G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 703 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

G. W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING CO., INC. 703
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not, by granting wage raises to its employees, violated the
Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
G. W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING Co ., INC. and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION No. 102, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN-
TERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA , AFL, and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
of MACHINISTS . Cases Nos. 20-CA-541 and 20-CB-181. December
28, 1951
Decision and Order
On August 6, 1951, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached thereto. Thereafter the Respondent
Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in these
cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that :
I. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from:
(1) Encouraging membership in Millwrights Local Union No. 102,
L:Lnited Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, or
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board had delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
97 NLRB No. 103.
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in any other labor organization of its employees or applicants for
employment, and discouraging membership in International Associa-
tion of Machinists, or in any other labor organization of its employees
or applicants for employment, by discharging any of its employees
or discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of their employment, except
to the extent authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organi-
zation, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such
activities.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll and other records necessary to
determine the amount of back pay due under the terms of this Order.
(2) Post in conspicuous places in its offices and places of business,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted,
copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix
A 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Twentieth Region, shall, after being duly signed by this
Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by this
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(3) File with said Regional Director, within ten (10) days from
the date of this Order, a report in writing setting forth in detail the
steps which this Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
II. Millwrights Local Union No. 102, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters & Joiners of America, AFL, its officers, representatives, and
agents, shall:
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Causing G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., Inc., its offi-
cers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discharge or otherwise discrimi-
Iiate against its employees, or applicants for employment, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3), of the Act.
2 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof , the words "A Decision and Order." If this Order
is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further
amended by inserting before the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
G. W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING CO., INC. 705
(2) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees of, or applicants for employment with, G. W. Thomas Dray-
age & Rigging Co., Inc., its successors or assigns, in the exercise of
their rights to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all
of the concerted activities guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, and wherever
notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix B.3 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Re-
gion, shall, after being duly signed by this Respondent's representative,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by this Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(2) Mail to said Regional Director signed copies of the notice
for posting, the Respondent Company willing, at the office and places
of business of the Respondent Company, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by said Regional Director, shall, after being duly
signed by this Respondent's representative, be forthwith returned to
the Regional Director for such posting.
(3) File with said Regional Director within ten (10) days from
the date of this Order, a report in writing setting forth in detail the
steps which this Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
III. The Respondents, G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Millwrights Local
Union No. 102, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall jointly
and severally make whole John L. Myers for any loss of pay he may
have suffered because of the discrimination against him, in the manner
described in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed, a consolidated complaint and notice of
hearing thereon having beeen issued and served by the General Counsel, and
answers having been filed by the above-named Company and Millwrights Union,
a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of the
National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, by the Company
3 This notice shall be emended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof, the words "A Decision and Order." If this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further
amended by inserting before the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the Millwrights, herein jointly called the Respondents , was held upon due
notice at San Francisco , California , on May 8, 9, and 14 , 1951, before the
undersigned Trial Examiner . The allegations in substance are that on or about
August 29 , 1950, the Company, at the request of the Millwrights , discharged
John L. Myers because Myers was a member of the charging union, the
Machinists , and not a member in good standing of the Millwrights , and that the
Company and the Millwrights thereby violated , respectively , Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3 ) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A ) and (2 ) of the Act. All parties were
represented by counsel or other representative , were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , to introduce evidence
pertinent to•the issues , to argue orally upon the record , and to file briefs and
proposed findings and conclusions . A brief was received from the Millwrights
and has been considered . The Respondents' motions to dismiss, made at the
close of the hearing and taken tinder advisement by me, are hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company , a California corporation , has its principal office and place of
business in San Francisco , and is engaged in the business of heavy hauling and
rigging work within California In addition to its work at the University of
California , discussed in the next paragraph , during the year 1950 the Company
furnished services valued at approximately $53,000 necessary to the operation of
(1) Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a public utility ; ( 2) Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company, an instrumentality of commerce ; and (3 ) Hermann Safe
Company, San Francisco , California , an enterprise engaged in the manufacture
and sale of safes and vaults , which annually ships such products valued in excess
of $25 ,000 directly to points outside California . As will appear, the alleged un-
fair labor practices occurred at the University of California , and the Respondents
contend that the Company 's business with the three named concerns should not
be considered in determining whether the Board should assert jurisdiction herein.
