International Brotherhood of Boilermakers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1605 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1605
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 92, AFL-CIO [Pitts-
burgh Des Moines Steel Company] and John W. Schneider.
Case No. 21-CB-878. February 13, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 18, 1957, Trial Examiner Martin Bennett issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the Intermediate Report,
a copy of which is attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondent filed its
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with the case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean].
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 Interme-
diate 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 following modifications :
1. Contrary to the Respondent, we find that Schneider's discharge
upon instigation of the Respondent would reasonably tend to encour-
age union membership. The essential purpose of the Respondent's ac-
tivity was obviously to obtain preference in employment for its own
members as against employees from outside its territorial jurisdic-
tion-in all probability members of a sister local. The evidence clear-
ly establishes Respondent's motivation. Consistent with the Radio
Officers' Union case,' we find the Respondent in violation of Section 8
(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. Under the circumstances, we con-
sider it unnecessary to decide whether Employer's or Respondent's in-
terpretation of their contract, and the possible application of rule 14
thereof, to reductions in force, was correct.
2. As the comments of the Trial Examiner concerning rule 14 are
unnecessary to our decision, we do not adopt them.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that :
IN. L. R. B . v. Radio Officers' Union, etc., 347 U. S . 17, 52. See also Koppers Com-
pany, Inc., 117 NLRB 1863, 1867.
119 NLRB No, 202.
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Respondent, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 92, AFL-
CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Causing or attempting to cause Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel
Company or any employer whose operations affect commerce, to dis-
criminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
(2) Restraining or coercing employees in the right to refrain from
engaging in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Make whole John W. Schneider for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate report entitled
"The Remedy."
(2) Post at its business office and at all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted, in conspicuous places, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 2
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region shall, after being duly signed by Respondent
Union's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt there-
of and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(3) Mail to the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
signed copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report
marked "Appendix A" for posting at the construction sites of the
Company within the jurisdiction of Respondent, the Company will-
ing, for sixty (60) consecutive days in places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice shall be fur-
nished by said Regional Director.
(4) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from this Order, what steps it has taken
to comply herewith.
2 This notice is amended by substituting for the words , "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner " the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this Order is en-
forced 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."
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1607
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding is brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 61 Stat . 136, pursuant to a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board against International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, Local 92, AFL-CIO. The
complaint, dated June 5, 1957, alleged that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. Copies
of the complaint , the charge upon which it was based, and notice of hearing thereon
were duly served upon Respondent.
The complaint alleged specifically that Respondent had attempted to cause and
did cause Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Company , herein called the Company, to
discharge John W. Schneider for a reason other than his failure to tender dues and
initiation fees uniformly required and, more particularly , for the reason that he
was a member of a sister local of Respondent 's international union rather than
of Respondent . Respondent 's duly filed answer denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Los Angeles , California on June 24 and
25, 1957, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The parties were represented
by counsel who were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce relevant evidence . At the close of the hearing
the parties were given an opportunity to argue orally and to file briefs. Oral
argument was waived and a brief has been received from Respondent.
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 COMPANY
Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Company is a Pennsylvania corporation whose main
office and place of business is in Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , where it is engaged in the
business of selling, fabricating , erecting , and installing steel '. The Company main-
tains sales offices and warehouses in various locations in the State of California
and during the course and operation of this business it ships steel products valued
in excess of $50 , 000 per annum from these California warehouses to points outside
that State . I find that the operations of the Company affect commerce and that
it would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, Local 92, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of John W . Schneider
1. The issue
Schneider was discharged by the Company on or about January 2 , 1957. The
questions posed herein are (1 ) was Schneider a rank-and-file employee rather than
a supervisor ; ( 2) did Respondent Union cause his discharge ; and (3 ) in the event
the foregoing are answered in the affirmative , was the discharge violative of Section
8 (b) (2) and 1 ( A) of the Act . To be considered as bearing on the ultimate issue
is the absence of a union -security clause in the contract between Respondent and
the Company as well as the presence in the contract of a clause restricting the
employment of mechanics who fall within the territorial jurisdiction of sister locals
of Respondent.
