International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1011
essentially no more than a redraft intended to conform the
written contract to the actual agreement of the parties. For this
reason, we find that the contract involved in this case was
arrived at, reduced to writing, and duly executed on September
17, and that it constitutes a bar to the petition.
But in any event, whether the document signed on September
18, 1953, be regarded as merely a textual revision or as a new
and revised agreement, the petition is barred. For the Board
has held that once an agreement is duly executed, it normally
remains a bar for the duration of its proper term, 10 and that
the parties may by mutual assent renegotiate or modify any of
its provisions without thereby rendering it vulnerable to a
pending rival claim or petition." At best, such a modification
is what took place here. In the light of the entire record, we
shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
10 We note that the contract involved in this proceeding is for a 3-year term. As the issue
was neither material to, nor litigated in, this proceeding, we do not determine whether the
contract might serve as a bar during the third year of its term. Normally the contract would
serve as a bar at least during its first 2 years. See Reed Roller Bit Company, 72 NLRB 927.
11 Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 94 NLRB 54.
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and NICHOLAS J. FORTE and HARBOR
SHIP MAINTENANCE CO., Party to the contract
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and MARIO GARAFOLO and HARBOR SHIP
MAINTENANCE CO., Party to the contract
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and JOSEPH MATKOWSKI and HARBOR
SHIP MAINTENANCE CO., Party to the contract
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and MARIO GARAFOLO and C A M D E N
BOILER CLEANING & MAINTENANCE CO., Party to the
contract
107 NLRB No 212.
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and JOSEPH MATKOWSKI and CAMDEN
BOILER CLEANING & MAINTENANCE CO., Party to the
contract. Cases Nos. 4-CB-164,4-CB-165,4-CB-166,4-CB-
167, and 4-CB-168. January 29, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed on February 17, 1953, by Nicholas J.
Forte, Mario Garafolo, and Joseph Matkowski, individuals, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint
dated April 15, 1953, against Local 803, International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of
America, AFL, herein called the Respondent or the Union,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called
the Act. Copies of the charges and complaint together with notice
of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent, the charging
partie's and the two employers herein involved, Harbor Ship
Maintenance Co., herein. called Harbor Ship, and Camden Boiler
Cleaning & Maintenance Co., herein called Camden Boiler.
The complaint alleged in substance that by enforcing an
unlawful agreement and arrangement relating to hiring of em-
ployees, the Respondent caused the aforementioned Employers
discriminatorily to discharge and refuse employment to the
charging Parties in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
On April 21, 1953, the Respondent filed an answer denying the
principal allegations of the complaint. The Respondent also
affirmatively alleged that such action as the Employers might
have taken affecting the employment of the charging Parties
was justified pursuant to lawful and effective union-security
provisions in the Union's collective-bargaining agreements
with the Employers and that under such provisions the Union
was within its rights in requesting the discharge of the charging
Parties.
Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing was held in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 16, 1953, before C. W.
Whittemore, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were
represented and participated in the hearing. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. Without objection, the Trial Examiner granted the
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1013
General Counsel's and the Union's motions to conform the
pleadings to the proof in formal matters.
At the close of the General Counsel's case, the Respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved
ruling on the motion. At the close of the hearing, the parties
argued orally before the Trial Examiner, and subsequently they
filed briefs . During the course of the hearing , and in his Inter-
mediate Report, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other
motions and on the admission of evidence . The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On September 9, 1953, the Trial Examiner issued his Inter-
mediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the
parties. In the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found
that the Respondent had not engaged in any unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, and
recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent
filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board has considered all the exceptions and, to the
extent indicated hereinafter finds them to have merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS CONCERNED
A. Harbor Ship Maintenance Co.
This concern is owned and operated by Joseph Subnick, with
principal office and place of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania . It performs ship cleaning and general main-
tenance work on seagoing vessels. During 1952 it performed
total services valued at about $ 87,000, of which services valued
at about $27,000 were performed outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania . Such services were performed on oceangoing
vessels which transport oil and cargo to various parts of the
United States and foreign countries.
