International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 11, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 823 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 823
Upon application of the, foregoing standards to the instant
case, we do not find in this record sufficient evidence of the
duties and skills of the electricians at this plant to warrant a
conclusion that the requirements for craft status have been
met.3 Because the Petitioner , IBEW, has failed to sustain the
burden of proof with respect to the requirements for craft
status, we shall dismiss the petition of the IBEW in Case No.
32-RC-712.
In view of our determination that a craft unit of electricians
is not warranted under the circumstances set forth above, we
shall find a plantwide unit appropriate . Accordingly, we find
that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All maintenance and production employees employed at the
Employer's plant near Gum Springs , Arkansas , including all
maintenance and repair electricians , apprentices and helpers,
scale clerks and storeroom clerks,4 but excluding chemists,
senior and junior analysts ,5 professional employees , office
clerical employees , guards, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No . 32-RC-712.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3See Chicago Pheumatic Tube Co. et als., 108 NLRB 174.
4 The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner and Intervenor include the scale clerks
and the storeroom clerks . As it is clear from the evidence that these clerks work in the pro-
duction areas and are not office clericals , they are included as plant clericals.
5 The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner and Intervenor include the senior and
junior analysts who, when hired , will be working in the laboratory and will be engaged in
testing various kinds of materials . As it appears from the evidence that these employees
are technical employees and objection is raised as to their inclusion in the production and
maintenance unit , we exclude them in accordance with Board policy.
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, A.F.L.,
AND ITS BUSINESS AGENT, W. B. SANDERS and BECHTEL
CORPORATION. Case No. 14 -CD-39. May 11, 1954
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which
provides that "whenever it is charged that any person has
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4) (D ) of the Act , the Board is empowered and directed to
hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor
practice shall have arisen . . . ."
108 NLRB No. 113.
8 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 6, 1953, Bechtel Corporation, herein called
Bechtel, filed a charge with the Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region against Local 595, International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, herein
called Local 595, and its business agent, W. B. Sanders, herein
called Sanders. The charge alleged that Local 595 and Sanders
had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections
102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director investigated the charge, and provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice to all parties. A hearing
was held before William E. Hartnett, hearing officer, on
November 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1953. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues.I The rulings of the hearing officer made
at the hearing are free frorxi prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. Local 595 and Sanders and Bechtel filed briefs with
the Board.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I, THE BUSINESS OF BECHTEL
Bechtel is a Delaware corporation which is engaged in
engineering and construction projects all over the United States
and its territories. Bechtel's home office is in San Francisco,
California, and it has branch offices in Los Angeles, New York,
and Washington, D, C. Bechtel' s engineering and construction
work includes powerhouses, dams, oil refineries, chemical
plants, buildings, and pipelines. The Joppa Steam Electric
Generating Plant at Joppa, Illinois, which is involved herein,
is being constructed by Bechtel for Electric Energy, Inc., to
supply electric power to the Atomic Energy Commission's
plant at Paducah, Kentucky. Joppa is located on the Illinois
bank of the Ohio River and part of the work included in Bechtel's
contract with Electric Energy requires the construction of a
power transmission line across the Ohio River from Illinois to
Kentucky. Bechtel's annual gross receipts in the years 1951,
1952, and 1953 were approximately $ 140,000,000. In those years
the annual dollar volume of its purchases of materials, supplies,
and equipment amounted to approximately $38,000,000 and
these articles came from all over the United States.
Local 595 and Sanders do not dispute, and we find, that
Bechtel is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
1 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, herein
called the International, was permitted to intervene at the hearing.
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 825
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
We find that Local 595, the International , and Local 758 (for
the reasons given infra ) are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The facts
As previously indicated , the Joppa Steam Electric Generating
Plant at Joppa, Illinois , is being constructed for Electric
Energy, Inc ., to supply electric power to the Atomic Energy
Commission ' s plant at Paducah, Kentucky. Ebasco Services,
Inc., began construction of this project in 1951 . Its activities
continued until on or about July 31, 1953 , when Electric Energy,
Inc., terminated the construction contract of Ebasco. All
employees of Ebasco were then laid off, including approximately
100 ironworkers who were members of Local 595 . Thereafter,
Electric Energy, Inc ., executed a contract with Bechtel for
completion of the construction of the Joppa plant and Bechtel
began its operations on September 1, 1953.
