Int'l Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 1402 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Badolato within the tristate area of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and
,,Ohio. Accordingly, Engineers Local 66 is not and has not been law-
fully entitled to force and require Badolato to assign such work to its
.members.
Within 10 days of the date of this Decision and Determination of
Dispute, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 66, AFT,
CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, in writ-
ing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Frank
P. Badolato & Son, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to
assign the work in dispute to its members rather than to employees
,engaged as hod carriers.
-International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-
CIO and J. A. Jones Construction Company. Case No. 19-CD-
68. February 28, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10(k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in
,an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D)
-of Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and
determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall
have arisen...."
On July 26, 1961, J. A. Jones Construction Company, herein called
the Employer, filed with the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region a charge, amended August 2, 1961, alleging, inter alia, that
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO,
herein called the IAM, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act
by inducing or encouraging employees "to engage in a strike or re-
fusal in the course of their employment to handle or work on certain
materials and perform certain services" for the purpose of requiring
the Employer to assign the operation of overhead electric cranes to
members of the IAM after the Employer had assigned this task to
members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 112, herein called the IBEW.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections
102.89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Regional Director investigated the charges and pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all the parties.
The hearing was held before James M. Fitzpatrick, hearing officer,
beginning on August 16 and ending August 22, 1961. The IBEW
was allowed to intervene as a party in interest to the dispute. All
parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity
135 NLRB No. 139.
INT'L ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE NO. 1743 1403
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. Both the IAM and the IBEW filed briefs which were duly
considered by the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The Employer, a North Carolina corporation, is engaged in
various States of the United States as a contractor in the construction
industry. Pursuant to contract with the Atomic Energy Commission,
herein called AEC, the Employer performs construction, renovation,
and maintenance work for the AEC and for other contractors at the
AEC Hanford Works Project in the State of Washington. This
work, virtually all involving national defense activities, is valued
at more than one million dollars per year and in connection therewith
the Employer annually receives material from other States valued
in excess of $100,000 per year. We find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction.
2. The IAM and IBEW are labor organizations within the meaning
of the Act.
3. The dispute :
A. The basic facts
The Employer's contract with AEC covers "minor" construction
at the Hanford Project, as contrasted with "major" construction
which is let under separate contracts. Pursuant to labor agreements
with unions representing the various crafts, the Employer directly
and through subcontractors engages craftsmen of some 21 of the
construction trades, including machinists represented by the IAM and
electricians represented by the IBEW.1 From its initial contract in
1953 to the spring of 1961, the Employer conducted its operations from
certain shops in the White Bluffs area of the Hanford Project. In
this area, the Employer's machine shop was housed in a building
known as the M & M shop, which was shared by no craft other than
machinists. Beginning in April 1961, the Employer moved its shop
facilities to the North Richland area z of the project, some 30 miles dis-
tant from the White Bluffs area, installing the machine shop in a
large building which also houses the shop facilities of several other
crafts including pipefitters, boilermakers, ironworkers, carpenters,
1 Empire Electric Company, the electrical subcontractor involved, did not appear at,
nor participate in, the 10(k) hearing . The record is clear, however , that jurisdictional
assignments involving subcontractors are made by the Employer, and no contrary con-
tention is made.
2 Sometimes referred to as the "3000 Area."
1404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and electricians. The move to the new building was completed on or
about July 5,1961.
The M & M shop was equipped with an overhead crane with an elec-
trically driven lifting device but propelled lengthwise by air pressure
and transversely by a hand-operated chain. This crane was operated
by journeymen machinists, as required for their work. The North
Richland shop building has three overhead, electrically propelled
cranes serving various crafts in the building, the operation of which
was assigned by the Employer to employees engaged as electricians
and represented by the IBEW. The IAM protested this assignment
insofar as the machine shop area of the building is concerned and
its members have refused to make use of the cranes operated by elec-
tricians, using alternative, nonelectric lifting devices which are admit-
tedly less efficient for certain lifting and positioning tasks. The elec-
tricians continue to operate the cranes for the other crafts in the new
building.
B. Contentions of the parties
The Employer contends that the crane assignment to the elec-
tricians is in accordance with jurisdictional lines drawn by official
AFL and AFL-CIO decisions and awards in the construction in-
dustry, and that such jurisdictional lines have consistently been fol-
lowed throughout the Employer's operations, as required by its
contracts with the various building and construction trades unions.