We find that Harbor Ship is engaged in commerce, within the
meaning of the Act.
B. Camden Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance Co.
Camden Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance Co. is a copartner-
ship, organized to do business in Pennsylvania andNew Jersey,
with its principal office and place of business in Camden, New
Jersey, where it is engaged in the business of boiler cleaning
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and maintenance of seagoing vessels. Most of Camden Boiler's
work is done under subcontract. In 1952 it performed services
valued at about $ 39, 000 for A. Moe & Co., a Pennsylvania corpo-
ration which itself is in the business of making ship repairs and
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. During
the same year Camden Boiler also performed services valued
at about $19,000 for General Engineering Works, in
Philadelphia, a concern which also does ship repairs and is
engaged in commerce.
We find that Camden Boiler is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 803 , International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders and Helpers of America, AFL, is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the two Employers
above described.
THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events
The Employers have dealt with the Respondent as the
collective -bargaining representative of their employees since
1947. At sometime, undetermined in the record, they joined
Delaware River Ship Repair and Maintenance Association, an
association of employers formed primarily for the purpose of
joint bargaining with labor organizations . Contracts negotiated
by the Association are signed individually by each employer
participating. The current collective -bargaining contracts
between the 2 Employers here involved and the Respondent were
executed on May 26, 1952, for a term expiring December 21,
1952; they were later extended to December 21, 1953. These
contracts incorporated by reference the terms of contracts
previously executed by the Respondent and 2 other members of
the Association on January 17, 1951. Among the provisions
thereby carried over into the contracts here involved, appear the
following union-security provisions:
ARTICLE III
Union Security
Sec. 1 The Company will not fill any vacancies or new
positions with other persons so long as former employees
of the Company who have been laid off by the Company
within a period of one year prior to that time and who
were in good standing at the time of lay-off, present
themselves for employment and are competent and willing
to accept employment with the Company.
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1015
Sec. 2 The Company agrees that it will not continue in
its employ for more than thirty days any employee who is
not a member of the Union , provided , however, that this
section shall not prohibit the continuance of the employ-
ment of any employee if membership in the Union is not
available to him on the terms and conditions generally
applicable to other members , or membership in the Union
was or is denied or terminated for reasons other than the
failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fee
uniformily ( sic) required as a condition of acquiring or
retaining membership.
The provisions of this section shall be effective only
from and after the holding of the necessary appropriate
elections pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act of 1947 ( commonly called Taft-Hartley
Act) and the approval of said provisions by the requisite
number of employees in each election , provided , however,
that for this section to be effective, the Union must cause
the requisite petition to be filed with the National Labor
Relations Board for conducting of the required election
within thirty ( 30) days after the date hereof.
Work in the ship-repair industry is intermittent , depending
upon the arrival of ships . For that reason the Employers here
involved have no permanent employees but hire their help on a
day-to-day basis , selecting workers from a "shape up ," which
takes place , in the case of Harbor Ship at its premises, and in
the case of Camden Boiler at the Riverside Hotel in
Philadelphia .' Sometime after bargaining relations were estab-
lished between the Union and the two Employers , the Union and
the Employers agreed to a hiring arrangement whereby men with
union books who had paid up their dues were to be hired first,
then other union men, and finally, nonunion men. 2 This procedure
'Harbor Ship has a list of 10 so-called " steady men ." These employees , all members
of the Union, are given first priority when jobs are available.
2Harbor Ship ' s manager, Subnick, testified that the hiring arrangements were stipulated
in the contract and called for him "to hire all those who carry a book from Local 803 of
that particular union , and therefore , -- if there are no other union men around, why, we can
hire anybody." He also testified that the 10 " steady men," everyone of them supposed to be
a union man, had to be hired first , then other union men that were present and, finally, if
there were no more union men around , non-union men." Subnick also testified that the
following was the general rule which his company followed : "If a man came in who had a
book, you had a preference ; regardless of whether the man was hired or not, if he didn't
have a book, he couldn 't work."
