Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers Local Union No. 636, Afl-Cio (Downey Glass Co., Inc)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 8, 1987

282 N.L.R.B. 648 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers
Local Union No. 636, AFL-CIO (Downey Glass
Co., Inc.) and Arturo Ramos. Case 21-CB-9421
8 January 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 10 September 1986 Administrative Law
Judge Gordon J. Myatt issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting 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 brief and has
decided to affirm the judge 's rulings, findings, and
conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order.
The sole issue presented for our consideration is
whether Respondent Union's business manager
Mario Salazar unlawfully restrained and coerced
union member Arturo Ramos by threatening
Ramos with physical harm when he stated an in-
tention to file charges with the Board. The judge
found the alleged violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act. We disagree.
Factually, this case involves conflicting versions
of a November 1985 telephone conversation be-
tween Ramos and Salazar." On direct examination,
Ramos testified that he telephoned Salazar to ques-
tion the reason for an additional dues assessment
for June indicated on the statement from the Union
showing receipt of Ramos dues payment. Salazar
informed Ramos that the assessment was for nonat-
tendance at union meetings . When Ramos insisted
that he had attended the meetings and reminded
Salazar of their conversation before the meetings
Salazar said, "I know who the son-of-a-bitch that is
talking" and used the derogatory Hispanic expres-
sion "cabron" to refer to Ramos. Ramos asked Sa-
lazar to control himself and repeated his inquiry.
Salazar responded, "Because you're going to pay
them. Don't get brute [brutal] because I know who
you are, and I'm going to give you and your
mother."2
1 The judge completely discredited a third version of this conversation
elicited from Francisco Montoya, Ramos' close friend and an alleged
union dissident. The judge concluded that Montoya was not engaged in
dissident union activity and that even if he were the complaint allegation
that Salazar threatened Ramos with bodily harm because of Ramos' asso-
ciation with Montoya is not factually supported by the credible evidence
in the record. We note that no exceptions were filed to the judge's find-
ings and conclusions in this regard.
2 The distorted syntax of quoted testimony may in part be attributable
to the translation from Spanish.
When asked to repeat what Salazar said, Ramos
testified, "Don't get brute with me. Whenever I
grab you because I know who you are . I'm going
to get your mother ." Ramos then told Salazar he
intended to gather up his receipts and go to the
Labor Board. Salazar stated, "Yes, you're going to
the Labor Board." Ramos then asked Salazar to
repeat at the Labor Board the statements he made
over the telephone. Salazar replied, "Not there, but
outside I'm going to hit you and your mother."
On cross-examination Ramos summarized the
above conversation as follows : Salazar told him, "I
know who the son-of-a-bitch I'm talking to. I'm
going to grab you. I 'm going to get your mother."
Ramos told Salazar, "I'm going to gather up my
receipts. I'm going to go to the Labor Board, and
there you tell me that." Salazar replied, "There,
no, but whenever I get you outside, I'm going to-
I'm going to get you ...."
According to Salazar's testimony, Ramos tele-
phoned him to request payment of wages for the
period of a 31 October plant shutdown. When Sa-
lazar explained to Ramos that contractual provi-
sions barred his claim , Ramos angrily insulted the
Union and its officials, Salazar in particular. Sala-
zar admitted that Ramos stated his intention to go
to the Board. Salazar told Ramos that was his
right. When Ramos continued to berate Salazar,
Salazar told Ramos what to do with himself and
hung up on him. Salazar denied threatening to hit
Ramos or his mother.
The judge found it unnecessary to resolve the
testimonial conflict between Ramos and Salazar
concerning the subject matter of the telephone con-
versation. Finding it uncontroverted that a tele-
phone dispute arose, that Salazar became pro-
voked, and that Ramos threatened to file charges
with the Board, the judge found it logical to infer
that Ramos' stated intent to invoke the Board proc-
esses provoked Salazar's threat to hit Ramos and
his mother.
The Respondent excepts to the judge's failure to
resolve testimonial conflicts between Ramos and
Salazar and to his ultimate finding of a violation.