The authorities are to the contrary , and this contention must be rejected.
George W. Reed, 94 NLRB 098; Paul W. Speer, Inc., 94 NLRB 317.
At times material , the University of California has been under contract with
the Atomic Energy Commission to construct on the University 's premises at
Berkeley , a Bevatron project for basic research in the field of atomic energy.
The cost of the project is being borne by that Commission , which will make use
of it upon its completion . Pursuant to arrangements between the Commission
and the University, the latter contracted with a number of concerns for the erec-
tion of a Bevatron building and the installation of equipment therein. One of
these concerns is the Company , which received approximately $20,000 for the
installation of motor generators . I find that the Company 's operations at the
Bevatron project were a part of the national defense program . Cf. Harvey Stoller
d/b/a Richland Laundry & Dry Cleaners, 93 NLRB 680; Westport Moving and
Storage Company , 91 NLRB 902.
I find that the Company is engaged in commerce and that, under applicable
decisions of the Board, jurisdiction should be asserted herein whether the facts
set out in the two paragraphs last preceding be considered conjunctively or
separately.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Millwrights Local Union No. 102, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
of America , AFL, and International Association of Machinists are labor organi-
zations admitting to membership employees of the Company.
G. W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING CO., INC.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
707
A. Chronology of events
During July 1950, John L. Myers, a member of the Machinists , obtained employ-
ment with the Company at the Bevatron project. His work was to set the foun-
dations for the motor generators and, after the generators had been placed in
position, to "level them up." The Company's several other employees at the
project transported the equipment into the building and placed it in position.
They were members of International Association of Bridge, Structural & Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL, or a local union thereof, herein called the Ironwork-
ers, which is not a party to this proceeding.
Another concern engaged in operations at the project was Bigge Draying Com-
pany, which also is not a party hereto. Bigge's operations were begun within
a few days after Myers was employed. Bigge's employees were members of the
Millwrights, the business representative of which Was James W. Curry. About
mid-August, Curry approached Myers in the Bevatron building and asked whether
Myers belonged to the Machinists. When Myers responded affirmatively, Curry
said that was all he wished to know, and walked over to the Company's foreman,
Richard H. Post, a member of the Ironworkers.' Curry objected to the Company's
employment of Myers, and told Post that the work should be done by a member of
the Millwrights. Post answered that the matter of which craft performed par-
ticular work was not for him to determine, and said that Curry would have to
take the matter to the Company's "office," an apparent reference to the Com-
pany's president, E. W. Koll? Sometime later, Curry, accompanied by C. R.
Bartalini, executive secretary-treasurer of Bay Counties District Council of
Carpenters, called upon Alton L. Wilson, an engineer employed by the University
in its radiation laboratory. Wilson tesified credibly and without contradiction,
and I find, that Curry told him that a machinist was employed by the Company
to do work which "rightly belonged to the Millwrights," that Curry had sought
unsuccessfully in dealings with the Company, the University's business office, and
the Radiation Laboratory personnel office, "to obtain this work for the Mill-
wrights," and that Curry "was appealing to . . . [Wilson] as being in charge
of the work there, to do something about" the matter. Wilson also testified, and
I find, that he responded that there was nothing he "could do, or would do, to
remove the machinist and call for the hiring of a millwright," and that Curry
said that steps would be taken to replace the machinist with a millwright "even
if it involved placing a picket line around the work " The conversation ended.
On August 29, Post told Myers that Myers "would be off the job for a little
while" and that perhaps the matter could be settled with the Millwrights.' There-
after, until September 18, Myers was not employed by the Company. He testified,
and I find, that during this period he called at the project several times and was
told by Post that Koll, the Company's president, was holding conferences with
"business agents" in an effort to settle the matter.
