and
Hatfield testified that McLean had directed similar threats
to Hill and Greenland. Moreover, Hatfield testified that
McLean had said that he would kill Klink if the latter did
not stay out of the State. Johnson did not deny telling the
M & M employees that they would be shipped out of
Alaska in boxes if they did not leave voluntarily and, while
McLean denied generally that he had threatened the
M & M employees, he acknowledged that "a remark
about a pine box, ship the fellows home in one" could have
been made, but claimed that he did not recall who had
made the threat.
Nor did the group led by McLean confine its conduct to
mere threatening words, for while they did deny possessing
tools or weapons when they entered the warehouse, they
did not deny the testimony that some of them had picked
up tools being used for the job and that during the inci-
dent, one of them had been brandishing a pick handle,
another a shovel, and a third a dirt pick. Further, Johnson
freely admitted that he had been holding a hammer during
the confrontation, but he testified, in effect, that he had
obtained it by virtue of having disarmed Klink:
Mr. Klink was very nervous, Mr. McLean had asked
him for his dues receipt and they were talking back
and forth and arguing about dues receipts and I told
him to drop that g.d. hammer and he did drop it. I
think Godbey told him to drop it before me and he
dropped it and I picked the hammer up sir.
However, Godbey was not called to corroborate this testi-
mony. McLean, who did testify, did not corroborate John-
son in this regard, but merely testified that "when we
walked in I noticed one man drop a hammer." Further-
more, Johnson admittedly did more than simply hold the
hammer, for he acknowledged that while yelling at Klink,
he had been holding the hammer by the head in one hand
while striking his other hand with the handle for emphasis.
Greenland and Klink, however, both testified that Johnson
had held the hammer by the handle and had repeatedly
poked the claw end at Klink while berating him, with the
result that as Klink raised his arm to protect his face from
the hammer, he was struck by the claw end of the hammer
and blood began to run over his wrist.' Johnson did not
confine his conduct to Klink, for it is undenied that after
he had chased Klink from the warehouse, Johnson re-
turned and attempted to jab his hand under Greenland's
rib cage, telling Greenland "I'd like to tear your guts out."
The M & M employees made two efforts to achieve a
peaceful resolution of the matter. However, when Klink
asked McLean why he did not bring the M & M employ-
ees before Respondent's executive board and seek to im-
pose a fine if there was, in fact, a violation, McLean re-
sponded "that he wanted us completely out of Alaska and
he wasn't going to bring charges on us and if we didn't
leave we'd be going out in a pine box in the morning, if we
5 Johnson denied unequivocally striking any of the men that evening
Although Klink acknowledged that in the excitement it was "possible" that
his arm could have been cut by something other than the hammer, since the
building was in "rough shape," he also testified that, to his recollection,
nothing else had brushed against his wrist and , further, that he had seen the
blood immediately after he had been poked by Johnson with the hammer
didn't leave that night we'd be leaving in a pine box." 6
Hatfield suggested that McLean contact M & M to
straighten out the difficulty, but McLean simply ignored
the suggestion and retorted: "you fet out of Alaska and
stay out of Alaska or I'll kill you."
Klink fled the warehouse before McLean's group could
collect his dues receipt, but Hatfield and Hill, left with no
route of escape, surrendered their dues receipts upon de-
mand and Greenland, who was not a member of any labor
organization, had his name written down by Amos Sobier.8
It was at approximately this point that Holder returned
from the Lodge and as he entered the warehouse, his dues
receipt was also collected. Once the dues receipts had been
collected, the M & M employees were then told to leave
the warehouse. It was not denied that when Greenland had
said that the M & M employees would get the trucks, Mc-
Lean and Johnson had said not to do so, that "we'll take
care of them." Nor was it disputed that when Hatfield
made a similar suggestion, someone in McLeans's group
responded "We'll take the trucks." Thus, the M & M em-
ployees left the warehouse on foot, hurried along by the
suggestion of a member of the McLean group that their
clothes be taken.
The ordeal of the M & M employees had not yet to end,
for as they walked along the Van Horn Road in the direc-
tion of Fairbanks, McLean approached them from behind
in his car and when he neared to about 100 yards from
them, he began to honk his horn, swerved to the shoulder
of the road on which the M & M employees, now joined
by Klink, were walking, and headed directly at them. To
avoid being struck, the group of employees jumped into a
ditch bordering the shoulder of the road. Incredibly, Mc-
Lean admitted that he had engaged in this conduct, with
the only dispute being his assertion that he was traveling 30
miles per hour while Greenland and Holder estimated his
rate of approach to have been approximately 50 miles per
hour. By way of explanation for this facet of his conduct
toward the M & M employees that night, McLean ex-
plained that he had been "just showing contempt for
them."
Realizing that Klink's dues receipt had not yet been col-
6 Respondent acknowledged that each of the matters which it raised in
this proceeding as a defense to its conduct-working off the clock and poor
workmanship-were ones for which intraunion charges could be filed
against members In fact , internal charges were filed against the alleged
discrimmatees , but not until October 21 Business Manager Isaac M Wal-
drop, Jr , testified that they were not processed to avoid further allegations
of unlawful conduct
7 While Johnson denied that Hatfield had suggested that he (Johnson)
call the contractor, McLean did not deny that Hatfield had addressed such
a suggestion to him , and Sobier, the only other witness interrogated con-
cerning the matter , testified that if the comment had been made, he had not
heard it
8 With the exception of Greenland, all of the alleged discriminatees were
members of locals of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
but not of Respondent Thus, their dues receipts were their evidence of
membership in good standing when they journeyed to other locals to be
dispatched, as was the case when they had sought dispatch by Respondent
Interestingly , Amos Sobier and James Manning cast their testimony in
terms of having requested the dues receipts to copy down the names of the
individuals caught working that evening At no point did they concede that
the dues receipts were being confiscated But they testified prior to McLean
and the latter freely admitted both that he was aware of the names of the
M & M employees at the time he had first seen them that evening and that
his intention had been, in fact, to confiscate their dues receipts
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lected, McLean continued past the men and down the road
for a short distance, at which point he stopped to wait for
them to reach him. However, as he waited, he observed
Lingo driving in his camper toward the Walsh site. When
Lingo noticed the M & M employees across the road, he
stopped the camper and, admitting Hatfield into the front
with Lingo's wife and child and admitting the other four
employees into the back of the camper, backed into a side
road to turn around and return to Fairbanks. However,
before Lingo could pull back onto Van Horn Road, Mc-
Lean pulled his car across the front of the camper and two
other vehicles, driven by members of McLean's group,
blocked the camper, one on the back and the other on the
side. Despite Lingo's pleas that his wife and son be permit-
ted to leave, McLean insisted upon and obtained Lingo's
dues receipt, after which he demanded to know what had
happened to Klink. Advised by Lingo that Klink was in the
back, McLean walked to the back door of the camper and
asked for Klink's dues receipt, but the latter protested that
he had already surrendered it. As McLean began to dis-
pute Klink's assertion , Holder interrupted to demand that
his own dues receipt be returned. McLean said that it
would be sent to Holder's home local and Manning, who
had joined McLean, said "you're not going to need it any-
way." Ultimately, McLean made a final effort to obtain
Klink's dues receipt by offering to release the camper if
Lingo would leave Klink. While this was going on, Holder
had slipped away to a nearby guard shack at the North
Star Terminal where a call was placed to the police who
arrived, but only after McLean had left the scene. After
returning to Fairbanks, the men told Morrelli that same
evening of the events which had transpired.
In defense of its actions on August 22, Respondent con-
tends that it had been receiving reports for some time prior
to the incident concerning the fact that work had been
performed by M & M personnel in contravention of
Respondent's hiring hall regulations and of the collective-
bargaining agreement. Thus, argues Respondent, the
events of Friday, August 22, were no more than a reaction
to having finally discovered concrete proof of such miscon-
duct. However, examination of the evidence presented by
Respondent leaves considerable doubt as to the validity of
this contention that it was merely reacting to a longstand-
ing, but to then unproven, suspicion concerning the perfor-
mance of work under unlawful circumstances.
Considering first the events of August 22 at the Walsh
site , two matters are of significance: the trucks and the
dues receipts. Following the departure of the M & M em-
ployees from the warehouse, the McLean group collected
all tools and materials in the warehouse, loaded them on
the trucks and then moved the trucks to NECA's Fair-
banks facility, depositing the keys inside the building
through the slot in the front door. While it is undisputed
that no one in McLeans's group had physically blockaded
the paths of the M & M employees to the trucks that
night, Respondent's witnesses did not deny the M & M
employees' testimony concerning the statements which the
McLean group made concerning taking control of the
trucks. Nor did Respondent's witnesses deny that the
M & M employees had been herded out the door of the
warehouse that was furthest from where the trucks were
parked . Moreover , in attempting to explain their actions in
collecting the tools and in moving the trucks , Respondent's
witnesses gave conflicting reasons and, ultimately, one of
them admitted that the true intent had been to impress
upon the M & M employees that they should not have
been on the job . Thus, both Manning and McLean testified
that the reason had been to protect the tools and to prevent
anyone from stealing them . Johnson , however, testified
that McLean had directed the members of his group to
collect the tools and move the trucks to NECA because he
had not wanted "anybody to say that we damaged any of
their equipment or set fire to any of their equipment or
anything ... ," thereby attributing the reason to concern
for self-protection against subsequent accusations rather
than to concern for the well being of the equipment. On
cross-examination of steward Amos Sobier , the following
testimony concerning the reason was elicited:'
Q. During the time you were loading that material
in the trucks was there any discussion about the fact
that taking that material would or might impress on
the men that they shouldn 't be working that night?
A. Well yes, that was the intent of us being there.
Q. Was that the intent of your taking the material?
A. Yes sir.
With respect to the collection of the dues receipts, Mc-
Lean initially explained that he had taken the receipts so
that he could check with the home locals of the M & M
employees to ascertain whether they had been forged.
