Hod Carriers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 508 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to her seniority and other rights and privileges , and that all four Respondents named
in the preceding paragraph be ordered , jointly and severally, to make whole each
of said employees for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount
she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against
her to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less her net earnings in said period,
the back pay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the
Board in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
Having found that the partners and the Partnership discriminatorily shut down
the plant and locked out their employees in the period between June 30 and July 10,
1956, I shall recommend that all the Respondents aforesaid be ordered , jointly and
severally, to make whole each of the employees involved in the lockout for any
loss of pay such employee may have suffered by reason of said discrimination, in
the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph
I shall also recommend that said Respondents preserve and make available to the
Board and its agents all documents and records necessary to compute the amounts
of back pay due under the terms of the Board 's order
In view of the nature and variety of unfair labor practices committed , the com-
mission of similar and other unfair labor practices by any or all of said Respondents
reasonably may be anticipated I shall therefore recommend that Respondents be
ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to
their employees by Section 7 of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
and Employees Representative Group are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2 Respondents Corporation and Erin are the successors to Respondent Partner-
ship, and, together with Hilma H Erikson and Erik E Erikson, the individual
partners , are responsible jointly and severally for remedying the unfair labor prac-
tices engaged in by said Partnership
3 By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of
Catherine Elkins, Bessie Pappas, Julia Vadasy, Janice Witherite, Angeline Romes-
burg, and Mary Louise Wuestewald, thereby discouraging membership in said United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the partners
and Partnership aforesaid have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
4 By the conduct aforesaid , by their discriminatory lockout of employees, and
by other conduct found above, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing
their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
Respondents aforesaid have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
6 Respondents have not engaged in actual surveillance of union meetings or
concerted or other protected activities of their employees
[Recommendations omitted from publication ]
fled Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America,
Local No. 324, AFL-CIO, and It. Wright , business agent, Local
No. 324 [Roy Price Inc .] and Merle Estes, Cecil Hawkins, Jasper
Hawkins, and Merlin L. Shamo . Cases Nos 20-CB-507, 20-CB-
508, 20-CB-509, and 20-CB-510 August 14, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 11, 1957, Trial Examiner David F Doyle issued his Inter-
mediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
121 NLRB No 55
HOD CARRIERS 509
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) and recommending
that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, and a brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
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 brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
As the record shows and the Trial Examiner found, the Union
had an oral practice or arrangement with the Employer that in the
Union's geographical jurisdiction of Contra Costa County the Em-
ployer would employ only those laborers whom the Union cleared.
Pursuant thereto, the four Complainants attempted to get clearance
from the Union for work the Employer wanted them to perform in
the county. However, Union Business Agent Wright refused to
clear them, and told the Employer that the Union would shut the job
down if the Employer worked any employees not cleared by the
Union. The Employer accordingly refused to employ the Com-
plainants for this work. About a month later, however the Union
permitted the Employer to employ the Complainants for work in
the county.
We find that this case is governed by Mountain Pacific Chapter of
the Associated General Contractors, Inc., et al., 119 NLRB 883, which
establishes legal standards for all exclusive hiring-hall agreements.
We further find that there is no competent evidence in the record
that the Union's exclusive hiring hall in this case meets these
standards. The Union did not explicitly agree to provisions assuring
the nondiscriminatory functioning of the hiring arrangement, or to
the due posting of such provisions, or to the Employer's right to
reject any employee referred by the Union. The hiring-hall arrange-
ment is therefore not available as a defense to the Complainants'
prima facie case.
Accordingly, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Re-
spondents caused the Employer to discriminate against the Com-
plainants in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of
the Act.'
+ The complaint does not allege and the Trial Examiner did not find that the oral
hiring-hall practice or arrangement between the Union and the Employer constituted an
unfair labor practice For this reason , and in the absence of relevant exceptions, we do
not make such unfair labor practice finding. See Local 250, United Association of
Journeymen etc. (Bechtel Corporation), 120 NLRB 930 .
