International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1070 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Kellogg have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents United Brotherhood, District Council, Local 610, 753,
and 2007 have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
9. The Respondent Graver has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of the Act.
Recommendations omitted from publication.
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL, AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL,
AND W. B. SANDERS, ITS AGENT and BECHTEL CORPORA-
TION. Case No. 14-CB-211. May 26, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 10, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore
issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engagedin- 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
hereto . Thereafter , the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the modifications and exceptions noted below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the re-
fusal of the Respondent Sanders, business agent of the Union,
to refer the 6 ironworker applicants specifically requested by
Bechtel Corporation and the action and threats of the Respondent
Union' s agent , Joyner, which were designed to force the
Company to employ the other ironworkers sent by Sanders
rather than the 6 it desired, constituted an attempt by the
Respondents to cause Bechtel Corporation to discriminate
in hiring in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.'
However, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's rationale to
the extent that he implies that the mere refusal of a union
to refer men to an employer when requested to do so, standing
alone and absent evidence of a discriminatory practice or con-
'See Medford Building and Construction Trades Council of the American Federation of
Labor; et al. (Kogap Lumber Industries), 96 NLRB 165.
108 NLRB No. 149.
LOCAL 595, INTL. ASSN. OF BRIDGE, ETC. 1071
tractual obligation , is violative of these same Sections of the
Act. 2
2. The Trial Examiner further found , and we agree, that
the Respondents were responsible for the strike and picketing
at the Joppa project and that they thereby violated Section 8
(b) (1) (A) and ( 2) of the Act.3 However , we find that by such
conduct the Respondents not only attempted to cause the
Bechtel Corporation to discriminate against the 6 ironworker
applicants , as found by the Trial Examiner, but also that they
did cause such discrimination . We shall , therefore , in accord-
ance with the Trial Examiner ' s recommendation , direct the
Respondents to make whole these 6 applicants for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of this conduct of the Re-
spondents during the period from September 14 to October 13,
1953.
3. In accord with the Trial Examiner , we find independently
violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) the threats of violence uttered
by Joyner' and the mass picketing at the plant entrance, 5
as well as Sanders ' declaration to the 4 applicants , who came
to his home on September 11, that he would not permit them to
work until all the 120 workmen laid off by another employer
were at work."
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re-
spondents, Local 595 , International Association of Bridge,
Structural , and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL, its officers,
representatives , agents , successors , assigns , and W. B.
Sanders , its business agent , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause , in any manner , Bechtel
Corporation , its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, to
discriminate against employees or applicants for employment
in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. '
(b) In any manner restraining or coercing the employees of
or applicants for employment with Bechtel Corporation in the
exercise of their right to engage in or refrain from engaging in
any or all of the activities guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extentthatsuch rightmaybe affected by an agree-
2 N. L. R. B v. Thomas Rigging Co., 211 F . 2d 153 ( C. A. 9); Local No. 63 , United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL, et al. (J. L. Wroan & Son , et al.), 106 NLRB
2310.
3 Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity (Hearst Consolidated
Publications , Inc., et al.), 93 NLRB 237.
4 See Gimbel Brothers, Inc., 100 NLRB 870, 876.
5See Local #1150, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America , et al. (Cory
Corporation), 84 NLRB 972.
SSee Mundet Cork Corporation , 96 NLRB 1142.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition 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) Notify Bechtel Corporation, in writing, and furnish
copies of such notification to the respective individuals
named, that the Respondents have no objection to the em-
ployment of Ernest E. Spell, Lester Gore, Ed Wagner, Floyd
Goin, Lloyd Henry, and M. E. Heck.
(b) Make whole Ernest E. Spell, Lester Gore, Ed Wagner,
Floyd Goin, Lloyd Henry, and M. E. Heck for any loss of pay
each may have suffered because of the discrimination against
him, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate
Report entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post in conspicuous places at the office and meeting
halls of the Respondent Union in Paducah, Kentucky, including
all places where notices to members are customarily posted,
copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix.' Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Fourteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by W. B.
Sanders and an official representative of the Respondent
Union, be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by them for at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region
signed copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix for
posting, Bechtel Corporation willing, at said corporation's
operations at Joppa, Illinois, in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the said Regional Director, shall, after being
duly signed as provided in paragraph (c) above, be forthwith
returned to the Regional Director for such posting.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region,
in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order
what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
7In the event that this Order is enforced by 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."
LOCAL 595, INTL. ASSN. OF BRIDGE, ETC.
APPENDIX
NOTICE
1073
TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, AND ORNA-
MENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES
OF, AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH, BECHTEL
CORPORATION
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, as amended, we hereby
notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Bechtel
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns,
to discriminate against employees or applicants for em-
ployment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce
employees of, or applicants for employment with, Bechtel
Corporation, 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, 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.