However, as noted in footnote 8, above, McLean admitted
that he had been aware of the identities of the M & M
employees at the time that his group had entered the ware-
house. While he denied that he had confiscated the receipts
to emphasize the control which Respondent was thereby
exercising over the ability of the M & M employees to
work, he ultimatley admitted on cross-examination that the
procedure which he described for ascertaining if the dues
receipts had been forged would not, in fact, disclose wheth-
er or not the M & M employees and Lingo possessed
forged dues receipts, thereby leaving unanswered the ques-
tion of why it had been necessary to confiscate them. Fur-
thermore, it is undisputed that when McLean later contact-
ed Delmar Jackson, the business manager and financial
secretary of Local 305 in Fort Wayne, the local of which
Lingo, Klink, Holder, and Hatfield were members, he had
inquired only if those four individuals were members in
good standing. At no point during this conversation did
McLean conduct any discussion about the dues receipts
that he had collected or the substance of what was written
on them, thereby further demonstrating that it had not
been necessary to have them in his possession in order to
conduct an investigation of whether they had been
forged.10
9 Apparently perceiving the effect which these answers had had on
Respondent's defense, Sobier subsequently corrected himself and testified,
as had Manning and McLean, that the McLean group had merely been
attempting to protect the material and trucks from theft
10 The conversation with Jackson is significant in several other respects,
for McLean did not deny having told Jackson that Hatfield had not prof-
fered a paid-up dues receipt , that Lingo and Holder had done "lousy work-
manship" on a job in Fox, but that he did not want them to correct that
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547 335
Scrutiny of Respondent's defense of longstanding suspi-
cion of contract and hiring hall violations discloses several
inconsistencies . First, McLean testified that in June he had
begun to receive reports from employees concerning per-
formance of work "on the side" and that as these reports
continued through the summer, he became concerned as to
whether overtime was being distributed properly. Yet,
while he admitted that he checks such information when
received from people on the job, he was initially unable to
recall, when asked on cross-examination, if he had ever
examined the regular reports filed by M & M which re-
flected hours worked by employees. Ultimately, he equivo-
cated on this subject by testifying that he had "probably"
checked those reports but that, in any event, they would
not have disclosed a disparity in overtime assignments.
Moreover, McLean identified but two employees as the
source of reports concerning suspicion of overtime and
only one of those employees, Amos Sobier, appeared as a
witness. I' While Sobier did corroborate McLean regarding
reports of possible overtime violations, it is significant that,
notwithstanding Sobier's status as steward at M & M and
the magnitude of the conduct which he contended that he
suspected, Sobier never once made any effort to speak with
any of Respondent's owners concerning overtime assign-
ments or the possibility of work being performed after
hours.
Similarly, McLean did not speak with Morrelli regarding
the employee reports that tools were disappearing from the
site overnight and that accordingly those employees assert-
edly suspected that work was being performed at night.
McLean did testify that the Monson brothers had, them-
selves, made similar reports to him: "I was talking with the
Monson brothers, Tom and Jerry, sometimes together and
many times separate, they informed me that they thought
there was a problem." Thus, testified McLean, upon hear-
ing the initial employee reports, "I informed the Monson
brothers that I was getting reports that there was some-
thing wrong-and they agreed with me they thought there
work and only wanted them out of Alaska or he would ship them out, that
he did not intend to file intraunion charges against the M & M personnel
since "I want you to get their a-s out of my State, I don't want them up
here", and that he did not intend to file charges against M & M because
while Morrelli was a "crook ," Monson was a friend of his and a former
lineman In a later conversation with Jackson , McLean repeated that he did
not want the alleged discriminatees back in Alaska
i i Though not mentioned by McLean, a second witness, Manning, testi-
fied that following his commencement of work for M & M on August 18,
he had noticed that tools were loaded on trucks at the end of the working
day, rather than being locked in the gang boxes that were located at the site
where he was working He testified that after this had happened on consecu-
tive nights, he had become suspicious that the tools were being used for
night work and had reported his suspicions to McLean However, on cross-
examination , Manning was pressed for specificity as to the types of tools
that he had assertedly seen being loaded on the trucks and was able to
identify only a 1/2-inch hand drill motor, extension cords, and, on a couple
of nights, a thinwall pipe or conduit bender as being the tools which he had
observed being loaded at the end of working days When pressed further,
Manning acknowledged that he owned a hand dull and extension cords and
that he used these items to perform work around his own house Manning
identified Greenland as being the person whom he had observed loading
these tools and Greenland, as discussed infra, performed odd jobs around
the complex where he lived In view of these facts and inasmuch as Man-
ning displayed an obvious interest in the success of Respondent in litigation
of this matter , I do not credit his uncorroborated testimony concerning his
purported suspicions and report to McLean
was something wrong but they didn't know where or what
was going on-but they were interested in finding out."
McLean also testified that his conversations with the Mon-
sons concerning the matter had begun to occur as early as
June. However, only one of the Monson brothers, Jerry,12
was called by Respondent as a witness and he made no
mention of conversations with McLean concerning clan-
destine overtime work prior to August. In fact, Jerry Mon-
son had not been residing in Fairbanks prior to at least
August 10 and he testified that prior to August 10 he had
not been familiar with the jobs in which M & M had been
engaged in Fairbanks; that his main contact with
M & M's operations in that area prior to August 10 had
been as a result of telephone conversations with his broth-
er.
Monson did testify that shortly after August 10 he and
his brother had discussed with McLean the possibility of
night work being performed, but he also testified that dur-
ing that conversation he had promised to give McLean a
list of jobs for which M & M had contracts. This is signifi-
cant, for Monson acknowledged that among the jobs for
which M & M had contracts was the Walsh job and a
second job at Fox, a small community approximately 11
miles north of Fairbanks. In fact, Monson testified that
during the week which had culminated in the incident at
the Walsh warehouse, he had received complaints about
the work performed at Fox. Yet, in an apparent effort to
embellish Respondent's defense, McLean listed both of
these jobs as being ones about which Monson had ex-
pressed little knowledge and had harbored suspicions.
Thus, McLean testified that on August 20, he had had a
conversation with Jerry Monson during which the follow-
ing comments were purportedly made:
That conversation was about his material disap-
pearing, his truck being used, tools being used on jobs
which we'd talked about before-and he indicated to
me that there was a job that had been done at Fox,
that he had just picked up little bits of information, he
didn't know much about it but he thought I should go
and look at it.
At another point, McLean testified to but a single conver-
sation with Jerry Monson on August 20: "this was a meet-
ing Wednesday night when I was talking to Gerry when he
indicated to me that he thought there was a little hanky-
panky going on with Walsh Construction on Van Horn
Road behind the Van Horn Lodge."
McLean testified that on Thursday, August 21, he had
made trips to both sites, although he did not testify precise-
ly how he had been able to ascertain the location in the
Fox area of the job which Monson had assertedly men-
tioned the prior day.13 He ascertained from the personnel
12 In referring to Jerry Monson, McLean's testimony was similar in na-
ture to the comments which he had made to Jackson during their initial
telephone conversation "we're friends , we've been friends for years"
1 Though the magnitude and degree is disputed , the fact is that the work
done at Fox had been substandard, as best illustrated by the fact that during
the following week M & M attempted to extend Lingo's termination date
in an effort to have him correct the work Then, Morrelli told Lingo that
Respondent objected to this and the corrective work was assigned to God-
bey and Sobier, apparently to be performed at Morrelli's expense it is also
Continued
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of other employers, employed on the site , that M & M
had done the electrical work, but made no effort at this
point to ascertain the identities of the employees who had
done that work. Instead, he testified that he then returned
to Respondent's hall where, after describing the caliber of
the work he had seen, he returned with others, one of
whom had a camera. The pictures purportedly taken that
day did not turn out and though the camera assertedly had
been a Polaroid and while McLean claimed to have re-
turned to Fox "several days in a row every day," he appar-
ently made no effort to obtain additional pictures of the
work until the following Monday, the day on which the
alleged discriminatees were terminated. McLean did, how-
ever, testify to having made efforts to ascertain the identi-
ties of the employees who had performed the work on these
subsequent visits and while initially told only that the em-
ployees were "Al," "Redbeard," "the Kid," and "Wino,"
he assertedly learned more "[e]very time we went over
there" and claimed that ultimately, he was able to affix the
identity of these four persons as Lingo, Hill, Lingo's son
Ralph, and Greenland, respectively.
McLean also testified that on Thursday evening he had
journeyed to the Van Horn Lodge from where he observed
an M & M truck parked behind a pile of dirt outside of
the warehouse.14 Based on the fact that doors on the truck
were open and on experience assertedly showing that elec-
tricians did not work alone , McLean claimed that he
"knew" that electricians were working in the warehouse,
but was afraid to enter because "I knew I was about to
catch some people in the act of violating our agreement,
and especially since one of the characters concerned might
have been in there working . . .." 15 Consequently, Mc-
Lean testified that he went to Fairbanks to assemble per-
sonnel as "witnesses " and then returned to the Lodge, by
which time the truck was gone, although inspection of the
warehouse disclosed that boxes had been nailed in the
studding and three or four thinwalls for outlets had been
installed along the wall. As was true of other facets of Mc-
Lean's testimony, this aspect also went uncorroborated
and, in fact, was contradicted. Thus, McLean testified that
Johnson had been among the group of employees who had
returned with him to the warehouse on Thursday night.
However, Johnson asserted unequivocally that he had nei-
ther been at the Lodge nor with McLean on Thursday
night . In fact, of the witnesses called by Respondent, only
Manning testified that he had gone to the warehouse with
McLean on August 21. Yet, McLean did not list Manning
as being among those who had been with him that evening,
possibly because Manning's description of what had oc-
curred lacked much of the color and flavor which McLean
had supplied: "All we did was pull in the Van Horn
clear that this was one of the projects encompassed by Lingo's comparative
cost arrangement with Morrelli (see In 3, supra), although Lingo testified
that the work had been performed during the daytime Finally, Lingo ac-
knowledged that his son, Ralph, had worked on the project without having
been cleared by Respondent and, while he claimed to lack knowledge as to
whether this was improper in Respondent's jurisdiction, Lingo admitted
that it was improper in Local 305's jurisdiction
14 On cross-examination McLean admitted that the truck could be seen
from the road
15 McLean testified that this reference was to Lingo
Lounge and look around and pull out." Manning denied
specifically that there had been any discussion that evening
about a job that might be going on behind the Lodge.
