Electronic Workers Iue Local 663 (Gulton Electro Voice)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 1043 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

ELECTRONIC WORKERS IUE LOCAL 663 (GULTON, ELECTRO VOICE)
International Union of Electronic , Electrical, Tech-
nical, Salaried and Machine Workers, Local 663
(Gulton Electro Voice) and John A. Wilmer.
-Case 10-CB-4406
30 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
On 30 January 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Hutton S. Brandon issued the, attached decision.
The General Counsel -filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the Respondent Union filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
'The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order. -
The complaint alleges that the Respondent, or
the Union, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act by maintaining-a clause
in its collective-bargaining -agreement with Gulton
Electro Voice,' the Company, granting supersen-
iority to certain union officers and representatives
for layoff and recall purposes, and- for protection
from job bumping.2
Relying on Gulton Eleciro Voice,3 the judge
found, inter alia , that the job bumping protection
accorded the chief steward under the supersenior-
ity clause was, comparable -to a defensive shift
maintenance provision4 and, as such, not unlawful.
Additionally, the judge found that the on-the-job
presence of the union president, vice president, re-
cording secretary, and negotiating committee mem-
bers was not necessary for the performance of
grievance processing duties and, therefore, granting
i Gulton Electro Voice was the Party in Interest in this proceeding
2 The full text of the applicable provision, sec 7 07, is as follows
(A) In the case of lay-off and recall, the following elected officers
and stewards of the Local Union shall be deemed to have top
ranking seniority so long as they hold such office and in the order
as specified below and they shall not otherwise be bumped from
their jobs
(B) President, Chief Steward, Vice-President,. Recording Secretary,
Financial Secretary, Stewards in their areas of representation, and
the Union Negotiating Committee The Union Negotiating Com-
mittee shall be protected only during their tenure on the negotiat-
ing committee
(C) The parties agreed to a moratorium on the application of the
above language with respect to the Financial Secretary and Re-
cording Secretary until the NLRB and Courts clearly and finally
determined issues concerning these officials
a 266 NLRB 406 (1983), enfd sub nom Electrical Workers IUE Local
900 v. NLRB, 727 F 2d 1184 (D.C. Cir 1984)
4 Auto Workers Local 561 (Scovill, Inc.), 266 NLRB 952 (1983)
1043
them superseniority for layoff, recall,, or job bump-
ing purposes was unlawful under Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act. The judge also' found that the union
vice president's grievance, seeking reinstatement- to
the position from which she had 'been bumped,
would, if successful, result in another employee's
displacement, and thus was an attempt to invoke an
unlawful superseniority clause in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2). -
The facts are' not in 'dispute. The -current -collec-
tive-bargaining agreement provides seniority pref-
erence among employees in matters of layoff,
recall, job bumping, and job bidding. The supersen-
iority clause, quoted above provides, notwithstand-
'ing the seniority system, that the last persons to be
laid off or bumped from their jobs shall be the
elected union officers and stewards including, inter
alia, the president, chief steward, vice president, re-
cording secretary, and negotiating committee mem-
bers.5 The Union's vice president Billie Stimoff
filed a grievance on 11 July- 1984, claiming that the
Company -violated the superseniority clause when,
as a result of a cutback, it bumped her to a lower
job -classification.-. -
As noted 'above, the judge found that the chief
steward's grievance-handling and contract adminis-
tration duties entitled her to exercise the full grant
of superseniority rights, including job bumping pro-
tection, under the standards set forth in Gulton:
We will find unlawful those grants of super-
seniority extending beyond those employees
responsible for grievance processing and on-
the-job contract administration. We will, find
lawful only those superseniority provisions
limited 'to employees who, as agents' of the
union, must be on the job to accomplish their
duties directly related to administering the col-
lective-bargaining agreement.6
Applying the same standard, the judge found that
none of the other' union officers in question per-
formed grievance-handling or contract administra-
tion duties entitling the officer to any supersenior-
ity. -
1. The General Counsel does not question in this
litigation that the chief steward has grievance proc-
essing responsibilities entitling her to superseniority
for layoff and recall purposes. We disagree with
the judge, however, that extending her protection
5 The supersemonty clause also includes the Union 's financial secretary
and zone stewards in its protective scope The parties have stipulated,
however, that supersemonty does not lawfully apply to the financial sec-
retary and, therefore , it is not an issue in this case Also, the General
Counsel has not alleged that applying the clause to the'zone stewards is
unlawful in any respect or that applying it to the chief steward for layoff
and recall purposes is illegal
6 266 NLRB at 409
276 NLRB No. 109
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-against -bumping is lawful. The judge likened the
-position retention rights for the chief steward to
the shift protection given "grievance handlers with
steward-like duties" in Scovill, Inc.,7 and concluded
that. bumping protection is defensive in nature, al-
lowing the chief steward to keep only her current
- position-without giving her-preference in any -other
position. He found further that, without such pro-
tection, the chief steward could possibly be
bumped into the lowest paying job in the plant,
and even if she could still fulfill her plantwide
steward duties, she would not be encouraged to
continue her employment or stewardship.
Scovill, however, is clearly distinguishable. The
Scovill employees worked on three shifts, and shift
protection assured . "that an official with steward-
like duties for a particular shift [would be] able to
remain on that shift."8 The Board thus-concluded,
"[I]n this regard, the shift protection clause is akin
to layoff protection and the same considerations
which lead us to find presumptively lawful steward
superseniority for layoff protection similarly man-
date that steward superseniority for defensive shift
maintenance be found presumptively lawful."9
Here, the plant operates only one shift, and the
chief steward, unlike the zone stewards, has
plantwide responsibilities. 10 Each of the four zone
stewards works in a particular area of the plant
(zone) for which he also has the primary grievance
handling responsibility." Bumping a zone steward
to a job in another zone would disrupt the continu-
ity in the first zone's employees' union representa-
tion. Therefore, granting a zone steward protection
against bumping from his zone would be defensive
in nature and akin to the shift protection found
lawful in Scovill. In contrast, the chief steward does
not need to be on any particular job in order to
perform her plantwide grievance-handling duties
effectively.