We find no need to resolve the conflict in testimo-
ny regarding the subject matter of the dispute. Al-
though we strongly disapprove of threats of vio-
lence in labor relations , we find that even crediting
Ramos' version in its entirety, there is an insuffi-
cient nexus between the alleged threat and Ramos'
stated intent to invoke Board processes.3
a We note that neither the General Counsel nor the Charging Party
filed exceptions and that there is no contention before us that any other
aspect of this conversation, apart from reference to invoking Board proc-
esses, involved protected activity by Ramos.
282 NLRB No. 99
GLAZIERS LOCAL 636 (DOWNEY GLASS)
In this regard, we note that the alleged threat
which Ramos attributes to Salazar occurred prior
to Ramos' statement that he was taking his receipts
to the Board . Thus, contrary to the judge, Ramos'
own testimony establishes that the alleged threat
was initially made in response to his inquiry con-
cerning the , additional assessment and not with re-
spect to an as yet unstated intention to invoke
Board processes. Further, considering the entire
content and context of Ramos' version of the tele-
phone conversation, including the timing and con-
tent of the initial threat, we find that reiteration of
essentially the same threat after Ramos ' mention of
possible recourse to the Board cannot on the par-
ticular facts reasonably be construed as a threat-
ened reprisal against such recourse.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Alfredo Magallanes and Leonard Bernstein, Esqs., for the
General Counsel.
Howard Z Rosen, Esq. (Posner & Rosen), of Los Angeles,
California, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Administrative Law Judge. On a
charge filed by Arturo Ramos, an individual, against
Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers Local
Union No. 636, AFL-CIO (Respondent Union), the
Acting Regional Director for Region 21 issued a com-
plaint and notice of hearing on 30 December 1985. The
complaint alleges that Respondent Union, by the conduct
of its business manager, Mario Salazar, violated Section
,8(bx1XA) of the National Labor Relations Act. 29
U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Salazar threatened an employee with bodily harm
because of the employee 's association with a fellow em-
ployee who had engaged in dissident union activity. Fur-
ther, that Salazar threatened an employee with bodily
harm because the employee stated an intention to file a
charge against Respondent Union with the National
Labor Relations Board. Respondent Union filed an
answer in which it admitted certain allegations of the
complaint, denied others, and specifically denied commit-
ting any unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held on this matter in Los Angeles,
California, on 20 March 1986. All parties were represent-
ed by counsel and afforded an opportunity to present
material and relevant evidence on the issues and to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses . Briefs were submit-
ted by the parties and have been duly considered.
On the entire record in this case, including my obser-
vation of the witnesses while they were testifying, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
649
Downey Glass Co., Inc. is a California corporation en-
gaged ' in the business of fabricating and selling glass
products on a wholesale basis . Downey maintains and
operates a facility located in Los Angeles, California. In
the course of its business operations, Downey annually
sells and ships goods and products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of
California. On the basis of the above, I find that Downey
is, and has been at all times material , an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers Local
Union No. 636, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Meeting on the Wage Increase Allocation
The undisputed testimony establishes that Respondent
Union is the bargaining representative of a unit 'of em-
ployees employed by Downey and that the employment
relationship is governed by an existing collective-bargain-
ing agreement. In addition to the employees at Downey,
the Union represents units of employees of three other
employers who are also' covered by the same collective-
bargaining agreement . The agreement provided that the
employees were to receive a wage increase amounting to
30 cents an hour in August 1985.1
Apparently under the terms of the agreement, the
question of whether the wage increase would be allocat-
ed to the employees' wages or would become additional
contributions on their behalf to the union pension fund
was a matter to be determined by a vote of the employ-
ees. In order to ascertain the preference of the employees
regarding the pending August wage increase, the Union
called a special meeting in June for the purpose of con-
ducting a secret ballot vote on the issue.