As is evident from the description of the incident in the
warehouse, McLean returned to the site on August 22. He
testified that he had earlier arranged to have the site staked
out by the owner of a motor home and that when he left
M & M, after appointing additional stewards, he went di-
rectly to the Lodge, followed by Manning. Seeking to ob-
tain more "witnesses," McLean testified that he requested
Manning to remain at the Lodge and drove to Fairbanks,
where he stopped both at the Northward Lounge, finding
nobody, and at his home, where he found Godbey and
Sobier, both of whom agreed to go to the Lodge. McLean
then went to the office of Julius Kornfiend, assistant man-
ager for NECA in Fairbanks,16 where, he testified he ex-
plained that he intended to attempt to catch a "select little
crew that Morrelli had" working behind the Van Horn
Lodge and invited Kornfiend to attend, but the latter de-
clined. Returning to the Lodge, McLean testified that two
M & M trucks subsequently pulled in at the warehouse
and, after allowing a sufficient interval for work to com-
mence, he then led his men from the Lodge, cautioning
them not to engage in any violence since he merely wanted
to catch the workers and then talk to Morrelli and Korn-
fiend about the matter. However, testified McLean, as his
group approached the warehouse, Greenland was ob-
served, Godbey began to run, then "the whole pack started
running," and "So I run with them ...." Thus, the ware-
house was invaded that night.
Though McLean's account was cast in a manner to
make it appear that he had laid a carefully formulated trap
designed to ensnare wrongdoers, Respondent's other wit-
nesses, though attempting to corroborate McLean, gave ac-
counts which undermined the reliability of that recited by
McLean. Thus, Manning testified that after leaving the
M & M facility that afternoon, he stopped at the Lodge to
join McLean for drinks and that after one or two rounds,
he (Manning) left the Lodge to go home and advise his
sons that he would be busy that evening-not, however,
because of anything in connection with the Walsh project,
but rather because he intended to return to the Lodge to
continue an evening of conversation and drinking with
McLean. Manning specifically denied that McLean had
made any mention to him of any job being performed ille-
gally prior to the time that Manning had left the Lodge to
speak with his sons. Manning further testified that follow-
ing his return to the Lodge, it was approximately 45 min-
utes to an hour before the McLean group left for what
Manning characterized as a "little party." 17 Sobier ac-
knowledged that he and Godbey had been asked to go to
the Lodge by McLean, but he testified that this request had
been made during a telephone conversation, contrary to
McLean's testimony that the request had been made in a
16 Kornfiend had become a member of International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers in 1949 and had served as Respondent 's business agent
in Fairbanks for 15 years prior to accepting a position with NECA in Sep-
tember 1974
17 Manning conceded that he had previously attended a couple of " little
parties" in his home local in Detroit, although he denied ever having previ-
ously attended one thrown in Respondent's jurisdiction
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547 337
face-to-face conversation in the latter 's home . Moreover,
though McLean made no mention of having gone to
Respondent 's hall that evening , Johnson testified that
while at the hall, he had encountered McLean , who had
said that he believed that a shabby deal existed and had
invited Johnson to go to the Lodge . Johnson placed this
conversation as occurring at approximately 5 o'clock that
afternoon . Yet, it is more than apparent that at that time
McLean would either have been at the Lodge with Man-
ning or on his way to the Lodge from his meeting with the
M & M employees . Finally, while Kornfiend did corrobo-
rate McLean's testimony regarding a conversation in the
former's office that evening, in describing the conversation,
Kornfiend made no mention of McLean's having discussed
the Walsh site . Rather , he testified that McLean had asked
if M & M was performing "shift work" 18 and had said
that "he had reason to think that somebody was working
on a job out at Fox after hours and he was going to go out,
take a look and see if they were."
As further support for its defense of suspicion of conspi-
racy to abrogate its hiring hall regulations , Respondent
points to several other factors , although not asserting that
McLean was fully cognizant of their existence at the time
that he led his group into the warehouse . Thus, it is clear
that Lingo , Klink , Holder , and Hatfield were all members
of Local 305 and that Hill, while not a member, had
worked in the jurisdiction of that local union for 10 or 11
years prior to coming to Alaska. Moreover , the four mem-
bers of Local 305 had been acquainted with each other
prior to their arrival in Alaska and , in fact, the three em-
ployees had contacted Lingo before leaving for Alaska.
Similarly, Hill had known Lingo, though not apparently
the three employee-members of Local 305, before coming
to Alaska and had contacted Lingo's wife before journey-
ing north . Further , upon arriving in Alaska together during
the week prior to the incident, Holder and Hatfield had
contacted Lingo, who supplied them not only with trans-
portation around the Fairbanks area, but who also ob-
tained part-time work for them with M & M, building
shelves at one of M & M 's projects after first clearing with
the carpenters working there .) Finally, by August 22, all
18 M & M had switched to a single shift prior to the incident on August
22 However , service work , i e , "trouble calls" not oertammg to a normally
assigned job which normally comes in on rather short notice , continued to
be performed by Respondent after normal hours
f Lingo , Holder , and Hatfield each denied that the latter two had per-
formed any work for M & M other than this part-time carpentry work,
which Respondent does not contend was improper Moreover, the two em-
ployees testified that they had spent no more than 6 hours on this task,
allocated over two or three afternoons, and testified that this work was a
trade for living arrangements Morrelli , upon receiving the General
Counsel's subpena , went "on vacation" to an unknown location and, ac-
cordingly, was unavailable to explain the M & M documents prepared dur-
ing the time that he had been in day-to-day control of M & M's operations
and which Respondent had subpenaed Among the documents produced
was a packet containing a bill for $400 , prepared by Lingo, and listing hours
worked by Holder and Hatfield on August 14, 15, 16, and 19, before they
were dispatched to M & M , at "hangers" as the basis for Lingo's claim to
$900 "out of pocket " The packet also contained a timecard for Holder and
one for Hatfield, showing hours for the four dates in August which corres-
ponded precisely with those listed on Lingo 's bill However, the timecards
contained at least three different types of handwriting, two in pencil and
one in blue pen , and, additionally , part of the cards consist of what appears
to have been portions of other timecards taped onto the cards in the packet
six alleged discriminatees were living in a complex at One-
Half Mile Lawrence Road , North Pole , at which Morrelli
and his family resided . This arrangement came about in
the following manner . The complex consists of three facili-
ties: a two-story house , an adjoining apartment , and a trail-
er-home . In the spring Morrelli wanted to move his family
into the house , on which work had to be completed. He,
therefore , offered to permit Lingo to live rent -free in the
apartment for a period of time if the latter would perform
the repairs to the house . Lingo, in turn , contacted Green-
land, whom he had met while both had been living at the
Frontier Lodge , and offered to permit Greenland to live in
the apartment , which had two bedrooms , if Greenland
would help with the repairs . Greenland accepted and when
Hill then moved to Alaska, he assisted in maintaining re-
pair of the house , in return for which he was permitted to
move into the apartment . Then , when Holder and Hatfield
arrived , Lingo offered to let them move into the trailer-
home , until they located suitable accomodations , if they
would construct the shelves . Though they did do the work,
on the first night that they moved into the trailer-home,
Morrelli , apparently inebriated , ejected them. Later, Lingo
agreed that Holder and Hatfield , as well as Klink , could all
move into the trailer-home in return for $600 per month
rent.
The final element to Respondent 's preincident factors,
offered to support its defense, involves the manner in
which Holder , Hatfield , and Klink were dispatched to
M & M on August 21. On August 20, Morrelli had tele-
phoned McLean and had requested that Klink be dis-
patched. McLean replied that this could not be done as
Klink was at or near the bottom of the dispatch list. Then,
on the following day, Morrelli called to order five men on
a 40-hour , 30-day dispatch , the least desirable type of dis-
patch since , by accepting such work, an employee relin-
quishes his place on the dispatch list for only relatively
short-term employment . While McLean attempted to per-
suade Morrelli to change his request to one which would
not force those who accepted to lose their status on the list,
Morrelli was adamant and insisted that the call be made as
he ordered . As McLean had suspected, when he began to
go down the names on the list, person after person "rolled"
the call . Ultimately, Holder, then Hatfield, then Joe Crum-
packer and Tom Stuart ," and finally Klink accepted the
A fourth document is a carbon copy of a payroll check made out to Lingo
in the amount of $600 and listing in that portion of the form which appears
below the check portion "Reimbursement for Monies paid to terminated
electricians [ sic] for worke [sic] performed [ Hangers-Walsh Construction ]"
Both Hatfield and Holder testified that they had never seen any of these
documents Lingo denied ever having seen the documents other than the bill
and testified that the $600 check which he had received did not possess the
lower portion which is part of the carbon copy and on which the above-
quoted words appear He did, however , acknowledge authorship of the bill
and testified that he had prepared it at Morrelli 's direction so that the latter
would have something to cover his (Morrelli's) expenditure of $900 for his
secretary 's automobile Lingo admitted that this had been a false claim, but
testified that this had not been an abnormal occurrence with Morrelli, who,
Lingo asserted, was prone to adjusting the records to conform to operations
that he was conducting In this regard , it should also be noted that a firm
did exist by the name of Morrelli and Associates, although the nature of its
operations appears only to have been known to Morrelli
20 Notwithstanding the terms of their dispatch , both Stuart and Crum-
packer , the former a member of a Dallas Local of the International Brother-
Continued
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jobs. McLean testified that the call from the prior day for
Klink and the fact that Klink and two other members from
Local 305 had accepted the work led him to suspect that
Morrellt had deliberately placed an undesirable order in an
effort to reach these individuals and, testified McLean, in
connecting these matters with the rumors about night work
being performed by M & M personnel, he was led to con-
clude that Holder, Hatfield, and Klink were, in fact, ac-
complices in Morrellt's plan to perform work in contraven-
tion of the collective-bargaining agreement and the hiring
hall. Yet, had McLean truly harbored this suspicion, it is
unlikely that he would have taken the step that he admit-
tedly did take on the following afternoon, for when he
went to M & M to appoint stewards, who are responsible
for being certain that overtime is distributed equitably,21
McLean appointed Manning to be one of the stewards-
and Klink to be the other.
