Int'l Hod Carriers', Etc., Local Union No. 78

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 639 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

INT'L HOD CARRIERS', ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 78 639
It seems to me, finally, that it would be unwise in the present case to infer an
intention to discriminate for the purpose of encouraging membership . It is true that
the Act embodies the policy of preventing discrimination by reason of union member-
ship and activity. The Act also embodies , however, the policy of encouraging
collective bargaining between employers and employees through representatives
of their own choosing, and makes it an unfair labor practice for both employers
and labor organizations to refuse to bargain collectively.15 Neither of these policies
can be regarded, however, as absolutes, and when these policies are in competition
with each other, some reconciliation must be effected. This can be accomplished,
it seems to me, by permitting a union to protect its bargaining position when it is
threatened, even though such action may run counter to some literal prescription of
the Act. It may be that Mrs. Baldwin would not have participated directly perhaps
in the process of collective bargaining but it seems to me evident that even an
indirect role on her part would seriously have affected the Union in the critical
circumstances of the present case. This would seem to be in line with the philosophy
which underlies the recent decision in N.L.R.B. v. International Ladies Garment
Workers' Union (Slate Belt Apparel Contractors Assn.), 274 F. 2d 376 (C.A. 3). In
this case the court held that the ILGWU could enforce its policy of refraining
from bargaining with employers' representatives who had previously held union
office 16 by refusing to deal with one of its former employees who, through many
years of employment, had acquired familiarity with the union 's "strategy, thinking,
working, and operations," and that the employers' insistence upon dealing with the
union only through its former employee "displayed an absence of fair dealing."
I am also aware that the Board in the same case had found a violation of Section
8(b)(3) of the Act,17 but this finding was based on the assumption that the union's
insistence upon the confidential nature of the employment of its former employee,
and the highly unfavorable consequence which it attributed to his new employment,
was a mere pretext and sham. In view of the critical circumstances in which the
union found itself in the present case, however, I believe that it would be unrealistic
to come to a similar conclusion here.
Upon the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I reach the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Home Manufacturing Company, the Employer in the present case, is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, the Respondent Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent Union has not engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
to As provided in Section 8(a) (5) and 8(b) (3) of the Act.
'('The description of the ILGWU policy in this case suggests that Rufer's summary of
the purport of the resolution adopted at the union convention was not entirely accurate.
11 See International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, N. D. Department
( Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Association, Inc.), 122 NLRB 1390.
International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America, Local Union No. 78 , AFL-CIO [Knowlton
Construction Company ] and Leon Parsley
International Hod Carriers ', Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America , Local Union No. 78, AFL-CIO and Robert
J. Haley. Cases Nos. 8-CB-396 and 8-CB-t99. November 3,
1960
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND AMENDED ORDER
On December 14, 1959, the Board issued its Decision and Order in
the above-entitled proceeding , in which it found that,: (1) the Re-
129 NLRB No. 72.
640 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent Union had participated with Knowlton Construction Coin-
pany in an unlawful agreement , understanding , or practice that re-
quired applicants for employment with the Company who were not
members of the Respondent to obtain referrals from the Respondent
as a condition of employment ; and (2 ) pursuant thereto, the Respond-
ent had caused the Company to refuse to employ two individuals. The
Board ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from such conduct
with respect to that Company or any other employer over whom the
Board would assert jurisdiction.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that
where the Board found that a union had engaged in this kind of un-
lawful conduct against the employees of one employer , it was im-
proper, without proof of violations against employees of any other
employer, to order the union to cease and desist from such conduct
with respect to "any other employer." ' Accordingly, we hereby
amend our Order in this case by deleting the phrase "or any other em-
ployer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction " from para-
graphs a( 1) and ( 2) thereof , and amend the notice which paragraph
b(4) requires the Respondent to post by deleting the phrase "or any
other employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction" from
the first two paragraphs thereof.
MEMBERS JENKINS and KIMBALL took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Amended Order.
1 Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Local No. 4372 v. N.L.R B , 362
U S. 479.
American Advertising Distributors and Charles Edward Fleming
Circular Distributors Union , Local B.B. 5, International Alli-
ance of Bill Posters , Billers and Distributors of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Paul D . Gamble. Cases Nos.
7-CA-2458 and 7-CB-636. November /., 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 29,1960, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they 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 Com-
pany filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.
129 NLRB No. 60.