In addition , we do not adopt certain portions of the remedy recommended by the Trial
Examiner, for the reason that (1) the Complainants have already been reemployed
pursuant to notification by the Union, and (2 ) our policy normally does not require the
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union
of America, Local No. 324, AFL-CIO, and its officers, representatives,
and agents, including R. Wright, business agent:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Roy Price Inc., or any other
employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction, to refuse
employment to any employee or prospective employee or otherwise to
discriminate against any such employee in violation of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees
or prospective employees of Roy Price Inc., or any other employer
over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction, in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to, the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at the Union's office copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall forthwith be duly
signed by the Respondents and posted by them immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and shall be maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondents to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region signed
copies of said notice for posting by Roy Price Inc., if willing, in places
where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
3. In addition, the Union, but not Wright, shall take the following
affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of
the Act :
Make whole Merle Estes, Cecil Hawkins, Jasper Hawkins, and
Merlin L. Shamo for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against them, in the manner set forth in the Intermediate
Report.
payment of back pay by a union agent See Local 420, United Association of Journeymen
etc. (J. J. White Inc.), 111 NLRB 1126, 1127-28.
We also do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's minor modifications of our conventional
order in this type of case.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
HOD CARRIERS 511
4. The Respondents shall notify the Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of
this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COM-
MON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA , LOCAL No. 324, AFL-CIO,
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF ROY PRICE INC.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Roy Price Inc., or any
other employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction, to
refuse employment to any employee or prospective employee or
otherwise to discriminate against any such employee in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain $or coerce
any such employee or prospective employee in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem=
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
The undersigned Union will make whole Merle Estes, Cecil
Hawkins, Jasper Hawkins, and Merlin L. Shamo for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON
LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 324, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- - By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Signed ---------------------------------
(R. WRIGHT, Business Agent)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , brought under Section 10 (b) of the Act, was heard at San
Francisco, California, on May 10, 1957 , pursuant to due notice to all parties.'
1 In this report Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local
No. 324 , AFL-CIO, is referred to as the Union ; the Union 's agent Ron Wright, as Wright,
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The consolidated complaint, dated March 15, 1957, alleged, in substance, that on
or about February 7, 1957, the four employees named above were directed by the
Employer to report for work at its operations at Martinez, California, provided
they obtained work clearances from the Union; that thereafter the Union and
Wright refused to clear them, with the result that the Employer refused to employ
them for a period of time thereafter at its Martinez, California, operations. The
Union and Wright duly filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witness, to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues, to argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and
proposed findings.
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 EMPLOYER
At the hearing it was stipulated that: Roy Price Inc. and Engineers Limited
Pipe Line Company are California corporations, and they maintain common offices,
common payrolls, and common labor relations policies and administration; there
is an interchange of employees and equipment between the Companies; and they
constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act.
It was further stipulated that during the last preceding 12-month period the
Employer had performed services outside the State of California of a value in
excess of $50,000 and had received goods or materials from outside the State of
California valued at $500,000 or more; that the Employer is a multistate enterprise,
and as such had performed services outside the State of California of a value in
excess of $250,000.
Upon all the evidence I find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Upon all the evidence I find that the Union is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary motion
At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the Union moved to dismiss the
complaint upon the ground that the Board had failed to exercise its jurisdiction
with respect to the so-called building trades industry by failing to conduct repre-
sentation elections in that industry. Counsel for the Union argued that by that
failure the Board had denied the beneficial provisions of the Act to the building
trades unions, and in consequence it was an abuse of the Board's discretion to
apply to those unions the provisions' of the Act relating to unfair labor practices.
Counsel contended that under the circumstances, the action of the General Counsel
in issuing the complaint, and the action of the Board in hearing the instant allegations'
of unfair labor practices, constituted an arbitrary and unwarranted exercise of
discretion, and for that reason the complaint should be dismissed. The motion
was denied.
B. The refusal of clearance
There is very little dispute about the facts of this case. It is composed entirely
of the testimony and exhibits offered by the General Counsel. This undisputed
evidence may be compressed into the following summary.
