International Union Of Operating Engineers, Local 12 (Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1990

298 N.L.R.B. 44 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

44 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
12 (Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Compa-
ny, Inc.) and Galen Albright and Henry C.
Shuman and Walton H. Bledsoe and William G.
Harris and Jesse E. Baker and Fredrick Miller
and Owen T . Wilkerson and Jose Rodriguez.
Cases 31-CB-7493, 31-CB-7500, 31-CB-7520,
31-CB-7555, 31-CB-7556, 31-CB-7566, 31-
CB-7655, and 31-CB-7699
March 30, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On March 22, 1989, Administrative Law Judge
Jay R. Pollack issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Respondent filed cross-exceptions
and a brief in support of its cross-exceptions and in
opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified and set forth in full below.
The General Counsel excepts to the judge' s fail-
ure to provide a remedy which encompasses em-
ployee-members -unnamed but similarly situated to
those named in the complaint. In its response the
Respondent contends that such a "broad order" is
unwarranted since the complaint allegations speci-
fied only the eight named charging parties and
there was no evidence introduced at the hearing
concerning "unnamed but allegedly aggrieved par-
ties" or that the Respondent had discriminated
against such individuals.
We find merit in the General Counsel's excep-
tions for the reasons stated in Iron Workers Local
433 (Reynolds Electrical), 298 NLRB 35, a compan-
ion case issued this date involving a similar viola-
tion committed by a -different union at the same
employer. As in that case, the Respondent was on
notice, both from the remedy sought in the com-
plaint and the General Counsel' s statements at the
hearing, that the complaint was not limited to those
individuals named in the complaint, and the class of
employees encompassed in the remedy sought by
i The judge inadvertently stated in his decision that the effective termi-
nation date of the current collective-bargaining agreement between the
Respondent and Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co. was June 1,
1980, rather than the correct date of June 1, 1990
Member Devaney notes that no exceptions were filed to the judge's
finding that the parties' no-strike clause encompassed sympathy strikes
the General Counsel is a defined and easily identifi-
able class. Under these circumstances, we will not
foreclose the General Counsel from identifying ad-
ditional discriminatees in subsequent compliance
proceedings and will modify the judge's recom-
mended Order and notice accordingly.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified and set forth in full below and
orders that the Respondent, International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 12, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Initiating and prosecuting intraunion discipli-
nary proceedings against and fining members who
refuse to join a sympathy strike in contravention of
a contractual no-strike provision contained in the
Respondent's contracts with Reynolds Electrical &
Engineering Co., Inc.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind any and all intraunion discipline di-
rected against members Galen Albright, Henry C.
Shuman, Walton H. Bledsoe, William G. Harris,
Jesse E. Baker, Frederick Miller, Owen T. Wilker-
son, Jose Rodriguez, and similarly situated mem-
bers.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful fines and disciplinary proceedings and
notify those members in writing that it has done so
and that it will not use these unlawful actions
against them in any way.
(c) Reimburse those members for any fines that
they have paid, plus interest, in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of the judge's decision.
(d) Post at all places where notices to members
are posted copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."3 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
2 We have also modified the judge's recommended Order and notice
tosubstitute the word "intraunnon" for the judge's inadvertent use of the
word "interunion " We find no merit in the Respondent's exception that
the "cease and desist" language in the judge's recommended Order and
notice was "too broad " Contrary to the Respondent's contention, the
language used by the judge is in conformance with the violation found.
2If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
298 NLRB No. 9
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 12 (REYNOLDS ELECTRICAL)
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to members are customari-
ly posted. Further signed copies of the notice will
be provided to the Board for submission to the
Employer for posting at appropriate places, if will-
ing. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT initiate and prosecute intraunion
disciplinary proceedings against and fine members
who refuse to join a sympathy strike in contraven-
tion of a contractual no-strike provision contained
in our contracts with Reynolds Electrical & Engi-
neering Co., Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind any and all intraunion disci-
pline directed against members Galen Albright,
Henry C. Shuman, Walton H. Bledsoe, William G.
Harris, Jesse E. Baker, Frederick Miller, Owen T.
Wilkerson, Jose Rodriguez, and similarly situated
members.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful fines and disciplinary proceedings and
notify those members in writing that we have done
so and that we will not use these unlawful actions
against them in any way.
WE WILL reimburse those members for any fines
that they have paid, plus interest.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 12
Arthur Yuter, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Alexander H. Cvitan, Esq. (Reich, Adell & Crost), of Los
Angeles, California, for the Respondent.