Ramos, who worked in the insulation department at
Downey, testified he 'went to the union meeting with
Francisco Montoya, a friend and coworker in the insula-
tion department.2 When they arrived at the meeting ball,
they signed their names and social security numbers on
the-sign-in sheet at the entrance of the hall. Ramos testi-
fied that the hall was crowded with people who were
not employees of Downey so he and Montoya decided
to go outside and stand across the street until the meet-
ing began. On their way, Montoya left to seek out Mario
Salazar, business manager of the Union, to talk to him
' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein refer to the year 1985.
2 Ramos had been employed at Downey for approximately 7 years and
had been a member of the Union since the inception of his employment.
Ramos and Montoya had been friends and coworkers prior to their re-
spective employment by Downey. The unrefuted testimony reveals it was
at Ramos' suggestion that Montoya applied for and secured a job with
Downey in May 1983 . The two employees were eventually assigned to
work in the same department on the same shift.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the wage increase and the pending vote on the
issue . According to Ramos, he overheard Montoya and
Salazar arguing as they came across the street to where
he was standing with a group of other Downey employ-
s. Ramos testified that as they approached , he ques-
tioned Salazar about other members, who were not em-
ployed by Downey, voting on a matter which affected
Downey employees. Ramos stated he was told by Sala-
zar that it did not matter and it was not the place to
"talk about those things."
Montoya testified that when he found Salazar before
the meeting commenced , he told the union official that
the contract which had been negotiated was "bad" and
that he did not want Salazar to "take anything out of his
wage increase." According to Montoya, Salazar called
him a "mother" and said Montoya was alone and "did
not count for anything." Montoya then informed Salazar
that he was accompanied by "companions" and asked
Salazar to come outside to verify this . Montoya further
testified that as they crossed the street to where Ramos
and other Downey employees were standing , he com-
plained to Salazar about non-Downey members voting
on the wage increase allocation which affected Downey
employees.
Although Salazar's testimony concerning the events
preceding the meeting was substantially similar to that
given by Ramos and ' Montoya, there were certain key
differences between his statements and that of the em-
ployees . Salazar acknowledged that Montoya sought him
out and complained that the contract was a bad agree-
ment. He stated that, in general , Montoya and most of
the other members expressed the view that the pay in-
crease should be allocated only to wages and not as a
pension fund contribution.8
Salazar further, testified that during this conversation
with Montoya, the employee asked him to go across the
street to talk to other members about the issue and he
did so . According to Salazar, Montoya questioned the
presence of non-Downey members participating -in the
vote and Salazar stated the issue was to be decided by all
the members who were under the same collective-bar-
gaining agreement . Montoya and other employees in the
group insisted they only wanted Downey employees to
vote on the allocation of their wage increase and Salazar
replied that it was not possible . Salazar testified he had
,no recollection of Ramos being in the group during the
discussion and that he was not aware at the time of the
friendship that existed between Montoya and Ramos.
B. The Incident Regarding the $2 Assessment Against
Ramos
Ramos testified that on 4 November when he came
home from work, he received a dues payment statement
from the Union in the mail. Montoya was with Ramos at
the time as they planned to take care of a matter for
Montoya at the Department ' of Motor Vehicles. The
statement from the Union showed receipt of Ramos' dues
S The testimony reveals that the membership overwhelmingly voted to
receive the increase in the form of wages rather than as a pension contn-
bution.
and indicated a $2 balance due as an assessment for June
1985. (See G.C. Exh. Z,).4 -
Ramos testified he called the union office and spoke
with a secretary who was unable to understand his in-
quiry about the outstanding balance due. She put another
individual on the line who in turn transferred Ramos'
call directly to Salazar. According to Ramos, when he
questioned the reason for the $2 assessment, Salazar re-
plied it was because Ramos did not attend the June meet-
ing. Ramos stated he informed ' Salazar that he had at-
tended that meeting and reminded the union official of
their conversation across the street from the union hall
before, the meeting. At this point, according to Ramos,
Salazar said, "I know who is the son-of-a-bitch that is
talking" [sic] and used the derogatory Hispanic expres-
sion "cabron" in referring to Ramos.5 Ramos stated he
asked Salazar to control himself and repeated his ques-
tion about the basis for the $2 assessment. According to
Ramos, Salazar cautioned the employee not to get
"brutal" with him and said, "I know who you are, and I
am going to hit you and your mother." Ramos further
testified that when Salazar began making these state-
ments to him, Ramos motioned to Montoya to pick up
the extension phone and listen to the conversation.