On September 18, Myers was reinstated and worked at leveling bases upon
which to set the generators. He testified, and I find, that on that day Post told
him, "Well, we'll try again, but we don't know for how long."
1 The findings concerning Curry's inquiry of Myers are based upon the latter 's uncontra-
dicted and reliable testimony . Curry was not a witness
2 The findings concerning this conversation are based upon the uncontradicted testimony of
Post, who was called as an adverse witness by the General Counsel The Company called no
witnesses in its own behalf for the reason , as said by its counsel, that any testimony which
it might offer "would be substantially repetitious of" that of Post
3 This finding is based upon the testimony of Myers Post testified that he "may have" so
instructed Myers.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about September 25, Post was visited at the project by one Hubbard, a
representative of the Ironworkers, of which Post was a member. Hubbard was
accompanied by Curry, the Millwrights' representative, Jack Reynolds, a repre-
sentative of Alameda Building Trades Council, and an unidentified person
representing Operative Plasterers' and Cement Finishers' International Associa-
tion of the United States and Canada, AFL, or a local thereof. After brief
greetings, Hubbard and Post walked away to talk in private, and Hubbard told
Post that he and other employees of the Company on the project who were mem-
bers of the Ironworkers could not work with a machinist. Post answered that
the problem was for Koll to decide, and Hubbard said that that was "good
enough" for him and that there would be "another meeting that night of the
Alameda Council."'
On September 26, when the Company's employees reported for work, a picket
line composed in whole or in part of members of the Millwrights was at the
entrance to the project. Curry was one of the pickets. The Company's em-
ployees, as well as employees of unidentified concerns, did not cross the line.
Later that morning, Curry talked with Wilson, above identified as an engineer
in the employ of the University, and one Feinstein, an employee of the University
in charge of its inspectors of construction work. Feinstein asked Curry what
was necessary to be done for removal of the picket line, and Curry answered that
he must have assurance that the machinist employed by the Company would be
replaced by a member of the Millwrights'
Soon after the picketing began, Post talked with Curry, after which Post
telephoned Koll and informed him of the picketing. Koll said, "come home."
The Company's crew left the project and remained away for approximately 10
days. The picketing appears to have ended on the day it began, however.
On or about September 27, Amos Doane, business representative of the Ma-
chinists, and Charles Truax, its Grand Lodge representative, called upon Koll
at the latter's office. Doane testified without contradiction, and I find, that Koll
said that the matter "seemed to be a free for all" with the different crafts ap-
pearing to him to be seeking the particular type of work, that the machinery to
be used at the Bevatron project was not being received as speedily as he had
expected, and that he would transfer some of the Company's crew, including
Myers, to a project at a brewery for "a couple of weeks" which would afford
time for the machinery to arrive and the dispute to "cool off." Thereafter, Myers
and other employees were transferred to the brewery project. While it appears
that Myers was not immediately transferred, it nevertheless appears that he
remained on the Company's payroll. He did not return to work at the Bevatron
project.
During October, while Myers was at work at the brewery project, Post talked
with him. Myers testified, and I find, that Post said that "Koll had decided in
favor" of the Millwrights, that Koll intended to give trials to several members
of that union, and that, if qualifications were not demonstrated by any of them,
Myers could be reinstated. '
On October 19, Myers' work at the brewery ended. His employment was
terminated. On October 24, a member of the Millwrights, one Hedlund, began
work for the Company in the position at the Bevatron project formerly held
by Myers. Hedlund worked there until January 16, 1951.
4 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Post.
None of the other individuals was a witness.
' The finding that Curry was one of the pickets is based upon the testimony of Myers and
Post . The findings concerning Curry's conversation with Feinstein and Wi lson are based
upon Wilson's testimony.