Yelverton Cowherd, Esq., of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the
Employer.
DECISION
45
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge . I heard
these consolidated cases in trial at Las Vegas, Nevada,
on August 18, 1988 . The cases arose as follows.
On February 18, 1988 , Galen Albright, an individual,
filed the charge in Case 31-CB-7493 against Internation-
al Union of Operating Engineers , Local 12 (the Union or
Respondent). On February 22, 1988 , Henry C . Shuman,
an individual, filed a charge in Case 31-CB-7500 against
the Respondent. On March 1 , 1988 Walton H. Bledsoe,
an individual, filed the charge in Case 31-CB-7520
against the Union . The charge in Case 31-CB-7555 was
filed on March 22, 1988 , by William G. Harris, an indi-
vidual . The charge in Case 31 -CB-7556 was filed by
Jesse E . Baker, an individual, on March 22 , 1988. On
March 25 , Frederick Miller, an individual , filed the
charge in Case 31-CB-7566 against Respondent. Owen
T. Wilkerson, an individual , filed the charge in Case 31-
CB-7655 on May 23 , 1988. The charge in Case 31-CB-
7699 was originally filed as Case 28-CB-2846 and filed
by Jose Rodriguez, an individual, on June 28, 1988.
In response to certain of those charges , following an
investigation, the Regional Director for Region 31 of the
National Labor Relations Board on May 5, 1988 , issued
an order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint and
notice of hearing. Thereafter , the Regional Director
issued an amended order consolidating cases, amended
consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on June 30,
1988 . Finally, on July 28 , 1988, the Regional Director
issued an order consolidating cases, second amended
consolidated complaint and notice of hearing which con-
solidated the existing charges and complaints against Re-
spondent . Respondent filed timely answers denying all
allegations of the consolidated complaint.
The complaint alleges Respondent took various actions
against its members, including the fining of employees of
Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Company, Inc. (the
Employer), who crossed or worked behind certain picket
lines at the Employer 's premises at the Nevada Test Site,
the Nevada Research and Development Area, or at the
Tonopah Test Range in the State of Nevada . The Gener-
al Counsel contends that, although such conduct by Re-
spondent might not otherwise be a violation of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (Act), the conduct was in
contravention of an applicable no-strike clause in the col-
lective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and
the Employer and therefore constituted a violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Respondent , with one ex-
ception, admitted the conduct attributed to it but argued
that the relevant collective-bargaining agreement does
not address sympathy strikes by its members. Therefore,
Respondent argues, its actions may not properly be
found to be in violation of the Act.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate
at the hearing, to introduce relevant evidence , to call, ex-
amine, and cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally and
to file posthearing briefs.
On the entire record, including oral argument from the
General Counsel and a posthearing brief from the Re-
46 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent and my observation of the witnesses and their
demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Employer has been at all times material a Texas
corporation with an office and place of business in Las
Vegas, Nevada, where it is engaged in the business of
providing construction , maintenance , and operational
support to the United States Department of Energy at
the Nevada Test Site and at other locations. The Em-
ployer in the course and conduct of its business oper-
ations annually purchases and receives in the State of
Nevada goods and services valued in excess of $50,000
directly from suppliers located outside the State. There is
no dispute, and I find, that the Employer has been at all
times material an employer engaged in commerce and in
a business effecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The parties stipulated that the Employer and the
Union have had a collective bargaining relationship for
more than 25 years. Respondent represents employees of
the Employer in two separate and distinct bargaining
units: the construction unit , and the maintenance unit.
All work covered by both agreements is at the Nevada
Test Site, which is about 65 miles northwest of Las
Vegas, the Tonopah Test Range, which is about 240
miles north of Las Vegas, or in Las Vegas.
Negotiations for the current collective -bargaining
agreement in the construction unit took place between
April and June 1985 . The project construction agreement
(for the construction unit), executed on July 8, 1985, is
effective by its terms from June 1, 1985, until June 1,
1980.
The current project construction agreement contains
the following no-strike clause at issue herein:
ARTICLE II
NO STRIKES OR LOCKOUTS
Section 1. It is hereby agreed by the Union there
will be no strikes, stoppages of work or slowdowns
of the Contractor's operations during the term of
this Agreement.
Section 2. It is hereby agreed by the Contractor
there will be no lockouts during the term of this
Agreement.