B. Events of August 23
In view of the fact that the Walsh job had not yet been
completed, Klink, Hill, Hatfield, and Lingo were dis-
patched to the site on the following morning to complete
the work. No secret was made of this assignment. In fact,
Lingo called McLean and requested that Sobier be notified
to report for work, since, as steward, the collective-bargain-
ing agreement required his presence. However, Sobier de-
cided not to report, fearing that he was being set up by the
M & M crew. On that same morning, McLean received a
telephone call from Morrelli, who expressed concern be-
hood of Electrical Workers and the latter a member of a Fort Worth local of
that same organization, worked substantially longer than 30 days for
M & M without, so far as the record discloses, any request ever being made
for Respondent to waive any objections to their continued employment
Stuart testified that when Morrelli had asked him to continue working, the
latter had said that the reason was that he had had to remove over half of
his manpower and that the situation had changed so drastically that he
needed the two Texas men to finish the jobs While Stuart impressed me as
attempting to accurately relate events as they had occurred, Crumpacker
appeared more concerned with tailoring his testimony to favor the defense
advanced by Respondent in this matter This is best illustrated by compar-
ing the testimony of these two men with respect to two events
On Friday, August 22, Stuart described the groups of employees formed
at the M & M trailer-office after work as follows "They [the alleged dis-
criminatees] were all friends from before so they were together and the other
members of M & M Electric they was working together so they were to-
gether, and myself and Crumpacker we were new hands, we were outsiders
more or less, so we were just kind of in the middle " Crumpacker, however,
chose to describe this same incident in a manner designed to suggest clan-
destine overtones "When we returned to the trailer that afternoon the rest
of the crew was in the trailer and they were all happy to see each other,
talking over old times I suppose, when Tom Stuart and I walked into the
trailer and it got very quiet like we were contagious"
The second event involved the situation at the trailer-office the following
Monday Stuart described a rifle or shotgun in a truck, partly covered by a
coat, and said that Lingo told Crumpacker and him "to take one of the
company trucks and get on out on the job, that we weren't involved in this
and for us to get out of it " Crumpacker, however, testified that a shotgun
was being taken from the truck when he and Stuart arrived and that "Mr
Lingo told Mr Stuart and myself to get out of there, we had no business
there, whatever took place there didn't pertain to us, that it was directed
toward Mr McLean and his goons" I do not credit Crumpacker
2i Art III, subset 3 27, of the collective-bargaining agreement provides
"Job foreman, with the assistance of the Steward, shall be held responsible
for the equal distribution of overtime However, the job steward or gang
steward shall work all overtime when three (3) or more men work overtime
on his job"
cause the newspapers had learned of the incident. When
McLean said that he was pleased about that fact, Morrelli
responded "as long as you feel that way about it I'll see you
in court," McLean then called Tommy Monson and when
he had described the conversation with Morrelli, Monson
replied "it takes two to go to court and I'm not going."
The M & M crew did complete work at the site at ap-
proximately 1 p.m., but as they were packing up to leave,
they observed McLean leading a group of men, somewhat
smaller than on the previous evening, toward them from
the Lodge. A call to the police, on the citizen 's band radio
in one of the vans, may have been overheard by the Mc-
Lean group, but, in any event, they held back from ap-
proaching the M & M crew until the police arrived. Mc-
Lean testified that he had gone to the site again in an effort
to ascertain who "Ralph" was and that he had again decid-
ed to take men with him "for my own safety and for wit-
nesses."
C. The Terminations
Lingo, Greenland, Hatfield, Klink, and Hill reported for
work on Monday, August 25, but, with the exception of
Greenland who was assigned to make two short runs, none
of them were dispatched, although all other M & M em-
ployees were dispatched. Later that morning, they were
handed severance of employment forms by Morrelli, with
"Pressure from Local 1546. Daniel McLean" written on
each one as the reason for the discharge.22
These terminations were but part of a series of events
which occurred that day. McLean's first telephone call to
Local 305's Jackson (see In 10, supra) had been made
much earlier that morning; so early, in fact, that Jackson
had received it at approximately 8 or 9 a.m. in Fort Wayne.
Moreover, during the course of that call, McLean had
sought to ascertain if Hatfield, Klink, Hill, or Lingo, par-
ticularly the latter two, had been "troublemakers," but was
told that they had done good work in Local 305's area and
that Local 305 had never received any complaint about
them from any other area. Later that morning, McLean
invited Kornfiend to accompany him to Fox, where a new
set of pictures was taken of the electrical work. Though
McLean told Kornfiend that M & M had performed this
22 Because of personal news which he had received Friday night, Holder
had left for Indiana on Saturday morning and Hatfield later brought his
termination slip to him He had, however, told Morrelli on Friday night that
he intended to go to Fort Wayne "to get some things squared away," had
left his tools in Fairbanks, and had made arrangements with Mrs Lingo to
care for his children when he returned
There is some confusion regarding whether Greenland was terminated on
August 20 and then rehired the next morning Greenland testified that Mor-
relli had made a decision to send him north on a job and on August 20 had
paid him in full so that he would have sufficient cash once he arrived there
On the following morning , Morrelli said that Greenland was not to go north
and directed him to return to work in the Fairbanks area During examina-
tion on the first day of the hearing, Greenland testified that he had gone to
see Morrelli on August 20 about termination from the job, but denied ask-
ing for a termination on that or any other day and, further , denied ever
having mentioned leaving his job on that Wednesday Recalled on the last
day of the hearing, he acknowledged that he had been terminated on Wed-
nesday, August 20 Though Respondent singles this testimony out to assail
Greenland for "giving false testimony at the hearing," these answers are
really not inconsistent and, to the extent that they could be so construed,
appear to have been more the product of confusion than contrivance
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547 339
work, he did not mention specific names of individuals
whom he had been told had performed it 23
Aside from the terminations, one other event took place
at M & M's trailer that morning.24 Prior to the discharges,
Morrelli had received a call from his wife on the citizen's
band radio and she had told him that she had just been
threatened. Subsequently, Morrelli told Greenland that his
wife had received a death threat and later that morning he
accused Sobier and Godbey of having threatened his wife,
although the matter was dropped when Sobier denied hav-
ing done so.
That afternoon Jerry Monson and Morrelli met with
McLean in Kornfiend's office. McLean testified that this
meeting had occurred as a result of a telephone conversa-
tion with Morrelh, who had said "you win, I've terminated
all the people" and who had told McLean what had been
listed on the severance of employment forms as the reason
for the terminations. According to McLean, Morrelli then
asked if McLean wanted to discuss the matter and the lat-
ter had said that he did, but only in Kornfiend's office. At
this meeting, testified McLean, Morrellf had adopted an
apologetic tone and had said that he felt badly that this
had occurred, but that he had been confused and had nev-
er read the agreement. When Morrellf mentioned what he
had written on the severance of employment forms, Mc-
Lean testified that he had immediately responded that
Morrellf knew that was incorrect and that M & M would
have NLRB trouble, adding "I never told you to terminate
them." 25 Morrellf replied, according to McLean, that this
was no problem since he would simply retrieve the forms
and, furthermore, asserted that he had only written this on
the forms because the alleged discriminatees had "told"
him what to write.26 McLean further testified that Jerry
Monson had also said that "those guys had told Morrellf
what to put on those termination slips." Finally, McLean
testified that during this meeting, Morrelli had said that
Greenland had been terminated on Wednesday, August 20,
that "I didn't make him a termination slip, I made one for
the rest of the guys," and that Morrelli had acknowledged
the probable correctness of McLean's assertion that
Greenland had been on the job illegally on Thursday, Au-
gust 21, and Friday, August 22. However, McLean's de-
scription of this meeting, like so many other facets of his
testimony, was utterly lacking in corroboration and, in
23 Indeed, asked if he had learned the identity of Ralph after August 25,
McLean testified "This was after Monday-it took me several days to find
out who Ralph was "
24 Manning testified that when he had reported for work that morning,
Lingo had told him to get out and that he was fired However , while Man-
ning testified that he then told McLean about the discharge and that Mc-
Lean had told him simply to report to the project on which Manning had
been working , McLean did not corroborate Manning's testimony in this
regard I do not credit Manning's uncorroborated testimony and believe
that he simply made up this scenario , as he did his report to McLean regard.
in tools taken from the site , in an effort to enhance Respondent's defense
^s "I knew tight then that there was an NLRB problem " testified
McLean
26 Subsequently , Morrelli prepared a statement claiming that McLean
had been responsible for the terminations However , Lingo acknowledged
that he, in essence , had told Morrelh what he (Lingo ) wanted in this state-
ment and that Morrelli had then prepared it I accord no weight to this
particular document
fact, was contradicted in significant respects, though all
who testified were clearly sympathetic to Respondent.
Most apparent is the fact that, contrary to what McLean
testified that Morrelli had said, the fact is that Greenland
did receive a severance of employment form, as did the
other alleged discriminatees. Of course, it could be that
Morrelli had been merely lying to McLean, but there is no
apparent reason for him to have done so. On the other
hand, McLean would have a very good reason for attribut-
ing such a statement to Morrelli, for it supports his testimo-
ny that Morrelli had said that Greenland had been termi-
nated the preceding Wednesday, thereby supporting, in
turn, Respondent's position that Greenland could not be
considered a discnmtnatee because he had previously quit.
Of greater significance was Jerry Monson's testimony.27
First asked to describe this meeting, Monson testified that
"It was a general discussion really-McLean had pictures
of the Fox job of all the violations on it-or some of the
violations, not all of them-and it was just a general con-
versation regarding the position of the Union and the con-
tractors and how we could work together for more mutual
benefit." Asked then if there had been any discussion
about why the men had been terminated, Monson testified
"Pressure from the Local Union was what was on the ter-
mination slips-beyond that there was very little conversa-
tion." Asked if Greenland's status had been discussed,
Monson testified that there had been a question raised as
to whether or not Greenland had been terminated prior to
August 22, but was unable to recall who had raised the
subject or specifically what had been said in reply by Mor-
relli during the meeting. Finally, asked whether Morrelli
had described how he had decided to list the reason for
termination that he had written on the forms, Monson said
that he did not recall if Morrellf had explained this at the
August 25 meeting or at a subsequent meeting, but that at
one of these meetings Morrellf had "said it was more or
less what the fellows wanted on there, the fellows that were
getting laid off."