WE WILL notify Bechtel Corporation in writing, and
furnish copies to the respective persons named below,
that we have no objection to their employment by said
corporation:
Ernest E. Spell Floyd Goin
Lester Gore Lloyd Henry
Ed Wagner M. E. Heck
WE WILL make whole said persons for any loss of pay
suffered between September 14 and October 13,, 1953.
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNA-
By .............................. MENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL,
Labor Organization,
By .............................. W. B. Sanders, Its Agent.
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.
339676 0 - 55 - 69
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing thereon
having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named Respondents, a hearing involving
allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136) herein called the Act, was held in St. Louis,
Missouri, on November' 16 and 17, 1953, before the undersigned Trial Examiner.
As to the unfair labor practices, in substance the complaint alleges and the answer denies
that the Respondents (Local 595 and its business agent, W. B. Sanders): (1) In September
1953 attempted to cause the charging Company to discriminate against 6 named individuals
not cleared by the Respondents in order to compel said Company to hire only members of
Local 595 who had been cleared and referred by it; (2) also in September 1953, engaged in
conduct and uttered threats of reprisal and force against employees of the charging Company
in order to force said Company to refuse to hire the said 6 applicants for employment; and
(3) by such conduct have restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaaanteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented, 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 of fact and conclusions of law.
During the course of the hearing all parties stipulated that the record of the proceedings and
the exhibits in Case No. 14-CD-391 should be incorporated by reference in these proceedings.
Briefs have been received from all parties.
Upon the entire record in Case No. 14-CD-39 and Case No. 14-CB-211, and from his
observation of the witnesses appearing before him, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING COMPANY
Bechtel Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its home office in San Francisco,
California, and branch offices in NewYork City and Washington, D. C. It is engaged in general
building, construction, and engineering of powerhouses, dams, oil refineries, chemical
plants, buildings, and pipelines throughout the United States and its territories. Its annual
gross receipts approximate $140,000,000. Its annual purchases approximate $38,000,000 in
value, which are shipped across various State lines throughout the United States.
Since about September 1, 1953, Bechtel has been engaged in the construction of a steam
electric generating plant at Joppa, Illinois, under contract with Electric Energy, Inc., for
the purpose of supplying electric power to the Atomic Energy Plant at Paducah, Kentucky.
Bechtel plainly is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION
Local 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, with principal
office at Paducah, Kentucky. At all times herein material W. B. Sanders has been the business
agent of this labor organization and has directed its activities.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting of events at issue
Construction of the Joppa plant was begun in 1951 by Ebasco Services, Inc., a contractor
not here involved. Ebasco left the project in July 1953. Thereafter Electric Energy, Inc.,
contracted with Bechtel to complete the plant.
[Case No. 14-CD-39, 108 NLRB No. 113, entitled the same as the instant case, was heard
on November 9, 10, 11, and 12, at St. Louis, before William H Hartnett , hearing officer.
LOCAL 595, INTL. ASSN. OF BRIDGE, ETC. 1075
When Bechtel started operations at Joppa about September 1, and although under no apparent
contractual obligation, legal or otherwise, to do so,2 it hired ironworkers through Local 595,
which had previously supplied Ebasco with members of this craft. By September 11 it had thus
hired about 30 ironworkers, all of whom had been referred to it by this Local
B. The refusal of Local 595 to refer individuals requested
On September 11 Bechtel, by wire, requested Business Agent Sanders of Local 595 to have
Ernest E. Spell, Lester Gore, Ed Wagner, FloydGom, Lloyd Henry, and M. E. Heck report the
following Monday morning. At least some of the 6 had worked on Bechtel jobs elsewhere, all
6 were working in the area, and were known by Bechtel supervision to be competent, qualified
ironworkers. As to some of the 6, the evidence is clear that Bechtel's assistant superintendent
made tentative arrangements with them, before September 11, to have them come to work for
Bechtel.
On the same day Bechtel wired to Sanders, the 6 individuals went to the latter's office in
Paducah to obtain referrals, but were unable to locate the business agent. Four of them went
to his home that night. Applicant Heck, as spokesman, asked Sanders for referrals to the
Bechtel job. Sanders refused, declaring that there had been 120 men on that job when Ebasco
closed down and until they were put back to work no one else would be referred to Bechtel
Applicant Goin asked Sanders if that were his ruling or the International's. Sanders replied
that it was his ruling, and repeated that they would not go on that job. By telephone the next
morning Heck reiterated his request to Sanders for the group, and Sanders again said he would
not refer them to the job until all others of the 120 were at work. Four of the group then
appealed Sanders' ruling, by telegram , to the head of the International.