Section 3. Any violation of Section 1 of this arti-
cle shall not be subject to the provisions of Article
XIX, Grievance and Arbitration Procedure.
Section 4 . It shall not be cause for discharge or
disciplinary action in the event an employee indi-
vidually refuses to go through or work behind any
picket line at the Contractor's place of business,
provided that said picket line is in connection with
a lawful primary labor dispute.
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this clause have been in the
project construction agreements between the parties
since 1965 and have remained unchanged in all such
agreements since 1965 . Section 4 was initially included in
the 1970-1975 agreement. Neither the Employer nor the
Union has proposed modifications to any part of article
II since the 1970 negotiations.
Commencing in August 1987 and continuously from
September 9 through November 23, 1987, the Amalga-
mated Transit Union established a picket line at the
Nevada Test Site in furtherance of a labor dispute the
Amalgamated Transit Union had with the LTR Bus
Company. Commencing in September 1987 and continu-
ing until November 23, 1987, the Culinary Workers
Union established a picket line at the Nevada Test Site
and at Tonopah in furtherance of a labor dispute it had
with the Employer. On or about October 1, 1987, the
project maintenance agreements between the Employer
and about a dozen unions , including Respondent (for the
maintenance unit), expired . A strike in all of these main-
tenance units ensued, including the maintenance unit rep-
resented by Respondent. Respondent established picket
lines at the Nevada Test Site between November 12
through 23, 1987, in support of its dispute in the mainte-
nance unit.
At all times material, each of the eight charging par-
ties has been a member of the Union and employee of
the Employer working in the construction unit . Each of
these eight employees performed work in the construc-
tion unit during Respondent 's strike in the maintenance
unit . On various dates beginning in January 1988, Re-
spondent disciplined or fined the eight employees for
having crossed its picket line during the maintenance
unit strike.
Further, the parties stipulated that pursuant to require-
ments of the Federal Government, the Employer main-
tains records, called head count reports or daily, head
count reports, which list by craft the number of employ-
ees scheduled to work, and who actually reported for
work. These records indicate who worked during any
strike by any union representing any of the Employer's
employees. The records indicate that Respondent did not
engage in a sympathy strike during a Teamsters and
Plumbers strike in 1974, during a construction Electri-
cians strike in 1974, and during a construction Plumbers
strike in 1980. The records further show that Respondent
engaged in a primary strike in its construction unit
during June 1980 and that the maintenance unit did not
engage in a sympathy strike.
B. Bargaining History
The no-strike language has been carried forward in the
various collective-bargaining agreements between the
parties in unchanged form since the agreement regarding
the language in the 1970 bargaining. At no time since has
Respondent or the Employer sought to modify the
quoted language. The General Counsel called as a wit-
ness Kevin Efroymson, who served as the Employer's
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 12 (REYNOLDS ELECTRICAL) 47
general counsel from 1964 through 1976. Efroymson tes-
tified at some length regarding contract negotiations be-
tween the parties and, in particular, the origin of the no-
strike language. Efroymson testified without contradic-
tion that- the no-strike language was introduced at the
behest of management representatives during the 1970
bargaining and that the language was expressly intended
to address both primary and sympathy strikes. Efroym-
son's testimony established that during the 1970 negotia-
tions a strike ensued. At issue were approximately 11
subjects, including wages, travel allowance, subsistence
and the no-strike clause. After a lengthy strike the Union
and Employer agreed to submit the unresolved issues to
interest arbitration. The Union submitted language which
would have permitted sympathy strikes in support of
other units represented by Respondent. The Employer
submitted the language of article II, section 4, permitting
individual employees the right to honor a primary picket
line. At the time of the interest arbitration, all partici-
pants, the Employer, the Union and the arbitration panel
understood that article II and its section 4 prohibited
concerted sympathy strikes but gave individual employ-
ees the right to honor a primary picket line. As stated
above the parties have not negotiated again regarding
this article of the contract and it has continued un-
changed in all succeeding agreements.
Evidence was also introduced that over the period
since 1970 there had been various strikes at the facilities
at issue with occasions where picket lines established by
other units were not honored by employees working
under the contracts in question. There is some question
as to whether they were honored on other occasions.
Evidence was introduced that on occasion the Employer
has asserted the quoted language of the collective-bar-
gaining agreements against unions whose members were
honoring picket lines.
