Jack Watkins, G.M.C.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 632 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jack Watkins, G.M.C. and Clifford O. Waldron
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, Lodge No. 1484 (Jack Watkins , G.M.C.)
and Clifford O. Waldron . Cases 21-CA-10983 and
21-CB-4327
May 16, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
On January 26, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Rasbury issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Union filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions and a support-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge I and to
adopt his recommended Order .2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Jack Watkins G.M.C., Long
Beach, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, and Respondent International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. 1484,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. RASBURY. Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding was tried before me on November 21, 1972,1 at Los
Angeles, California, with all parties present. The consolidat-
ed complaint,' issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act),
alleged that Jack Watkins, G.M.C. (Respondent Company),
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act discharging
Clifford Waldron on May 23 pursuant to the demand of the
Respondent Union; the conduct of the Respondent Union
in demanding and causing the discharge of Waldron was
alleged to be a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act. Each of the respective answers of the Respondents
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
The issues to be resolved are: Is this the type of situation
which, under the Board's pronouncements in the Collyer 3
line of cases should be deferred to the arbitration procedure
established in the labor management agreement between
the Respondent Company and Respondent Union? Second,
in the event this matter is not deferred under the Collyer line
of cases , is there a valid union-security clause in the labor
agreement between the Respondents which required Wal-
dron to become a member of the Respondent Union?
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses,
and the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent
Union, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent Employer is now, and has been at all
times material herein, engaged in business at Long Beach,
California, in the retail distribution, servicing, and repair of
trucks and related products. In the course and conduct of
its business operations, the Employer annually derives gross
revenue in excess of $500,000 and annually purchases and
receives goods, materials , and supplies valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of
California. At the hearing the parties stipulated to the
above-related jurisdictional information, and on that basis
I find that the Employer is, and has been at all times mate-
rial herein, an employer engaged in commerce and in a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1 The Administrative Law Judge made certain inadvertent errors in his
Decision which are corrected as follows:
Under the section entitled "The Remedy," in the second paragraph thereof
and in In . 16, change "October 19, 1972" to "October 16, 1972."
Under sec . III A, par . 6, delete the first sentence thereof and substitute
therefor the following . "The second labor management contract covering the
period from December 16, 1971, through December 15, 1973, became effec-
tive approximately 10 months after Waldron was assigned the "A.F.A."
warrant duties as outlined above."
2 Member Jenkins would not defer to arbitration for the reasons given by
the Administrative Law Judge and for the reasons set forth in his dissents
in Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837, Terminal Transport Company, Inc,
185 NLRB 672; National Radio Company, Inc, 198 NLRB No 1; and suc-
ceeding cases.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges , and the Respondent Union does
not deny, and I herewith find, that the International Associ-
ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge No.
1 All dates hereinafter are 1972, unless otherwise indicated
2 A charge against each of the Respondents was filed on May 25 and served
on each of the Respondents the following day, May 26 The consolidated
complaint was dated September 29 and served on each of the parties on the
same date.
3 Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837
203 NLRB No. 98
JACK WATKINS, G.M.C.
1484, is, and at all material times herein has been , a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Clifford Waldron, the Charging Party, and Pat Muzingo,
who is the parts manager for the Respondent Company,
were called by the General Counsel. James Watkins, trea-
surer and operations manager for the Respondent Compa-
ny, and Thomas Burniston, business agent for the
Respondent Union, were called by the Respondent Union's
counsel. The relevant factual situation is not in serious dis-
pute and might be summarized from the record and the
testimony of the above-named witnesses, as follows:
The parties stipulated that a Board-conducted election
was held on August 12, 1969, and, pursuant to the results
thereof, the Respondent Union was certified as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative .4 The recognition clause of
the first contract negotiated between the parties covering
the period December 15, 1969, through December 15, 1971,5
reads as follows:
The Employer recognizes the Unions as the exclusive
bargaining representatives of all its employees at its
Long Beach, California, facility, excluding new and
used truck salesmen , office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
The union-security clause in this same first contract reads
as follows:
Article II - Union Security:
(a) It shall be a condition of employment that all
employees of the employer covered by this agreement,
and hired on or after the effective date or date of execu-
tion of this agreement , whichever is the later , shall on
the sixtieth (60th) day following the beginning of such
employment become and remain a member in good
standing of the appropriate Union.