Ramos asserted that he then told Salazar that he in-
tended to gather up his dues receipts and go to the
Labor Board . Ramos asked Salazar to repeat the state-
ments at the Labor Board that he made over the tele-
phone. According to Ramos, Salazar replied, "Not there,
but outside I am going to hit you and your mother."
Ramos acknowledged on cross-examination that he
normally received dues receipts from the Union every 2
or 3 months whenever he paid his union dues. He further
acknowledged that approximately three' out of every
four receipts indicated a $2 balance due and whenever
this occurred, he would call the union office about the
assessment . On some of these occasions he spoke with a
clerical person and on others he spoke directly with Sa-
lazar about the assessment . Although' he testified that Sa-
lazar stated Ramos was the only member who gave him
a problem about the $2 assessment, Ramos further ac-
knowledged that Salazar had never in the past called him
a "cabron" or an "s.o.b." or threatened to hit him or his
mother.
Montoya confirmed that he picked up" the extension
phone on Ramos' signal during the employee's conversa-
tion with Salazar. According to Montoya, he heard
Ramos say he would' take his receipts ' to the Labor
Board. Montoya testified Salazar -then called Ramos a
"mother fucker"6 and Ramos said Salazar should tell
4 Under the Union's bylaws, a $2 assessment was imposed on all mem-
bers who failed to' attend any specially called meeting of the membership.
Ramos testified he had not attended any union meetings for the months
of July through September, but did attend a meeting on 26 October.
There was no indication in the record about whether the meetings for
these months were considered specially called meetings.
b Ramos testified the term "cabron" meant "ignorant , foolish, and
something very low."
6 Ramos was recalled as a witness and denied that Salazar used such
an expression during their telephone conversation.
GLAZIERS LOCAL 636 (DOWNEY GLASS)
that to him before the Labor Board . Montoya itated"Sa-
lazar responded by saying , "There I won't tell you any-
thing, but I have to get you alone."
Salazar's account of his conversation with Ramos dif-
fered sharply from that of the two employees . Salazar
stated that on 31 October , Downey shut down its plant
for 1 day due to a lack of work . According to Salazar, a
number of employees felt they should have been paid
their wages for the day of the plant shutdown.
He testified that Ramos called the union office the fol-
lowing week and spoke with him about getting paid his
wages for the day of the shutdown. Salazar stated he ex-
plained to Ramos that there was no guaranteed 40-hour
workweek in the collective-bargaining agreement and
nothing could be done about the employees ' wages for
time lost due to the plant shutdown . Salazar stated
Ramos became angry and said, "`The Union wasn't worth
a damn." The employee also stated , according to Salazar,
that the union officials were "a bunch of leeches and
sons-of-bitches that didn 't do anything for anybody." Sa-
lazar testified that at this point he asked Ramos , to come
to the union office and discuss the matter . He stated he
did so because many times when employees had com-
planits he would have them come to the union office. He
would then show them the collective-bargaining agree-
ment and, in many instances, this usually resolved the
problem . Salazar admitted that Ramos said he was going
to the Labor Board, but stated he told Ramos that was
his right. Salazar further testified that when Ramos con-
tinued to berate the Union and him in particular , Salazar
became angry and said, "Well you can go fuck yourself
then." Salazar then terminated the conversation with the
employee by hanging up the telephone . Salazar denied
that during the conversation he used the term "cabron"
in referring to Ramos and he denied calling Ramos an
"s.o.b." or threatening to hit Ramos or his mother.