The Companies are engaged in general construction work, especially in the con-
struction of pipelines and allied units for the transmission of oil and gas over long
distances. The relationship between the Employer and the Union is governed by
a contract executed June 30, 1956, by the Pipe Line Contractors Association, of
which the Employer is a member, and International Hod Carriers, Building and
and these parties jointly, as the Respondents ; Roy Price Inc., and Engineers Limited Pipe
Line Company, as the Employer or the Company, the General Counsel of the Board and
his representative at the hearing, as the General Counsel ; the National Labor Relations
Board, as the Board; and the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended,'as
the Act.
HOD CARRIERS 513
Common Laborers Union of America, of which the Union is a component.2 This
contract was in effect at all times pertinent hereto.
Articles II and III of this document read as follows:
II
UNION RECOGNITION AND UNION SECURITY
(A) That Employer agrees, insofar as Employer can under existing provisions
of applicable State and Federal law, that it shall be a condition of continued
employment for an employee to become and remain- a member of the Union
within thirty (30) days after the commencement of his employment with
Employer.
(B) That Union agrees, in accordance with existing law and as soon as
the proper Government agency, under the National Labor Relations Act, an-
nounces its readiness to process petitions for election for Union Security, that
it will promptly file the necessary petitions with the National Labor Relations
Board to bring about such elections, and the Employer agrees to lend his aid
in facilitating such election.
(C) That Employer shall be the sole judge as to the competency of an
employee and shall have the right to discharge men.
(D) That Employer may employ men direct and once a man is employed,
he may continue to work for Employer for as"long as Employer elects to keep
him. At the pre-job conference, Employer should inform Union of the number
of men whom he plans to bring with him into the area and have a mutual under-
standing with Union to enable Union to supply Employer with additional men
who might be needed during the progress of the job.
(E) That Employer shall have the right to keep men who are, in his opinion,
key or specialized in Employer's work in his employment on all the work
throughout the territory covered by this agreement.
* * * * * * s
i
JOB NOTIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT
(A) Employer agrees to notify Union of jobs obtained by Employer, de-
scribing the location, size and length of the proposed pipe line and the proposed
starting date.
(B) Employer and Union shall hold a pre-job conference so that the start
and continuation of the work may progress without interruption, and the Union's
representatives at such conference shall be authorized by Union to represent
Union for the entire area covered by the job. -
(C) The Union agrees to send a copy of this contract to each and every.
one of its locals having jurisdiction over any area in which Employer becomes
obligated to construct a pipe line, and agrees that the terms of this contract
shall be recognized by such local, so that industrial peace will not be disturbed
and so that the Employer may perform Employer's work efficiently and con-
tinuously. [Emphasis supplied.]
In 1956 the Employer agreed to construct a 16-inch pipeline for the Union Oil
Company, from the Union Oil Company's refinery at Oleum, California, to that
company's junction station 45 miles south of Coalinga, California. This is a'dis-
tance of 220 miles. The laying of this pipeline was covered by 1 contract and con-,
stituted 1 job.
Previous to the commencement of work, representatives of the Employer met
with representatives of the International Hod Carriers at Bakersfield, California,
and engaged in the prejob conference required by the contract. 'The conferees agreed
that the laying of the pipeline would'be governed by the National Pipe Line Agree-
ment, part of which has been set forth above.
At -this conference representatives of the parties discussed the fact that uncertainty
in regard to the delivery of pipe, at certain places, would require the Employer
to deviate from its usual practice of beginning the pipeline at one end, and proceed-
ing continuously to the other end. The place of delivery of the pipe, and other
considerations, might necessitate that the pipe be laid at different locations, by differ-
ent "spreads," and later connected. The conferees agreed that this deviation was
2 General Counsel's Exhibit No 2.
487926-59-vol. 121-34
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of no importance , and the work was begun at Tracy, California , a mid-point, with
spreads working both ways, north and south , laying pipe.
At the conference it was agreed that the work, would be performed in accordance
with the contract, "that once men, are employed they follow the job through, but if
additional men are required [the Company will] get them from the local in whose
territory the job is in at the time the men are required." 3-
Work was begun on January 2, 1957, at Tracy, California. Two spreads began
working northward from that city. The laying of the pipe was uneventful until the
pipeline reached the boundary line of Contra Costa County, in which the Union
has jurisdiction. At that time Estes , Shamo, and Cecil and Jasper Hawkins were
employed in the spread of Superintendent Ungles. Shamo and Estes were members
of Local 1130 of the Hod Carriers, located at Turlock, California: Cecil and Jasper
Hawkins were'members of the Union, but they had obtained their own jobs with
the Employer, and had not been dispatched to the job by the Union.