The TAM contends that it is not bound by the jurisdictional awards
relied upon by the Employer; that the operation of the cranes, inso-
far as the machine shop area is concerned, is an integral part of the
machinist craft; and that its claim to this work jurisdiction is sup-
ported by (a) an NLRB certification, (b) the contract between the
Employer and the IAM, (c) the past practice of the Employer, (d)
the custom and practice in the industry, and (e) factors of economy
and safety.
The IBEW contends that the Employer's work assignment is
proper in that it is (a) a reasonable exercise of managerial authority;
(b) based upon an outstanding AFL-CIO jurisdictional award; (c).
consistent with the Employer's own past practice; and (d) consistent,
with efficiency and safety in the plant.
C. Applicability of the statute
The charge alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D), and the
record reflects a brief "stop work" meeting on or about July 24, 1961,
and a consistent refusal by TAM members in the course of their em-
ployment to make use of the overhead electric cranes since July 5;
1961. That such refusal was induced or encouraged by the TAM is
INT'L ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE NO. 1743 1405
tacitly admitted in a letter dated July 24 from the IAM business
representative to the Employer which reads as follows :
On or about July 6, 1961, J. A. Jones Construction Company
made work assignment awarding the operation of overhead crane
in its 3000 Area Machine Shop to the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers. Due to past practice on the Hanford
Projecet and to safety factors involved, the International As-
sociation of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743 is in opposition to this
work assignment.
On and since July 5, the Machinists have not complied with the
above-referred assignment and will continue to operate the same
as in the past until otherwise instructed by authorized bodies.
We find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b) (4) (D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
Merits of the Dispute
The Employer bases its assignment of the operation of overhead
electric cranes in the new building upon jurisdictional decisions of the
AFL and the AFL-CIO, and points to a consistent policy of doing
-so whenever confronted with jurisdictional disputes not voluntarily
resolved between contending unions. Basic jurisdictional agreements
and decisions applicable to affiliated unions in the construction trades
are found in a document entitled "Plan For Settling Jurisdictional
Disputes Nationally And Locally, Approved By The Building And
,Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO," commonly known and
referred to herein as the "Green Book." At pages 76-77 of this docu-
ment is a "Decision, Cincinnati, Ohio, Convention American Federa-
tion of Labor, June 1922, which reads in part "that the operation of
,traveling or other electric cranes for shop or factory purposes shall be
Electrical Workers work." This jurisdictional assignment is restated
at pages 106-107 of the Green Book in a "Decision Executive Council
American Federation of Labor, March 1926"; 3 in 1942 by the then
president of the AFL, William Green; 4 and in 1957 by President
George Meany of the AFL-CIO .1 There is no contention that the type
8 This decision reads in part "that the Engineers have jurisdiction over the hoists for
building material on building under construction, and that the Electrical Workers have
jurisdiction over overhead or traveling cranes for shop or factory purposes."
61n a wire dated November 16, 1942 , and a letter dated November 18, 1942 , President
Green refers to the AFL convention award as to the "operation of electrically driven
cranes for shop or factory purposes," and the wire states "this decision has never been
changed and is recognized as in full force and effect by the American Federation of
Labor."
6 In a letter dated May 2 , 1957, President Meany states in part "our records indicate
that there has been no change from this original decision of the 1922 convention which,
as you will note , states very specifically that the operation of traveling or other electric
cranes for shop or factory purposes shall be Electrical Workers' work."
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of cranes at the Employer's new shop are distinguishable from those
covered by the 1922 decision or that a contrary jurisdictional award
has been made by the jurisdictional machinery of the AFL or AFL-
CIO.
The IAM contends that the above jurisdictional award is not perti-
nent to the issues of this case;,that the IAM is not now and has not in
the past been affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades De-
partment of the AFL-CIO; 6 and that the Green Book and interpreta-
tions thereof should not be applied to disputes involving the IAM. It
points to the fact that the Employer, by wire dated July 26, 1961,.
solicited the assistance of the National Joint Board for Settlement of
Jurisdictional Disputes in the Building and Construction Industry
(herein called the Joint Board) in resolving the instant dispute and
received in reply thereto a letter dated July 27 from R. J. Mitchell,
chairman of the Joint Board, stating in part :
This matter does not appear to be within the province of the
National Joint Board. However, I am forwarding a copy of this
letter to President Hayes of the International Association of
Machinists, President Freeman of the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, and President Haggerty of the Building
and Construction Trades Department for their information and
attention.
The issue insofar as the instant proceeding is concerned is not
whether the Joint Board has asserted jurisdiction or whether one of
the contending unions is or is not bound by previous awards. The issue
only is whether the longstanding rules of the parent federation of the
disputing unions and the Employer's present and prior reliance thereon
are-relevant considerations to a determination of the dispute before us.