Regarding the $2 assessment , Salazar asserted that he
normally did not respond to telephone inquiries from
members regarding the imposition of the assessment for
missing specially called meetings. He stated that the
union membership totaled 2800 and he did not devote his
time to such minor matters . According to Salazar, such
inquiries were handled by the secretaries in the office as
a routine matter . He testified that one secretary was bi-
lingual and her work hours were from 7:30 a.m. until
3:30 p .m. The other two secretaries only spoke English
and their hours were from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. and 9
a.m. until 5 p.m., respectively : He stated the procedure
in responding to such inquiries merely involved the sec-
retary checking the sign -in book for the particular meet-
ing in question and ascertaining whether the member's
name was shown there.
Concluding Findings
The complaint alleges and the General Counsel argues
that Salazar threatened Ramos with bodily harm and that
his reasons were twofold . First, because of Ramos' close
association with Montoya, who it is alleged had engaged
in dissident union activity . Second, because Ramos
threatened to go to the Board regarding his dispute with
the Union over the $2 assessment . In my judgment, the
651
record establishes tliat 'a violation has been committed,
but only for the latter reason.
It is settled law that a union violates Section 8(bxl)(A)
of the Act when its agents threaten an employee with
bodily harm for engaging in protected concerted activi-
ties . Electrical Workers IBEW Local 453 (National Elec-
trical Contractors Assn .), 258 NLRB 1427 (1981). It is
equally settled that engaging in dissident union activities
or being aligned or associated with employees who are
engaged in such activities is a'protected right under the
Act. Cf. Boilermakers Local 686 (Boiler Tube), 267 NLRB
1056 (1983); East Texas Motor Freight, 262 NLRB 868
(1982), However, in order to demonstrate that a violation
has been committed, it is necessary to establish a causal
connection between the asserted union misconduct and
the protected activity of the employee . I find the record
here fails to demonstrate that Salazar's comments to
Ramos during the telephone conversation on 4 Novem-
ber were engendered by Ramos' association with Mon-
toya or with the position taken by Montoya regarding
the allocation of the wage increase.
Although there is no doubt that Montoya made it per-
fectly clear to Salazar that he wanted ` the increase ap-
plied solely to his wages, it is equally apparent from Sa-
lazar's testimony and the result of the membership 'vote
that Montoya was not expressing a dissident viewpoint.
Rather, he was verbalizing the sentiments advocated by
an overwhelming majority of the union members cov-
ered by the collective -bargaining agreement . More im-
portant, there is nothing in the record which suggests
that Salazar or the union leadership were seeking to have
the pending wage increase applied in any manner other
than that , decided on by .the ,membership. The record re-
flects that the union officials were merely providing a
means for the members to express their , choice by a
secret ballot vote.
Montoya's characterization of the collective-bargaining
agreement as a "bad contract" would appear, at first
blush, to place him in conflict with Salazar. I find, how-
ever, that in the context of their conversation this was
not the case. Although Montoya and, ' Ramos testified
through an interpreter and Salazar did not, I observed
each of the witnesses carefully during the course of the
testimony. Montoya appeared to me to be willing to em-
bellish his statements and color the facts so as to convey
an impression of being at odds with Salazar. For exam-
ple, Montoya testified that when he told , Salazar the con-
tract was a bad agreement and he did not want Salazar
(the Union) to take anything out of his wage increase,
Salazar called him an obscene name and stated the em-
ployee was alone and his view did not count . Salazar, on
the other hand, forthrightly testified that he knew at this
point the members in general wanted the increase, in'the
form of wages and not as a pension contribution. It is not
logical that the union representative would berate Mon-
toya and state that the employee 's views were of no con-
sequence when 'Salazar knew Montoya's position in fact
reflected the sentiments of a majority of the members.
For this reason, I find Salazar's testimony regarding his
conversation with Montoya and the employees to be
more trustworthy.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I further find that in addition to stating he wanted the
increase in his wages , Montoya's chief complaint was
about the' fact that members not employed by Downey
were going to vote on the wage increase issue . I credit
Salazar's testimony that when he explained the other
members Were covered by the same collective-bargaining
agreement and were entitled to vote, that Montoya asked
him to go across the street to speak with his companions.