Camden Boiler 's manager, Merryfield , testified that his Company maintained an arrange-
ment or mutual agreement with the Union from 1947 until 1953 as follows : "The nature of
the arrangements that were made , that the steward was to hire union members if available.
If we needed more men to complete the job, we could hire anyone."
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was followed up to the happening of the incidents on which the
General Counsel based his complaint.
Late in January or early February 1953, the Respondent's
shop steward at Harbor Ship, Chester Ledyard, showed Subnick,
Harbor Ship ' s manager, a list containing approximately 15
names of members , including the 3 charging Parties, who had
lost good standing membership because of their nonpayment of
dues. He said to Subnick , according to his own testimony, that
"these fellows could go to work after the paid up fellows went
to work, the fellows with paid up books , but before that, they
couldn ' t go." According to Subnick ' s testimony, he also said
,,as of today, you are not to hire any of the men that hang
around the Riverside Hotel because most of them are delin-
quent in dues."
On February 15 or 16, 1953 , the 3 charging Parties heard
from Subnick ' s partner that Harbor Shipwas hiring on that day.
They went to the "shape up" at Harbor Ship, but were told by
Subnick that they could not be hired because of their dues delin-
quency . Other men were hired on that day. While Subnick could
not recall whether sufficient jobs were available to take on the
3 charging Parties if they had been in good standing in the Union,
he was definite in his testimony that the reason why he refused
them employment was their dues delinquency . Shortly there-
after, on a Sunday, Garafolo was told by Subnick to report for
work next morning with a truck he was to pick up at a garage.
After Garafolo started to work on Monday morning, he was taken
off the job because the union steward protested his employment.
As to the incidents at Camden Boiler , Garafolo was waiting
around at the Riverside Hotel on February 3, 1953, when he
was told by one Mike Kabbeko , Camden Boiler's foreman and
union steward, that he could not be hired. Later , Garafolo asked
manager Merryfield for an explanation and the latter ascer-
tained from Kabbeko that he had orders fromthe Union ' s busi-
ness agent not to hire Garafolo.
During the same month of February 1953, Matkowski was
hired by Kabbeko and worked for one day together with some
nonunion men, apparently because no union men were then
available. The job was not finished that day and he was told
by Kabbeko to report for work the following morning. When
he did so, however , he was told by Kabbeko " I'm sorry Joe.
Whitey -- that's Mr. Loughney [the Union ' s business agent] told
me to knock you off."
Subsequent to the filing of the charges herein, Garafolo and
Matkowski were given employment on a casual basis by Harbor
Ship. Forte never returned to the waterfront but went to work
elsewhere. 3
3 The findings of fact in this section are made on the basis of uncontroverted testimony
of the witnesses mentioned therein.
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1017
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that: (1) The Respondent and
the two Employers here involved were parties to an unlawful
preferential hiring arrangement; (2) section 2 of the union-
security clause in the existing collective-bargaining contract
was unlawful because it did not give employees employed on the
effective date of the contract 30 days in which to join the Union;
(3) section 2 of the union-security clause by its own terms
never became operative, because the union-security authoriza-
tion petition and election referred to in the text of the union-
security article as a precondition to the operation of the clause
were neither filed nor held; and (4) by causing the Employers to
discharge and refuse to hire the charging parties, the Respond-
ent Union violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 1 (A) of the Act because
such conduct was not sanctioned by a lawful union-security
clause.4 The Respondent asserts that its conduct was in pur-
suance of a lawful union-security clause and is protected there-
by.
C. Conclusions
Article III of the relevant contract has two sections dealing
with union security. Section I states that the Employer will not
fill any vacancies with other persons so long as former em-
ployees laid off within 1 year prior to that time are available,
provided that they were in good standing in the Union at the
time of layoff. On its face, this section extends an unlawful
preference in hiring to members in good standing in the Union.
Although the General Counsel has not specifically attacked the
validity of section 1, this provision is before us and we must
consider it in deciding upon the validity of the union-security
clause as a whole. It is also clear, and we find, that the Respond-
ent Union and the two Employers have in practice agreed upon
and are carrying out a hiring arrangement whereby preference
hiring is given first to members of the Union in good standing,
then to members of the Union not in good standing, and finally to
nonunion members. This sort of preferential hiring arrange-
ment goes beyond the limited form of union security permitted
by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and is unlawful. We so find.'