It has been Bechtel's policy to hire men through the local
building trade unions when it enters a new area . In accord with
this policy , as one of the sources of employment for the Joppa
job, Bechtel dealt with the local unions designated by their
internationals as having jurisdiction over the particular terri-
tory, which for the ironworkers was Local 595. An official of
Bechtel stated at the hearing that it recognized Local 595 as
bargaining agent for ironworkers to this extent , although Local
595 has not been certified by the Board and does not have a
contract with Bechtel . In the period from September 1 to 11,
1953, Bechtel employed approximately 33 ironworkers, all of
whom had been cleared and referred by Local 595.
On September 11, 1953, Bechtel sent a telegram to Sanders
requesting that six additional ironworkers whom it designated
by name be referred for work on the Joppa job. These men
came from other areas and States and were not members of
Local 595 , but were members of the International . Moreover,
they had been referred in the past by Local 595 to other jobs
within its jurisdictional area . At the hearing Bechtel gave as
reason for requesting specific ironworkers the fact that its
supervisors knew these men to be competent and qualified as
some of them had worked for Bechtel previously.
The 6 men named in the wire had been advised by Bechtel
that they would be hired and 4 of them went to Sanders' home
on the evening of September 11, 1953, to obtain referrals to the
Joppa job . These men were not sent outby Sanders , but instead
8 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on September 14, 1953, he referred 4 ironworkers who were
members of Local 595 and former employees of Ebasco.
Bechtel's labor relations manager, Williams, refused to hire
them because they were not the men named in the telegram of
September 11. The men then went to see Harry L, Joyner,
steward for Local 595 on the Joppa job, and told him that they
had work orders, but Bechtel would not hire them. It appears
that about this time all the ironworkers on the job began to
congregate in the yard and subsequently all the ironworkers,
except one, walked off the job.
Bechtel's witnesses testified that thereafter construction
operations were completely shut down atthe Joppa plant because
of a picket line established the next morning at the intersection
of the plant access road and the county road leading to the main
gate . The shutdown lasted from September 15 to October 13,
1953, at which time a temporary restraining order was entered
by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Illinois.
On September 15, 1953, Sanders met with officials of Bechtel
and representatives of the International. At this meeting,
among other things, Sanders was directed by the general secre-
tary of the International to furnish the six men named by Bechtel
and replace all the ironworkers who had walked off the job.
On September 16, 1953, Bechtel sent Sanders a telegram
requesting 39 men without specifying any names. Sanders
referred 39 men to Bechtel on September 17, 1953. The group
consisted of the 33 who had left the job on September 14, the 4
Bechtel had refused to hire on that date, and 2 additional iron-
workers. Bechtel refused to employ the 33 men, but hired the 6.
The latter were given a half-day's pay and told they would be
advised when the plant was reopened and they should report to
work. Also on September 17, the general president and secretary
of the International sent a telegram to Sanders and other officers
of Local 595 notifying them that, unless they complied imme-
diately with the instructions given to Sanders atthe meeting on
September 15, the International would take appropriate action.
On September 21, 1953, the general executive board of the
International established new Local 758 with jurisdiction over
the Joppa project. Sanders, the president of Local 595, and
Bechtel were advised of this action by a telegram from the
general president of the International. Despite this telegram,
according to Sanders, Local 595 still claims jurisdiction over
ironworkers on the Bechtel job at Joppa and had done so at all
times in the year 1953 up to the date of the hearing.
B. Contentions of the parties
Bechtel contends that Local 595 and Sanders were responsible
for the work stoppage of September 14, 1953, and the subsequent
picketing of its project, and that they violated Section 8 (b) (4)
(D) by inducing and encouraging Bechtel's employees to engage
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 827
in such activities with the object of forcing Bechtel ( 1) to assign
the work of the ironworkers' trade to employees in a particular
class consisting of the former ironworker employees of Ebasco,
rather than to employees in another class, consisting of all
other ironworkers , and (2 ) to assign the work of the iron-
workers ' trade to employees in a particular labor organization,
to wit, Local 595, rather than to employees in another labor
organization, to wit, Local 758, of the International.