Instead of sending the individuals requested by Bechtel to the project the following Monday
morning , Sanders sent other men. Bechtel declined to hire them.
C. Steward of Local 595 causes strike
to force Bechtel to discriminate
On September 14 when Bechtel's assistant superintendent declined to hire the ironworkers
sent by Sanders instead of the six requested, the Local's steward, Harry Levy Joyner, here-
with found to be an agent of the Respondent Local, informed the assistant superintendent and
the general foreman, in the presence of other ironworkers, "You will hire those men that
were sent out here this morning or we will all leave the job." His demand was not acceded to,
and in a few minutes Joyner told the group of ironworkers "we'll all quit and turn in our
badge...." One employee ironworker, Harry Brown, a member of the International, declined
to leave the job. Joyner urged him, pointing out that the Company was bringing in men from
outside the area. Brown pointed out to Joyner that under the working rules of the international
the Company could employ 50 percent of the men from outside the area of the Local. Joyner
replied, "To hell with the International. Bill Sanders makes the rules on this job." He shook
his fist in Brown's face, cursed him, and threatened that if he refused to go out with the
others he would see to it that Brown was beaten up until no one could recognize him and what
was left would be dumped in the river. Joyner then turned to the other ironworkers in the
group, numbering about 30, and ordered them to get their checks and leave the job. All the
ironworkers , except Brown, left the project.
D. The strike and blockade
On September 15, the day following the walkout of the ironworkers, construction of the
Joppa plant came to a halt. Ironworkers and other members of building trades unions blocked
entry to the project with their cars. Joyner was present in apparent command of the blockade.
2 Vice-President John O'Connell thus explained Bechtel's policy:
Generally ... throughout the country we find that the best source of good construction
men are in the construction building trades unions and when we go into a strange area
we find we get the best qualified reliable local men.... by going to the building trades
unions who have qualified men....
107 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For example, Joyner permitted an administrative assistant, George Copeland,to leave his
car and walk into the plant. Copeland later came out to request Joyner to permit the entry
of two engineers, other administrative employees, and a telephone operator. Joyner refused
to permit entrance of any requested except the telephone operator. Further demonstrating
Joyner's authority at the blockade is the fact that 3 days later, when Copeland attempted to
enter the property, others refused to let him pass until Joyner so instructed them.
Later the same day officials of Bechtel and the International and Sanders met in St.
Louis. When General Secretary Downes of the International Association was informed of the
facts, he instructed Sanders to refer to Bechtel the six individuals it had requested, to re-
place all the ironworkers who had struck, to remove the picket lines, and to replace the
steward. Sanders refused to comply with instructions from his own parent organization. On
September 17, by wire, the International repeated these instructions. Sanders replied by
issuing a press release, in which he announced that he would not comply with the order.3
Furthermore, Sanders proceeded with action designed to prolong the blockade. He purchased
broadcast time from a local radio for an announcement, bearing the signature of "W. B.
Sanders--Iron Workers Local 595," instructing "All ironworkers employed or unemployed
in the jurisdiction of Ironworkers Local 595" to be "at Joppa Steam Plant at 6:30 a. m.
Wednesday, September 23, as usual. " This announcement was made repeatedly.
Following this broadcast, on September 23, Sanders, according to his own testimony, went
to the Joppa plant where 100 or 150 men were gathered at the intersection of the county road
and the private road entering the plant property. About half this number, he admitted, were
members of his Local.
In another paid broadcast, on October 4, Sanders announced publicly: "Our fight at Joppa
shall continue. We know that we are right- -and- -right always wins."
Also during the period from October 13 to 20, Sanders and other local officials issued
checks, totaling more than $ 3,000, to pay for food and other picket line expenses at the Joppa
plant. On October 17, at a meeting of the Local, its members voted, according to the minutes:
. to pay all previous bills in relation to the Joppa, Illinois, dispute with the Bechtel
Corporation that had incurred prior to this meeting, or bills to be incurred in the future
until the dispute is resolved ...•.
E. The restraining order and resumption of operations
Upon petition of the Board's Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, on October 12,
1953, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois issued a temporary
restraining order against Local 595 and Sanders, enjoining them from engaging in conduct
above described. On October 16 the same court ordered that the said injunction should re-
main in effect until the Board had issued its final adjudication in Case No. 14-CD-39.
Construction work was resumed on the Joppa project on October 13, 1953.
There is no evidence that since the issuance of the restraining order the Respondents
have prevented Bechtel from employing the six individuals named in the complaint. In his
brief General Counsel urges that these persons be made whole, by the Respondents, from
September 14 to October 13, 1953.