C. The Alleged Threat to Jesse Baker
The remaining factual issue deals with an alleged
threat to employee Jesse Baker. Baker testified that on
March 10, 1988, Mickey Adams, a district representative
for Respondent, told Baker that the employee had been
fined for working behind the maintenance unit picket
line. Baker said he did not have the money to pay the
fine. According to Baker, Adams said if Baker did not
pay, the money would be taken out of his "health and
welfare or vacation [trust funds]." Baker further testified
that Bill Waggoner, Respondent's business manager,
made a similar statement in October 1987.1
Adams denied that Waggoner made such a statement
regarding the trust funds. He further denied that he
made such a statement to Baker. According to Adams,
he informed Baker of the fine and Baker signed a paper
accepting the penalties. Baker asked if he could pay the
fine over time and Adams answered that Baker would
have to write the Union's recording secretary in Los An-
geles. Adams denied making any statement regarding the
trust funds and testified that there was no way the ,Union
could collect money from the fund.
Waggoner did not testify. John Cox, a member of the
Union's executive board, testified that he was present for
the conversation between Adams and Baker. Cox testi-
fied that Adams made no mention of the trust funds
while informing Baker of the fine. Cox further denied
that Waggoner made any such statement as alleged by
Baker. 2 Based on demeanor, I find Adams and Cox to be
more credible witnesses than Baker. Although I believe
someone must have told Baker that the fine could be
taken from his trust fund contributions, I am convinced
that Adams did not, and would not, make such a state-
ment. Accordingly, I shall dismiss this allegation of the
complaint.
Analysis and Conclusions
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a union "to restrain or coerce ..., employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act." The proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A) provides
that the section "shall not impair the right of a labor or-
ganization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition or retention of membership therein."
In Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423 (1969), the United
States Supreme Court stated at 430: "Section 8(b)(1)
leaves a union free to enforce a properly adopted rule
which reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs no
policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, and rea-
sonably enforced against union members who are free to
leave the union and escape the rule." This entitlement is
not without limit , however. The Board in Operating En-
gineers Local 39 (San Jose Hospital Center), 240 NLRB
1122 (1979), found a violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of
the Act when a union took internal union action against
members in contravention of an amnesty agreement.
In Mine Workers Local 1249 (National Grinding), 176
NLRB 628, 632 (1969), the Board found that a union
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by fining its members who
refused to honor the picket line of a sister local under
circumstances where the union was bound by a broad
no-strike clause that proscribed any strike or slowdown,
total or partial, of work at the company's plant. The
Board held that it was a violation of the no-strike clause
to honor a sister Local's picket line. The Board held that
to permit the union to penalize members who refused to
violate the no-strike clause would provide an incentive
to unions to violate collective-bargaining agreements.
See also Food & Commercial Workers Local 1439 (Ro-
sauer 's Supermarket), 275 NLRB 30 (1985). The Board
has dismissed such allegations if it determines that the
no-strike clause does not apply to sympathy strikers, e.g.,
Machinists Local 284, 190 NLRB 208 (1971).
In Operating Engineers Local 18 (Davis McKee), 238
NLRB 652 (1978), the Board held that to the extent that
National Grinding Wheel, supra, stood for the proposition
that the right to engage in a sympathy strike is waived
i General Counsel acknowledged that the Waggoner statement was
time barred by Sec. 10(b) of the Act. Accordingly, General Counsel
sought no finding of a violation The evidence was introduced solely to
support Baker's testimony that Johnson made such a threat.
2 There were approximately 500 union members present when Wag-
goner allegedly made the statement attributed to him by Baker No one
corroborated Baker's statement.
48 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by a union's agreement to a broad no-strike clause, with-
out more, it had been overruled sub silentio by later
cases. Until the landmark decision of Indianapolis Power
Co., 273 NLRB 1715 (1985) the Board held that sympa-
thy strikes were not waived by a broad no-strike clause
unless expressly stated in the contract.
The Board in Indianapolis Power Co., supra, overturned
prior Board precedent (including Davis-McKee) and held
that broad no-strike clauses prohibit all strikes including
sympathy strikes. If, however, the contract or extrinsic
evidence demonstrates that the parties intended to
exempt sympathy strikes from the broad no-strike clause,
then the Board shall give controlling weight to the par-
ties' intent.