Although it was not required under the terms of the contract , the evidence
establishes that the Employer followed a practice of having its employees cleared
by the local having jurisdiction in each county through which the pipeline was laid.
As the pipeline approached the county line, Cheeves, the manager on the job, phoned
Minerva, business representative of the Union, and informed him that the pipeline
was moving into the Union's jurisdiction . Minerva told Cheeves that all laborers
employed on the job would have to be cleared through the Union. Cheeves agreed
that the men would do that. On,the next evening the Company sent all the laborers
on a bus to the union hall, and Minerva cleared them all. Eight of these men were
not members of the Union, so Minerva accepted them into membership , taking
their initiation fees and dues . There were 32 men in this group.
A day or two later, on February 7, Ungles told Shamo , Estes, and the Hawkins
brothers that he would like to have them work through Contra Costa County with
his spread , and that they were to go to the Union and obtain clearance . ' Ungles
told the men that they could be off the next day, February 8, so that they could go
into the Martinez office of the Union, obtain their clearance , and report to the job
at Concord on Monday morning, February 11.
The four men went to Martinez , but when they inquired at the union office they
were informed that the business agent was not there , and the young lady in charge
informed them that she was not authorized to issue clearances and that they would
have to return on Monday morning. While the men were in the union hall, Ungles
also came in and explained to the girl that these were his men , and that he would
like to get them cleared . She gave him the same answer.
On Monday, February 11, the four men returned to the union hall. On this
occasion Wright told them that the Employer had no right to bring them into the
area to work , and that he would not give them clearance . The men went out to
the spread at Concord, and told Ungles what had happened. Ungles asked them
to wait , and a short time after that Wright appeared at the job site. When Ungles
approached Wright, Wright told him to go away, that he didn 't want to talk to him.
Wright told the men that they could not be cleared in Contra Costa County, but
that he would try to get them reimbursed for 1 day's pay and their travel expenses.
A few minutes later , Mr. Biddies , the superintendent for the Company, came to the
job site and talked to Wright, and then the men drove to a drive -in cafe. They
were joined by Cheeves, Ungles, and Roy Price.
In this conference Wright said that he would not clear the men; they would have
to register on the out-of-work list at the union hall, and wait their time . He said
that the Union was through clearing men and that if the men worked without a
clearance he would shut the job down . The -company officials produced the
National Pipe Line Agreement, and pointed out its provisions , but Wright said that
it didn 't mean a thing.
At the conclusion of this conference , in which the 4 men did not participate,
Wright told them that they would be reimbursed for I day's pay, and he told them
to "go down the line and work somewhere else." 4 On the following morning they
talked to Cheeves, the manager of the project , who told them that any time they
could get a clearance their jobs would be waiting for them. Also, they were paid
for February 8, 1957, the 1 day.
On the next day Shamo called the office of the Hod Carriers International at
San Francisco and talked to Porterfield, an International representative . Porterfield
said that he would look into the matter and try to straighten it out at a meeting
which would be held on the following Friday. On the following Sunday, Shamo
received a phone call from Bert New, the business agent of Local 1130, Shamo's
S Testimony of Wilson.
4 Testimony of Shamo.
HOD CARRIERS 515
local , who told Shamo that Wright had phoned Local 1130, and that the men would
be cleared to the job, and for them to report at the union hall in Contra Costa County
on Monday morning, February 18.
On the last-mentioned date the four men returned to the union hall and met Wright
on the sidewalk. Wright said to them, "Can't you boys get it through your heads,
you're not being cleared in this county?" 5 Shamo explained that New, of Local
1130, had called him and told him that he would be cleared by the Union, but
Wright merely got in his car and drove off. The men went back to the job and
reported to Ungles what had occurred, and on the following day filed charges in
the instant case On this occasion, Ungles also told them that if they could get
cleared, their jobs would be waiting for them.
