H. W. Woody, Jr.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 1172 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
I Lummus Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
3 By causing Lummus Corporation to discriminate with respect to the lure
and tenure of employment of employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, and by maintaining , performing, and giving effect to a contractual arrangement
and practice requiring referral clearance by Respondent as a condition of employ-
ment with Lummus Corporation , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(2) of the Act
4. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of` Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication I
R. W. Woody, Jr., and Local 46, Inter-national Association of
Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers [C. H.
Moyers]. Case No AO-2 December 28, 1959
DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR ADVISORY OPINION
A petition has been filed by H W Woody, Jr, as business agent
of Local 46, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators
and Asbestos Workers (herein called Local 46), and by said Local 46,
praying for an advisory opinion by the Board as to whether it would
assert jurisdiction over a case pending before the First Circuit Court
for Knox County, Tennessee It appears from said petition that
1 There is now pending before the First Circuit Court for Knox
County, Tennessee, a suit for damages in the sum of $50,000 brought
by C H Moyers, as Plaintiff, against said Woody, said Local 46,
and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and As-
bestos Workers (herein called International), as joint defendants
2 The gist of said State court action is that the defendants therein
caused Moyers to be wrongfully dischaiged from his employment on
February 25, 1956, and that since that date saad defendants have
"rendered the plaintiff [Moyers] unable to follow his trade" with
"would-be employers "
3 The petition herein fails to mention the name of any employer
involved in said State court suit, and it is also fails to allege the gen-
eral nature of the business involved in the State court proceeding or
the commerce data relating to the operations of such business.
4 A response has been received from said Moyers alleging, snter
alga, that Petitioners are being sued in the State court for the tort of
"intervening and interfering, and in a conspiracy so to do, in Moyers'
125 NLRB No. 130
DIAMOND GINGER ALE, INCORPORATED 1173
right to work at the Kingston Steam Plant, Kingston, Tennessee ...,"
but does not set forth any commerce data.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that insufficient
data have been submitted, as required by Section 102.99 (a) (5) and
(6) of its Rules and Regulations, to enable it to give an advisory
opinion as to whether the commerce operations of the employers
involved are such that it would or would not assert jurisdiction. Said
Section 102.99 (a) (5) and (6) read as follows:
SEC. 102.99. Contents of petition for an advisory opinion-(a)
A petition for an advisory opinion, when filed by a party to a
proceeding before an agency or court of a State or Territory, shall
allege the following:.. .
(5) The general nature of the business involved in the pro-
ceeding.
(6) The commerce data relating to the operations of such
business...."
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Diamond Ginger Ale, Incorporated and International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Local Union No. 677. Case No. 1-CA-2773. De-
cember 29, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 26, 1959, Trial Examiner Thomas F. Maher issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Respondent filed a
brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
The Board 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 and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
125 NLRB No. 122.
535828-60-vol. 125-75