Further, we disagree with the judge's finding
lawful the chief-steward's job bumping protection
because, without such protection, the chief steward
may quit her job or stewardship. The Gulton deci-
sion 'rejected the notion that "superseniority does
not interfere with employees' Section 7 rights, but
r 266 NLRB at 953 In 9 '
8 Id -
9 Id -
10 The chief steward's plantwide responsibilities include participation
in all step 2 and step 3 grievance meetings and, together with the union
president , meeting with company representatives whenever layoffs, re-
calls, or transfers occur The collective-bargaining agreement provides
the chief steward 8 hours of paid time each week for contract administra-
tion and grievance processing and, additionally , 4'hours paid time per
week for step 3 participation alone See fn 15, infra
11 Each zone steward participates in the step 2 meetings concerning
grievances arising in his particular ' area of representation and often in the
step I meetings as well For that participation , the zone steward is paid 5
hours per week See fn 15, infra.
merely rewards and-encourages service as a union
official, which in turn benefits 'all employees." 12
Citing Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.,13 the Board in
Gulton stated that "it nevertheless remains the
union's task to build and maintain its own organiza-
tion, and where the immediate problem is simply a
matter of encouraging employees ' to [serve as a
union representative] a union can alone handle the
situation simply by paying employees or by giving
them other nonjob benefits." 14
Accordingly, we find that by maintaining a su-
perseniority clause in, its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Company providing job bump-
ing protection for the chief steward, the Respond-
ent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
2. We also disagree with the judge that the union
president's full-time presence on the job is not nec-
essary for the - execution of her grievance process-
ing and collective-bargaining agreement administra-
tion duties, and thus find the contractual supersen-
iority clause lawful to the extent that it provides
layoff and recall preference for the president. Al-
though the judge acknowledged that the con-
tract15 provided the president 3 hours of paid time
12 266 NLRB at 409
13 219 NLRB 656, 659 ( i975), enfd sub ' nom NLRB v. Teamsters
Local 338, 531Y 2d 1162 (2d Cir 1976)
14 Gulton at 409 .
To the extent that Stage Employees IATSE Local 780 (McGregor-
Werner), 227 NLRB 558 (1976), Hospital Service Plan of New Jersey, 227
NLRB 585 (1976), and Expedient Services, 231 NLRB 938 (1977), may be
interpreted to find presumptively valid grants of supersenionty going
beyond those which are purely defensive in nature, as construed by Sco-
vill and today's decision , they are overruled
15 Sec 6 03 of the collective-bargaining agreement , which establishes
the grievance procedures , states
All differences, disputes , and grievances that may arise between
the Union and the Employer shall be taken up as follows
(A) Step 1-between the aggrieved employee on the one hand and
the employee 's foreman on the other Either party may request the
presence of the area steward
If no satisfactory settlement is reached between them within
twenty-four (24) hours, the matter shall be reduced to writing and
referred to step 2 (The twenty-four (24) hour period may be ex-
tended by mutual consent )
(B) Step 2-the chief steward , steward , department head, and a rep-
resentative of the personnel department The Employer or the
Union may request the presence of the employee (s) or the foreman
or additional witnesses for the purpose of giving testimony
If no satisfactory settlement is reached between them within
twenty-four (24) hours, the matter shall be referred to step 3 (The
twenty-four (24) hour period may be extended by mutual consent )
Such settlement shall be reduced to writing
(C) Step 3-The president or vice-president , the chief steward, re-
cording secretary, and/or representative of the International
Union on the one hand and management representatives on the
other -
If no satisfactory settlement is reached between them within
the ten ( 10) working days, the mattei'may- be appealed to arbitra-
tion The ten (10) day period may be extended by mutual consent
Such settlement shall be in writing
(D) In respect to the steps of the grievance procedure , Union offi-
cials will be paid a maximum number of hours in accordance with
the following.
Stewards (in the area of junsdiction)-five (5) hours per week.
Continued
ELECTRONIC WORKERS IUE LOCAL 663 (GULTON ELECTRO VOICE).
each week for contract administration and griev-
ance processing (exclusive of the 4 hours allotted
for step 3), the judge did not give sufficient weight
to her involvement in the grievance procedure
until - step 3. It is , however, quite clear that the
president's impromptu meetings with company offi-
cials to discuss problems on the plant floor before
they become formal grievances are an integral part
of the grievance procedure, in which she could not
participate were she on layoff. In addition to the 2
full days per month she spends participating in step
3 grievance meetings, the -president designates an
acting chief steward in the chief steward's absence
and is an ex officio member of certain employee
committees which meet in the plant during work
hours. She and the chief steward also meet with
the Company whenever layoffs, recalls, or transfers
occur. Further, it is the president's practice to be
present when employees are told about their lay-
Offs.16 Therefore, a grant of superseniority to the
president for layoff and recall purposes does not
violate the Act.17
Chief Steward-eight (8) hours per week
President or Vice-President-three (3) hours per week
Unused hours by the above officers and stewards may be approved
up to the following limit
Chief Steward-six (6) hours per week
Stewards-four (4) hours per week
President or Vice-President-six (6) hours per week
However, the above identified officials shall be allowed to take off
such additional time as legitimate processing of grievances might re-
quire without pay from the Employer
In addition, the Chief Steward, President or Vice-President, and Re-
cording Secretary-four (4) hours in step 3.