Local 595 and Sanders contend thattheywerenot responsible
for the work stoppage and picketing and that there was no
"jurisdictional dispute" within the meaning of Section 8 (b)
(4) (D),
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before we may proceed with a determination of a dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, we must be satisfied that
reasonable cause exists to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has
been violated.t
For the foregoing section to be applicable , two elements are
essential: (1) the responsibility of Local 595 and Sanders for the
work stoppage and subsequent picketing of the Joppaproject and
(2) the existence of the proscribed object behind such stoppage
and picketing . These elements will be discussed seriatim.
Responsibility
(a) The work stoppage
When 4 of the 6 men named by Bechtel in its telegram of
September 11 appeared at Sanders' home and asked for referrals
to the Joppa job, according to the testimony of 1 of them,
"Sanders said that there were 120 men employed by Ebasco
when it shut down and until those 120 men went back on the job
2Local 58, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL, et al. (Taylor Electric,
Inc.), 107 NLRB 1002; Local 562, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL, et al. (Charles E.
Myles), 107 NLRB 542, and cases cited therein.
The relevant portions of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) are as follows:
8 (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents--
(4) to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage
in, a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is: ... (D) forcing or
requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor
organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another
labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing
to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining repre-
sentative for employees performing such work:.. .
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the way they came off no one would go on the job, no other men."
Sanders' version of the conversation was that he told them that
he preferred to send the men who had been laid off by Ebasco
before referring any other men.
On September 14, 1953, after the four men referred by
Sanders to Bechtel had advised steward Joyner that Bechtel
would not hire them and the other ironworkers began to gather
in the yard, the versions of Joyner and Harry E. Brown, an
ironworker foreman and member of Local 595, differ substan-
tially as to the events which then occurred and which led up to
the walkout.
According to Brown, when he joined the group he overheard
Joyner say to Bechtel's superintendent and general foreman of
ironworkers, "you will hire those men that were sent out here
this morning or we will all leave the job," and ask whether they
had any personal objection to the men. They replied that they
had no personal objection and if the Company desired to employ
the men, they would "work them." Brown testified further that
Joyner said, "Well, then will you go down to the office and tell
them so"; that they said they would; that the supervisors,
Joyner, and the 4 men referred by Local 595 then went to the
company office; that Joyner and the 4 men returned in about
10 minutes and he heard Joyner say to the assembled iron-
workers, "We'll all quit and turn in our badges"; that Joyner
asked him if he wanted to quit and he indicated that he did not;
that Joyner accused Bechtel of running men in from everywhere
and when he suggested that Joyner was wrong and should look
at the International ' s working rules with respectto employment
of members of out-of-area locals, Joyner replied: "To hell
with the International. Bill Sanders makes the rules on this
job"; that Joyner swore at him and threatened him with bodily
harm; that all the ironworkers on the job then proceeded to the
company office; that Joyner went in and on returning stated that
the people in the office had been told to write out everyone's
check in full and pay everyone off and Joyner again said, "we'll
all quit"; and that all the ironworkers then left the job, except
Brown.
According to Joyner, he went with the 4 men to the Company's
labor relations office and asked Williams why the Company
would not hire the men and Williams replied that the company
did not want these men. Joyner further testified that he said to
Williams, "You hire these men Bill Sanders sent and if they
don't do the work they're supposed to do, all you have to do is
fire them"; that he told Williams as steward it was his job to
see that Bechtel took any men sent out by Local 595; that
Williams telephoned the superintendent and asked if the super-
intendent would take these men instead of the 6 named men;
that Williams told him that the superintendent would not change
his work order and wanted the 6 men that had been named;
that he went out and talked with the ironworkers who were out-
side the gate in the yard; that the men did not like the attitude
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , ETC. 829
the Company was taking , but he did not make any statements to
them about striking or going home ; that the men said they were
going home and he said he was going with them; that everybody
asked for their money and left the job ; and that they did not
leave Bechtel as a result of any instructions from Local 595 or
Sanders, but because they felt the Company was treating them
unfairly . Joyner admitted that he asked Brown if he wanted to
quit with the rest of the men and that he called Brown a "scabby
no-good son-of-a-bitch " when Brown refused to quit . Three of
the thirty - three ironworkers who left the job testified that they
all quit voluntarily without orders from Local 595 or Sanders.