(b) It shall also be a condition of employment that
all employees of the employer covered by this agree-
ment who are members of the Unions in good standing
on the effective date or the date of execution of this
agreement , whichever is the later, shall remain mem-
bers in good standing.
(c) No present employee of the Employer covered
by this agreement shall be required to become a mem-
ber of the Unions as a condition of his employment or
continued employment by the Employer.
(d) The appropriate Union shall notify the Employ-
er, in writing , of any employee who is in default under
Based on the preamble of the labor agreements placed in evidence (G.C.
Exhs. 2 and 3 ) the certification was a joint certification for the Respondent
Union and Teamsters ' Local 88 , with each Union having authority to repre-
sent the employees whose duties fell within the respective Union 's normal
work jurisdictions.
5 See G .C. Exh . 2 for complete copy of the contract
633
the preceding paragraphs (a) or (b). Such employees
shall be discharged only if they fail to tender the peri-
odic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership in the
appropriate Union within seven days after receipt of
such written notice by the general manager of the Em-
ployer, or his designee.
(e) The Unions shall indemnify, defend and save
the Employer harmless against any and all claims, de-
mands, suits , or other forms of liability that shall arise
out of, or result from, any action taken by the Employ-
er for the purpose of complying with the provisions of
this Section II.
Waldron was hired as a heavy-duty mechanic by the Re-
spondent Company on November 1, 1969. In keeping with
the contract language quoted above, there was no require-
ment to join the Union and Waldron elected not to do so.
On February 1, 1970, he was given the title of foreman and
a 25-cent-an-hour increase .6 Waldron continued to perform
his duties as a foreman mechanic until the early part of
1971. (The exact date was not established. Apparently the
Company made no record of the change in his duties.) At
that time his duties changed and he started doing "Applica-
tion for Factory Adjustment" warranty work. This work
consisted of keeping records on the parts supplied and the
labor performed by Respondent Company in fulfillment of
the General Motors Corporation warranties given on the
various trucks so that these company costs could be back-
charged to G.M.C. In fulfilling these duties, Waldron testi-
fied he wore the same kind of work clothes as he had worn
while working in the shop; that while he worked at a desk
in performing the paper work, he was in and out of the shop
where the mechanics were working and they, in turn, were
in and out of his work area which was immediately adjacent
to the workshop. Waldron testified that 70 to 80 percent of
his time was devoted to the "A.F.A" warranty duties, and
the balance of the time was spent in the shop helping out
the mechanics. If Waldron had any questions regarding his
work, he went to Mr. Richard Fleming, who at the time
Waldron first started these duties was shop superintendent,
with authority to hire and fire. Waldron also had contact
with Merle Eifert, who was the bookkeeper or office clerical
that picked up his work papers and made the extensions and
had them typed.
Waldron was told at the time he was asked to help with
the "A.F.A." warranty work that the Company was running
behind because of the large volume of warranty work and
Mr. Fleming needed some help. In February 1972, Waldron
was reassigned mechanical duties and Mr. Fleming has con-
tinued the "A.F.A." warranty work without additional as-
sistance.
The second labor management contract covering the pe-
riod from December 16, 1971, through December 15, 1973,
became effective shortly before Waldron was assigned the
"A.F.A." warranty duties as outlined above. (See G.C. Exh.
6 While the point was not fully discussed or disclosed at the hearing, based
on the arguments of the parties , it seems reasonably safe to conclude that the
"foremen" were not supervisors as defined by the Act. They had no authority
to hire or fire , and at least some so-called "foremen" were members of the
Union . I conclude these foremen were leadmen and were included within the
bargaining unit.
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3). The language of the recognition clause remained un-
changed, but there were changes in the union-security claus-
es. The new language of paragraph (c) is the most relevant
and reads as follows:
(c) An employee of the Employer covered by this
agreement who was not a member or who had not
signed an authorization card or membership applica-
tion by December 15, 1969, shall not be required to
become a member of either Union as a condition of his
employment or continued employment by the Employ-
er.
As indicated earlier, Waldron was reassigned the regular
duties of a mechanic in February 1972.
