International Brotherhood of Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 952 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
received a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the Inter-
venor as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Western Mechanics Local 700, International
Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers as the designated collective-
bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer in the
unit found appropriate.]
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , LoCAL 182, UTICA, NEW YORK
AND VICINITY , AFL, and HAROLD R . JONES. Case No. 3-CB-214.
March 16,1955
Decision and Order
On October 19, 1954, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications indicated
hereinafter.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by maintaining in collabo-
ration with The Lane Construction Corporation, a discriminatory
hiring practice based on union membership or clearance, by notifying
employees Jones and Zupan that they would be discharged because
they were not members of the Respondent and by causing the Com-
pany to discharge them for this reason.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find, contrary to the Respondent's con-
tention, that the Respondent was responsible for the acts of Parks in
maintaining the discriminatory conditions of employment at the con-
struction site and causing the discharges in question. Whether or not
Parks was formally appointed by officials of the Respondent as the
steward on the job, the record establishes that, to. the Respondent's
knowledge, Parks was the acting steward performing the usual func-
tions of that office. Thus, Citro, the Respondent's business agent, testi-
fied that Parks was an acting steward on the job who handled griev-
111 NLRB No 156.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 953
antes and that Parks checked the union books of new employees. In
addition, Parks credibly testified that, among other things, since he
began working on the job he filled the Company's requests for em-
ployees through Citro and the Respondent's office; that he signed up
new members for the Respondent; and that he checked union books
of employees to see that they were paid up and remitted the moneys
,collected from them to the Respondent.
In these circumstances, we find, in agreement with the Trial Exam-
iner, that the Respondent was responsible for Parks' conduct as acting
steward' and that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (b) (1)
(A) and (2) of the Act .2
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 Respondent, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local 182, Utica, New York and Vicinity, AFL, its officers,
representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Maintaining with The Lane Construction Corporation, or any
other employer, any employment practice or arrangement which re-
quires membership in, or clearance by, the Respondent as a condition
of employment, unless such practice or arrangement is permitted by
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
'In view of this determination , we find it unnecessary to consider whether Parks' acts
should be imputed to the Respondent solely because the Respondent 's bylaws prohibit
members from working with nonmembers , unless authorized to do so
2 Like the Trial Examiner, we have also considered and hereby reject the Respondent's
contention that its back-pay liability should be abated for the period between June 5, 1954,
when it notified the Company that it had no objection to the employment of Jones and
Zupan, and July 8, 1954 , when the Board modified its earlier rule and required that such
notice be given to the dischargees . Whatever merit there appears to be in the Respondent's
contention , we must consider not only that which is equitable for the Respondent, but
that which is equitable for the affected employees. The Company did not notify Jones
and Zupan that the Respondent had withdrawn its objection, and until September 14, 1954,
they were unaware that the Respondent had no objection to their employment with the
Company. Accordingly, we are constrained to hold that the more equitable remedy favors
the dischargees' full restitution for any loss of pay they may have suffered from February
18, 1954, the date of their discharge , to September 14, 1954, when the Respondent notified
them that it had no objection to their employment by the Company. See Local Union 595,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL
( R Clinton Construction Company ), 109 NLRB 73.
In addition to computing the back pay due Jones and Zupan in accordance with the
Woolworth formula, as provided in the Intermediate Report, the Respondent shall deduct
from the amount payable to Jones and Zupan such sums as would normally have been
deducted from their wages for deposit with State and Federal agencies on account of social
security and other similar benefits. The Respondent shall pay to the appropriate State
and Federal agencies to the credit of Jones and Zupan, and The Lane Consti uction Corpo-
ration, a sum of money to the amount which, absent discrimination, would have been de-
posited to such credit by the Company, either as a tax upon the Company or on account
-of deductions made from Jones' and Zupan's wages by the Company, on account of such
social security of other similar benefits Pen and Pencil Workers Union, Local 19593,
AFL (Parker Pen Company), 91 NLRB 883
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Threatening or otherwise notifying employees of The Lane
Construction Corporation, or any other employer, that they will lose
their jobs because they are not members of the Respondent, unless
permitted by an agreement or arrangement authorized by Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
(c) Causing or attempting to cause The Lane Construction Cor-
poration, or any other employer, to discriminate against employees or
applicants for employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
(d) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees 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 employment, 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) Make Harold R. Jones and Joseph Zupan whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report
entitled "The Remedy," as modified in the Board's decision.
(b) Post at its office and meeting halls in Utica, New York, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." I Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for the Third Region. signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix," for posting,
The Lane Construction Corporation willing, by the Company on the
Little Falls project, for sixty (60) consecutive days, in places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be forth-
with returned to said Regional Director for such posting.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3In 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."