We hold that they are.
The IAM urges the following points in support of its contention
that the Employer's work assignment is incorrect and should be
overturned:
1. The NLRB certification: The record reflects that in the year
1950 a joint venture, consisting of the Employer and Guy F. Atkin-
son Co., d/b/a Atkinson-Jones, was performing pursuant to a con-
struction contract with AEC in connection with which it used a cer-
tain machine shop facility in the White Bluffs area known as the "old
machine shop." In that year, pursuant to an agreement for consent
election, the IAM was certified as collective-bargaining agent for "all
employees in the [Joint Venture's] machine shop in the White Bluffs
area at the Hanford Project, Richland, Washington . . . excluding
office employees and clerical employees, guards, professional en-1-
The parties stipulated that the JAM was affiliated with the AFL or successor AFL-CIO
from 1895' through 1942 , and at all times since 1953 ; the record is clear, however, that
the IAM has never been affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades Department.
INT'L ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE NO. 1743 1407
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act." Pursuant to this
certification, the IAM entered into a contract with the Joint Venture
covering "all work coming within the recognized jurisdiction of the
Union and being performed at the Employer's machine shop in the
White Bluffs area on the Hanford Project." In June 1953, Kaiser
Engineers succeeded the Joint Venture as to this machine shop op-
eration, and until April 1956, Kaiser bargained with the IAM on the
same jurisdictional basis as had the Joint Venture. Meanwhile, in
the summer of 1953, the Employer obtained the first of a series of
contracts with AEC covering work similar to that being performed
under its current AEC contract. The Employer established its ma-
chine shop in the M & M building and, in August 1953, contracted with
the IAM as to "all work coming within the recognized jurisdiction
of the Union and being performed by the Employer on the Hanford
Project." Thus, the M & M machine shop was operated by the Em-
ployer, an employer different from the Joint Venture; it began op-
erating pursuant to a different contract from that held by the Joint
Venture at the time of the certification; it was operated at a different
location; and it was manned by a different group of employees?
Under these circumstances, we find that the certification is not con-
trolling as to the operation of electric overhead cranes at the Em-
ployer's North Richland shop.
2. The contract provisions: Since 19'3, the successive labor agree-
ments between IAM and the Employer have contained substantially
the same jurisdictional provision as the current agreement which reads
as follows: "ARTICLE III-WORK COVERED. This AGREE-
MENT shall cover all work coming within the recognized jurisdic-
tion of the UNION as being performed by the EMPLOYER on the
Hanford Project." Inasmuch as the IAM constitution defines IAM
work jurisdiction as including "the operation of electric . . . and
other mechanical cranes . . . used in connection with machinists'
work," the IAM asserts that the "work covered" clause in the labor
agreement reflects a contractual undertaking by the Employer to
assign such work to IAM members. The Employer denies the IAM
assertion in this regard. Moreover, there are parallel provisions in
the -IBEW contract and constitution. Thus, the applicable IBEW
contract provides that the agreement shall cover all "inside electrical
work and workers" within the jurisdiction of Local Union No. 12,
and the IBEW constitution defines the jurisdiction of "inside electri-
cal workers" as including "crane operators." We find, therefore, that
the IAM contract does not reflect a specific intent by the parties to
assign the disputed work -to members of the IAM.
7 The record is not clear as to the initial source of employees for the M & M shop
operation ; it is clear, however, , that the Kaiser machine shop operated for over 2 years
concurrently with the M & M shop and that the IAM represented the employees of both
shops in separate bargaining units.
1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Employer's past practice : The record reflects that until the move
to the new building in July 1961, electricianshad not been assigned by
the Employer to operate cranes for the machinists. The Employer
explains this by the fact that the crane in the M & M shop was not an
"electric crane," since it was not propelled either lengthwise or trans-
versely by electric power.8 Some light is shed upon the Employer's
past practice by a dispute over crane operation which occurred in
1956, at which time the expansion of machinist work required the
temporary use of the "old machine shop" formerly used by the Joint
Venture and Kaiser. This shop was equipped with an electric over-
head crane which was operated as required by machinists assigned
to this shop. The IBEW objected to the operation of this crane by
other crafts and the Employer's general superintendent, by memo-
randum dated January 12, 1956, advised the interested parties as
follows :
SUBJECT : OVERHEAD CRANE IN OLD MACHINE
SHOP
Recently the operation of subject crane has been claimed by
Machinists, Pipefitters and Electricians.