Following a complaint or a query from Glenn Letts, the
shop steward for Respondent Union, concerning the mem-
bership status of Waldron, Burniston , business agent of
Respondent Union, wrote to the Company on April 5 and
requested Waldron's termination unless "he tenders to the
Union all fees now due." (See G.C. Exh . 4.) Several meet-
ings or discussions followed , with the Company consistently
contending that Waldron "had not left the bargaining unit."
[And thus was protected from required membership by the
"grandfather clause" language of the agreement , i.e., article
II, paragraph (c).] The Union contended that Waldron had
left the bargaining unit while performing the assigned "A.F.
A." warranty duties and thus was required to join the Union
30 days after he returned to the bargaining unit as a me-
chanic . This would be in keeping with paragraph (a) of the
union-security clause , article II.
Neither the Union nor the Company was able to prevail
in convincing the other of their views, and on May 8, Re-
spondent Union wrote the Company reminding it of the
Union's earlier demand for the termination of Waldron
unless he tendered the fees then due. In this letter the Re-
spondent Union attached a copy of a grievance form bear-
ing the heading of the Respondent Union and dated May
8, and in the letter requested arbitration and suggested the
names of three possible arbitrators.
Following receipt of the May 8 letter , there were other
efforts to settle the problem , but the Company never ex-
pressed a willingness to arbitrate or took steps to select an
arbitrator as suggested by the Union or as provided for the
labor management agreement ' There were several compro-
mise offers during this period ; i.e., the Union offered to
waive the initiation fee and back dues and the Company
was willing to pay the employee's dues . However, Waldron
was completely unwilling to join the Union, and the Com-
pany was consistently negative toward proceeding to arbi-
tration.
B. Analysis
1. Should Collyer be applied?
Unquestionaly Waldron was terminated because of the
Union's insistence that he was required , under the terms of
the contract , to join the Union .8 The Union made the re-
7 Art. VIII (d), Grievance and Arbitration Clause , is set forth in Appendix
A, attached hereto.
t A consideration of the niceties of the union shop vis-a-vis 'joining the
quest and the Company finally acceded to the Union's posi-
tion, although the Union was undoubtedly perfectly willing
to submit their position regarding the interpretation of the
contract language to an arbitrator as provided for in the
contract . The contract language is clearly ambiguous, and
the position taken initially by the Company makes it clear
that the parties to the contract had differing interpretations
of what had been negotiated . This dispute is a typical exam-
ple of an honest difference of opinion between parties to a
labor agreement and in my opinion should have been sub-
mitted to arbitration with a full disclosure from each party
as to what was intended in their proposals , counterpropo-
sals, and final language , including such information as:
Which side proposed the critical language and what, if any-
thing, may have been a consideration or a quid pro quo for
the acceptance of the final language.
Clearly the dispute "arises concerning the interpretation
or application of the agreement ," a timely grievance was
filed , and provision for final and binding arbitration or
disposition by arbitration is provided for in article VIII of
the applicable labor agreement between the parties. Even
though the Respondent Company has been uncooperative
in the arbitration process, arbitration could be compelled by
court action . (Indeed , there is evidence that the Union
threatened to do just that.) However, arbitration did not
occur, and the Company capitulated to the Union's request
for the discharge of Waldron.
This dispute appears then to be well within the general
considerations which led the Board to conclude in Collyer,
supra, that arbitration is the preferred procedure for resolv-
ing a dispute which could be submitted to arbitration con-
cerning the meaning of the parties' agreement . Clearly in
this case, "the alleged unfair labor practices are intimately
10entwined with matters of contractual interpretation."
However, because in this dispute the Respondent Compa-
ny-for reasons which are not readily apparent-after some
delay, chose to align itself with the Respondent Union, and
is now equally subject to the remedial powers of the Board,
the interests of the Charging Party are in conflict with the
interests of both the Respondents . A fair and impartial reso-
lution, as required by both Speilberg 11 and Collyer, supra,
would necessitate a detailed presentation to the arbitrator
of what transpired at the negotiating table when the relevant
and disputed language was placed in the agreement. This
information rests exclusively with the Respondents which,
as indicated above, at this time and place appeared to be
aligned against the Charging Party . For this reason , then, I
shall not recommend deferral to arbitration , but shall dis-
Union," or the Company paying the dues on behalf of Waldron, is not
necessary for a resolution of the issues raised in this case and will not be
discussed
9 The Respondent Union relies heavily on Medical Manors, inc., d/b/a
Community Convalescent Hospitals, 199 NLRB No. 139, wherein the Board
deferred to the arbitration process. In that case the union resorted to the
court to compel the company to arbitrate . But the dispute remained at all
times between the respondent company and the charging party-the union.