On or about February 28, Roy Price informed Ungles, who in turn informed the
men, that the matter had been straightened out, and that the men were to return
to work. It was not disputed at the hearing that the men were unemployed from
February 9 until March 8. After they were reemployed on that date, they were
given clearance by the Union, and that appears to have been the end of the
controversy.
Concluding Findings
Upon the record as a whole, I find that the Respondents, the Union, and its agent,
Wright, have violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act, as alleged
in the complaint.
The evidence establishes beyond doubt that the Employer and the Union had
instituted an arrangement or practice for hiring and employment in Contra Costa
County, which was clearly violative of the Act. This arrangement appears to have
been well established, and long observed, by those parties. At the prejob con-
ference, the representatives of the International Hod Carriers "instructed" the Com-
pany to obtain employees through the Stockton Local for the spreads going south
and employees from the Hayward Local for the spreads going north. When the
Employer's operations reached the Contra Costa County line and the representatives
of the Union demanded that its employees be cleared by the Union, the Employer
quickly complied. The Employer supplied its trucks to convey the men to the union
hall for the admitted purpose of obtaining clearances for the men. It is undisputed
that the four Charging Parties were sent to the union hall for the same purpose,
and when the Union refused them clearance , their employment was suspended,
and the men remained suspended until the Union and Wright removed the ban
against their employment some weeks later . Under those circumstances, it is evident
that the employees were the victims of discrimination , initiated and caused by the
Union and its agent , Wright.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Employer described in section 1, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union and its agent, Wright, have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the
amended Act, the Trial Examiner will recommend, that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
amended Act.
Having found that in violating Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act
the Respondents, the Union and its agent, Wright, have deprived Merle Estes,
Merlin L. Shamo, Cecil Hawkins, and Jasper Hawkins of employment by Roy
Price Inc. and Engineers Limited Pipe Line Company, herein called the Employer,
it will be recommended that (1) the Respondents notify the Employer in writing,
and furnish a copy of said notification to the above-named employees, that they
have withdrawn their objections to the employment of the said 4 men as laborers
by the Employer on its pipeline in California, and request the Employer to offer
the 4 employees, named above, employment on the construction of that pipeline;
and (2) the Union and its agent, Wright, make each of the 4 above-named em-
ployees whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the Re-
5 Testimony of Shamo.
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondents' discrimination against him from February 9, 1957,6 to March 8, 1957,T
according to the Board's usual formula. Loss of pay shall be determined by
deducting from a sum equal to that which each would normally have earned during
that period, his net earnings, if any, in any other employment during the period.
Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Roy Price Inc. and Engineers Limited Pipe Line Company, herein called the
Employer, constitute a single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent, Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of
America, Local No. 324, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Union and its agent, R. Wright, have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the amended Act.
. 4. By causing Roy Price Inc. and Engineers Limited Pipe Line Company, an
employer, to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the amended Act, the Union and its agent, R. Wright, have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the
amended Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the amended Act.
-[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
6 The date of discrimination
4 The date of effective reinstatement
Tree Fruits Labor Relations Committee , Inc.; Ackley Fruit Com-
pany; Congdon Orchards, Inc.; Cubberly Fruit Company; Han-
sen Fruit and Cold Storage Co.; Highland Fruit Growers, Inc.;
C. M. Holtzinger Fruit Co.; Johnson Fruit and Cold Storage
Co.; W. W. Judy Fruit Co.; Matson Fruit Co.; J. M. Perry Ice
and Storage Co.; Perham'Fruit Corporation ; Prentice Packing
and Cold Storage Co.; Rainier Fruit Co.; Richey and Gilbert
Co.; W. E . Roche Fruit Co.; Torvig Sealander Fruit, Inc.;
Stadelman Fruit, Inc.; Stubbs-Lamb Fruit Co.; Sundquist
Fruit and Storage Co.; Warren and Company ; Washington
Fruit and Produce Co.; Williams Fruit Company; Yakima
Fruit and Cold Storage Co.; Nordberg-Selah Fruit, Inc.;
Nordberg-Westbrook Fruit, Inc. and Fruit and Vegetable Pack-
ers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 760, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 19-CA-1428.
August 14,1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 23, 1957, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and rec-
121 NLRB No. 64.