16 The judge relied heavily on Union President Cowan's statement that
she could continue to serve as president even if she were laid off, al-
though less conveniently . She made that statement , however, in response
to questioning about whether the Union 's constitution or internal rules
would permit her to remain in office under those circumstances We find,
therefore , contrary to the judge, that in its proper context the president's
statement was not an absolute concession that her full-time presence on
the job was not necessary for the execution of her grievance processing
and contract administration duties Without her full -time presence, the
employees in the plant would not receive the level of union representa-
tion to which they are entitled .
17 We affirm the judge 's finding of violations in the application of the
supersenionty clause to the Union 's vice president and recording secre-
tary Although the vice president, if necessary , would substitute for the
president, such sporadic and intermittent grievance -handling responsibil-
ities do not require her full-time presence on the job See Wayne Corp,
270 NLRB 162, 163 (1984)
We consequently also affirm the judge 's finding of a violation of Sec
8(b)(2) and ( 1)(A) in the Union's attempt to enforce the unlawful clause
by invoking the grievance procedure concerning the bumping of Union
Vice President Stimoff
Besides her purely intraunion responsibilities , the recording secretary
participates in step 3 grievance meetings with the Company as a member
of the Union 's grievance committee The committee members vote to de-
termine the Union 's position on the grievances at issue during those meet-
ings The Union's constitution clearly states at art 7, sec E, that the re-
cording secretary serves on the grievance committee "for the sole pur-
pose of taking minutes and for no other purpose " Because the recording
secretary 's involvement in the grievance procedure does not begin until
step 3 and , under the constitution , is so limited in scope, her full-time
presence on the job is unnecessary See Auto Workers Local 1161
(Pfaudler Co.), 271 NLRB 1411 (1984) As in Pfaudler, the recording sec-
retary's vote here on the Union's positions on grievances is an intraunion
matter
1045
But, as discussed above regarding the chief stew-
ard, extending superseniority for job bumping pro-
tection to the president does violate the Act. Like
the chief steward, the president's duties are
plantwide and she does not need to be on any par-
ticular job to execute them effectively. According-
ly, we find, in agreement with the judge, that by
maintaining a superseniority clause'in its collective-
bargaining agreement with- the Company according
the president protection against job bumping, the
Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of'the
Act.
In light of our findings, we shall issue new Con-
clusions of Law; a new remedy, and a new Order
and notice to employees and members.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By maintaining a clause in its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Company according
the Union's president and chief steward supersen-
iority for protection' against job bumping, the
Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. By maintaining a clause in its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Company according
the Union's vice president, recording secretary, and
members of its negotiating committee supersenior-
ity for layoff,- recall, and protection against job
bumping, the Union has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section - 8(b)(1)(A)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By attempting to enforce the clause in its col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Company, as
described in paragraph 2, above, and by invoking
the contractual grievance procedure regarding the
"bumping" of the union vice president on and after
11 July 1984, the Union has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and
(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative
Member Dennis would find the recording secretary is also entitled to
supersenionty for layoff and recall purposes only The recording secre-
tary, under sec 6 03(C) of the collective-bargaining agreement, is desig-
nated as an official union representative at step 3 of the grievance proc-
ess, and is granted 4 hours per week paid time for this purpose Thus,
under the collective-bargaining agreement , and in actual practice , the re-
cording secretary is a full voting participant in the step 3 proceedings
Because the negotiating committee has no specific duties other than ne-
gotiating the collective-bargaining agreement , we agree with the judge
that the committee members are not-entitled to superseniority for any
purpose
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that the superseniority clause here
in dispute is unlawful' as applied to the Union's
president and chief steward for job bumping pro-
tection and to the vice president, recording secre-
tary, and negotiating committee members for layoff
and recall ,rights and bumping protection, we shall
order that the .Respondent cease and desist from
maintaining and . attempting to enforce to that
extent the clause in its-collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Company. Since the Respondent's
filing and pursuit of the grievance on behalf of the
vice president, Billie •Stimoff, relative to supersen-
iority in bumping protection was unlawful,, we
shall order that the Union withdraw the grievance.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders, that
the Respondent , International Union of Electronic,
Electrical , Technical, Salaried and Machine Work-
ers, Local 663 , Sevierville , Tennessee , its officers,
agents, and representatives , shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining _ a superseniority clause in its col-
lective-bargaining agreement with -the Company
according superseniority to its president and chief
:steward for job_ bumping protection or,any purpose
other than layoff and recall. -
(b) Maintaining ' a superseniority clause in its col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Company
according superseniority to its vice president, re-
cording secretary , and negotiating committee mem-
bers for layoff, recall, and job bumping protection,
or any other purpose.
(c) Invoking the grievance procedure in its col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Company, or
otherwise attempting , to enforce unlawful portions
of the superseniority clause in its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Company.
(d) In any like or related 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 neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw the grievance of Billie Stimoff, its
vice president, dated 11 July 1984, claiming super-
seniority for protection against job bumping.
(b) Post -at its offices and meeting halls copies of
the - attached notice marked "Appendix ." 18 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 10, after being signed by the
Respondent's authorized -representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to employees and members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. -
(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director suf-
ficient copies of the notice for posting by Gulton
Electro Voice, if it is willing, at all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and 'abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT maintain a superseniority clause in
our collective-bargaining agreement with Gulton
Electro Voice according superseniority to our
president and chief steward for job bumping pro-
tection or any purpose other than layoff and recall.
WE WILL NOT maintain a superseniority clause in
'bur collective-bargaining agreement with the Com-
pany according superseniority to our vice presi-
dent, recording secretary, and negotiating commit-
tee members for layoff, recall, job bumping protec-
tion, or any other purpose.
WE WILL NOT invoke the grievance procedure in
our collective-bargaining agreement with the Com-
pany, or otherwise attempt, to enforce unlawful
portions of the superseniority clause in our collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Company.
WE WILL, NOT in any like or-related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw the grievance of Billie Sti-
moff,, our vice president, dated 11 July 1984, claim-
ing superseniority for protection against job bump-
ing.