Bechtel contends that the foregoing evidence shows that when
it refused to hire the 4 men referred by Local 595 on September
14, 1953, the steward of Local 595 instructed all the iron-
workers to quit and draw their pay , which instruction was
followed by all iron workers, except 1. In Bechtel ' s view the
work stoppage was clearly the action of Local 595 and Sanders.
On the other hand , Local 595 and Sanders contend that the
evidence shows that no demand was made on Bechtel that it
hire the 4 men and that they did not authorize or cause the
work stoppage . In their view what occurred was the result of
the individual action and decision of the ironworkers who were
incensed at Bechtel ' s refusal to employ the Local 595 men
sent to the job who were residents of the area and Bechtel's
insistence on hiring the men it had named who had come from
outside the Joppa area.
In our opinion , an examination of the evidence presented with
respect to this issue makes the merit of Bechtel ' s contentions
patently clear . For, regardless of whether Sanders told the men
specifically requested by Bechtel that he preferred to send the
ironworkers laid off by Ebasco or expressed himself in more
emphatic terms, it is apparent that his failure to send the men
designated and his referral of four others was tantamount to a
demand that Bechtel hire the latter . Moreover , consideration of
the testimony of Brown and Joyner satisfies us that the purpose
of the work stoppage was to enforce this demand and that Local
595 and Sanders were responsible for the work stoppage. Thus,
it cannot be gainsaid that during the period involved Joyner was
acting as, and considered himself, the agent of Local 595 and
Sanders.9 Indeed , according to his own testimony , Joyner told
Williams it was his function to see to it that Bechtel hired any
men sent out by Local 595 . Furthermore , although the testimony
of Brown and Joyner is contradictory in many respects with
regard to what occurred on September 14, 1953, there are points
of agreement and these points, which amount to admissions by
Joyner, afford abundant support for our conclusion that he
caused the work stoppage . Joyner conceded that it was he who
3 Local #1150, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, et al. (Cory
Corporation), 84 NLRB 972; International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, et al
( Purnell and Crum, et al. ), 98 NLRB 284.
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spoke to officials of Bechtel regarding the failure to hire the
four men sent out by Local 595 and Sanders, that it was he who
advised the ironworkers congregated in the yard regarding the
results of this discussion, and that it was he who asked Brown
if he wanted to quit with the rest of the men and swore at
Brown when Brown refused. Yet, despite the fact that Joyner
was admittedly the sole union representative on the job at the
time and obviously the most active union participant in the
events of September 14, his testimony is that, with respect to
the ultimate decision to quit, he did not suggest that the men
strike or go home, but that they determined to do so on an
individual basis and he merely indicated a similar disposition.
We are unable to square the doffing by Joyner of the role of
leader, which he had maintained throughout the morning of
September 14 until this rather psychological moment, and his
sudden assumption of the part of follower with his subsequent
questioning of Brown as to whether Brown was going to quit
also and his severe castigation of Brown for his refusal to go
along with the other ironworkers. This is not the sort of
conduct which is reasonably to be expected from one who main-
tains that he passively concurred in the decision of others. In
view of the foregoing, even if our determin£tion as to whether
the men left the job on September 14 voluntarily or upon
Joyner's instructions was limited to the portions of the testi-
mony of Brown and Joyner wherein they agree, the evidence is
extremely persuasive that the men quit in response to Joyner's
order that they do so . However, when the testimony of each of
these witnesses is considered in its entirety this conclusion
becomes inescapable because we believe that, to the extent that
their versions differ as to what occurred, Brown 's testimony
must be credited. We find, therefore, that Local 595 and Sanders
were responsible for the work stoppage of September 14 which
was caused by Joyner as their agent.