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Appendix
955
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 182, UTICA, NEW YORK AND VICINITY, AFL : AND TO ALL
EMPLOYEES OF THE LANE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify all employees that:
WE WILL NOT maintain with The Lane Construction Corpora-
tion, or any other employer, any employment practice which re-
quires membership or clearance as a condition of employment,
unless such practice is permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten or otherwise notify employees that they
will lose their jobs because they are not members, unless permitted
by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause The Lane Construction
Corporation, or any other employer, to discriminate against em-
ployees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
in the exercise of 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
employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make Harold R. Jones and Joseph Zupan whole for
any loss of pay suffered as result of the discrimination against
them.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 182, UTICA, NEW YORK AND
VICINITY, AFL,
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.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint herein alleges that the Union has violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, by being a
party to and enforcing a practice or agreement with The Lane Construction Corpora-
tion, which practice or agreement required that the Company's employees have mem-
bership in or clearance by the Union as a condition of their employment; threaten-
ing Harold R Jones and Joseph Zupan, company employees, with loss of employment
because of their nonmembership and lack of clearance; and for the same reasons
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
causing and attempting to cause termination of employment of Jones and Zupan.
The answer denies the allegations of unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before me at Herkimer, New York, on September 14, 1954.
Pursuant to leave granted to all parties, a brief was thereafter filed by the Union,
the time to do so having been extended.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It was stipulated and I find that the Company, a Connecticut corporation with its
main business office in Meriden, Connecticut, is engaged in road, budge, and airport
construction. The Little Falls Project, which is involved herein, is covered by a
contract with the New York State Thruway Authority, the total of such contract being
more than $7,000,000. During the 12-month period preceding the hearing the
Company engaged in construction in the States of Massachusetts, New York, and
Maine, and at the time of this hearing the Company was engaged in construction
work at the Westover Air Base, Chicopee, Massachusetts, under a contract of more-
than $7,000,000 with the United States Corps of Engineers, and at another New York_
State Thruway project under a contract of more than $1,000,000 with the New York
State Thruway Authority. I find that the Company is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
It was admitted and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act.
H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On February 14, 1954, Lake, a shovel operator employed by the Company, told
a foreman that he knew two drivers in his home town and, on authorization from
the general foreman, the foreman told Lake to have them come in. The next day,
Jones and Zupan introduced themselves to the foreman as the men Lake had men-
tioned, and were put to work as Euclid hauling unit drivers. Parks, another em-
ployee, who was a member of the Union, was then absent because of illness; but
when he returned to work on February 17, the general foreman, Parsons, told him
that two men had been hired and that he could check their books if he wanted to.
Parks approached Jones and Zupan while they were at work, and asked whether
they had a book. They answered in the negative and he told them to go to the
office for their money, that they had to loin the Union to work on that job, that if
they could get a book they could "come back" to work, and that the Union was
closed to prospective members.
Parks was a reluctant witness, but it stands uncontradicted that he told Jones and
Zupan to meet him at the garage the next morning with money for dues and initia-
tion fee and he would try to get them into the Union. On the morning of February
18, Jones and Zupan, with the money, met Parks at the garage before work time and
were told that he could not do anything for them. They testified that they then
went to the union office, of which more infra. It appears that not that day but the
next day, as Helmer, the Company' s project manager , testified, they went to the com-
pany office for their pay. Each testified that they told Helmer they had been knocked
off the job and that he replied that if they got into the Union their jobs would "be
good" there. This was confirmed on or about April 5, when Helmer told them that:
he hadn't thought they'd be out so long.
It does not appear that Parsons or the foreman on the job, who actually hired
drivers, was a member of the Union.' In Parks' absence, there was no original
exclusion of or refusal to hire Jones and Zupan. But the matter was turned over to
Parks immediately upon his return, as we have seen, and was thus treated as an
exception to the general practice concerning which Helmer testified; this exception,
and the manner in which it was handled confirm the existence of the unlawful hir-
ing practice. Although no company representative thereafter told Jones or Zupan
in haec verba that they were discharged, the discharge is quite clear. Zupan told
Parsons that Parks had said that Zupan was "through" that night since he did not
have a union book. After saying that he would see what he could do about it, Par--
sons spoke to Parks and then told Zupan that it was up to Parks whether Zupan
belonged to the Union (not, it would appear from Zupan's testimony, whether he
worked on the job). But the connection between membership in the Union and
working on the job was plain as Parsons declared that he knew that Zupan and Jones.
traveled a great distance to the job, and he would try to "help out." (Covering this
1 Cf Grove Shepherd Wilson t Kruge, Inc, at al, 109 NLRB 209
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 957
point again , Zupan testified that Parsons said that it was up to Parks concerning the
job.) Concern here was over the job; union membership was but a necessary means
to that end.