2. Background
The Company commenced the construction of a wind tunnel at El Segundo,
California , in approximately March of 1955. The tunnel was a large one some 300
feet in length with a width of 80 feet at its widest point. Boilermakers were the
initial craft utilized and at the peak of construction some 35 to 40 boilermakers
were employed on the project . At the time material herein, January 2 , 1957, the
number had dropped substantially ; it was variously estimated as 10 or 11 and from
6 to 10 in number. Although the precise date is not provided , it appears that the
1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
project, or at least this phase of it, was completed within the 2-month period
preceding the instant hearing.
Schneider was a member of a sister local of Respondent in Seattle, Washington,
and was brought down to the project by Martin Groff, originally boilermaker
foreman but, at the time material herein, superintendent of the entire project. He
had previously worked for Groff who, as he testified, considered him the best
mechanic he had. Schneider commenced work on this wind tunnel project in
May or June of 1955 and worked steadily until his termination on or about
January 2, 1957.
Schneider was classified as a "pusher or assistant foreman." His immediate su-
perior was Foreman Schuldt who in turn was beneath Groff. The testimony of
Groff is not entirely clear on the subject, but it appears that at one time the project
had as many as four assistant foremen, the classification of Schneider. Groff also
testified that 2 or 3 assistant. foremen were probably on the job at the time material
herein, this total presumably including Schneider. He also referred to not cutting
back the pay of assistant foreman, despite the reduction in the work force, pre-
sumably a reference to retaining them at the higher rate of $3.70 per hour, although
they had no men classified as ordinary boilermakers working with them, and ex-
pressed the belief that one or two journeymen were then working under Schneider.
3. Contractual relationship between the parties
Respondent Union and the Company are signatories to a contract dated Octo-
ber 3, 1956, which was in effect at the time material herein. This contract estab-
lished a wage rate for boilermakers of $3.45 per hour and also provided a wage
rate of $3.70 for "Assistant Foreman (Leadman)" and $3.95 for foremen. I as-
sume, and there is no evidence to the contrary that Schneider was paid at the rate
of $3.70 at all times material herein.
Rule 2 of the contract covers the "hiring of men" and Respondent is therein
recognized as the bargaining representative for all employees performing boiler-
maker work. With respect to union security, the contract provides only that the
employer shall notify the appropriate local union, i. e., the local within whose geo-
graphical jurisdiction the job falls, of the number of employees needed for jobs and
that the local shall duly supply the most competent men available, with past work
performance being the determining factor. This rule further provides as follows:
(c) The Contractor shall have the right to determine the competency and
qualifications of its employees and the right to discharge any employee for any
just and sufficient cause, provided, however, that no employee shall be discrimi-
nated against.
(d) In the event the parties, subsequent to the signing of this agreement, are
authorized under provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act, or it is
possible by reason of an amendment or repeal thereof, to enter into an agree-
ment requiring membership in the Union as a condition of employment, or in
the event it is determined by a final judgment of a court of competent juris-
diction that such authorization is unnecessary, either party may give written
notice to the other of its desire to reopen the provisions of this agreement
affecting union security. In the event such notice is given the parties shall
meet within fifteen (15) days to negotiate such union security provisions.
I find in view of the foregoing that there is no clause in this contract requiring
membership in Respondent as a condition of employment, as permitted by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act; nor is there evidence of an understanding of this nature. One
other section of the contract, rule 14, is of interest herein; it provides as follows:
Rule 14. TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES FROM TERRITORIAL JURISDIC-
TION OF ONE LOCAL UNION TO ANOTHER
Contractor will be allowed to bring in practical mechanics of the trade from
among its regular employees on the following basis: One (1) man where
seven (7) or less are employed; two (2) where eight (8) or less than sixteen
(16) are employed and three (3) where sixteen (16) or more are employed.
As will appear, this rule played a part in the termination of Schneider. No ques-
tion is raised that Schneider was not a member in good standing with his home local
in Seattle or that he failed to comply with any regulations of Respondent concerning
transferees from sister locals.
4. The discharge
On the morning of January 2, 1957, Assistant Business Manager Harold Gillespie
of Respondent Union approached Superintendent Groff and a discussion ensued in
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1609
the yard and thereafter in the job office which resulted in the termination of Schneider
that evening; there is some conflict as to the details of this conversation.