Inasmuch as the general operation of this shop, when used as
a machine shop, has required very little operation of the crane,
the practice has been for the machinists to man the crane when
doing the work.
This was contested by the Electricians but was not pressed be-
cause the work involved amounted to only about an hour every
second or third day.
If it becomes necessary for the Pipefitters to use this crane when
performing their work within this building, they would in all
possibility work the same as the Machinists have in the past.
However, if it becomes necessary to place an operator on the
crane, it would have to be an Electrician in accordance with the
decision rendered August 4, 1926, between the AFL, Operating
Engineers and Electrical Workers.
The second paragraph of this decision on page 92 of the 1953
AFL Green Book distinctly covers this subject, stating that the
Electrical Workers have jurisdiction over travelling or overhead
cranes for shop or factory purposes.
This letter is in answer to inquiries from Al Burk and Wilson
Morris of the Pipefitters regarding this subject.
The record reflects that following this dispute and for a period of
several years prior to the July 1961 move, the "old machine shop" was
used as a pipefitters' shop, during which time the crane was operated
8 The Employer's general manager testified that at one time the IBEW claimed the
operation of the crane at the M & M shop, but that this bid was rejected because it was
not an "electrically operated crane."
INT'L ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE NO. 1743 1409
for the pipefitters by electrician-members of the IBEW. This crane
was moved to the new shop building and is one of the three cranes the
operation of which is in dispute.' The record reflects that with the ex-
ceptions noted above, the Employer uniformly assigned the operation
of electric overhead cranes to electricians for servicing the employees
of other crafts. Other than the machinists, the various crafts in the
new shop building have not objected to the crane assignment, and
have used the cranes operated by electricians without question.
From the record before us, we find that the Employer's past prac-
tice is not inconsistent with its current assignment to the electricians
of the operation of overhead electric cranes.
4. Custom and practice in the industry: Considerable testimony
was taken as to the operation of cranes in machine shops elsewhere in
the State of Washington and in other parts of the country, which
testimony generally reflects that lifting devices in machine shops are
ordinarily operated by journeymen machinists. However, we do not
find this evidence particularly helpful to a resolution of the instant
dispute inasmuch as the employers involved were not in the construc-
tion industry. Though minimized by the IAM, it is not without sig-
nificance that the instant Employer is a construction contractor,
organized to operate on construction trades craft lines, and what
occurs in connection with crane operations performed by counter-
part organizations with comparable, multicraft shop facilities, is not
reflected on this record. We therefore find that the performance of
the disputed work by electricians represented by the IBEW is not
shown to be inconsistent with custom and practice in the industry in
which it is engaged.
5. Economy and safety factors: Though not stressed in briefs or
argument, considerable testimony was introduced bearing upon the
factors of economy and safety. This testimony, while not irrelevant,
does not appear to favor either one union or the other in the resolu-
tion of the instant dispute. As to economy, it appears clear that the
Employer's assignment of an electrician to operate the cranes at the
new shop is not economically unsound as suggested by the IAM, but
rather a purposeful task assignment with the operator's workday
filled out with readily available electrical bench work. From the
viewpoint of safety alone, there is no evidence that journeymen of
either craft cannot adequately be trained; indeed, the record dis-
closes that employees of both crafts have operated electric overhead
cranes in the past with due regard for the safety of men and equip-
6 As to the other two electric cranes in the new shop, one was already in the building
when the move was made and the other was moved from the White Bluffs "heavy duty
shop," which was used only for storage during the past several years. The nonelectric
crane in the M & M shop has been dismantled and placed in storage.
634449-62-vol. 135-90
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment. We'find, therefore, that the disputed assignment is consistent
with economy and safety factors. '
Conclusion as to the Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act contains no standards to aid the Board in.
determining jurisdictional disputes . It says only that the Board is toy
"hear and determine" the dispute. The legislative history is equally
lacking in indication of standards. Prior to the Supreme Court's
decision in CBS,10 the Board had accepted an employer's assignment
of work as dispositive of a jurisdictional dispute unless the respondent
union was entitled to have the work„assigned to its members'because
of - either an outstanding Board order or certification, as provided,
in -Section 8(b) (4) (D),11 or a collective-bargaining agreement.12
In .the CBS case, the Supreme Court held that this limited approach
to the resolution of jurisdictional disputes was not in accord with the
statute, and that the Board must decide jurisdictional disputes on
their merits, which means that the Board. must determine affirmatively,
whether one or the other disputing group of employees is entitled to
do the work in controversy. The Court acknowledged that this forces
the -Board to exercise. under Section 10(k) powers which are broad
and lacking in rigid standards to govern their application, but the
Court also expressed confidence that the Board, with its long experi-
ence in hearing and disposing of similar labor problems and with a
knowledge of the standards generally used by arbitrators, unions, em-
ployers, joint boards, and others in wrestling with this problem,13 will
be able to meet its responsibilities. "Experience, and common sense
will supply the grounds for the performance of this job which Con-
gress has assigned the Board." 14
At this beginning stage in making jurisdictional awards as required
by the Court,- the Board cannot and will not formulate general rules
for making them. Each-case will have to be decided on its own facts.