'B If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of. Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEC-
TRONIC, ELECTRICAL, TECHNICAL,
SALARIED AND MACHINE WORKERS,
LOCAL 663
ELECTRONIC WORKERS IUE LOCAL 663 (GULTON ELECTRO VOICE) . 1047
Frank F. Rox, Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard F. Rice, Esq., of Kettering, Ohio, for, the Re-
spondent.
John A. Wilmer, Esq., of Huntsville, Alabama, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HUTTON S. BRANDON, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was tried at Sevierville, Tennessee, on Novem-
ber 29, 1984.1 The charge was-filed by John A. Wilmer,
attorney for Gulton Electro Voice (the Company), on
September 10, alleging that International Union of Elec-
tronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine
Workers, Local 663 (Respondent or the Union), violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The complaint based on the charge issued on October
23. The issue presented is whether the Union violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by maintaining a clause in
its collective-bargaining agreement granting supersenior-
ity to certain union officers and representatives for layoff
and recall purposes as well as job protection from bump-
ing. '
On the entire, record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Union, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a Delaware corporation , maintains an
office and place of business at Sevierville, Tennessee,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of audio equip-
ment . During the calendar year preceding issuance of the
complaint, the Company sold and shipped from its Se-
vierville, Tennessee facility finished products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside
the State-of Tennessee-. The Union admits, and I find,
that the Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) ' and (7) of the Act.
The complaint further alleges, the Union admits, and I
find that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Material Facts
The operative facts in this case are not in significant
dispute. The Union and the Company have been parties
to successive collective-bargaining agreements ` for the
Company's production and maintenance employees at
the Company's Sevierville, Tennessee plant, the latest
agreement being effective from July 29, 1983, through
June 29, 1986. Section 7.07 of the latest agreement con-
tained the following provisions:
(A) In the case of lay-off and recall,' the following
elected - officers and stewards of the Local Union
1 All dates are in 1984 unless otherwise indicated
shall be deemed to have top ranking seniority so
long as they hold such office and in the order as
specified below and they shall not otherwise be
bumped from their jobs.
(B) President, Chief Steward, Vice-President, Re-
cording Secretary, Financial Secretary, Stewards
in their areas of representation, and the.Union Ne-
gotiating Committee. 'The Union Negotiating
Committee shall be protected only during their
tenure on'the negotiating committee
(C) The parties agreed to a moratorium on the appli-
cation of the above language with respect to the
-Financial Secretary and. Recording Secretary until
the NLRB and Courts clearly and finally deter-
mined issues concerning these officials. , -
The parties herein are in agreement that the moratori-
um established in section (C) quoted above was based on
the parties' concern with then pending litigation before
the Board and the courts involving the Company and an-
other local union and the issue of the legality of granting
superseniority to certain union officals. See Gulton Elec-
tro-Voice, 266 NLRB 406 (1983), enfd. 727 F.2d 1184
(D.C. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, all the parties herein,
based on the moratorium established by section (C)
above and the court's enforcement of the-Board's Order
'.in the prior Gulton Electro-Voice case, agree that super-
seniority as provided under sections (A) and (B)' is inap-
plicable to the position of -the financial secretary and,
therefore, the legality of the superseniority provision in-
sofar,,as it applies to the financial secretary's position is
not an issue in this case. On the other hand, Respond-
ent's counsel at the hearing, notwithstanding the specific
.language of section (C) above and regardless of whether
the Union- is contractually bound to that language,
argues herein that inclusion of the recording secretary in
section (C) was in error and that the legality of the appli-
cation of section (A) to the recording secretary's position
is an issue in this case. '
Since the functions and duties of the union officers and
representatives with respect to the processing or han-
dling of grievances are critical to the resolution of the
issues in this case because all are employed by the Com-
pany, it is necessary here to set forth the grievance pro-
cedures contained in the collective-bargaining' agreement
between the Union and the Company. That agreement
provides at section 6.03:
All differences, disputes, and grievances that may
arise between,the Union and the -Employer shall be
taken up as follows: -
(A) Step 1-between the aggrieved' employee on the
one hand and the employee's foreman on. the
other. Either party may request the presence of
the area steward. . • •
If no satisfactory settlement is reached be-
tween them within twenty-four (24) hours,. the
matter shall be reduced to writing and referred to
step 2. (The twenty-four (24) hour period may be
extended by mutual consent)
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(B) Step 2-the chief steward, steward, department
head, and a representative of the personnel depart-
ment . The Employer or the Union may request
the presence of the employee(s) or the foreman or
additional witnesses for the purpose of giving tes-
timony.
If no satisfactory settlement is reached be-
tween them within twenty-four (24) hours, the
matter shall. be referred to step 3. (The twenty-
four (24) hour period may be extended by mutual
consent.) Such settlement shall be reduced to
writing.
(C) Step 3-The president or vice-president, the
chief steward, recording secretary, and/or repre-
sentative of the International Union on the one
hand , and management representatives on the
other.
If no satisfactory settlement is reached be-
tween them within the ten (10) working days, the
matter may be appealed to arbitration. The ten
(10) day period may be extended by mutual-con-
,sent . Such settlement shall be in writing:
(D) In respect to the steps of the grievance proce-
dure, Union officials will be paid a maximum
number of hours in accordance with the follow-
ing:
Stewards (in the area of jurisdiction)-five (5)
-hours per week.
Chief Steward-eight (8) hours per week.
President or Vice-President-three (3) hours
per week. .
Unused hours by the above officers and stewards
may be approved up to the following limit.
Chief Steward-six (6) hours per week.
Stewards\-four (4) hours per week.
President of Vice-President-six (6) hours per
week.