(b) The picket line
Bechtel contends that the following evidence shows that the
picket line was established and maintained by Local 595 and
Sanders: (1) The testimony of its witnesses that the entrance
to the plant was blocked and groups of men consisting princi-
pally of ironworkers in numbers as high as 300 were present
at the intersection during the period from September 15 to
October 13, 1953; (2) a tent ownedby Local 595 was in the area
of the road intersection during this period and it could have been
there only for the convenience of members of Local 595 on the
picket line; (3) 12 canceled checks of Local 595 payable to
various restaurants in Joppa and vicinity and 1 payable to a
member of Local 595 on another job were produced. All these
checks were drawn during the period from September 28 to
October 20, 1953. All, except 3 dated October 13, 1953, when
the temporary restraining order was issued, bore notations
LOCAL 595 , INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 831
indicating that they covered disbursements for food or expenses
in connection with a picket line or strike , despite denials by
officials of Local 595 that Local 595 had any strike or picket
line within its territorial jurisdiction during this period; (4) on
September 22 and 23, 1953, on 9 different occasions "spot"
announcements were broadcast from a local radio station
stating: "To all iron workers employed or unemployed in the
jurisdiction of Iron Workers Local 595 --Be at Joppa Plant at
6:30 a. m. Wednesday , September 23, as usual , repeat - signed
W. B. Sanders , Iron Workers Local 595." These announcements
were given to the station by Sanders andpaid for by Local 595.
According to Bechtel , as Sanders had been advised of the
establishment of Local 758 on September 21, 1953, the only
reasonable inference to be drawn is that Sanders believed that
the membership of Local 595 might recognize the authority of
the International and those members who had been reporting to
the Joppa picket line "as usual " might discontinue doing so
and the broadcasts were intended as an order to them to dis-
regard the action and instructions of the International and to
continue the picket line "as usual "; (5) the office secretary of
Local 595 resigned on October 14, 1953, and the next day
appeared as a picket at the intersection carrying a sign reading
that Bechtel ' s office employees were not members of an office
employee's union -- the inference which Bechtel suggests should
be drawn is that the former office secretary was acting under
instructions of Local 595 , but in a manner which would enable
Local 595 to disavow responsibility for her conduct ; (6) Sanders'
admission at the hearing that at the meeting of September 15,
1953, with officials of Bechtel and representatives of the Inter-
national he did not deny the statement of a Bechtel official that
on September # 15 Local 595 had established a picket line at
Bechtel's project, and that he was ordered by the International
to remove the picket line; and (7 ) the testimony of the Inter-
national ' s vicepresident that Sanders was brought up on charges
before the International on October 24, 1953, that a portion of
the first specification of the charges read that Sanders refused
to carry out an order that all pickets and barricades set up by
members of Local 595 be removed from the Joppa project, and
that Sanders plead guilty to this specification.
Local 595 and Sanders contend that the following evidence
shows that the picket line was not established and maintained
by them : ( 1) The testimony of its witnesses that the groups
present near the intersection were very small in size, that the
men engaged in various sports and games, and that no one was
prevented from entering or leaving the project ; ( 2) testimony
of 10 members of other building trade locals that they and their
fellow craftsmen , as well as farmers and local merchants, were
in the area during the period from September 15 to October 13,
1953, on various occasions on their own time and initiative to
protest Bechtel's efforts to import outside labor ; ( 3) the absence
of and proof that any individual present in the area during the
83 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
period from September 15 to October 13, 1953, carried a banner
or picket sign ; (4) Sanders' testimony that the notations on the
canceled checks were not made by him or any official of Local
595, but must have been made without instructions by steno-
graphic help in the office because he signed blank checks after
approving the bills and the checks were completed by the office
secretary; (5) testimony of the mayor of Joppa, who was also
the proprietor of one of the restaurants which received some of
the checks in payment for serving food, that he was told by
Sanders to feed anyone who was hungry and unemployed re-
gardless of whether the person was an ironworker, and he did
so; (6) testimony of Sanders that he ordered the "spot"
announcements on September 22 and 23, 1953, because he had
received the telegram from the International on September 21
announcing the establishment of Local 758, that he wanted to
advise members of Local 595 personally about the telegram, and
that he went to the road intersection on September 23 for that
purpose; (7) Sanders' denial thathe or Local 595 had any control
over, or 'gave any instructions to, the office secretary when she
resigned her job withthe Local; and (8) Sanders' testimony that,
with respect to the charges placed against him by the Inter-
national, he was not given the opportunity to plead separately
to parts of the specifications and was therefore unable to deny
responsibility on his part and the part of Local 595 for any
picketing at the Joppa plant.
