International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1611 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1611
to a present claim for recognition and that a question of representa-
tion has arisen which should be resolved by an election? The Union's
motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees at the Employer's plant in Portland, Oregon, ex-
cluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Member Fanning dissents from the majority's finding that the Union's picketing is
for immediate recognition. In his opinion, the Union's picketing and related activities
were for organizational purposes. He would therefore dismiss the petition.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 52 and Associated Engineers Inc. and Mechanical Con-
tractors Association of New Jersey Inc. Cases Nos. 22-CD-7
and 22-CD--8. June 05, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING
On August 15, 1957, and various subsequent dates Associated En-
gineers Inc. and Mechanical Contractors Association of New Jersey
Inc. filed charges and amended charges with the Regional Directors for
the Second Region and the Twenty-second Region, alleging that In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 52,
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, the Regional
Director for the Twenty-second Region investigated the charges and
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. The hearing
was held at Newark, New Jersey, on various dates from January 13 to
March 17, 1958, before Edward F. Ryan, hearing officer. 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. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in the case, and upon consideration of the
briefs filed by the parties, the Board makes the following:
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean,
and Fanning].
120 NLRB No. 209.
1612 -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Associated Engineers Inc. and Mechanical Contractors Associa-
tion of New Jersey Inc . are each engaged in commerce within the
meaning. of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 52, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. In July 1957 Associated was working on a construction project
(the Gregory Avenue School) for the Board of Education of West
Orange, New Jersey, and decided to use an electric welding machine.
Such a machine is customarily installed or "hooked up" to a source of
electric power by an electrical contractor. Accordingly, Associated
ordered electrical contractor Carl Schultz Inc. to make the hookup.
Schultz had an agreement with the Respondent Union, providing in
part that the installation of power should be performed by union mem-
bers (section 15A), and that when maintenance of electric welding
machines was "required because of the use of such equipment by any
other contractor," the maintenance should likewise be done by union
members, in the ratio of not more than six machines per union member
(section 15B).
The record here shows that an electric welding machine rarely needs
maintenance. When it does; it is not an on-the-spot or field job for
even a skilled electrician, but must be returned to the manufacturer.
Associated therefore employed no one for the purpose of maintaining
the machine. Ray Greeley, the Union's assistant business- manager,
nevertheless told William Provost, Associated's foreman, that there
would be trouble unless section 15B was lived up to and it was agreed
to put a standby maintenance man and member of the Union on the
machine. The Union's position was corroborated by Joseph Snyder, a
long-time journeyman 'electrician employed by Schultz at the project
and a union member; Snyder told Associated that the Union wanted
an agreement for a standby maintenance man on the welder before the
hookup would be made.
After 11 days the needed hookup had not been made, apparently
because no one would agree with the Union to employ a standby main-
tenance man. On August 6, when Snyder and the other union elec-
trician were on vacation from the job, Associated had its own main-
tenance man make the hookup, and the welding machine was put into
operation . A week later Snyder returned to the job and discovered
that the hookup had been made. He thereupon, on August 14, cut
or disconnected the hookup and certain other wires , idling employees
of Associated (not only the employee who operated the welder but
also, briefly, other steamfitters ), and Snyder and the other electrician
thereupon quit the job . There is no competent evidence that the Union
authorized these actions; the testimony is that they merely resulted
from personal decisions , and that Schultz acquiesced.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF 'ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1613
On the next day, August 15, the Board of Education held a'meeting
of the parties involved, to get the work going again. Louis Vehling,
the Union's business manager, stated that the electricians would not
return to work and the hookup would not be made until Schultz lived
up to its agreement for employment of a standby union member because
of the use of an electric welding machine by Associated. Toward the
end of the month, the Board of Education agreed to p`ay for the
standby electrician and meet the Union's other demands; the elec-
tricians returned and, the welding proceeded to completion.
Associated thereupon filed the original 8 (b) (4) (D) charge in
this case. On December 9, 1957, the Regional Director issued a notice
of 10 (k) hearing, stating that the hearing would be upon "conflicting
claims" over the assignment of the work tasks of maintaining electric
-welding, machines. The notice of hearing was not served on any
labor organization except the Respondent Union, and no one in fact
asserts that there is any work in existence involving so-called "main-
tenance" of the electric welding machine on the job.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Charging Parties contend principally that they ' do not- do any
maintenance work on the electric welding machines they use, and
therefore do not assign such work to ' any employees at all .2 They
make no express argument that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) covers the
Unions' object of forcing Schultz, . or any other employer, to employ
an unneeded employee.
The Union contends principally that it was merely seeking to enforce
section 15A and B of its contract with Schultz.
APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
As we stated in Local 450, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO ( The Austin Company ), 119 NLRB 135, Section
10 (k) of the Act generally empowers and directs the Board to hear
and determine disputes over an employer 's assignment of "particular
work" to one group of employees rather than to another . However,
the Board is not authorized to hear and determine other types of
dispute. The present dispute, involving the employment of an em-
ployee for work not being done by Associated , clearly does not involve
reassignment of any work from one employee to another . It is there-
fore not the type of dispute which is proscribed under Section 8 (b)
(4) (D) and which the Board is authorized to hear and determine
under Section 10 (k).
2 This fact distinguishes the present case from Cargill, Inc., 108 NLRB 313, cited by
the Charging Parties, for there an object of the unions was to force the employer to re-
assign work he was then doing
1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that, even assuming union responsibility for the work
stoppages, the Union did not have a proscribed object within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D). Accordingly, we find that we
are without authority to determine the present dispute, and shall
quash the -notice of hearing issued in this proceeding.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
Beth E. Richards d/b/a Freightlines Equipment Company and
William R. Bray. Case No. 4-CA-1508. June 25, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 2,1957, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending' that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief and the Respondent filed a ,brief in reply.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this 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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent did not violate
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by replacing the Charging Party
and 10 other employees named in the complaint with former em-
ployees, at the request of Local Union 229, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
In so doing, the Trial Examiner found that the replacement was not
based on considerations of union membership or loyalty but on con-
siderations of employment seniority which the Respondent ascertained
from its own records. He, therefore, concluded that the replacement
did not constitute discrimination which would encourage union mem-
bership within the meaning of the Act. As the evidence persuades
us that the Respondent replaced the employees in question in order to
give their jobs to members of Local 229, we find that the Respondent
discriminated against the replaced employees so as to encourage mem-
120 NLRB No. 194.