However,. the aoov8, identified officials shall be al-
lowed to take -off sut 1 additional time as legitimate
processing of grievances might-require without pay
from the Employer. - -
In addition, the Chief Steward, President or Vice-
President; and Recording Secretary-four (4) hours
in step 3.
The Union's constitution was received in evidence.
Examination of the constitution reveals that while the
specific duties, of the officers and representatives of the
Union are set forth in the constitution, -except for the
chief- steward and regular stewards, all of whom are
elected by the Union's membership, none are accorded
specific grievance-handling functions.,
The facts which gave rise to the instant case occurred
in late June and early July. - Vickie Baurle, personnel
manager for the Company, testified that around the first
part of June, the Company determined that at some point
in time it would be necessary to have a cutback in a cer-
tain classification of employees. Baurle testified that a
cutback results when there is an excess of employees in a
particular job classification. Individuals who are affected
by a cutback have a right to "bump" into a lateral or
lower job classification under the collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union. Accordingly, a bump is a
result of a cutback. Baurle, on ascertaining that a cut-
back might be necessary, advised Ruth Cowan, president
of the Union, and Glinda Williams, the Union's chief
steward, that a cutback looked as if it would be neces-
sary and that, while the number' of people involved in
the cutback had not been determined, if it was three or
mole it would affect the Union's vice president, Billie
Stimoff. The response of Cowan.and Williams, according
to Baurle , was that under the collective-bargaining
agreement the vice president could not be cut back.
Baurle testified that some 2 weeks later, she talked to
Cowan and Arlene Lindsay, the acting chief steward at
the time, about the cutback and gave them a copy of the
Board 's decision in Gulton Electro-Voice, supra . Approxi-
mately a week 'later, it was necessary 'to have the cut-
back, and Billie Stimoff was indeed- cut `back, i.e.,
dropped to a lower job 'classification.
On July 11, Stimoff filed a grievance claiming that her
cutback breached the collective-bargaining agreement
since she was an elected vice president of the Union. She
further argued in the grievance that the Company's
action broke a letter of agreement between the Company
and the Union dated July 22, 1983.2 Stimoffs grievance
sought reinstatement to the position from which she had
been cut back and restitution for any loss of pay.
The Company's position with respect to Stimoff's
grievance as supplied at step 2 of the grievance proce-
- dure by Stimoff's foreman was that the Company had
not violated any contract provision and that supersenior-
ity applied only on layoffs and recall. At the next step of
the grievance procedure, the Company, through Baurle,
maintained its position and replied more specifically to
Stimoff's reference to the 1983 letter of agreement stat-
ing that the Company had no intention of honoring the
letter of agreement and that to honor such agreement
would be in violation of the rulings of the Board. At the
time of the hearing herein, the grievance had not'been
resolved 'nor had the parties agreed to resolve the matter
through the arbitration process.
B. Argument and Conclusions
- The General Counsel, relying on Gulton Electro-Voice,
argues that section 7.07 of the- collective-bargaining
agreement is unlawful on its face to the extent that it
grants superseniority in layoff and recall to the Union's
president, vice president,, recording secretary, and mem-
bers of the negotiating committee. According to the
2 The letter of agreement referred to in -the grievance was reached be-
tween the parties at the conclusion of the strike by the Umon at the
Company in July 1983 Specifically , the agreement provided that the
Union would hold the Company harmless for any arbitration expenses,
backpay, or liability related to any action taken by an arbitrator , National
Labor Relations Board ,- or the courts as a result of the enforcement of
the provisions of sec 7 07(A) and (B) of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment The agreement went on to provide that either party had the right
to cancel the agreement by giving a 5-day notice However; the agree-
ment specified that any cancellation would be by mutual agreement
ELECTRONIC WORKERS IUE LOCAL 663 (GULTON ELECTRO VOICE)
General Counsel, the grant of supersenionty to union of-
ficers and negotiating committee members is inherently
discriminatory and constitutes an exceptional benefit that
can be upheld only if it is necessary to further the admin-
istration of -.the collective-bargaining agreement at the
plant level, i.e., the union official must demonstrate that
his or her duties require presence on the job 'to accom-
plish those duties. The General Counsel argues that the
evidence reflects that the union officers; aside from the
chief steward and stewards, lack any within plant re-
sponsibilities which would justify the granting of super-
seniority.
The General Counsel further contends that the bump-
ing rights provided by section 7.07(A) of the collective-
bargaining agreement are also unjustified and are conse-
quently illegal under the Act. Although not specifically
alleged in the complaint, at hearing and in' his brief the
General Counsel would extend this contention to the
chief steward whose duties unlike those of the four zone
stewards' are plantwide so that the "bumping" of the
chief steward from a particular position would not affect
the performance of his duties. According to the General
Counsel, the bumping language is simply another form of
job protection which is, illegal insofar as it applies to in-
dividuals without steward-like duties and where it pro-
vides a benefit unnecessary 'to the performance of stew-
ard-like duties. .,
The position of the Charging Party at the hearing did
not appear to be quite as broad as that of the General
Counsel. Thus, the Charging Party appeared to concede
that the Union's president had some in-plant grievance
processing duties which might justify superseniority for
layoff 'and recall. However, despite this concession, the
Charging Party contended in agreement with the Gener-
al Counsel that any steward-like functions of the presi-
dent as well as that of the chief steward were plantwide
in nature so that bumping protection on their jobs, ap-
parently short of layoff, is unnecessary to the perform-
ance of their duties and is therefore violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Broadly stated the Respondent's position is that all of
the union officers named in section 7.07 of the agreement
which is at issue in this case have steward-like duties and
that the grant of superseniority to them for layoff and
recall purposes is not, therefore, unlawful. Respondent
also takes the position that because of the steward-like
duties of these officers, the privilege granted'under the
agreement against their being bumped from their respec-
tive positions is similarly lawful.