F. The issues and conclusions
The preponderance of credible evidence supports the contention of General Counsel that
Local 595 and Sanders, by conduct and action authorized and taken by its agents and members,
attempted to force Bechtel to discriminate, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, in the
hiring of ironworkers, and specifically to discriminate against the six applicants named here-
in. The refusal of Sanders to honor the Company's request and to refer the individuals to
3 While the Trial Examiner does not consider the point to be material to the issues raised
in the complaint, there is credible evidence in the record that the International Association,
in further disavowal of Sanders' arbitrary action, promptly took steps to form and charter
another local to have jurisdiction in this area. As subsequent events revealed, however,
Sanders continued to guide and direct the activities of Local 595 and it appears to be still in
existence. Indeed, during the hearing Sanders himself maintained that his local still claimed
jurisdiction over the ironworkers on the Joppa project.
LOCAL 595, INTL, ASSN. OF BRIDGE, ETC. 1077
the job, and the action and threats of the Union's agent, Joyner, as above described, in
attempting to cause the Company to employ others instead of the six requested, all con-
stitute an illegal attempt to cause Bechtel to discriminate in hiring, in violation of Section
8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. Violative of the same sections, in the opinion of the Trial
Examiner, since its objective was for the illegal purpose of causing Bechtel to discriminate,
was the strike called by Local 595.4 And the threats of violence uttered by Joyner and the
mass picketing at the entry to the plant property, were plainly violative of Section 8 (b) (1)
(A), since they were of a coercive nature designed to prevent employees from exercising their
right not to strike.
The Trial Examiner also finds merit in the contention of General Counsel that Sanders'
declarations to the applicants on September 11--to the effect that he would not permit them
to work until all of the 120 laid off by another employer were at work--is an independent
violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. The threat must necessarily be appraised in the
light of subsequent events and the dictatorial authority exercised by Sanders in this area.
(See Mundet Cork Corp., 96 NLRB 1150.)
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 charging Company, described in section I, 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 Respondents Local 595 and Sanders have engaged in unfair labor
practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the said Respondents attempted to cause the charging Company to
discriminate illegally against applicants Ernest E. Spell, Lester Gore, Ed Wagner, Floyd
Goin, Lloyd Henry, and M. E. Heck. It will be recommended that the Respondents notify,
in writing, the charging Company 'that it has no objection to the employment of these in-
dividuals. Since, as has been found, the Respondents were responsible for the strike and
cessation of work on the Joppa project, thereby depriving the said individuals of their other-
wise normal opportunity to work, it will be recommended that the Respondents make whole
the said six applicants for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Re-
spondents' illegal conduct, during the period from September 14 to October 13, 1953, and that
the method of computing back pay shall be in accordance with the policy set out in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
The unlawful conduct of the Respondents Local 595 and Sanders, found herein, indicates a
purpose to limit the lawful rights of employees. Such purpose is related to other unfair labor
practices, and it is found thatthedangerof their commission is reasonably to be apprehended.
It will therefore be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from in any manner
restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 595 , International Association of Bridge , Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By attempting to cause Bechtel Corporation , an employer , to discriminate against
Ernest E. Spell, Lester Gore , Ed Wagner , Floyd Goin, Lloyd Henry, and M. E. Heck, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2 of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
4See Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity, 93 NLRB 237.
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices areunfair labor practices affecting commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Recommendations omitted from publication.]
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 16-CA-475.
May 26, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 9, 1953, Trial Examiner LloydBuchananissued
his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial
Examiner further found that the Respondent had not engaged in
certain other alleged unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act. Thereafter, exceptions
and briefs were filed by the Respondent, the Union, and the
General Counsel.'
The Board was 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the case,' and finds merit in the
exceptions of the Respondent. The Board accordingly adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner only to the limited extent indicated below.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated
the Act in discharging Jackson, Noland, and Ivey. We find merit
in the Respondent's exceptions.
(a) Jackson: As the Trial Examiner found, Jackson was
discharged by Foreman Jones upon threatening the latter with
an iron bar. Jackson had returned to the plant after the end
of his shift. Because other employees were then working in the
area where Jackson was idling, Jones asked him to leave.
Jackson did not do so. With a tool which he had in his hand,
Jones emphasized his instruction to Jackson to leave, and
started to lead Jackson out of the plant. But again instead of
obeying this reasonable request, Jackson seized an iron bar
and threatened Jones . Because of this threat of physical
1 The Union also filed a motion to reopen the hearing with respect to the unfair labor
practice strike allegations.
2 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, in view of our dismissal
of this proceeding on the merits and as the record adequately reflects the issues and the
positions of the parties.
108 NLRB No. 143.