Further, when Parsons spoke to Parks about the two new men and checking their
books, he set events in motion; recognizing Parks' authority, the Company was re-
sponsible for his order that the men could not work without books. It thus was
left "up to" Parks not only whether they belonged to the Union but also whether
they could work on the job. The finality of Parks' action as far as their working
was concerned was of course emphasized when Helmer told them that their jobs
would be good if they got into the Union. All of this evidence of an unlawful hiring
practice and the action taken by the Company and the Union thereunder supports
the inference which could be drawn from mere reliance by the Company on a union
whose bylaws prohibit working with nonmembers.2
Sharply in dispute is the question whether Jones and Zupan spoke with the Union's
president and business agent, DePerno and Citro, on February 18 and thereafter,
and whether the latter two stated that they knew that the former had been "knocked
off" their jobs. Jones and Zupan were honest witnesses, their testimony in the main
standing uncontradicted, but they were confused as to dates and the alleged conver-
sations with Citro and DePerno. I find that the General Counsel has not sustained
the burden of showing affirmatively that these conversations occurred as his wit-
nesses testified. I credit Citro's and DePerno's testimony that their contact with
Jones and Zupan was earlier. Whether knowledge after the event would indicate
authorization or ratification we therefore need not consider.
The question remains concerning the Union's responsibility for Parks' acts. In
addition to the light cast on Parks' status by the events described supra, we have
the benefit of testimony concerning his activities generally. He referred to himself
as the "active" steward and testified that he had been acting as steward since his
second or third day on the job in June 1953. While we do not rely on his charac-
terization of his authority, we shall consider his activities. He testified that he tries
to follow the Union's bylaws to the best of his ability, handles grievances, and has
signed up new members for the Union when union drivers were not available for
jobs; he generally gets men who are hanging around the job or asks the Union or
Citro for drivers; and he checks drivers on the job for their union books and sees
that they are paid up.
The defense here is not that the Union is not responsible for the acts of its steward,
or that he acted beyond the scope of his authority; but that in fact he was no steward
and had no authority. Citro testified that Parks and two other drivers, whose name
he could not recall (one was recalled to him), handled grievances (contrariwise, he
testified that Helmer called him when disputes arose), and that all of the men checked
dues. The fact is, as noted, that from the time they went to work on the morning
of February 15 until Parks returned to the job on the 17th, no one asked Jones and
Zupan whether they had a union book. I credit Parks' testimony that no one else
was steward on the job, and that his own authority to act as such was never ques-
tioned. In this connection, aside from the turmoil which a practice such as Citro
described would entail, the Union's bylaws clearly call on members to show their
dues book to officers and stewards of the Union only. As for grievances, members
are required to report them to the steward immediately under penalty of refusal by
the Union to handle them. The necessity for and importance of a steward under
this setup are clear. Contrary to Citro, Helmer testified that it was Parks who called
grievances to his attention, and cited two instances.
Whether or not the usual formality in appointing a steward was followed, certain
authority was exercised; the Union's president testified and its bylaws require that
such authority be exercised with respect to checking on membership and grievances;
and the question is whether it was so exercised by Parks. Benefiting from Parks'
activities, the Union may not deny knowledge of them or responsibility for them;
certainly it has not denied such knowledge. To say that there is no steward because
DePerno, who testified that one "must be appointed," did not appoint one, is to ignore
the fact that Parks served as such. Formality may be absent; indicia are clear. We
look to substance rather than to form. As responsibility "does not rest upon either
express authority or express ratification" 3 of a steward's acts, neither does it rest on
express authority or express ratification of the acts of anyone else who, by recogni-
tion of his acts and acceptance of the benefits derived therefrom, is impliedly held
out as the Union's representative empowered to act as steward.
2 Cf. The Lummus Company, 101 NLRB 1628, 1630; Construction Specialties Company,
102 NLRB 1542, 1543
'Service Trade Chauffeurs (The Howland Dry Goods Company), 85 NLRB 1037, 1039.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Called on to explain his own testimony that there was no steward on the job, Citro
offered a fanciful interpretation of Section 30 of the Union's bylaws, which provides:
"There shall be a steward at each garage or terminal where five 4 (5) or more mem-
bers of this Local are employed . " He raised no question over the words
"garage or terminal," but according to him, the word "shall" imposes no absolute
requirement; the word "should" would. Not only is that interpretation incorrect, but
Citro's command of English impels me to find that he was not sincere in offering it.