It has long been established that the grant of supersen-
iority to union stewards limited to layoffs and recalls is
legitimate under the Act even though it grants an on-the-
job benefit to individuals as a result of their union status.
The rationale for this result as stated by the Board in
Dairylea Cooperative, 219 NLRB'656 (1975), enfd. sub
nom. Teamsters Local 338 -v. NLRB, 531 F.2d 1162 (2d
Cir. 1976), is that it "furthers the effective administration
of bargaining agreements on the plant level by encourag-
ing the continued presence of the steward on the job"
and that it "thereby not only serves a legitimate statutory
purpose but also redounds in its effects to the benefit of
all unit 'employees." Any discrimination in layoff or
1049
recall as a result of such seniority was said to be "an in-
cidental side effect to a more general benefit accorded all
employees." However, the Board in Dairylea specifically
refused to extend this rationale and result to the grant in
that case of superseniority to stewards for all purposes
and held that a supersenionty clause which is not on its
face limited to layoff and recall is presumptively unlaw-
ful. Since the union there had not rebutted the presump-
tion of the invalidity of -the clause granting supersenior-
ity - to stewards for all purposes, the Board found the
union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and'(2) of the Act by
maintaining and enforcing the+superseniority provision.
In years,following Dairylea, the Board had occasion to
consider other collective-bargaining agreement provi-
sions . granting superseniority not only to stewards but
also to union officers and not only for layoff and recall
purposes, but for other purposes as well . Thus, in Stage
Employees Local 780 (McGregor- Werner, Inc.), 227 NLRB
558 (1976), the Board held that a'grant of supersenionty
to'a steward for lateral bumping purposes allowing the
steward to retain his job classification and grade on a dif-
ferent shift was not unlawful. A similar result was
reached in Union Carbide Corp., 228 NLRB 1152 (1977).
And in other, cases , the•Board found lawful the grant of
superseniority for layoff and recall purposes for union of-
ficers who performed steward-type duties. Electrical
Workers UE Local 623 (Limpco Mfg.), 230 NLRB 406
(1977), affd; sub nom. D'Amico v. NLRB, 582 F.2d 820
(3d Cir. 1978); Otis Elevator Co., 231 NLRB 1128 (1977);
American Can Co.,•235 NLRB 704 (1978). However, the
Board continued to find violations of the Act in cases
where supersenionty was extended for Pall purposes" to
either union stewards or officers. See Perfection Automo-
tive Products, 232 NLRB 690 (1977); Connecticut Limou-
sine Services, 235 NLRB 1350 (1978), enfd. in part sub
nom. NLRB v. Teamsters Local 443, 600 F.2d 411 (2d
Cir. 1979); Preston Trucking Co., 236 NLRB 464 (1978);
A.P.A. Transport Corp., 239 NLRB 1407 (1979). Later de-
cisions of the Board in split panels raised serious ques-
tions regarding the extent supersenionty' could be legiti-
mately extended to union officers who do not fulfill
steward-like functions but who nevertheless had duties
with respect to the collective-bargaining agreement ad-
ministration . See American Can Co., 244 NLRB 736
(1979); McQuay-Norris, Inc., 258 NLRB.1397 (1981).
Any ambiguity regarding the Board's position on the
extension of supersenionty to union officers flowing
from'the lack of unanimity in some of the decisions men-
tioned above appears to have been resolved in Gulton
Electra-Voice,.supra, which all the parties herein 'agree is
fully.-applicable to this case. In the Gulton Electro-Voice
• case , the Board reviewed Dairylea and its progeny and
concluded that the grant of superseniority to those who
do not perform steward or other on-the-job contract ad-
ministration -functions was not justified and was therefore
discriminatory and illegal ---under the Act. The Board
found that while ensuring' the enforcement of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement by retaining on-the-job union
representatives responsible for processing grievances is a
sufficiently compelling reason to allow limited supersen-
iority with respect to layoff and recall of those who per-
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
form steward-like duties, supersemority is inherently dis-
criminatory and the stewards' need-to maintain an on-
the-job presence does not generally apply to' union offi-
cers unless they in fact perform steward-like duties. The
Board went on to hold (266 NLRB at 409) that:
We will find unlawful those grants of superseniority
extending beyond those employees responsible for
grievance processing and on-the-job contract. ad-
ministration . We will find lawful only those super-
seniority provisions limited to employees who, as
agents of the union, must be on the job to accom-
plish their duties directly related to administering
the collective -bargaining agreement.
Gulton has been uniformly applied since it was decid-
ed. See, e.g., Inmont Corp., 268 NLRB 1442 (1984);
Harvey Hubble, Inc, 268 NLRB 620 (1984); Electrical
Workers Local 826 (Otis Elevator), 268 NLRB 80 (1983);
Niagara Machine & Tool Works, 267 NLRB 661 (1983);
"Auto Workers Local 561 (Scovill, Inc.), 266 NLRB 952
(1983). And it has been read to specifically require for
legality that.the union representative to whom supersen-
' iority is extended must not only be responsible for griev-
ance handling and direct contract administration , but that
it must also be demonstrated that the performance of
these responsibilities requires on-the-job presence. See
Auto Workers Local 1161 (Pfaudler Co.), 271 NLRB 1411
(1984); Auto Workers Local 1384 (Ex-Cell-O Corp.), 267
NLRB 1303 (1983).