In our opinion, the mere recital of the conflicting evidence
with regard to this issue establishes the responsibility of Local
595 and Sanders for the picketing. Such a finding would be
warranted if based solely upon the inherent improbability that
the notations on the canceled checks were made without the
knowledge and consent of Sanders or any other local official
and that the funds of Local 595 were disbursed to Joppa
restaurants not for the purpose of maintaining the *picket line,
but as general charity. No plausible explanation was given by
Sanders as to why the notations were made if, as he contended,
Local 595 did not have a strike or picket line within its
territorial jurisdiction at the time, and his suggestion that they
were made by some unknown person in his office without
authorization is, to say the least, very unpersuasive. More-
over, we cannot overlook the remarkable "coincidence" that,
at the very time Local 595 and Sanders assert that they were
engaged in this charitable endeavor, the Joppa job was shut down
completely and this resulted in the unemployment of a con-
siderable number of ironworkers many of whom appeared
during this period near the entrance to the project with unusual
regularity consistency. Nor can we accept the view of Local 595
and Sanders that these ironworkers were present solely out of
curiosity and for the purpose of engaging in various sports and
games.
However, if this were not enough, our credulity is strained
when we consider the foregoing in light of such of er evidence
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 833
as Sanders ' admission that at the September 15 meeting between
Bechtel and union officials he failed to controvert or deny the
accusation of Bechtel ' s representative that Local 595 had estab-
lished a picket line at Bechtel ' s project and the unlikelihood
that Sanders would order "spot" announcements only to advise
members of Local 595 personally about the International's
telegram of September 21 when to do so would require the ap-
proximately 1,100 members of the Local, many of whom were
employed at other jobs , to leave their work . We find, therefore,
upon the entire record , and particularly for the reasons here-
tofore given , that Local 595 and Sanders were responsible for
the picketing at the Joppa Job.
The Proscribed Object
As previously indicated , Bechtel contends that ( 1) with respect
to the period beginning with the work stoppage until Sep-
tember 21, 1953 , when Local 758 was established , Local 595
and Sanders sought to force Bechtel to assign work of the iron-
workers ' trade to ironworkers formerly employed by Ebasco
rather than to all other ironworkers , thatis, to one "class" as
against another " class " in violation of Section 8 ( b) (4) (D); and
(2) after the creation of Local 758 , Local 595 and Sanders sought
to compel Bechtel to assign the work of the ironworkers' trade
to employees in a particular labor organization--Local 595--
rather than to employees in another labor organization - - Local
758. Local 595 and Sanders contend that there was no "juris-
dictional " dispute within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D).
We find merit in both of Bechtel ' s contentions . However, with
respect to (1), above , we believe that it is more accurate to
qualify the view expressed by Bechtel and to say that the object
of Local 595 and Sanders was to force Bechtel to assign the
work to members of Local 595 rather than to nonmembers--to
one "class " as against another . We have held that such an
object would be proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D ). 4 Regarding
(2), above, the general vice president of the International
testified at the hearing that on September 21, 1953, a charter
was duly issued to Local 758 andthatthe functions of Local 758
are to represent its members , to bargain collectively for them
with respect to wages, hours , and working conditions, and to
process grievances and complaints , which functions Local 758
4 Local Union No. 5-265 , International Woodworkers of America , CIO (Willamette National
Lumber Company, et al.), 107 NLRB 1141 ; Teamsters Local 175 , international Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL (Biagi Fruit & Produce
Company ), 107 NLRB 223; International Longshoremen ' s Association, District Council of Ports
of Puerto Rico, AFL, et al. (Central Roig Refining Company , Inc.) 101 NLRB 77; Truck
Drivers and Chauffeurs Union , Oil Drivers and Filling Station Employees , Local Union No.
705, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Haulers of
North America , AFL (Direct Transit Lines , Inc.), 92 NLRB 1715; William Fargo , business
agent, Local 30, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, et al. (New
London Mills , Incorporated). 91 NLRB 1003.
339676 0 - 55 - 54
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is carrying on in southern Illinois . The only question is whether
under Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) local unions of the same international
are separate labor organizations . Based upon the definition of a
labor organization in Section 2 (5) of the Act - - that it "means
any organization of any kind or agency or employee representa-
tion committee or plan, in which employees participate and
which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part , of dealing
with employers concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages,
rates of pay , hours of employment , or conditions of work"--the
answer to this question must be definitely in the affirmative,
and we so find.
Having rejected the contention made by Local 595 and Sanders,
we conclude that the record before us establishes that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Local 595 and Sanders in-
duced and encouraged the employees of Bechtel to engage in a
concerted refusal to perform services in order to force or
require Bechtel to assign work of the ironworkers ' trade to
(a) members of Local 595 rather than to nonmembers and (b)
members of Local 595 rather than to members of Local 758.
Such factual circumstances are sufficient to invoke the Board's
jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute within the meaning
of Sections 10 (k) and 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. We find that this
is a dispute within the meaning of Sections 10 (k) and 8 (b) (4)
(d) of the Act and that it is properly before us for determination.
D. Merits of the dispute
It is clear from the record that Local 595 and Sanders have
no immediate or derivative rights under any existing contract
upon which they could predicate any lawful claim to the work in
dispute . Nor does it appear that Bechtel is failing to conform
to any order or certification of the Board determining the bar-
gaining representative for the employees performing the work
in dispute . Furthermore , there is no question that Bechtel
desired to assign the work at first to a group of specifically
named ironworkers who were not members of Local 595 and
later to members of one labor organization rather than to
members of another labor organization.
The Board has held that Sections 8 (b) (4) (D ) and 10 (k) "do
not deprive an employer of the right to assign work to his own
employees , nor were they intended to interfere with an em-
ployer's freedom to hire , subject only to requirement against
discrimination as contained in Section 8 (a) (3)." a We find,
accordingly , that Local 595 and Sanders were not lawfully
entitled to induce and encourage employees of Bechtel as
proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) for the object of forcing or
requiring Bechtel to assign the disputed work to members of
5Umted Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , et al. (Stroh Brewery Co.)
88 NLRB 844; International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, Local No. 16, C. I. 0
(Juneau Spruce Corporation ); 82 NLRB 650.
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 835
Local 595 rather than to a group of specifically designated
ironworkers or to members of Local 758. However, we are not,
by this action, to be regarded as "assigning " the work in
question to Local 758.6
Our dissenting colleague asserts that the facts of the instant
case involve an illegal hiring arrangement and that we are
approving it. We fail to see how it can be said that we are
sanctioning such an arrangement when the matter is not
before us, neither having been presented in the form of a
charge nor framed by the pleadings. We wish to make it clear
that we are not to be taken here as, in any manner, passing
upon the precise relationship between Bechtel and the Inter-
national or its locals.
DETERNUNATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
determination of dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act:
1. Local 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, and its business agent,
W. B. Sanders, are not and have not been lawfully entitled to
force or require Bechtel Corporation to assign the work of the
ironworkers' trade in connection with the Joppa Steam Electric
Generating Plant project to members of Local 595 rather than
to nonmembers of Local 595 or to members of Local 758,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL.
2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, the Respondents (Local 595 and
Sanders) shall notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth
Region in writing as to what steps the Respondents have taken
to comply with the terms of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute.
Member Murdock, dissenting:
I am compelled to disagree with my colleagues in their dis-
position of this proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act. In
a series of cases I have previously set forth my position as to
the criteria which, in my opinion, should be met before the
Board attempts to arbitrate a dispute under Section 10 (k).