In the instant case the Company finally acceded to the Union 's request and
the cases are readily distinguishable.
10 Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Driver Local No. 70 (National
Biscuit Company), 198 NLRB No. 4.
11 Speilberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080.
JACK WATKINS, G.M.C. 635
pose of the unfair labor practice allegations of the complaint
on their merit.12
2. Was Waldron required by the terms of
the agreement to join the Union?
Respondent Union's position is that Waldron left the
bargaining unit in early 1971 when he started performing
the "A.F.A." warranty duties, and did not return to work
included within the bargaining units until February of the
following year. If this premise is accurate , then under the
language of the labor agreement and the law, it seems clear,
Waldron was required to join the Union 30 days after re-
turning to work within the bargaining unit . When he failed
to do so, the Union's insistence that Waldron join (or at
least tender his dues and initiation fees ) and the Respondent
Company's subsequent discharge of Waldron was valid and
well within the permissible union-security provisions of the
Act.13
At the hearing the Respondent Union made an effort to
show that the type of work Waldron performed as an "A.F.
A." warranty employee was office clerical and thus clearly
excluded from coverage within the bargaining unit as set
forth in the recognition clause . This position was urged in
the brief, although it seems clear from the evidence at the
hearing that such a contention was not made by the Union
in its early discussions with the Company, nor was it set
forth in either the grievance or the Union's letter of May 8.
I do not regard as fatal , however, the delay in raising this
issue . My concern is in accepting the premise as contended
for by the Union.
The Union also urges the treatment of Jack Borza, an
employee of the Company who was required to join the
Union , as a precedent for the interpretation of the disputed
language . I am compelled to disregard this argument be-
cause it begs the crucial question . The parties stipulated that
Borza was working in a nonbargaining unit position and
then returned to the bargaining unit . The critical question
for determination here is: Did Waldron ever leave the bar-
gaining unit? If this question is answered in the affirmative,
then the complaint should be dismissed.
It was originally the position of the Company that Wal-
dron had never left the bargaining unit . This determination
is based on the credited testimony of James Watkins, who
"sat in" on the contract negotiations and was primarily
responsible for the expressed position of the Company to
the Union regarding Walrdon.
12 Following Kansas Meat Packers, a Division of Aristo Foods, Inc., 198
NLRB No. 2; compare National Radio Company, Inc, 198 NLRB No. 1,
wherein the Board deferred to arbitration, predicated on their finding that
the interests of the Union and the aggrieved employee were in substantial
harmony.
13 The relevant portion of Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act permitting this form of
union security reads as follows: "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an
employer-by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage member-
ship in any labor organization : Provided, That nothing in this Act, or in any
other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making
an agreement with a labor organization (not established , maintained, or
assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act as an unfair labor
practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or
after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment, or the
effective date of such agreement , whichever is the later.... "
I am convinced that Waldron never left the bargaining
unit for the following reasons: (1) When he was asked to
help with the "A.F.A." warranty work, he was told, "There
was a lot of warranty work coming in and Mr. Fleming
needed some help." After the work was caught up, Waldron
continued with his regular mechanical duties and there was
no replacement of him in the warranty job. (2) No record
or notation was made on the personnel records by the Com-
pany of any transfer or change of duty at the time he was
asked to help with the warranty work. (3) Waldron was in
and out of the mechanical shop on a regular basis and had
frequent contact with the mechanics. (4) Twenty to thirty
percent of his time was spent assisting the mechanics in the
shop, work he had formerly performed. (5) There was no
change in his wages either before or after the warranty work
and he remained on an hourly rate before, during, and after
the warranty assignment. (6) His mode of dress remained
the same before, during, and after the warranty assignment.