Gillespie was accompanied by Job Steward Glen Naegle, who recalled no con-
versation in the yard. According to Groff, while they were in the yard Gillespie
brought up the termination of several boilermakers the previous week and asked
that two of them be restored to work. Groff refused, stating that he contemplated
laying off two additional men. Gillespie, in turn, pointed out that the Company
had 2 men on the payroll, Schneider and 1 other, who had been brought in from
outside Respondent's area, who were not members of Respondent, and who were,
according to Groff, "members for dues only."
Gillespie brought up the language of rule 14 claiming that it was a violation of
the contract for the Company to retain these two men who belonged to the Seattle
local because too many men from outside the area were then working for the
Company.' The position of Gillespie crystallized into a demand that 2 of the men
laid off the previous week be returned to work, or else that the 2 Seattle men, 1 of
them Schneider, be terminated. Groff asked what the alternative was and Gillespie
replied that in that event there would be a picket line at the project on the fol-
lowing day .2
At this point Groff decided to contact higher authority. The group entered the
job office and Groff attempted to telephone the field superintendent; unable to
do so, he did reach Belding. According to Belding, and I so find, Groff referred to
the layoffs of the previous week and to his intent to lay off 2 more men, and
stated that Gillespie had demanded that he lay off the 2 outside men. Groff
explained that Gillespie was predicating his demand upon rule 14 of the contract
and advised Belding that he considered the two outsiders to be two of his best
men, that he considered it in the best interest of the job to retain his best men,
and that he, Groff, did not feel that they should be terminated.
Belding asked to speak to Gillespie. He ascertained that Gillespie was in
fact demanding the termination of these two men and then asked what would
happen if the Company did not comply. Gillespie replied, "We'll have to pull
the job." Belding unsuccessfully argued for an interpretation of the contract
that rule 14 applied only to hiring and not to firing. Belding then asked to
speak to Groff and instructed him to lay off the two men in question.3
1 The record does not disclose how many other employees, if any, were members of out-
side locals. As in the case of Schneider, the other Seattle member had been brought to
the job by Groff. All other outsiders however, according to Gillespie, were members of
sister locals.
2 Gillespie's testimony agreed with that of Groff to the extent that he asked for restora-
tion of the 2 men laid off the previous week ; that he drew attention to rule 14 ; that lie
claimed it should apply to hiring as well as firing ; and that Groff replied that he had
to lay off 2 more men. Gillespie denied that he told Groff he would shut the job down.
Naegle also testified that Gillespie did not threaten to shut the job down, although his
testimony was apparently directed to the immediately ensuing conversation in the office.
I have credited the testimony of Groff for the reasons that (1) Naegle's testimony is
unimpressive because his version of what was said in the office immediately thereafter, as
set forth below, is markedly different from that of the other participants ; (2) the testi-
mony of Richard Belding, project engineer in charge of wind tunnels for the Pacific Coast
and a clear and forthright credited witness whose demeanor impressed me favorably, con-
cerning an immediately ensuing talk with Gillespie discloses an almost identical threat
of a work stoppage; (3) the further testimony of Gillespie attributes to Groff the decision
to select Schneider for discharge without a union demand for his selection, despite the
fact that Gillespie admitted bringing up rule 14, an obvious reference to Schneider, and
the further fact that Groff considered Schneider his best and most widely skilled me-
chanic, a man who should be retained, as he immediately thereafter told Belding; and
(4) Project Engineer Loss, who was in the office, credibly testified that Gillespie stated in
the office to Groff that the job would be closed down if Schneider were not discharged.
a The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of Belding which is credited in
full. It is corroborated by the testimony of Loss that Gillespie disclosed to Groff in the
office, prior to the telephone call, his intent to close the job down if Schneider were not
discharged. I do not credit the testimony of Gillespie that he did not tell Belding that
he would close the job down and the testimony of Naegle that Gillespie never threatened
to close the job down ; in this respect it is interesting to note that, according to Naegle,
"most of our beefs" on this occasion related to Superintendent Groff working with tools
and doing the work of a journeyman, clearly not the subject under discussion. I also do
not credit, in view of the foregoing, Gillespie's testimony that Groff, after talking to
Belding. said that he had to lay off two men and that it might as well be Schneider and
the other outsider. Groff's denial of this statement is credited.