In Food & Commercial Workers Local 1439 (Rosauer's
Supermarket), supra, the Board in considering the
breadth of a no-strike clause in a collective-bargaining
agreement stated at 275 NLRB 30:
Nothing in the contract suggests an intent to create
an exception for sympathy strikes. Nor does the
judge's discussion of the parties bargaining history
establish that the parties intended to exclude sympa-
thy strikes. We therefore hold that the Respondent
clearly and unmistakably waived meat employees'
right to engage in sympathy strikes. Accordingly,
the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
threatening to discipline members who refused to
participate in the sympathy strike.
The Board held in Indianapolis Power Co., 291 NLRB
1039 (1988), on remand from the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,3 that the extrinsic evidence
showed that the union did not waive the right to honor
stranger picket lines. The Board adhered to its legal anal-
ysis in its original Indianapolis Power decision but
reached a different result based on a factual analysis. It
noted that the Third Circuit, relying on the D.C. Cir-
cuit's opinion in Indianapolis Power, approved the
Board's Indianapolis Power approach in Electrical Workers
IBEW Local 803 x NLRB, 826 F.2d 1283 (3d Cir.
1987).4 The Third Circuit in IBEW Local 803 had reject-
ed all arguments against the Indianapolis Power rule.
In the decision on remand, the Board emphasized that
careful consideration must be given extrinsic evidence
bearing on the parties' intent, such as bargaining history
and past practice under the no-strike clause. "The Indi-
anapolis Power decision must not be applied as if it estab-
lished an irrebuttable presumption that a broad no-strike
clause bars sympathy strikes." A broad no-strike clause
should be properly read to encompass sympathy strikes
unless the contract as a whole or extrinsic evidence dem-
onstrates that the parties intended otherwise. In deciding
whether sympathy strikes fall within a no-strike clause's
scope, the parties' actual intent is to be given controlling
weight and extrinsic evidence should be considered as an
integral part of the analysis.
In concurring in the result, Board Member Johansen,
stated that the starting point for any waiver analysis
should be the United States Supreme Court decision in
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708
(1983), which held that a statutory waiver must be "clear
and unmistakable." According to Johansen, "this rule de-
mands clarity and, thus . . . any ambiguity as to the ex-
istence of a contractual waiver of the right to engage in
sympathy strikes must be resolved against finding parties
intended such a waiver."
In the instant case I believe that a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) must be found under either of the legal theo-
ries discussed in Indianapolis Power. The parties only
differ as to which rebuttable presumption to use as a
starting point. However, both parties agree that the
intent of the parties, established by evidence of bargain-
ing history and past practice, is controlling. In this case,
the same result is reached even if the presumption urged
by the Union is used as a starting point. The presumption
that the waiver must be clear and unmistakable is not ir-
rebuttable. The uncontested evidence establishes that the
contract language in question was intended to prohibit
union sympathy strikes but permit individual employees
the right to refuse to cross a primary picket line. The
intent of the clause was so understood by all parties, the
Union, Employer and the arbitration panel. The union
proposed alternate language which would have permit-
ted union sympathy strikes in support of union members
in other bargaining units. That language was rejected by
the arbitration panel and the Employer's language was
incorporated in the bargaining agreement . Thereafter nei-
ther party sought to change or renegotiate this clause.
There is no evidence that the agreement has been applied
contrary to this understanding. Rather the evidence sup-
ports the conclusion that the clause barred concerted
sympathy strikes. Thus, under Board and circuit court
law, Respondent's disciplinary actions against the eight
employees described above were taken to force noncom-
pliance with the terms of the collective bargaining and,
on the basis of the cases cited supra, violate Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall order it to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent fined employees, I rec-
ommend that the Union be ordered to vacate those fines.
The record does not indicate whether any of the fines
have been paid. I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to return to any employee who has paid a fine
the amount of the fine plus interest as computed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
It is further recommended that the Union expunge
from its records all references to the discipline found un-
lawful herein and to notify the eight employees that this
has been done.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3 Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1395 (Indianapolis Power) v. NLRB,
797 F.2d 1027 (D C Cir. 1986)
4 Affg. Metropolitan Edison Co., 279 NLRB 313 (1986).
1. The Employer is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 12 (REYNOLDS ELECTRICAL) 49
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
by disciplining and/or fining employees, Albright,
Shuman, Bledsoe, Harris, Baker , Miller, Wilkerson, and
Rodriguez because they crossed a picket line the honor-
ing of which was prohibited by a valid no-strike clause
in the collective-bargaining agreement covering the eight
employees between Respondent and the Employer.
4. The unfair labor practices described above are
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]