(7) There was no change in company benefits.
Equally important, it seems clear from the records that
while the work performed was slightly different from that
of the usual mechanic, only a person with mechanical
knowledge and familiarity with the G.M.C. truck equip-
ment could have performed in the warranty job. Certainly,
the typical and usual office clerical could not have per-
formed these functions. The physical location of the work
was in the proximate area of the mechanical repair shop.
For all of these reasons, I am convinced that Waldron re-
mained within the bargaining unit while performing the
warranty work.
Moreover, the Board has for many years had a policy that
the union-security provisions relied upon in justification
for discharge must be expressed in clear and unmistakable
language.14 The relevant language here, as applied to a non-
existent job at the time the language was agreed to, is not
clear and unmistakable. Contrary to Respondent Union's
argument, the phrase in article 11(c), "covered by this agree-
ment," does not relate to or modify the noun employee, but
rather the noun employer. In view of the extreme conse-
quences that can legally be imposed on a nonconforming
employee, it is not asking too much to require the parties to
a labor agreement to express the essentials of union-security
provisions in ummistakable language.I5
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jack Watkins, G.M.C., is an employer engaged in
commerce and Respondent Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
2. Respondent Union did wrongfully and unlawfully
cause Respondent Employer to discriminate in regard to the
tenure of employment of Clifford 0. Waldron in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, thereby encouraging member-
ship in Respondent Union, and did thereby violate Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
3. By discharging Clifford 0. Waldron at the request of
the Union, the Respondent Company has interfered with,
14 Don Juan Co., Inc, 79 NLRB 154, enfd. as modified on other points 178
F.2d 625 (C.A. 2, 1949).
15 The Iron Fireman Manufacturing Company, 69 NLRB 19.
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of their
Section 7 rights of the Act and by the same conduct discri-
minated in regard to the tenure of employment of Waldron,
all of which encouraged union membership and is violative
of Section 8(axl) and (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found both Respondent Union and Respondent
Company to have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that each be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
I shall recommend that the Respondent Union advise
Jack Watkins , G.M.C., in writing, with a copy to Clifford
0. Waldron, that it has no objection to the reemployment,
or continued employment , of Waldron.16 It shall be recom-
mended that Respondent Union and Respondent Compa-
ny, jointly and severally, make Waldron whole for any loss
of pay or other benefits, including seniority, he may have
suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination against
him from the date of the discriminatory act of discharge,
May 23, until he was reinstated , October 19, less interim
earnings and in a manner consistent with Board policies as
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. In-
terest on said backpay to be computed in the amount and
manner set forth in his Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716. Posting of the usual notices will be recommended.
It is also recommended that Respondent Company, Jack
Watkins, G.M.C., preserve and, upon request, make avail-
able to the Board or its agents payroll and other necessary
records to facilitate the computation of backpay.
Upon the foregoing conclusions of law , upon the entire
record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER17
A. Respondent Company, Jack Watkins, G.M.C., its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment to encourage
or discourage membership in any labor organization except
as authorized in Section 8(aX3) of the Act, as amended.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent authorized in Section 8(aX3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
16 Waldron was reinstated by Respondent Employer on October 19, 1972.
Respondent Union refrained from further protests, without prejudice, pend-
in4 the outcome of the instant case.
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
sary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Post at its facilities in Long Beach, California, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 18 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21 , shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative , be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Union
make Clifford O. Waldron whole in the manner set forth in
the section above entitled "Remedy."
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent Company has taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Union, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. 1484, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights, specifically including the right to re-
frain from all organizational activity, except to the extent
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Jack Watkins, G.M.
C., to discriminate against an employee in violation of Sec-
tion 8(aX3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its office and hiring hall, if any, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix C." 19 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
21, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of
Respondent Union, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places , including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Additional copies of Appendix C shall be signed by
a representative of the Respondent Union and forthwith
returned to the Regional Director for Region 21. These
notices shall be furnished to Respondent Company and
posted at places where notices to the Respondent
Company's employees are customarily posted.
(c) Advise Respondent Company, Jack Watkins, G.M.C.,
in writing, with a copy to Clifford O. Waldron, that it will
not object to the employment by Jack Watkins, G.M.C., of
Waldron.