The capstone to McLean's testimony regarding this
meeting was provided by Kornfiend, who denied that there
had been any discussion of the incident at the Walsh site,
denied that there had been any mention of overtime on
that day and testified that he did not recall any discussion
about the wording on termination slips, asserting that that
would have been a matter of primary interest to him as
representative of the contractors. Rather, testified Korn-
fiend, the discussion had centered on the quality of the
work at Fox, with Morrelli saying that the employees in-
volved had been terminated and that the termination slips,
of which NECA is to receive a copy, already had been
posted in the mail:
The talk about terminations came up that he had ter-
rmnated some men-our office receives a copy of
these terminations-they come out I believe in four
27 Monson testified that earlier that morning, when he had gone to the
M & M trailer-office, he discovered the alleged discnmmatees, with the
exception of Greenland, in the trailer and had gone outside where he was
engaged in conversation with Greenland when Morrelli led the alleged dis-
criminatees outside and had said to them "this is my partner, I'd like you
fellows to look him in the eye and see if you think he's the one that turned
us in " He testified that no one replied affirmatively to Morrelli
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
copies, our office receives one, the employee receives
one, the office of the Union receives one, and at that
time we had not received them and he had told me
they were in the mail- This was the only talk we had
about terminations.
A subsequent meeting involving McLean, Jerry Monson,
and Morrelli was conducted in September. This meeting
was taped by McLean and all present were aware that their
words were being recorded. Without belaboring the matter,
a review of the substance of the comments and of the tenor
of the conversation discloses that both M & M officials
were concerned with protecting their firm's position and
that, toward that end, they expressed outright willingness
to, as Morrelli phrased it during this meeting, "take each
one [alleged discriminatee] in succession and I'll nip each
one." Consistent with that approach, during the course of
the meeting Morrelli, joined to some extent by Monson,
admitted that Respondent's accusations were accurate, in-
cluding that Lingo had caused problems; Lingo had done
terrible work;28 Respondent's observations concerning
poor workmanship at Fox and Walsh were probably accu-
rate; Lingo should not have been trusted; the alleged dis-
criminatees had formulated the language used to explain
the terminations on the severance of employment forms;
and Greenland had been terminated on Wednesday, Au-
gust 20, after which he had no longer been on M & M's
payroll. Yet, Respondent introduced a carbon copy of a
payroll check for $265.95, made out to Greenland and dat-
ed August 25. But then, as Morrelli promised McLean dur-
ing the recorded meeting, ". . . I caused a lot of this f-
hassle and I'll do every goddamn thing I can to straighten
it out."
V. ANALYSIS
Four conclusions emerge in this matter. First, notwith-
standing Respondent's protestations that no one was in-
j ured on August 22 and that no jury would return a verdict
against McLean's group for their conduct, it is manifest
that acts of violence were both threatened against and di-
rected against the alleged discrimmatees on the evening of
August 22 by Respondent and the magnitude of this con-
duct was serious. Thus, the group led by McLean outnum-
bered the M & M employees initially cornered in the
warehouse by better than 2 to 1, thereby serving to magnify
the yelling, cursing, and name calling directed at the four
M & M employees.29 Nor were the McLean group's com-
ments confined to simple name calling, for a number of
threats were made to the effect that the four M & M em-
ployees would be killed were they to remain in Alaska,
threats which can only have been reinforced by the fact
that several of McLean's group had picked up tools upon
entering the warehouse. Moreover, the tools were not sim-
ply brandished in a menacing fashion. Johnson struck
Klink with a hammer and with sufficient force to draw
28 In this regard, at one point during the meeting McLean states "Those
pictures and that other evidence in that file there will for damn sure con-
vince [indiscernible] to drop those charges "
29 In these circumstances , it hardly means much that , as Respondent
pointed out, Greenland had once been a bouncer in a bar Bouncers are not
expected to stop misconduct by groups greater in number
blood. Although Johnson denied doing this, I do not credit
him. When describing the incident at the hearing, Johnson
displayed such strong contempt for the alleged discrimina-
tees that at times he appeared to border on complete loss of
self-control as, to some extent, his above-quoted descrip-
tions of the incident disclose. If, almost 5 months after the
event and in the neutral atmosphere of a courtroom, John-
son displayed such intensity, it is not hard to conclude that
he was fully capable of striking Klink with the hammer in
the heat of the moment. Indeed, it was Johnson who subse-
quently attempted to demonstrate to Greenland how much
he would "like to tear your guts out" by trying to force his
hand under Greenland's rib cage. Moreover, Johnson dis-
played a tendency to slant his testimony in Respondent's
favor as illustrated by his description of how he had dis-
armed Klink when the latter appeared ready to do harm to
McLean-testimony which was controverted by McLean's
description. Nor was the aggressive conduct that evening
committed solely by Johnson, for it was McLean, himself,
who later aimed and drove his automobile at the M & M
employees walking along the Van Horn Road. While Re-
spondent characterized this incident as a "quick swerve
and nothing more," one wonders how innocuous it would
have been had one of the M & M employees been too
slow in diving into the ditch. Shortly thereafter, McLean
then led his group in blocking the camper occupied by the
alleged discriminatees, as well as by Lingo's wife and child,
on a lonely part of the Van Horn Road. Contrary to
Respondent's contention, this conduct can most aptly be
characterized as "violent."
Moreover, the events of August 22 were followed on the
next day by a second visit to the site by McLean, accompa-
med by several other men. This time , however, a further
repetition of the events of the preceding evening was for-
stalled by the summoning of the police. In this regard, I do
not credit McLean's claim that he had returned to the site
in an effort to ascertain the identity of "Ralph." There is
no evidence that he exerted the least effort to learn Ralph's
identity while at the Walsh site , nor is there any evidence
that he made any other effort that day to obtain that infor-
mation, though it is clear that he did speak with both Mor-
relli and Tommy Monson, as well as with Steward Sobier,
on that day. Surely were McLean as concerned as he has
portrayed himself with respect to Ralph's identity, he
would have at least inquired of these individuals about the
matter. Therefore, I find that on the evening of August 22,
Respondent did engage in acts of violence and threatened
violence against the alleged discriminatees and, further,
that Respondent, at the very least, gave the impression of
an intention to repeat its violent conduct on August 23.
The second conclusion emerging from a review of the
evidence is that Respondent's defense of longstanding sus-
picion of improper work and of efforts to ascertain where it
had been occurring is merely a pretext, constructed in an
effort to justify its conduct on August 22 and 23. This con-
struction, however, succeeded only in generating a series of
inconsistencies. Thus, while McLean claimed that employ-
ee reports concerning the possibility of overtime work had
been received by him as early as June, only one employee
supported him in this respect, and McLean admitted that
despite these purported reports, he was uncertain if he had
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547 341
ever taken the quite elementary step of checking M & M's
reports reflecting the hours that employees had been work-
ing. He also claimed that since June the Monson brothers
had expressed suspicion regarding night work, but only one
of these brothers, Jerry, was called as a witness by Respon-
dent and, rather than corroborate McLean in this respect,
Jerry Monson testified that he had not been familiar with
M & M's projects in the Fairbanks area until he had
moved there in August. Moreover, contrary to McLean's
testimony regarding Jerry Monson' s asserted August ex-
pressions of suspicion concerning the possibility of work at
Fox and on Van Horn Road, it is quite clear that Monson
would not have made such statements, since Monson testi-
fied that he had become fully aware that M & M had con-
tracts for these projects and, indeed, had received com-
plaints about the caliber of work performed at Fox. In fact,
it is a fair conclusion that McLean also had become aware
of both the Fox and Walsh projects well before August 21,
since shortly after arriving in Fairbanks, Jerry Monson had
provided McLean with a list of M & M's projects, which
presumably identified both of these sites as locations where
M & M was or would be performing work.
McLean's recitation of the events of August 21 further
demonstrated the unreliability of his testimony. Thus, he
testified that Monson's suspicion of work at Fox had been
what had led him to that site . Yet, he failed to explain how
he knew where in the Fox area to locate the work in light
of the sparse information about it with which he had as-
sertedly been provided by Monson. He claimed to have
wanted pictures of the poor workmanship, but admittedly
waited until Monday, August 25, to have them taken. He
did claim that pictures had been taken on August 21 but
had not turned out properly. However, he identified a Po-
laroid camera as being the type of camera with which the
pictures were taken and, accordingly, it would have been
immediately apparent that the pictures assertedly taken
were defective. Notwithstanding his claim of several trips
to Fox after August 21, it was not until the day of the
discharges of the alleged discriminatees that he again, un-
der his version, made an effort to have new pictures taken.
Given his efforts much earlier that same morning to ascer-
tain from Jackson adverse information regarding the dis-
criminatee, it appears that the pictures were taken on Mon-
day as part of an effort to construct justification for the
conduct on August 22 and 23.
McLean journeyed to the Walsh site on August 21, but
here again his testimony was such that its unreliability be-
came manifest . On direct examination regarding this trip,
he claimed that the M & M truck which he had observed
there had been located behind a dirt pile, thereby convey-
ing the impression of clandestine activity. Not until cross-
examination did he acknowledge that, without regard to
the truck's location in relation to the dirt pile, it had been
visible from the road. On direct examination he also con-
tended that work had been in progress inside the ware-
house that evening, but pressed for an explanation of how
he could ascertain this by looking through the window of
the Van Horn Lodge, he was able only to reply that the
doors on the truck had been open and that electricians
normally did not work alone. McLean claimed that he then
went to town for "witnesses" in view of the fact that he
suspected that Lingo was "one of the characters" at work
in the warehouse that evening. However, there is no evi-
dence that would support a finding that Lingo's name had
come to McLean's attention by the time that he purported-
ly made this visit to the warehouse. Indeed, McLean ad-
mitted that on his first trip to Fox, he had not sought the
names of the specific individuals who had worked for
M & M at that location and that his subsequent inquiries
had initially provided him only with nicknames-nick-
names for which only subsequent investigation had yielded
corresponding actual names.
Indeed, Respondent's efforts to buttress its defense with
a cloak of respectability led only to numerous conflicts
among its witnesses as they attempted to construct a coher-
ent pattern of conduct immediately prior to the time that
McLean's group entered the warehouse. For example,
while McLean included Johnson among the "witnesses"
who had returned with him to the Walsh site on August 21,
Johnson unequivocally denied being with McLean or at
the Walsh site that evening. Manning claimed to have been
with McLean at the Walsh site on the evening of August
21, but McLean did not list Manning as being among those
who had returned to the warehouse with him that night.