These standards are summarized in the Biagi Fruit & Produce
case , 107 NLRB 223. Accordingly, Iwouldnot find that the facts
of this case constitute a "jurisdictional dispute."
Even assuming, as found by the majority, that the evidence
conclusively proves the necessary responsibility, proscribed
objective, and the existence of a "jurisdictional dispute," I
find that the facts of this case present additional obstacles to
the issuance by the Board of a "determination."
6 See footnote 2, supra
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The facts of this case, as found by my colleagues, indicate
that the Employer had an illegal hiring arrangement with Local
595, under which the Employer hired only those ironworkers
who were cleared by Local 595. Thus, initially the dispute
began when Local 595 refused to clear the six ironworkers,
whom the employer wished to hire, and attempted to force it to
hire other men who were cleared by Local 595. The Employer
then, being dissatisfied with the results of its illegal arrange-
ment with Local 595, instigated, and accomplished, the estab-
lishment of another local, Local 758, for the purpose of entering
into the same type of illegal hiring arrangement which the
Employer had with Local 595.
Under these circumstances it appears to me thatthe "deter-
mination" of the majority of my colleagues must be viewed in
the light of an approval of this illegal arrangement by the
Employer with the International Union which resulted in the
establishment of a new local, Local 758, under which the same
illegal operation which the Employer had participated in with
Local 595 would be continued. In the light of this, it seems to
me that, by making the "determination" which my colleagues
have made, they are putting the stamp of approval upon such an
illegal arrangement and that the "determination" may well be
viewed as a license to continue such unlawful activity, despite
the statement that they "are not, by this action, to be regarded
as 'assigning ' the work in question to Local 758."
The Employer has gone from one illegal hiring arrangement
with Local 595 to another unlawful arrangement with Local 758,
it now comes to the Board seeking an award relieving it from
the first arrangement , so that it may be free to continue and to
effectuate the second agreement . I donotbelieve that the Board
should permit its processes to be utilized for such purposes.
This constitutes, in my opinion, "a palpable abuse of the Board's
machinery." (See Hollywood Ranch Market, etal., 93 NLRB 1147
at 1154.) As the Board stated in Hollywood Ranch Market, it
"may, of course, refuse to allow such advantage to be taken of
it," for, as the Supreme Court stated in N. L. R. B. v. Indiana
& Michigan Electric Company, et al., 318 U. S. 9 at 18, the
Board "may decline to be imposed upon or to submit its
process to abuse."
It is true, as stated by the majority, that in this proceeding
Bechtel and the International or its locals are not charged with
being parties to an illegal hiring arrangement; Bechtel is the
charging party, and it is, as explanied above, seeking Board
assistance to relieve it from the consequences of an illegal
hiring arrangement with one local, so that it may embark on
another unlawful agreement with another local which was set up
by the International for that purpose. Neither were the charging
parties (individuals) in Holloywood Ranch Market charged with
violations. It is equally clear that Bechtel's illegal arrange-
ments with, first, Local 595, and, second, with Local 758 were
fully litigated and the facts clearly ascertained- -that is un-
mistakably evidenced by the majority's own findings of fact.
NASHUA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF TEXAS 837
For the reasons appearing above, I would quash the notice of
hearing in this case.
Member Beeson took no partintheconsiderationof the above
Decision and Determination of Dispute.
NASHUA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF TEXAS and
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-635. May 11, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 12, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent, Nashua Manufacturing Corporation of
Texas, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desisttherefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondent had not engagedin certain other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with a supporting
brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 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 recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.t
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 nrders that the Re-
spondent, Nashua Manufacturing Corporation of Texas, its
officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating applicants for employment concerning their
union affiliation, and employees concerning their union or other
concerted activities; creating or fostering the impression
among its employees that it is engaged in surveillance of
union activities and other employee concerted activities;
'In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that the union organizational campaign was in
operation during February, March, and April, 1953, and that the Respondent had knowledge of
that activity, the Board does not adopt and does not rely, however, upon any inference based
upon the size of the Employer's plant and the small number of employees.
108 NLRB No. 117.