I credit Salazar's testimony that when he spoke to the
group of employees they were insisting that only the
members employed by Downey should vote and he told
them it was impossible . Finally, I credit Salazar's testi-
mony that he had no recollection of whether Ramos was
in the group when he spoke to the employees and that
he was not aware of the personal friendship and associa-
tion that existed between Ramos and Montoya.
Based on the above, I find that Montoya was not en-
gaged in dissident union activity in June. But even if
Montoya's conduct were deemed to be dissident union
activity, the record fails to demonstrate that Salazar was
aware of the close association between Ramos and Mon-
toya or that Salazar considered Ramos aligned with
Montoya's views . I find , therefore, that paragraph 6(a) of
the complaint (which alleges that Salazar threatened
Ramos with bodily harm because of that employee's as-
sociation with Montoya) is not factually supported, by
the credible evidence in the record. Accordingly, this
paragraph of the complaint must be dismissed.
The question of whether the asserted threat of bodily
harm was made because Ramos stated he was going to
the Board about his dispute with the Union presents a
more difficult issue. There is sharp conflict in the testi-
mony of all the witnesses; not only concerning the basis
for the phone conversation between Ramos and Salazar,
but also regarding what was said by these two individ-
uals during the conversation.
In sifting through the contradictory testimony, howev-
er, I place no reliance whatsoever on the testimony of
Montoya, who listened to a portion of the conversation.
Here again, I find that Montoya's proclivity for embel-
lishing his testimony renders his statements completely
unreliable. Montoya testified that he heard Salazar call
Ramos a "mother fucker," but on redirect examination
Ramos specifically stated that Salazar never referred to
him by this obscene expression. Thus, I rely, solely on
my examination of the testimony of Ramos and Salazar
in determining whether a violation was committed
during the telephone conversation on 4 November.
Although Ramos and Salazar gave differing versions
of the underlying reason that prompted Ramos to call
the union office, I do not deem it necessary to resolve
this testimonial conflict . I find it sufficient that there are
certain material matters about which there is no conflict
and about which the testimony of these two witnesses is
consistent. First, there is no question but that a dispute
arose between Ramos and Salazar concerning whatever
the subject matter of the telephone conversation hap-
pened to be, i.e., whether the $2 assessment as Ramos in-
dicated by his testimony, or the request for payment of
wages for the day loss due to the plant shutdown as indi-
cated by Salazar . Second, it is evident from the testimo-
ny from both of the witnesses that Salazar became pro-
voked with Ramos during the telephone conversation.
Third, it is equally evident from the testimony that
Ramos threatened to go to the Board about his dispute
with the Union . In these circumstances , I find it logical
to infer that Ramos' statement to the effect that he
would take the matter to the Board provoked Salazar
into responding that he would hit the employee and his
mother. By Salazar's own admission he concluded the
conversation by telling the employee what he could do
with himself. In my judgment, this demonstrates the
level of anger felt by Salazar at the time and lends cre-
dence to Ramos' testimony that the union official threat-
ened him with physical violence. Oil Workers Local 2-
947 (Cotter Corp.), 270 NLRB 1311 (1984). Accordingly,
I find the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act in that Salazar's threat unlawfully restrained and co-
erced Ramos in his right to use the Board 's processes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Downey Glass Co., Inc. is an employer engaged in
commerce or in an industry ' affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers
Local Union No. 636, AFL-CIO is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening an employee with physical harm for
indicating he planned to file charges with the National
Labor Relations Board, Respondent Union has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices , it shall be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
which will effectuate the purposes of the Act.'
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
T The General Counsel has requestd that the Order issued here contain
a visitatorial provision . The purpose of such a provision is to enable the
General Counsel to monitor compliance with the Order in the event it is
adopted by the Board and enforced by a court of appeals. The Board has
yet to establish guidelines for the inclusion of this type of provision in its
orders and until such are developed , I am of the view that the request
must be denied.