McLean testified that upon his return to the warehouse
with the "witnesses," he had examined the inside of the
warehouse, discovering and identifying the electrical work
that had been performed. Manning, however, testified sim-
ply that the group merely pulled in at the site , looked
around, and pulled out. He made no mention of ever enter-
ing the warehouse or of inspecting work performed there.
He specifically denied that any discussion had taken place
that evening regarding a job in progress behind the Lodge.
Nor did the testimonies of these two witnesses correspond
concerning the events of the following evening , prior to
their dash from the Lodge to the warehouse. Thus, while
McLean portrayed his trip to the Lodge as pursuant to a
carefully laid trap designed to catch the wrongdoing
M & M employees, Manning testified that the evening
had begun merely as an end-of-the-week social event,
with no initial mention of work being performed illegally.
Each testified that he had been the one who had left the
Lodge to go to town for a short time. Neither made any
mention of the other's departure for a short period follow-
ing their initial, postworkday arrival at the Lodge. It is
clear that at one point McLean did go to town. Whether he
went to his home to summon Godbey and Sobier to the
Lodge or called them at some other point is disputed.
However, he did go to NECA's office to speak with Korn-
fiend. About what? McLean testified that it was to alert
Kornfiend to the planned raid on Morrelli's group at the
Walsh warehouse. Kornfiend, however, made no mention
of the Walsh site and, instead, testified that, after inquiring
about M & M performing "shift work," McLean had said
that he intended to check to see whether overtime work
was being performed at Fox. Therefore, while there is a
degree of consistency regarding the events that occurred
prior to McLean's entry into the warehouse on August 22,
there is no consistency among Respondent 's witne,. ses con-
cerning the details of these events. Given the disparity and
the significance of the events for which corroboration is
lacking and for which inconsistency exists, the matter par-
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
takes more of a contrived defense than of a simple conflict
in perceptions and memories of events.
In an effort to support its defense , Respondent points to
a number of other factors which it contends are relevant to
establishing that a conspiracy , as suspected by Respon-
dent , existed among the alleged discriminatees : four of
them were members of Local 305 in whose jurisdiction a
fifth had worked regularly ; four of them had known each
other prior to coming to Alaska and a fifth had known
Lingo before he had come to Alaska ; Lingo had driven two
of them around town when they had first arrived in Fair-
banks and had obtained temporary carpentry work for
them with M & M; and all of them were living in the same
complex at the time of the incidents giving rise to this com-
plaint . Yet, a parallel examination of the situation of
Respondent 's witnesses discloses that Manning and Mc-
Lean's father had been members of and friends in the same
local union in Detroit for a number of years and that Sobi-
er and Godbey had been renting a part of McLean's home
at the time of the August incidents . True , both Sobier and
Godbey had been paying rent for their living arrange-
ments. However , it is also true that the discriminatees had
also provided, or agreed to provide , consideration in return
for the quarters furnished them in the North Pole. Further-
more , Respondent has not contended that the carpentry
work performed by Hatfield and Holder constituted a vio-
lation of either the collective -bargaining agreement or
Respondent's internal regulations . Of greater significance
is the fact that there is no evidence that McLean or any of
his "witnesses" had been aware of any of these factors at
the time they entered the warehouse on August 22. Thus,
these matters can hardly be relied on to justify
Respondent 's conduct that evening.
To similar effect is Respondent's contention concerning
the purported suspicion arising from the abnormal terms of
the dispatching order placed by Morrelli on August 21 and
the acceptance of that work by Holder , Hatfield, and
Klink . Morrelh's "vacation ," of course , precludes inquiry
with regard to his reason for making that request . Yet, he
apparently meant to observe the terms of that order, for he
later asked Stuart and Crumpacker to remain for longer
than 30 days because of inability to complete jobs due to
the loss of workers; at least , that was his explanation.
Again , however , the significant point is that I do not credit
McLean 's assertion that the order and the identity of those
dispatched led him to suspect their participation in a con-
spiracy. Aside from my unfavorable impression of Mc-
Lean , the simple fact is that had he truly felt as he claimed,
it is inconceivable that within 24 hours he would have ap-
pointed Klink as a steward.
I have no doubt that it was suspicion of misconduct
which led McLean and his group to the Walsh site on Au-
gust 22 . His initial comments to Klink and Hatfield that
evening leave no doubt of that fact . However, I do not
credit Respondent 's witnesses, particularly McLean, when
they attempted to testify in support of a defense that their
suspicions had been longstanding and that their anger was
warranted by the difficulty which had been encountered in
trying to develop evidence of this misconduct . Rather, I
believe that McLean jumped to the conclusion that mis-
conduct was occurring at the Walsh site, decided upon a
show of force to remedy it, and then later , confronted with
an unfair labor practice charge, attempted to conceal the
hastily conceived course of action which he had followed.
That this was, in fact , what had occurred is supported by
the third conclusion emerging from these facts : that the
evidence will not support Respondent 's argument that the
alleged discriminatees were performing work improperly
on August 22. In broaching this point , one matter is para-
mount-Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement
does not prohibit overtime . It simply requires that overtime
be distributed equally. Moreover, in doing so, it makes the
steward , in part , responsible for ensuring equitable distri-
bution and requires that the steward be assigned to work
overtime when three or more men work overtime. Here,
there is no evidence that M & M was distributing over-
time unequally . Yet, the reports filed by M & M and re-
flecting the hours worked by employees could have been
produced by Respondent if, in fact , they showed an inequi-
ty. Moreover , while Lingo and Morrelh could have called
Respondent 's hall when it became apparent on August 22
that overtime work would be necessary , there is no require-
ment that they do so. The only implicit requirement in
article III , subsection 3.27, is that an employer notify a
steward of the overtime-and Klink was notified and did
work that evening. Furthermore , on the following morning,
Respondent , perceiving that Klink was no longer to be
considered a steward , did notify Sobier , through McLean,
that work was to be performed at the Walsh site . This also
shows that no effort was being made to perform work at
the Walsh site secretly. True , the terms under which Klink,
Holder , and Hatfield were dispatched provided that they
were to work only 40 hours a week and the work which
they were performing was overtime work . On the other
hand, it appears that service work is overtime work and
that service work is an expected facet of electricians' work.
Moreover, that the terms under which dispatches are made
are somewhat flexible is illustrated by the retention of
Stuart and Crumpacker for more than a 30-day period
without , so far as the record discloses , clearing the matter
with Respondent , even though these two employees, like
Klink, Holder , and Hatfield , had been dispatched for only
a 30-day period . In short , Morrelli had been advised on
short notice that work at the Walsh site had to be complet-
ed, those employees who were available were selected, and
a steward was among the employees who worked that
night . Therefore , I find that the evidence does not support
Respondent 's assertion that the work being performed at
the Walsh site on the evening of August 22 was illegal and
improper.
The final conclusion emerging in this case is that the
terminations of Lingo, Greenland , Hill, Holder , Hatfield,
and Klink were intended by Respondent and resulted di-
rectly from Respondent 's conduct. While Respondent con-
tends that the terminations were no more than an added
facet of a conspiracy among the discriminatees , Respon-
dent 's intent to cause a severance of the discnminatees'
employment with M & M is demonstrated by the Mc-
Lean group's demands on Friday that the alleged dis-
cnminatees leave the State. A similar demand was made by
McLean during his conversation with Jackson early Mon-
day morning and was reinforced when McLean later told
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547 343
Jackson that he wanted the men kept out of Alaska. Quite
obviously, the discrimmatees could not continue employ-
ment with M & M from another State. Moreover, Re-
spondent took various action to support those demands.
On Friday night, threatening words and conduct accompa-
nied these demands, and these threats were then repeated
to Jackson on Monday. McLean collected the dues receipts
and, although he contended that this had been done to
ascertain if they had been forged, his ultimate admission
that collection of the receipts would not really achieve that
objective and his further admission that he had been aware
of the identities of the M & M personnel when his group
had entered the warehouse demonstrate the transparency
of his asserted reason for collecting the dues receipts. In-
deed, Manning's retort to Holder's demand that his card
be returned ("you're not going to need it anyway"), made
while McLean's group was blocking Lingo's camper,
makes clear that the true purpose for collecting the dues
receipts was to prevent the M & M group from continuing
to work in Alaska and to reinforce the earlier demand that
they leave the State. Similarly, on the following day
McLean again led a group to the Walsh site. This time
there was no repetition of the events of the preceding eve-
ning. Whether that occurred because the M & M group
had been heard summoning the police or because McLean
had never intended a repetition, but had intended only to
"show the flag," is not clear. What is clear, however, is that
McLean's asserted purpose for going to the Lodge on Sat-
urday, to attempt to ascertain the identity of Ralph, was
not the real reason for his presence. There is no evidence
that McLean made any inquiries about Ralph while at the
site and, more significantly, though he admittedly spoke
with both Morrelli and Tommy Monson, as well as Sobier,
on that Saturday, he made no apparent effort to ascertain
the identity of Ralph.
It is, of course, true that there is no direct evidence of
any request by Respondent that M & M discharge the six
alleged discriminatees. However, Respondent's conduct of
August 22 and 23 clearly was intended to send a message
to M & M concerning the continued employment of these
six men. Thus, Respondent was undoubtedly aware that
Morrelli would become aware of what had taken place on
Friday night at the warehouse, as in fact he did. Moreover,
despite the assertion, supported only in part by the testimo-
nies of Respondent's witnesses, that the trucks had been
removed from the Walsh site for protection, the fact that
they were taken to NECA rather than to M & M's office-
trailer, shows, as Manning admitted at one point on cross-
examination, that Respondent's intention was to impress
on M & M the fact that no further work was to be per-
formed by these men. This point can only have been re-
newed by the fact that when some of the alleged discrimi-
natees returned to work at the same site on Saturday,
McLean again led a contingent of "witnesses" to that loca-
tion. Nor can the threat to Morrelli's wife be overlooked.
While there is no evidence that Respondent was the source
of that threat, it is clear that from whatever she told her
husband about it, he construed it as originating with Re-
spondent, as illustrated by the accusation which he subse-
quently leveled at Sobier and Godbey in connection with
the matter. Indeed, given Respondent's demonstration of a
penchant for threats, it would not be illogical for Morrelli
to have connected the threat against his wife with the re-
cent threats of Respondent.