(d) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Company
make Clifford O. Waldron whole in the manner set forth in
the section above entitled "Remedy."
18 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National 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."
19 See fn. 18.
JACK WATKINS , G.M.C. 637
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
Employer is given discretion by this Agreement;
(4) He shall not consider any hearsay evidence;
(5) He shall deal only with the grievance which oc-
casioned his appointment.
APPENDIX B
ARTICLE VIII - GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION:
(a) In the event that a dispute arises concerning the inter-
pretation or application of this Agreement . the [sic] Unions,
or the aggrieved employee , shall file a grievance in writing
with the Employer 's General Manager , or his designee,
within fifteen ( 15) calendar days after the occurrence of the
alleged violation by the Employer . In the event a grievance
is not filed within the time specified herein, the grievance
shall not be entitled to consideration.
(b) Upon the filing of a written grievance , the parties
hereto shall use every amicable means to settle or adjust
such grievance , but in the event of failure to reach a settle-
ment or adjustment thereof within two (2 ) calendar weeks,
the Unions may request the General Manager of the Em-
ployer , or his designee , in writing, to take the grievance to
arbitration . If the request for arbitration is not made within
one (1) calendar month after the filing of the grievance, the
grievance shall not be subject to arbitration.
(c) If the Unions request arbitration of a properly filed
grievance within the time limit specified in paragraph (b) of
this Article VIII , the grievance shall be presented before an
impartial arbitrator to be selected as follows : The Employer
and the Unions shall each submit a list of arbitrators accept-
able to them within one ( 1) week after receipt by the Em-
ployer of the written request from the Unions for
arbitration , and from these lists shall select an arbitrator
mutually acceptable to both , if possible . Should the Em-
ployer and the Unions be unable to agree within one (1)
calendar week upon a mutually impartial arbitrator, either
of the parties may request the Federal Mediation and Con-
ciliation Service to submit a panel of seven (7) arbitrators,
from which an arbitrator shall be selected. Each of the
parties shall be entitled to strike three (3) names alternately
from such list. The party who is to strike the first name shall
be selected by lot.
(d) The expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally
between the Employer and the Unions . The Arbitrator's
decision shall be final and binding upon all parties to the
arbitration.
(e) An employee will be considered to have waived any
claim for improper payment of wages , including overtime,
unless the employee in question , or the Unions , files a writ-
ten grievance for non-payment of wages, in accordance with
the provisions of this Article VIII , with the Employer with
fifteen ( 15) calendar days after the employee in question is
paid for the time worked.
(f) The powers of the arbitrator are as follows:
(1) He shall have no power to change the wages,
hours or conditions of employment set forth in this
Agreement;
(2) He shall have no power to add to, subtract from
or modify any of the terms of this Agreement.
(3) He shall have no power to substitute his discre-
tion for the Employer's discretion , in cases where the
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Pursuant to a recommended Order of an Administrative
Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with , restrain , or coerce em-
ployees by discharging them , or in any other manner
discriminating against them , for engaging in protected
concerted activities , or refraining from all organiza-
tional activity, including membership in the Union ex-
cept as may be required under the proviso of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Clifford O. Waldron reinstatement to
his former job, or, if not available, to a substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights or privileges.
WE WILL make Clifford O. Waldron whole for loss of
wages and benefits suffered as a result of the discrim-
ination against him.
JACK WATKINS , G.M.C.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material . Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board 's Office, Region 21 , Eastern Columbia
Building, 849 South Broadway , Los Angeles , California
90014, Telephone 213-688-5229.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Pursuant to a recommended Order of an Administrative
Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Jack Watkins,
G.M.C., Long Beach , California , to disccriminate
against Clifford O. Waldron, or any other employee, in
violation of Section 8(aX3) of the Act, as amended by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees of Jack Watkins, G.M.C., in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent such rights may be affected by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL notify Jack Watkins, G.M.C., that we with-
draw our objection to the employment of Clifford O.
Waldron, and will not oppose his reinstatement with-
out loss of benefits or seniority.
WE WILL make Clifford O. Waldron whole for loss of
wages and benefits suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against him.
Dated By
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS , LODGE No 1484
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)