4The Trial Examiner found erroneously that the General Counsel had conceded that the
provisions of the union-security clause were lawful. Although the General Counsel did make
such a concession early in the hearing, he withdrew it before the close of the case. The
Trial Examiner was also in error in finding that the General Counsel had conceded that the
Union had filed with the Board a "union shop" authorization petition in January 1951. The
record does not show any such concession by the General Counsel, nor do the Board's
records contain any evidence of such filing.
5 We reject the Trial Examiner's finding that there is no substantial or credible evidence to
show that hiring was done "in any other fashion than is provided for by the current agreement,
and as described by the union's business agent." The uncontradicted evidence of responsible
representatives of the Employers is that the hiring practice followed is as set out above.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Assuming that section 2 of article III, which deals with union
security, might be lawful when considered alone, 6 we are con-
fronted here by section 1 which is unlawful per se, implemented
by the hiring practice which is also unlawfu . Thus, the licit and
the illicit union-security provisions and practices are so inter-
woven as to taint all provisions of article III of the contract
dealing with union security . For this reason , we find that under
the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, article III of the 1952
contract is not available as a defense to the discrimination
practiced against the charging Parties by Camden Boiler and
Harbor Ship at the behest of the Respondent.
Accordingly , we find that by entering into and enforcing an
agreement or arrangement with Camden Boiler and Harbor Ship
for the preferential hiring of members of the Respondent, and
by causing the companies to refuse to hire and to discharge the
charging Parties pursuant thereto, the Respondent Union violated
Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.I
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Em-
ployers, described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among
the several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and
(2) of the Act , we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
We shall order the Respondent to make Nicholas J. Forte,
Mario Garafolo , and Joseph Matkowski whole for any loss of pay
suffered by them as the result of the Union ' s unlawful conduct,
by paying to them of a sum of money equal to the amounts they
would normally have earned as wages from the dates the dis-
criminations occurred to the dates they were or will be rein-
stated by the Employers in accordance with the Employers' nor-
mal business operations . In computing the amount of back pay
due to the 3 charging Parties for these periods , the customary
formula of the Board set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 , shall be applied. As the Trial Examiner did not
6Cf. Al Massera , 101 NLRB 837 N L. R. B. v . United Electrical , Radio & Machine
Workers of America, Local 622 (Stupakoff Ceramic & Mfg ), 203 F . 2d 673 (C. A. 3), setting
aside 98 NLRB 664.
7International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, Local 10 , ILWU, 102 NLRB
907; Local 13, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of
America , AFL, 105 NPRB 339.
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1019
find that the Respondent Union discriminated against Forte,
Garafolo, and Matkowski, the period from the date of the Inter-
mediate Report to the date of the Order herein shall, in accord-
ance with our usual practice, be excluded in computing the
amount of back pay due them.-' We shall further provide that the
Union may terminate its liability for further accrual of back
pay to any or all of the 3 charging Parties, by notifying the 2
employers herein involved that it has no objections to their
reinstatement. The Union shall not thereafter be liable for any
back pay accruing after 5 days from the giving of such
notice. 9
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Harbor Ship Maintenance Co. and Camden Boiler Cleaning
and Maintenance Co. are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 803, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship builders and Helpers of America, AFL, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By causing the aforementioned Employers to discriminate
against employees and prospective employees in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees and prospective
employees of the two Employers herein involved in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in and is 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 prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
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 Respond-
ent, Local 803, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, AFL, its officers,
agents, successors, or assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Entering into or enforcing a preferential hiring agreement