As already noted, the Union's constitution describes no
steward-like duties for its president, vice president, or re-
cording secretary. And aside from stating that the com-
mittee "shall negotiate collective bargaining agreements
with the Employer" the constitution lists no specific
duties for the negotiating committee which is composed
of president, recording secretary, chief steward, and two
elected members at large. -
Turning to the grievance procedure in the collective-
bargaining agreement one sees that the Union 's president,
and in her absence the vice president, is involved in the
grievance process. The same is true with respect to the
recording secretary but such involvement like that of the
president or vice president begins only at step 3. The
collective -bargaining agreement may, however , contem-
plate the earlier involvement in the grievance process or
contract administration by the president or vice president
since it allots them an amount of paid time for engaging
in this . activity each week although such time is less than
that granted the chief steward. And although not entire-
ly clear , the- collective-bargaining agreement apparently
grants the president or vice president as well as the re-
cording secretary 4 hours of paid time at - step 3 of the
grievance process alone. These contractual grants of paid
time appear to' constitute recognition by the Company
that the Union's officers may be involved in the day-to-
day administration of the grievance procedure of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement . However, the record con-
tains no evidence regarding the actual time spent by the
union officers each week or each month in grievance
handling or contract administration . The only testimony
regarding actual time spent on grievance processing was
from Cowan who testified she was involved in two
third-step grievance meetings -each month with each
meeting usually lasting a full day. And while Cowan tes-
tified that she was an ex officio member of certain other
employee committees in the plant which met during
working hours,- such meetings were apparently sporadic
and infrequent. Time spent on any other in-plant activity
was not established.
In further -explanation of her in-plant functions, Cowan
testified- that it was her duty-to designate an acting chief
steward in the absence of the chief steward and to an-
nounce any such designation on a plant bulletin board.
She did not say how often this occurred. She also testi-
fied that she frequently met with the plant personnel
manager and the plant manager at the plant to discuss
problems on the-plant floor which could'-lead to griev-
ances. Again, there was no testimony by Cowan of ex-
actly how often these meetings took place or how much
time was spent in such meetings.
Cowan testified that she and the chief steward met
with the'Company anytime there were layoffs, recalls, or
transfers. Further, she related that it was the' practice for
her to be present when employees were informed of
their layoffs. The record does not reveal any approxima-
tion of the time spent by' Cowan in this function, nor
does the record reveal the frequency of layoffs, recalls,
or transfers in plant experience.
Although Cowan indicated in her testimony that per-
formance of her duties as president would be inconven-
ient for her if she was laid off, she conceded that she
could still serve the Union in the capacity of president. It
also appears that even if laid off Cowan could continue
to attend third-step grievance meetings, and that she
could function on the various plant committees of which
she is a member, although with less convenience. _
With respect to the vice * president, the record shows
only that she substitutes for the president in the presi-
dent's absence. Cowan testified, however, that she could
not recall when the vice president had substituted for her
at a third step-grievance meeting. Baurle testified that
the vice president substituted occasionally for a zone
steward. .
The recording secretary, according to Cowan, is an
.active participant in the third -step grievance meetings
and has the right to vote on union positions regarding
grievances. The other duties of the recording secretary
involve correspondence and the posting of notices of
concern to employees on a plant bulletin board. Like the
union president, however, presence on. the job does not
appear to be necessary for the fulfillment of all the re-
cording secretary's functions and' duties.
Other than collective -bargaining agreement negotia-
tions, the record shows no specific duties of the negotiat-
ing committee . The evidence reveals that negotiations in
the past have largely taken place during worktime with
the Company paying employees for time spent in such
negotiations. The negotiations do not always take
,
place
at the Company 's facilities , however.
From the foregoing it is clear that the Union's - presi-
dent and the recording secretary are. involved in the
grievance process to the extent of participation at the
ELECTRONIC WORKERS IUE LOCAL 663 (GULTON ELECTRO VOICE) -4051
third step , and that the vice president may be involved in
.this process in the absence of the president . This does
not establish , however , that the involvement of these of-
ficers necessitates their full -time presence on the job.
Indeed , Cowan frankly testified that she did not interfere
with the grievance handling by the stewards in the first
two steps of the procedure , and the time she spent at'any
other stage of the grievance procedure other than the
third step was not set forth . Since it appears Cowan
could perform her functions at the third step of the
grievance procedure even if laid off, it logically follows
that the vice president , when substituting for the presi-
dent , and the recording secretary could do the same. Ac-
cordingly, I must conclude that Respondent has failed to
demonstrate that the on -the-job plant presence of the
Union 's president , vice president , or recording secretary
is required -to perform grievance processing duties or
otherwise -fulfill duties directly related to administering
the collective-bargaining agreement . The maintenance by
the Union of the contractual provision granting supersen-
ionty to these officers , I conclude , constitutes a violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I make the same finding
with respect to the negotiating committee members who
have no function in the grievance -handling process what-
ever. Although Respondent asserts that the grant of su-
perseniority to negotiating committee members was not
found to be unlawful in Gulton Electra Voice , supra, an
examination of that decision does not reveal that the le-
gality of superseniority for negotiating committee, mem-
bers was put in issue in that case or specifically consid-
ered and ruled on by the Board . It is patently obvious
that one need not be physically present in a plant during
negotiation - of a collective-bargaining agreement, even
though such presence might make negotiations more effi-
cient. As said by the Board in Ex- Cell-O, supra, 267
NLRB at 1304, "The Board is not in the business of pro-
moting such concerns [efficiency in a union 's operations]
at the expense of Section 7 rights."'
Since I have found that the extension of superseniority
to the president , vice president , recording secretary, and
negotiating committee was unlawful , it follows that they
were not entitled to superseniority for job protection
from "bumping ." Accordingly, the maintenance of the
superseniority clause protecting these individuals from
bumping , I find ,, was also unlawful under Section
8(b)(1)(A).
I reach a contrary result , however , with respect ,to the
extension of the protection against bumping insofar as it
applied to the chief steward . It is clear that the chief
steward was involved in in-plant and on -the-job griev-
ance handling and that superseniority could lawfully be
extended to the chief steward position. No party argues
to the contrary. But the General Counsel and the Charg-
ing Party contend that the chief steward's duties extend
plantwide so that there is no necessity that he be on any
particular job and that protection from bumping is there-
fore unjustified and unlawful . Respondent counters
citing, inter alia, McGregor- Werner, supra; Hospital Serv-
ice Plan of New Jersey, 227 NLRB 585 (1976), and Expe-
dient Services, 231 NLRB 938 (1977), asserting that al-
though the Board may have changed the law on the indi-
viduals to whom . superseniority may lawfully be ex-
tended , it has not ruled that once it is established that the
grant of superseniority to certain individuals for layoff
-and recall is lawful that it is not still lawful to grant that
individual other rights relative to job retention . I concur.