0
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Groff unsuccessfully sought permission from Gillespie to keep the two men for
the remainder of the week, but did receive permission to keep them for the
remainder of the day. The two men, including Schneider, were discharged at
the close of work that day. According to Gillespie, and there is no contrary
evidence, he was motivated in this matter by unemployment among his members.
However, I find that Schneider was discharged by the Company pursuant to the
demand of Respondent because he was a member of a sister local of Respondent
rather than a member of Respondent.
5. Conclusions
(a) Supervisory status
Initially presented for decision is the issue whether Schneider was a supervisory
employee within the meaning of the Act and therefore, in this context, not
subject to its protection. I have concluded, on a preponderance of the evidence, that
this must be answered in the negative.
It is readily apparent that Schneider was one of several leadmen or pushers
who worked under a foreman and superintendent, an arrangement common to the
construction industry. According to Superintendent Groff, the job covered a
relatively large area with the result that his crew of boilermakers was spread
out in groups at different parts of the project. Although there were at the
time material herein from 6 to 11 boilermakers on the job, according to various
estimates, 2 or 3 of them including Schneider were classified as assistant foremen,
an inordinately high percentage of supervisors, were they truly such. As shown,
they were nonsalaried and received a 25-cent-per-hour differential above the
pay of journeymen.
It appears that Schneider at the time of his discharge was in a group with
1 or 2 journeymen. He either worked with the men, worked by himself, or
gave instructions, presumably as the job demanded or as he saw fit. Job instructions
were given by Superintendent Groff to the job foremen, who in turn passed them
on to the assistant foremen to be relayed to the men. Schneider had no authority
to hire employees and the record does not demonstrate that he responsibly directed
employees with the use of independent judgment.
One additional factor does tend to bring the case closer to the line. According
to Superintendent Groff, Schneider had the power to recommend discipline or
dismissal of employees. When such recommendations were made it was the policy
of Superintendent Groff to discuss the matter first with the leadman, Schneider.
Groff testified that he would not discharge a man solely because the leadman
recommended it; that he wished to analyze the situation; and that on many occasions
he simply rejected the recommendation. Groff elsewhere testified that he did not
allow an assistant foreman to discharge an employee; that when such a request
was made he, Groff, would consider the matter and discuss it; and that if he
thought the request was justified he would then authorize the discharge.
In view of the ratio of assistant foremen to employees, all of the foregoing,
including the independent investigation by the job superintendent of recommenda-
tions concerning discharge or discipline, is more indicative of the type of control
exercised over less experienced employees by more experienced help. See Minute
Maid Corporation, 117 NLRB 68; Bagwell Electric Steel Castings, Inc., 117 NLRB
1770; and New York Shipping Association, Inc., 116 NLRB 1183. It is clear that the
acceptance of recommendations on discipline and discharge here was only at the
discretion of the foreman or job superintendent. Pennsylvania Glass Sand Cor-
poration, 102 NLRB 559; Mother's Cake and Cookie Company, 105 NLRB 75; and
Continental Oil Company, 95 NLRB 358. See also New Jersey Natural Gas Com-
pany, 101 NLRB 251, 254; and Warren Petroleum Corporation, 97 NLRB 1458,
1460.
As the Board stated in the New York Shipping Association case, supra:
The Board has had frequent occasion to distinguish between strawbosses or
group leaders on the one hand and supervisors on the other, and has found that
the fact that strawbosses or group leaders are more experienced, receive slightly
higher pay, and transmit routine instructions does not convert their status from
employees to supervisors.
In a recent decision the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit drew attention to
the basic principle involved herein. N. L. R. B. v. Swift & Co., 240 F. 2d 65
(C. A. 9). The court there pointed out in footnote I as follows:
Senator Flanders authored the amendment which added to the definition of
the term "supervisor" the phrase "or responsibly to direct them." Speaking
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1611
generally of the persons § 2 (11) was intended to cover, he said: "Such men
are above the grade of `straw bosses , lead men , set-up men , and other minor
supervisory employees,' as enumerated in the report . Their essential managerial
duties are best defined by the words `direct responsibly ,' which I am suggest-
ing." 2 Leg. Hist. of the L. M. R. A. 1947, p. 1303, 93 Daily Cong. Rec. 4804
(May 7, 1947).