The circumstances of the discharge also demonstrate
that Morrelli was merely accepting the inevitable and pur-
suing the course which Respondent wanted M & M to fol-
low. This he made clear by what he wrote on the severance
of employment forms. Respondent, however, argues that it
was the discriminatees who told Morrelli what to write on
the forms and, indeed, both Morrelli and Monson made
statements to that effect during their meeting with McLean
in September. However, this meeting was being taped. All
present knew that. A review of the tape and the transcript
prepared from the tape discloses that both Morrelli and
Monson were endeavoring to assist Respondent in dispos-
ing of the unfair labor practice charge filed by, at that
point, Greenland-a logical procedure in light of the need
to restore M & M to Respondent's good graces. Conse-
quently, I accord no weight to the statements by Morrelli
and Monson that the discriminatees were the ones who
told Morrelli what to write on the termination slips. More-
over, even if that were the case, there is no denial of the
truth of those statements and it hardly diminishes their
impact to say that the discriminatees insisted that the true
reason for their terminations be recited on their severance
of employment forms. Further, that the terminations were
the result of Respondent's conduct is shown by Morrelli's
comment to McLean during their telephone conversation
of that date "you win, I've terminated all the people."
Though McLean testified that it was this comment that led
to the meeting in Kornfiend's office, Kornfiend did not
corroborate McLean's testimony that these terminations
had been discussed during that meeting, and Jerry
Monson's corroborative testimony was extracted by pain-
fully prolonged questioning which served to demonstrate
only that Monson was trying to help his friend McLean 30
What this shows is that McLean was satisfied that the ter-
minations had occurred. This satisfaction ceased only
when he later learned that the true reason for the termina-
tions had been recited on the severance of employment
forms. At that point he began to attempt to cover his tracks
in an effort to prevent issuance of a remedial order by the
Board.
Therefore, I find that the object of Respondent's con-
duct was to secure the termination of the discriminatees'
employment with M & M and that it was that conduct
which, in fact, occasioned the terminations of August 25.
These four conclusions-that violence was undertaken
by Respondent; that Respondent failed to establish that its
conduct had resulted from ultimate discovery of miscon-
duct long suspected but not previously provable; that the
evidence is not sufficient to show that the M & M person-
nel were acting improperly by working during the evening
on August 22; and that Respondent intended the employ-
30 Similarly, I do not credit Monson's testimony that on the morning of
August 25, Morrelli led the discriminatees to Monson and told them to look
Monson in the eye and indicate if they thought that Monson had been the
one who had "squea;ed on us" Aside from Monson's friendship with Mc-
Lean and obvious desire to be helpful to Respondent, such conduct by
Morrelli simply does not make any sense and, in the circumstances, is inher-
ently implausible
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment of the six discriminatees with M & M to be termi-
nated and that the terminations did result from
Respondent's violent conduct-provide the basis for ana-
lyzing the legal principles pertinent to this case.
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization to restrain or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights, inter alia, to engage
or to refrain from engaging in concerted activities for mu-
tual aid or protection. Section 8(b)(2) of the Act makes it
an unfair labor practice for a labor organization, inter aka,
to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate in
regard to employment to encourage or discourage member-
ship in a labor organization. Though a literal reading of
Section 8(b)(2) would render unlawful any action by a la-
bor organization impinging upon the employment relation-
ship as such action would have the natural effect of en-
couraging or discouraging membership, that section of the
Act had not been construed literally. See Radio Officers'
Union of the Commericial Telegraphers Union, AFL [A. H.
Bull Steamship Company] v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 41-42
(1954). Only where a labor organization's conduct, which
impinges on the employment relationship, is motivated by
intent to discriminate to encourage or discourage member-
ship or where that labor organization' s actions are arbi-
trary, invidious, or irrelevant to union interests is Section
8(b)(2) violated. See Ashley, Hickman-Uhr Co., 219 NLRB
32, 33 (1974); Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2 (Tri-
angle Publications, Inc.), 189 NLRB 829, 829-830 (1971).
Consequently, in the instant case, had Respondent merely
requested the discharge of the discriminatees for contractu-
al violations committed, this matter would be governed by
entirely different principles. See Los Angeles Paper Han-
dlers' Union No. 3 (Gravure West), 181 NLRB 417, 419-420
(1970); Columbus Typographical Union No. 5 (The Dispatch
Printing Company), 177 NLRB 855, 856 (1969), affd. 437
F.2d 454 (C.A. 6, 1971).
Instead, though requested by Klink to resolve the matter
through internal union procedures and though asked by
Hatfield to have the matter resolved by contacting
M & M, McLean rejected any peaceful procedures for
settling the dispute and opted for a show of force, thereby
supplanting M & M's right to control work assignments
and to select personnel for employment and, also, sup-
planting the grievance procedure which the parties had
chosen in their collective-bargaining agreement as the
means for resolving disputes peacefully. It is this very type
of violent conduct which the Board has condemned-re-
peatedly and for quite some time . Abe Meltzer, Inc., 108
NLRB 1506, 1508-9 (1954), enforcement denied 224 F.2d
78 (C.A. 2, 1955); Teamsters and Chauffeurs Local 729
(Penntruck Co., Inc.), 189 NLRB 696, 698-699 (1971);
Brewers & Maltsters Local 6 (Custom Packaging Corpora-
tion), 192 NLRB 1263, In. 2 (1971).
In its brief Respondent points to the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
refusing to enforce the Meltzer decision. However, largely
in view of the legislative history showing Congress' concern
with preventing violence, the Board has adhered to its orig-
inal position in that case, Teamsters Local 729, supra, and I
am bound by the Board's decision in that regard. More-
over, in Meltzer, the court pointed out that the cornerstone
of its reason for refusing to enforce the Board's order was
the collective-bargaining agreement: "employees have no
protected right under Section -/ to violate the valid provi-
sions of a collective bargaining agreement [p. 80J." In the
instant case, as found above, there has been no showing
that the discriminatees did violate the overtime provisions
of Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement with
NECA-no evidence that overtime work had not been dis-
tributed equally or that M & M had failed to assign a
steward to the Walsh site because more than two workers
had been assigned overtime work there. Nor, in reality, has
there been a showing that Klink, Holder, and Hatfield vio-
lated the terms of their dispatch as it appears to have been
applied-an unexpected need arose to have work per-
formed, that work appears to qualify as "service work,"
which is the type of work arising on short notice and usual-
ly performed after normal hours, and the terms of dis-
patches appeared to be subject to some degree of flexibili-
ty, as illustrated by the retention of Stuart and Crumpacker
for more than 30 days, notwithstanding the initial re-
striction of their dispatch to 30 days. Consequently, this
case is not governed by the court' s decision in Meltzer, but
is purely a case where Respondent took it upon itself to
decide that the men should not be working and then em-
barked on a course of violent conduct designed to impose
that policy upon the six discriminatees and upon M & M.
In so doing, Respondent violated the discriminatees' right
to refrain from promotion of that policy and engaged in
conduct which undermined the integrity of the agreed-
upon peaceful method for resolving disputes and which
also undermined the overall statutory objective, as set forth
in Section 1(b) of the Act, of avoiding or substantially min-
imizing "[i]ndustrial strife which interferes with the normal
flow of commerce and the full production of articles and
commodities for commerce."
Therefore, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act on August 22 by threatening employ-
ees with physical harm, threatening to kill employees, as-
saulting employees, confiscating employees' dues receipts,
confiscating the trucks and tools of M & M which had the
result of forcing its personnel to walk to Fairbanks, and
creating the impression of attempting to run over and hit
these employees with an automobile as they walked along
the Van Horn Road toward Fairbanks. I further find that
on the following day, Respondent returned to that same
site either with the object of repeating its conduct of the
night before or with the object of creating the impression
that such conduct might be renewed. Finally, I find that
this conduct was undertaken with the objective of causing
the termination of the six discriminatees and that, in fact,
M & M did terminate these individuals because of
Respondent's conduct.
Respondent, however, raises a series of defenses which
go beyond the facts underlying the violations of the Act.
Thus, it contends that M & M and NECA are indispensa-
ble parties to this proceeding and that the failure to loin
them as respondents merits dismissal of the complaint.
However, it is settled that "the absence of joinder of the
employer" does not preclude entry of a remedial order
against a labor organization. Radio Officers' Union, supra at
54. Similarly, while Respondent contends that the discrimi-
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547 345
natees are not entitled to relief because they failed to ex-
haust remedies assertedly available to them through the
administrative hiring hall appeal procedure or through the
grievance procedure in the collective-bargaining agree-
ment, it is also settled that such procedures may not be
relied on to preclude parties from access to the Board's
processes: "the overriding public interest makes unimped-
ed access to the Board the only healthy alternative, except
and unless plainly internal affairs of the union are in-
volved." N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Ship-
building Workers [United States Lines Co.], 391 U.S. 418,
424 (1968).
Respondent further argues that Greenland should not be
found to have been terminated on August 25, because his
employment with M & M had been terminated on Wed-
nesday of the preceding week. This contention is based on
information provided to McLean by Morrelli during the
taped September meeting in which M & M's officials were
attempting to aid Respondent "nip each" discriminatee. In
view of the purpose of this meeting, I am according no
weight to statements adverse to the interests of the discrim-
inatees made during the course of that meeting. In fact,
Greenland testified that he had been terminated on August
20, but that this had been done so that he could go north
on another job for Morrelli. On the following morning
Morrelli reversed direction, said that he no longer intended
to send Greenland north and instructed Greenland to re-
turn to work. Respondent has not shown that this proce-
dure violated either the collective-bargaining agreement or
the procedures for operation of the hiring hall. When ter-
minated on August 25, Greenland was given both a check
and a severance of employment form. Accordingly, it is
clear that Greenland continued working for M & M after
August 20, that he was compensated by M & M for that
work, and that he was terminated August 25. In these cir-
cumstances, I find Respondent's argument concerning
Greenland to be without merit. Similarly, though Holder
left Alaska, it is clear that he had made arrangements to
return to continue working. That he did not do so can only
be attributed to his termination. Absent that termination,
he would simply have been absent from work for a few
days, so far as the record shows.