The Board will consider all relevant factors in determining who is
entitled to the work in dispute, e.g., the skills and work involved,
certifications by the Board, company and industry practice, agree-
ments between unions and between employers and unions, awards of
10 N L R B. v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 212, etc ( Columbia
Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S. 573.
11 See, e g ., International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 16,
CIO. (Juneau Spruce Corporation ), 82 NLRB 650 ; National Association of Broad-
cast Engineers and Technicians, Independent (Teleprompter Service Corp . et' al.), 95
NLRB 1470.
13 National Association of Broadcast Engineers, etc. (National Broadcasting Obm.pany
Inc.), 105 NLRB 355. -
Is See Dunlop , Jurisdictional Disputes, N Y.U. 2d Ann. Conference on Labor 477.
14 N.L R .B. v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers . Union Local 212, etc., supra,
at p. 583. "
INT'L ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE NO. 1743 1411
arbitrators, joint boards, and the AFL-CIO in the same or related
cases, the assignment made by the employer, and the efficient opera-
tion of the employer's business. This list of factors is not meant to
be exclusive, but is by way of illustration. The Board cannot at this
time establish the weight to be given the various factors. Every de-
cision will have to be an act of judgment based on common sense and
experience rather than on precedent.15 It may be that later, with
more experience in concrete cases, a measure of weight can be ac-
corded the earlier decisions.
In the present case, the Employer assigned the work of operating
overhead electric cranes to electricians, who are represented by the
IBEW. The IAM does not dispute this assignment insofar as the
cranes service other crafts within the shop, but wants one of its own
members to operate the crane in the plant area set aside for machin-
ists. This work dispute has resulted from a change in the Employ-
er's operations, i.e., the installation of an overhead crane complex
in a newly established multicraft shop. As we have pointed out
above, the IAM is not entitled to have a member of its bargaining unit
operate the cranes in the new shop either under its certification or its
collective-bargaining contract with the Employer. From the stand-
point of efficiency, it would seem to make more sense to have one
individual operate a crane throughout the plant, rather than to have
one for the machinist area and another for the rest of the plant. With
no outstanding equities in favor of machinist as against electrician
operation of the cranes, we believe that we should give substantial
weight to the longstanding rulings by the parent federation of both
disputing unions that the operation of electric cranes in shop or
factory "shall be Electrical Workers work," particularly where, as
here, the Employer made his disputed work assignment to electricians
on the basis of these rulings.
We shall therefore determine the existing jurisdictional dispute by
deciding that electricians rather than machinists are entitled to op-
erate the cranes. Our present determination is limited to the particu-
lar controversy which gave rise to these proceedings. In making this
determination, we are assigning the disputed work to electricians, who
are represented by the IBEW, but not to the IBEW or its members.
In view of the above, we find that the IAM was not and is not en-
titled by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) to force or require
the Employer to assign the work of operating overhead electric cranes
to its members rather than to electricians represented by the IBEW.
35 Dunlop, Jurisdictional Disputes, supra. at p. 504 "Many problems cannot be fore-
seen Trial and error is the only certain method."
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the 'entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Employees engaged as electricians, currently represented by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 112, are en-
titled to operate overhead electric cranes at the Employer's North
Richland, Washington, machine shop.
2. Accordingly, International Association of Machinists, Lodge
No. 1743, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been lawfully entitled to
force or require J. A. Jones Construction Company to assign the work
of operating such overhead electric cranes to employees engaged as
machinists, who are currently represented by International Associa-
tion of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743,
AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring J. A. Jones Construction Company by means proscribed
by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to assign the work in dispute to machinists
rather than to electricians.
Brantly Helicopter Corporation and Lodge 1476, International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1518.
February 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 29, 1961, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel 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 therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-'
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following amplification.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated'
Section 8 (a) (1) by discharging -Lynch almost `a month after it had
135 NLRB - No. 137.