G. W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING CO., INC.
B. Conclusions
709
Several defenses are raised. First, that the evidence will not support a finding
that the Millwrights caused the Company to discriminate against Myers. Sec-
ond, that Myers was not employed during the period of his layoff, August 30 to
September 17 inclusive, because of a lack of need for his services, rather than
the efforts of the Millwrights to have him replaced. Third, that the date when
his employment was terminated, October 19, is at substantial and fatal variance
with the date alleged in the complaint, August 29. Fourth, that there has been
a failure of proof that the purpose of the picketing was to achieve discrimina-
tion against Myers. Fifth, that the picketing was peaceful and protected by
Section 8 (e) of the Act and, therefore, the evidence concerning it may not be
considered in determining the issues. The defenses will be considered seriatim.'
In support of the first defense, counsel for the Company argues that ". . . the
fair way to look at the evidence" is that Myers was removed from the Bevatron
project because of "pressure brought to bear" upon the Company "from several
sources," with the "ultimate and concluding pressure" being that brought by
the Ironworkers, which is not a party to this proceeding. Counsel for the Mill-
wrights argue that "any action toward Myers" by the Company was because of
activity by the Ironworkers and Alameda Building Trades Council, also not a
party hereto, and that the Millwrights did nothing effective in causing Myers'
removal from that project. While it is true that Foreman Post testified that
he paid no attention to Curry's remarks to him, and merely referred Curry to
Ko11; that the Ironworkers' representative, Hubbard, objected to members of
that organization working with a member of the Machinists, and was also re-
ferred by Post to Koll ; and that Boll spoke to Doane of pressure upon him by
organizations in addition to the Millwrights, the allegations of the complaint
nevertheless are fully supported by the evidence. In order to establish his case,
the General Counsel was not required to prove the precise degree of influence
which was brought to bear upon the Company by each organization which be-
came interested in having Myers replaced, nor does the General Counsel, as the
Respondents assert, establish his case only by "piling inference upon inference."
The issue of Myers' employment at the Bevatron project was raised by the
Millwrights, which took steps designed to achieve its aim. As found above,
Curry's initial step was to object to Myers' employment in a conversation with
Foreman Post. Later Curry sought the aid of Wilson, and threatened to picket
the project if his demand were not met. Soon thereafter, Myers was laid off by
Post pending efforts to settle the matter with the Millwrights. After Myers'
reinstatement on September 18, Curry and other members of the Millwrights
picketed the project. Curry said to Wilson and Feinstein, in substance, that
the purpose of the picketing was to have Myers replaced by a member of the
Millwrights. The Company's operations at the project were halted for about
10 days, and Myers never returned to work there. It is unrealistic to assert
that Myers' removal from the project on each of the two occasion was not caused
by the Millwrights.
Turning to the second and third defenses, the evidence shows that between
August 30 and September 17 inclusive, Myers was not employed by the Com-
pany and that no one replaced him during that period. The Company's em-
ployees then at work on the project were members of the Ironworkers, engaged
in rigging operations. Post testified that for the initial 3 days after Myers'
layoff there was no work for one of his qualifications, that thereafter there was
such work, and that the University repeatedly requested that it be performed.
Post testified also, however, that he could not remember why Myers did not
work again until September 18. On the other hand, as found above, Myers was
986209-52-vol. 97-46
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
laid off by Post on August 29 pending efforts to settle the matter, and thereafter
Myers returned to the project on several occasions and was told by Post that
Koll was engaged in conferences in an effort to reach a settlement. Under these
circumstances, I find that there was work for Myers during the period of his
layoff and that he was not recalled to perform, it because of the controversy.
Myers having been laid off on the date alleged in the complaint and having
been recalled for only a brief period of employment at the Bevatron project, I
find also that there is not a substantial variance between the allegations and
the proof.
The Respondents' fourth and fifth defenses require minimum discussion. The
contention that the record is barren of proof as to the purpose of the picketing
overlooks Wilson's uncontradicted testimony, which I have credited, that Curry
told Feinstein and him that the pickets would not be removed unless there were
assurances that a member of the Millwrights would replace Myers. The pro-
tections of Section 8 (c) are not available here. Denver Building and Construe-
tion Trades Council, et at., 90 NLRB 1768.