Respondent's primary arguments are devoted to the
overall contention that the discriminatees had been in-
volved in a conspiracy to violate the collective-bargaining
agreement and that, consequently, no violation should be
found or that, in any event, no remedial relief should be
granted which would provide any benefit to these "conspir-
ators." At the outset, one point should be made most clear:
even were Ito find that the discnminatees had engaged in
the misconduct attributed to them by Respondent, I would
still find a violation in this case. "A proceeding by the
Board is not to adjudicate private rights but to effectuate a
public policy." Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding
Workers, supra. Thus, even if the discriminatees had com-
mitted acts which were wrongful under the collective-bar-
gaining agreement, that does not excuse Respondent's
quite clearly unlawful conduct in violation of the Act.
Moreover, as found above, there is no evidence sufficient
to find that the M & M personnel were acting improperly
when they worked in the Walsh warehouse on the evening
of August 22. Finally, as also found above, while
Respondent's witnesses made every effort to construct a
plausible story to support the overall defense that there had
been a longstanding suspicion of work being improperly
performed, their demeanor, confirmed by the inconsisten-
cies among those witnesses and the unreality of the sub-
stance of portions of their testimonies, convinces me that
the entire sequence of events prior to the August 22 inci-
dent, as related by those witnesses , was completely fabri-
cated and utterly untrustworthy.
This is not, however, to be construed as placing angelic
wings on the discriminatees. Rather, it merely means that
the rumors, suspicions, etc., which Respondent' s witnesses
claimed to have experienced prior to the evening of August
22 were, by and large, simply not credibly shown to have
occurred. Following the August 22 incident, however, Mc-
Lean set upon a search for reasons to "nip each" discrimi-
natee-a search which continued right into the room dur-
ing the hearing in this matter. As a result, some items were
disclosed which were anything but favorable to several of
the discriminatees. Thus, Lingo, Hill, and possibly Green-
land did perform shabby work at Fox, although it is unlike-
ly that Respondent would have sought their terminations
under ordinary circumstances because of this, but would
probably have merely sought to have them correct the poor
workmanship on their own time, consistent with the nor-
mal procedure in such circumstances. Moreover, Green-
land may have performed duties other than those of a ma-
terial handler at Fox and it is crystal clear that Lingo
permitted his son to work there, even though the latter had
not been cleared through Respondent's hall. This was quite
clearly improper conduct which undermined the purpose
of a hiring hall and to the extent that Hill and Greenland
knew of this, they also acted improperly in continuing to
work without reporting it. Again, however, there is no
showing that, assuming Hill and Greenland were aware of
the nonclearance of Ralph Lingo, this conduct was consid-
ered sufficiently severe to warrant termination of employ-
ment, as opposed to a fine or some other lesser disciplinary
conduct.
The most serious charge leveled against the discrimina-
tees by Respondent is the one involving the performance of
a considerable amount of work, not simply qualifying as
service work, at times not consistent with the terms of their
dispatch and possibly prior to being dispatched. Re-
spondent's counsel made every effort to attempt to es-
tablish what had been taking place. However , it is clear
that his ability to get to the bottom of this matter was
hampered severely by the fact that Morrelli had gone "on
vacation" after having received the General Counsel's sub-
pena 31 Without Morrelli, Respondent 's counsel was left
with considerable documentation which could not be ex-
plained except by calling the discriminatees who were,
themselves, unable to explain what had been taking place.
31 Though Respondent assails the General Counsel for waiting so long to
serve a subpena on Morrelli, it hardly seems likely that had the subpena
been served earlier, Morrelli would have remained In this regard, I am
disregarding the attack in Respondent 's brief which is made on the investi-
gation in this matter That is simply not a matter within my scope or juris-
diction . Board's Statements of Procedure, Series 8 , as amended , Sec 101 4
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To some extent , the conclusion that Morrelli was fabricat-
ing bills as a means of garnering additional money from
M & M and others is inferable. That, however, would not,
of itself, indict the discnminatees. Moreover, Lingo admit-
ted knowingly participating in this fabrication on at least
one occasion . But again , that cannot be held against the
other five discriminatees , though the names of two of them
were used , and there is no showing that Respondent would
have ever concerned itself or applied any sanction against
Lingo for this type of conduct.
Other matters, such as Lingo's arrangement with Morrel-
li and the very high amount of overtime for which Hill was
compensated by his final paycheck, may well indicate an
impropriety through performance of additional work. Lin-
go was not, in my judgment, a straightforward individual
when questioned on this facet of the case and I do not
credit many of his answers in connection with his relation-
ship with Morrelli. However, the point of the instant pro-
ceeding was not one of litigating whether or not there had
been a contract violation or a hiring hall violation. Respon-
dent had its opportunity to do that and rejected peaceful
procedures for resolving those issues in favor of conduct
which violated the Act. A major purpose of the Board's
remedies for such violations is to deter future repetition
and to restore the parties to the positions which they occu-
pied prior to the unlawful conduct. Once that is accom-
plished, Respondent will then be free to consider what con-
tract and internal disciplinary proceedings it may wish to
institute, subject, of course, to the restrictions that it not be
discriminatorily motivated and that it not be motivated by
a desire to retaliate against the discriminatees . Until that is
accomplished, public policy as reflected in the Act pre-
cludes Respondent from seeking to be spared from obliga-
tions arising from its violations of the Act by relying on
matters that could have been considered through the very
peaceful procedures which Respondent rejected and sup-
planted by its unlawful conduct.
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring
in connection with the operations of M & M Electric
Company and National Electrical Contractors Association
Alaska Chapter, as described in section I above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to lead,
and have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo-
cal 1547, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. M & M Electric Company and National Electrical
Contractors Association Alaska Chapter are employers
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
3. By threatening employees with physical harm, threat-
ening to kill employees , assaulting employees , confiscating
employees ' dues receipts , confiscating trucks and tools
owned by M & M Electric Company, and forcing its em-
ployees to walk to Fairbanks , and by giving the impression
of attempting to run over and hit employees walking along-
side the Van Horn Road , Respondent engaged in acts of
violence arising from a contract dispute and imposed its
control over the labor relations policy of M & M and
NECA, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the above-described acts of violence
with the object of causing the termination of employees
and by causing the termination of Danny Greenland,
Thomas Hill, Larry L. Holder, George Klink, and John
Hatfield, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
5. By engaging in the above described acts of violence
with the object of causing the termination of a supervisor
and by causing the termination of Alfred Lingo for the
purpose of restraining and coercing employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. There is no evidence that Respondent , in the presence
of employees, threatened to run out of Alaska an individu-
al employed by M & M Electric Company as "foreman"
and there is no violation of Section 8(b)(2) with respect to
the termination of Lingo.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action set forth below to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
I shall recommend that Respondent notify M & M
Electric Company, National Electrical Contractors Associ-
ation Alaska Chapter, Alfred Lingo, Danny Greenland,
Thomas Hill, Larry L. Holder, George Klink, and John
Hatfield, in writing, that it has no objection to the employ-
ment of Lingo, Greenland, Hill, Holder, Klink, and Hat-
field and, further, that Respondent request that M & M
Electric Company offer reinstatement to each of them. It is
also recommended that Respondent be required to make
Lingo, Greenland, Hill, Holder, Klink, and Hatfield whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason
of its unlawful conduct in securing their terminations on
August 25, 1975, with backpay to be computed on a quar-
terly basis, making deductions for interim earnings, and
with interest to be paid at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), enforce-
ment denied on different grounds 322 F.2d 913 (C.A. 9,
1963).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547 347
ORDER32
Respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 1547, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees, threatening to kill those em-
ployees, confiscating employees' dues receipts, confiscating
equipment being used by employees, giving the impression
of driving an automobile in a manner designed to run over
employees, or engaging in other acts of violence in order to
enforce Respondent's interpretation of its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with National Electrical Contractors
Association Alaska Chapter or with any other employer.
(b) Engaging in acts of violence with the object of caus-
ing the termination of employees and causing the termina-
tion of employees through acts of violence designed to sup-
plant orderly procedures for resolving disputes.
(c) Engaging in acts of violence with the object of caus-
ing the termination of supervisors and causing the termina-
tion of supervisors through acts of violence for the purpose
of restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
(d) In any manner restraining or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify M & M Electric Company, National Electri-
cal Contractors Association Alaska Chapter, Alfred Lingo,
Danny Greenland, Thomas Hill, Larry L. Holder, George
Klink, and John Hatfield, in writing, that it has no objec-
tion to the employment of Lingo, Greenland, Hill, Holder,
Klink, and Hatfield, and request that M & M Electric
Company offer reinstatement to each of them.
(b) Make Alfred Lingo, Danny Greenland, Thomas
Hill, Larry L. Holder, George Klink, and John Hatfield
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination practiced against them, in the manner
set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its Fairbanks, Alaska, hiring hall, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 19, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
32 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
33 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
dent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it here-
by is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that on August 25,
Respondent, in the presence of employees, threatened to
run out of Alaska an individual employed by M & M
Electric Company as "foreman" and insofar as it alleges
that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) in connection
with the termination of Lingo.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten you, threaten to kill you, con-
fiscate your dues receipts, confiscate equipment that
you are using, attempt to give you the impression that
we are trying to run you down with our automobiles,
or engage in any acts of violence against you in order
to enforce our interpretation of our collective-bargain-
ing agreement with National Electrical Contractors
Association Alaska Chapter or with any other employ-
er.
WE WILL NOT engage in acts of violence to cause you
to be terminated and WE WILL NOT cause your termina-
tion through acts of violence designed to supplant or-
derly procedures for resolving disputes.
WE WILL NOT engage in acts of violence to cause the
terminations of supervisors and WE WILL NOT cause the
termination of supervisors through acts of violence de-
signed to restrain and coerce you in the exercise of
your rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce you in
the exercise of your rights under the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL notify M & M Electric Company, National
Electrical Contractors Association Alaska Chapter,
Alfred Lingo, Danny Greenland, Thomas Hill, Larry
L. Holder, George Klink, and John Hatfield, in writ-
ing, that we have no objection to the employment of
Lingo, Greenland, Hill, Holder, Klink, and Hatfield
and WE WILL also request that M & M Electric Com-
pany offer reinstatement to Lingo, Greenland, Hill,
Holder, Klink, and Hatfield.
WE WILL make whole Alfred Lingo, Danny Green-
land, Thomas Hill, Larry L. Holder, George Klink,
and John Hatfield for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced
against them.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL 1547