The conference report on the bill stated : "The Senate amendment [which
was adopted by the conference and enacted in the final bill] confined the defi-
tion of `supervisor ' to individuals generally regarded as foremen and persons
of like or higher rank." 1 Leg. Hist. of the L. M. R. A. 1947, p. 539 H. R.
510, 80th Cong., 1st sess., 35 (1947).
In view of the foregoing considerations , I conclude that Schneider was not a
supervisor and was an employee within the meaning of the Act.
(b) The merits
I have previously found that Respondent demanded that the Company discharge
Schneider for the reason that he was a member of a sister local of Respondent rather
than a member of Respondent and that as a result he was discharged.
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organi-
zation to cause an employer to discharge an employee in violation of Section
8 (a) (3). The latter section , so far as here relevant , forbids all discrimination by
an employer except pursuant to a lawful union-security contract , and then only for
nonpayment of initiation fees or dues . In this case , the contract did not contain
a union-security clause. And even if it did, the discharge of Schneider involved
the imposition of a greater degree of union security than is permitted under the
Act, because it was for a reason other than the nonpayment of dues or initiation fees.
Schneider was discharged because he was a member of a sister local of Respondent
and not of Respondent . That this would reasonably tend to encourage membership
in a labor organization , viz, Respondent , is obvious . See N. L. R. B. v. Radio
Officers' Union, etc., 347 U. S. 17.
Respondent contends , however, that Rule 14 of the contract restricted the number
of outside mechanics, i. e., nonmembers of Respondent , who could be employed by
the Company and that the demand for the discharge of Schneider constituted only
an attempt by the Respondent to compel the Company to live up to its contractual
commitment . While there may be a question of contract interpretation as to whether
rule 14 applied only to hiring and not to firing, as contended at the time by the
Company, I do not reach this issue because a more basic principle is controlling
herein.
It is understandable that a labor organization may enter into contracts for the
purpose of protecting job opportunities for its members who are residents in a job
area in preference to nonresidents . But this cannot stand in a Nation of 48 States
with free movement from State to State of workmen who are protected by the Act
which forbids all discrimination against employees except in certain narrow circum-
stances , viz, the nonpayment of initiation fees or dues , and then only under a valid
union shop. While the contract clause herein is not expressly attacked by the Gen-
eral Counsel , and on its face it does not at first blush appear to do violence to the
public policy of the Act, the application of this clause under the circumstances of
this case inevitably does , and I so find. It is well established that contracts which
oppugn the language or public policy of the Act must fall when in conflict therewith.
National Licorice Company, v. N. L. R. B., 309 U. S. 350; J. I. Case Co. v. N. L. R. B.,
321 U. S. 332; and N. L. R. B. v. Radio Officers' Union, supra.
Reduced to simplest terms, Schneider was discharged by the Company upon the
demand of Respondent because he belonged to the wrong labor organization, i. e.,
one other than Respondent , a reason not recognized under the Act as a lawful
reason therefor. I find therefore that Respondent Union caused the discriminatory
discharge of Schneider, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. I further
find that by the foregoing conduct, Respondent has restrained and coerced employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) thereof. Local 542, International Union of Operating
Engineers AFL, (Koppers Company), 117 NLRB 1863.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent , set forth in section III, above , occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Company described in section I, above, have a close,
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent Union caused the Company to discriminate
against John W. Schneider and it will be recommended that Respondent make him
whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. It
appearing that Schneider 's employment would have ended at a later undetermined
date for nondiscriminatory reasons, reinstatement will not be recommended. Said
loss of pay, based upon earnings which Schneider normally would have earned from
the date of the discrimination against him , January 2 , 1957, to the date his employ-
ment would otherwise have terminated , less net earnings , shall be computed in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
See N. L. R. B. v. Seven - Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U. S. 344.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, Local 92, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By causing an employer to discriminate against John W. Schneider in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (2) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct , Respondent Union has restrained and coerced
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF PITTSBURGH DES MOINES STEEL COMPANY AND TO
ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP
BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 92, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Company
or any other employer whose operations affect commerce to discriminate against
any employee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in the right to refrain from engag-
ing in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement executed in conform-
ity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make whole John W. Schneider for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS,
IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS
AND HELPERS, LOCAL 92, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.