In the , cases cited by Respondent, the Board, found
lawful the grant of supersenionty to-stewards for lateral
bumping and .also grade and classification retention. In
Hospital Plan of New Jersey , supra at 586, the Board said:
If . ,.. superseniority for stewards _ does not permit
lateral bumping , then it means nothing at all. To re-
quire a steward to exercise superseniority only to
take the lowest-rated job rather than be laid off
would hardly aid in retaining stewards , except per-
haps in dire economic circumstances when no other
position could be found elsewhere.
Expedient Services , supra , cited,with approval and quoted
from Hospital Service Plan but also relied heavily on
Limpco, supra. Limpco was specifically overruled by
Gulton Electro-Voice to the extent of 'granting supersen-
iority to those not involved in steward-like functions.
However , McGregor- Werner, Hospital Service Plan, and
Expedient Services have not been specifically overruled.-
Moreover, in Scovill, Inc., supra , decided subsequent to
Gulton Electro-Voice, the Board held' that as applied to
"grievance handlers" with "steward-like" duties a super-
seniority clause granting protection from being bumped
from a shift was not unlawful. The Board explained that
a shift protection clause for stewards was purely defen-
sive and. was, akin to layoff protection, so that the same
considerations which make supersenionty for stewards
for layoff presumptively lawful make defensive shift
maintenance presumptively lawful . In my opinion, the
same reasoning applies to the position retention rights
granted the chief steward under the superseniority clause
in the case sub judice . The protection accorded the chief
steward against bumping is purely defensive in nature al-
lowing the steward to keep only the position he has and
gives him no preference in any other position. It is inci-
dental to his layoff protection but stands irrespective of
his ability to perform his in -plant duties. If the steward is
not accorded such protection , he could conceivably be
bumped into the lowest paying job in the plant , and re-
gardless of whether he could still be able to fulfill his
"plant-wide" steward duties he would not thereby be en-
couraged to continue in his employment , much less his
stewardship duties . Accordingly , I- find that the protec-
tion against bumping under the superseniority clause
herein is not unlawful as applied to the chief steward.
The complaint herein alleged that the Union violated
the' Act by attempting to enforce the superseniority
clause to block the cutback of the Union 's vice president,
Billie Stimoff. However, the complaint alleged that by
such action the Union violated only Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the 'Act. I have already found above that the supersen-
iority provision as applied to the vice president , whether
for protection against layoff or bumping , was' unlawful,
and thus violative of Section ' 8(b)(1)(A). Under estab-
lished Board law, it is clear that an attempt by a union to
enforce or implement a superseniority clause on behalf of
one who is not lawfully entitled to superseniority and to
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the detriment of other employees constitutes a violation
of Section 8(b)(2) as well as Section 8(b)(1)(A). See, e.g.,
Pfaudler Co., supra; Scovill, Inc., supra. It is also settled
that the Board may find and remedy a violation'even in
the absence of a specific allegation of the complaint so
long as the issue is closely connected with the subject
matter of the coiplaint and has been fully litigated. See
Crown Zellerbach Corp., 225 NLRB 911, 912• (1976);
Rochester Cadet Cleaners, 205 NLRB 773 (1973). Here,
the complaint raises an issue with respect to the attempt-
ed implementation of the superseniority clause with re-
spect to the vice president, and all the facts bearing on
the issue have been litigated. Accordingly, because the
grievance of the vice president was an attempt to invoke
a superseniority clause which was unlawful as applied to
that position, and because that attempt necessarily sought
reinstatement of the vice president to the position from
which she had been cut back with the accompanying dis-
placement of another employee, I find that the Union's
actions with respect to the grievance - violated Section
8(b)(2) as well as Section 8(b)(1)(A).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Gulton Electro Voice is an -employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act. --
2. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Tech-
nical, Salaried and Machine Workers, Local 663 is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section' 2(5) of
the Act.
• 3.- By maintaining a clause in its collective -bargaining
agreement with Gulton Electro Voice which accords the
Union's - president; vice president, recording secretary,
and members of its negotiating committee superseniority
for layoff, recall; and protection against job bumping, the
Union has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
4. By attempting to enforce the clause in its collective-
bargaining agreement as described in paragraph 3 above
through the filing and maintenance of a grievance on the
"bumping" of the vice president on and after July 11,
1984, the .Union engaged in, and is engaging in,- unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and
(1)(A) of the Act.
5 Respondent Union did not engage in an unfair labor
practice in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in
maintaining a clause in its collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Company which accorded the chief stew-
ard superseniority in protection against job bumping.
6. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it shall be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the superseniority clause here in
dispute is unlawful as applied to the Union's president,
vice president, recording secretary, and negotiating com-
mittee for layoff and recall rights and bumping protec-
tion, I shall recommend an order requiring that the
Union cease and desist from maintaining and attempting
to enforce such clause.
Since the Union's maintenance of the grievance on
behalf of the vice president, Billie Stimoff, relative to su-
perseniority in bumping protection; was for an unlawful
purpose, it will - be ordered that the Union cease and
desist from pursuit of the grievance, withdraw the griev-
ance, and refrain from filing further grievances to gain.or
enforce superseniority for its president, vice president,
recording secretary, and negotiating committee members.
See Pfaudler Co., supra. The Union- will also be ordered
to cease and desist from restraining or coercing employ-
ees in any like or related manner in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]