A similar requirement that "The Local shall appoint one working Steward for each
project.. ." is contained in an overall agreement which includes and is recognized
by the Union and the Company. The credible aspect of the testimony of the union
representatives belies the denial that there was a steward on the job, and as we have
seen the situation and transaction of union business require a steward's activity; and
such activity was performed by Parks.
It may be noted further that his activity and apparent authority were recognized
by the employees as indicated in the recital of his activities, supra, and by the Com-
pany as indicated when Parsons spoke to him about the two new men, and when
Helmer testified that Parks was the steward on the job. The basis for this latter con-
clusion was neither tested nor challenged after Helmer testified that he looked to
Parks as the steward to get drivers and that he did get them through Parks. There
is no evidence that the Company obtained drivers in any other way except for the
two immediately involved herein, and the exception in their case is explained by
Parks' absence. Citro testified that when the job was started Parks notified him that
men were needed. Testifying to the Company's practice, Helmer declared that here
as elsewhere the Company makes known its needs for men to the local union. When
drivers of trucks or Euclid hauling units were needed on this job, it asked Parks,
whom it recognized as union steward, to bring in experienced operators. Helmer
also testified that at the beginning of the job some drivers applied "directly" to the
Company on the job, but Parks said that he had a bunch of good drivers and most
were gotten from him. Parsons also testified that Parks was the steward on the job,
and that he generally asked Parks to get the number of drivers needed. Parks testi-
fied that Helmer asked him to get drivers as needed and that Parsons, as the latter
had testified, hired drivers through Parks.
Even if, because of the question concerning Parks' authority, his statement pre-
viously submitted to the Board be not regarded as an admission binding on the Union
and tending to prove his authority, it may be used to discredit his denials on the
stand; and the evidence of his activities on behalf of the Union is both plentiful and
clear. I find that Parks has the responsibility on this job of acting as steward and
seeing that drivers are union men. Furthermore, since the union bylaws prohibit
members, unless authorized to do so, from working with nonmembers, we may well
consider whether Parks' action "fell within the contemplated scope of the . .
responsibility the Respondent thus placed in him," 5 in addition to any question of
authority as steward.
I find that the Company's practice in requiring union membership and clearance,
and its maintenance of that practice with respect to Jones and Zupan is indicated
here to have constituted discrimination within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act. I further find that the Union's complementary hiring practice, its notice
that Jones and Zupan would lose their jobs because they were not members of the
Union, and its requirement that their employment be terminated are violative of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.6
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union, set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Company described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Union has engaged in and is engaging in certain
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
4 Citro testified that there was a maximum of 55 union member drivers on this job at
any one time Earlier, the number was given as 42-43
6 Cement Masons Local No. 555. 102 NLRB 1408, 1409.
6Mundet Cork Corporation. 96 NLRP. 1142; New York State Employers Association,
93 NLRB 127, Clara-Val Packing Company, 87 NLRB 703.
ESSEX DIE CORPORATION 959
It has been found that the Union violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the
Act by maintaining with the Company an illegal practice which required that the
Company's employees have membership in or clearance by the Union as a condition
of their employment, by notifying Jones and Zupan that they would lose their jobs
because they were not members of the Union, and by requiring the Company to
terminate the employment of Jones and Zupan. I shall therefore recommend that
the Union cease and desist from maintaining such practice or enforcing or giving
effect to any agreement therefor.
On or about June 4, 1954, the Union notified the Company that it had no objec-
tion to the employment of Jones and Zupan. A statement of such notification was
noted on the record at the hearing on September 14 in the presence of Jones and
Zupan, and they were further directly advised at that time. Back pay is thus limited
to September 14,7 and I further recommend that the Union make said employees
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered from February 18 to September
14, 1954, inclusive, by reason of the discriminatory action aforementioned by pay-
ment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally
have earned less his net earnings ,8 which sum shall be computed 9 on a quarterly
basis.
The violations of the Act which the Union committed are persuasively related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commis-
sion in the future is to be anticipated from the Union's conduct in the past. The
preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with
the threat. In order, therefore, to make more effective the interdependent guar-
antees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby
minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate
the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that the Union be ordered to cease and
desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case , I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local 182, Utica, New York and Vicinity, AFL, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
3. By causing The Lane Construction Corporation to discriminate in regard to
hire, tenure, terms, and conditions of employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
4. 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.]
7 Local Union 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL (R Clinton Constructwn Company), 109 NLRB 73.
8 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440 See also Republic Steel Corporation v.
N L. R.B,311U S 7
9F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,291-294
ESSEX DIE CORPORATION and DISTRICT 65, DISTRIBUTIVE , PROCESSING
AND OFFICE WORKERS OF AMERICA, IND . Case No. 2-CA -2666.
March 16,1955
Decision and Order
On November 24, 1953, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
111 NLRB No. 158.