or arrangement with Harbor Ship Maintenance Co., or Camden
Boiler Cleaning and Maintenance Co., their officers, agents,
8 Utah Construction Co., 95 NLRB 196.
9 Pinkerton's Detective Agency, Inc., 90 NLRB 205.
102 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
successors , or assigns , except to the extent permitted by
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Harbor Ship Maintenance
Co., or Camden Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance Co., their offi-
cers , agents, successors , or assigns , to discriminate against
employees or prospective employees in violation of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
( c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees or
prospective employees of Harbor Ship Maintenance Co., or
Camden Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance Co. in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment as authorized by 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 Harbor Ship Maintenance Co. and Camden Boiler
Cleaning & Maintenance Co. in writing , and furnish copies
thereof to Nicholas J. Forte, Mario Garafolo , and Joseph
Matkowski, that Nicholas J. Forte, Mario Garafolo, and Joseph
Matkowski or any other qualified employee will not be denied
employment because of membership or nonmembership in the
Respondent except to the extent authorized by Section 8 ( a) (3) of
the Act. Said notification shall contain a statement to the effect
that the Respondent has no objection to the employment of the
aforementioned Nicholas J. Forte, Mario Garafolo , and Joseph
Matkowski by the aforementioned Harbor Ship Maintenance Co.
and Camden Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance Co.
(b) Make whole Nicholas J. Forte, Mario Garafolo, and Joseph
Matkowski for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in
section V entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post in conspicuous places at the business offices of the
Respondent , and at the Riverside Hotel, Second and Walnut
Streets, Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , the management of the
hotel willing , and in all places where notices or communications
to its members are customarily posted, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." i° Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth
Region, shall , after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for the Fourth Region signed
copies of the notice, attached hereto as Appendix "A," for
10 In 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 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILE$MAKERS 1021
posting, the Employers willing, on the bulletin boards of the em-
ployers, at their places of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Such notices are to be posted and maintained for a period
of sixty (60) consecutive days after receipt by the Employers.
Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an offi-
cial representative of the Respondent, be forthwith returned to
the Regional Director for said posting.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
.NOTICE
TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OFBOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, AND TO ALL
EMPLOYEES AND PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES OF HAR-
BOR SHIP MAINTENANCE CO. and CAMDEN BOILER
CLEANING & MAINTENANCE CO.
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our members
and the employees of Harbor Ship Maintenance Co. and Camden
Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance Co. that:
WE WILL NOT enter into or enforce a preferential hiring
agreement or arrangement with Harbor Ship Maintenance
Co., or Camden Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance Co., their
officers , agents, successors , or assigns , except to the
extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Harbor Ship
Maintenance Co. or Camden Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance
Co., their officers , agents, successors, or assigns, to
discriminate against Nicholas J. Forte, Mario Garafolo,
and Joseph Matkowski , or any other employee or pro-
spective employee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees or prospective employees of Harbor Ship Main-
tenance Co . or Camden Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance Co.
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
337593 0 - 55 - 66
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make Nicholas J. Forte, Mario Garafolo, and
Joseph Matkowski whole for any loss of pay suffered by
them as a result of our having prevented their employment
by Harbor Ship Maintenance Co. or Camden Boiler
Cleaning & Maintenance Co.
WE WILL notify Harbor Ship Maintenance Co. and
Camden Boiler Cleaning & Maintenance Co. that we have
no objection to Nicholas J. Forte, Mario Garafolo, and
Joseph Matkowski being employed by them in the course
of their ordinary business operations.
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL
Dated ................ By ....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from
the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
DETERGENTS, INC. UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-
1934. January 29, 1954
DECISION , ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent
election signed on May 15 , 1953, by Detergents , Inc., here
called the Employer, and by United Gas, Coke and Chemical
Workers, CIO, here called the Petitioner, which stipulation
was approved by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 28, 1953,
among employees of the Employer in the unit described in the
aforementioned stipulation. Following the election, a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that 116
ballots were case in the election; that 44 ballots were cast for,
and 59 ballots against, the Petitioner, and that 13 ballots were
challenged.
On May 29, 1953, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional
Director thereafter investigated the objections, and, on August
14, 1953, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on
objections . In his report, the Regional Director recommended
that the election be set aside and that the proceeding be re-
manded for the purpose of conducting a new election. Within
the proper time therefore, the Employer filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report.
107 NLRB No. 225.