I find that the Company discriminated against Myers in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act and that, by causing the Company to do so, the
Millwrights violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I
have found that on August 29, 1950, Myers was unlawfully laid off from his
employment at the Bevatron project and that he was temporarily reinstated
on September 18, only to be removed from the job again and, on October 19,
discharged. Myers had not been employed by the Company in a permanent
capacity, but only to work toward fulfillment of the Company's contract at the
Bevatron project. That contract was completed during January 1951, and
Myers' successor, Hedlund, worked only until January 16. Therefore, I shall not
recommend that Myers be offered reinstatement. I shall, however, recommend
that the Company and the Millwrights, jointly and severally, make whole Myers
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages from August 29, 1950, to the date when
his work at the Bevatron project would have been completed absent the dis-
crimination , less his net earnings (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440,
497-8) during said period, the payment to be computed upon a quarterly basis
in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289. I shall also recommend , in accordance with the Woolworth decision, that
the Company, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents all
pertinent records. In accordance with the Board's practice in factual situations
of the nature presented herein, broad cease and desist orders will not be recom-
mended. Carlyle Rubber Co., Inc.., 92 NLRB 385.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following :
G. W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING CO., INC.' 711
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1, The Millwrights and the Machinists are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John
L. Myers, thereby encouraging membership in the Millwrights and discouraging
membership in the Machinists , the Company has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
S (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By causing the Company to discriminate against Myers in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act , the Millwrights has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Millwrights has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION No. 102,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS or AMERICA, AFL, or in
any other labor organization of our employees or applicants for employment,
or discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
or in any other labor organization of our employees or applicants for
employment , by discharging any of our employees or discriminating in any
other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment, except to the extent authorized by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
WE WILL make whole JOHN L. MYERS for any loss of pay suffered as
a result of our discrimination against him.
G W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING CO, INC.,
Employer.
By ---------------------------- --------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix B
N O T I C E
To ALL MEMBERS OF MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION No. 102, UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, AND To ALL EMPLOYEES OF, AND
APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH, G. W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING CO.,
INC.
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause G W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING CO., INC., its officers,
agents, successors, or assigns, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against
its employees or applicants for employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees
of, or applicants for employment with, G. W. THOMAS DRAYAGE & RIGGING
Co , INC., its successors or assigns, in the exercise of their rights to engage
in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the concerted activities
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole JOHN L. 1IYERS for any loss of pay suffered as a_
result of the discrimination against him.
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION NO. 102, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS
OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
By ----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ---------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
AL MASSERA , INC.; J. J. CROSETTI AND WARREN E . SCARBOROUGH,
COPARTNERS , D/BJA J. J. CROSETTI Co.; E. J. RUSSELL, AN INDIVIDUAL,
D/B/A INDEPENDENT GROWERS CO . ; WALTER M. CHRISTENSEN , HAROLD
S. CHRISTENSEN , AND ANDREW H. CHRISTENSEN , JR., COPARTNERS,
D/B/A CHRISTENSEN BROS.; PETER A. STOLICH , AN INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A
PETER A. STOLICH CO. R . T. ENGLUND , AN INDIVIDUAL , D/B/A R. T.
ENGLUND CO.; AND 11 . E. CREAN, AN INDIVIDUAL , D/B/A GROWERS
PRODUCE DISPATCH and LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 78, CIO
K. R. NUTTING , AN INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A K. R. NUTTING Co. and LORETTA.
HIGUERA
FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS' LOCAL No. 78 and LOCAL,
INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 78, CIO
FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS' LOCAL No. 78 and GROWERS-
SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. Cases
Nos. 20-CA-436, 456, 461, 467, 490, 491, 495, 496, and 00-CB-150,
97 NLRB No. 111. -