Local 100, Plumbers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 951 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

LOCAL 100, PLUMBERS
Plumbing and Steamfitters Local Union No. 100,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, and O. D.
Seastrunk, Agent and The McCally Company and D.
L. Gode. Cases 16-CB-526 and 16-CB-527
March 12, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS , AND KENNEDY
On September 18, 1970, Trial Examiner Bernard J.
Seff issued his Decision in the above-entitled consol-
idated proceeding, finding that Respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel and Respondents filed exceptions and supporting
briefs, and the Charging Parties filed a reply 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 powers
in connection with these cases to a three-member pan-
el.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified below'
The Charging Parties' motion to strike Respondent 's exceptions as un-
timely is hereby denied,
2 Respondents except in essence to certain of the Trial Examiner's credibil-
ity resolutions It is the Board 's established policy, however, not to overrule
a Trial Examiner 's credibility resolutions unless, as is not the case here, the
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F2d 362
(C.A. 3)
3 We have modified the Recommended Order and notice of the Trial
Examiner to correct his inadvertent failure to remedy specifically his finding
that Respondents engaged in a violation of Section 8(bXI)(B) of the Act by
restraining and coercing or attempting to restrain or coerce The McCally
Company in the selection or retention of its representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances through Respon-
dents ' insistence that the Company 's general foreman , D. L. Gode, be dis-
charged or replaced and by refusing to accept Godes' travel card. See Toledo
Locals Nos 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers Internation-
al Union, A FL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc), 175 NLRB No 173,
enfd . 437 F.2d 55 (C.A. 6), Jan. 27, 1971; and Dallas Mailers Union, Local
No 143, and International Mailers Union (Dow Jones Company, Inc), 181
NLRB No 49, enfd as modified 445 F.2d 730 (C.A.D.C.), Jan. 8 , 1971. We
have also corrected the Trial Examiner 's inadvertent error in finding that
Respondent refused to accept the travel cards of seven employees when in
fact they only refused to accept the travel card of D. L. Gode
ORDER
951
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that Respondents, Plum-
bers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, and O. D. Seastrunk,
agent, Dallas, Texas, their officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause The McCally
Company to discriminate against D. L. Gode, J. Wil-
liamson, E. Green, J. Talbot, R. Hunsaker, D. Bur-
roughs, and C. DeShazo, or any other of its employ-
ees, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B) and
8(b)(2) of the Act.
(b) Threatening to blacklist any of the above-
named employees in order to prevent their securing
any other employment anywhere in the country.
(c) Refusing to accept the travel card of D. L. Gode
or any other employee.
(d) Restraining or coercing, or attempting to re-
strain or coerce, The McCally Company or any other
employer in the selection or retention of its represent-
atives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances.
(e) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify The McCally Company, in writing, that
it has no objection to the employment of D. L. Gode,
J. Williamson, E. Green, J. Talbot, R. Hunsaker, D.
Burroughs, and C. DeShazo, and furnish said employ-
ees with copies of such notification.
(b) Refer employees from our hiring hall to the full
extent of our ability to The McCally Company.
(c) Accept a travel card from D. L. Gode.
(d) Make D. L. Gode whole for any losses he may
have suffered from Respondents' failure to accept his
travel card, including but not limited to any pension
or vacation benefits. This provision applies only to
Respondent Union and not to its agent, Seastrunk.(e)
Post at its offices and all other places where it custom-
arily posts notices to its members copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix. "4 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 16, after being duly signed by O. D. Sea-
Strunk, business manager and Respondent Union's
4 In the event that 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
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant
to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
188 NLRB No. 140
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative, shall be posted by Respondent Union
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspic-
uous 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.
(f) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 16,
signed copies of the said notice in sufficient number
to be posted by The McCally Company, the Employer
willing, in all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondents have taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be
dismissed to the extent that it alleges a violation of the
Act not found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause The
McCally Company to discriminate against D. L.
Gode, Joe Williamson, Earl Green, Joe Talbot,
Ray Hunsaker, Delbert Burroughs, and Charles
DeShazo, or any other of its employees, in viola-
tion of the Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce or attempt to
restrain or coerce The McCally Company or any
other employer in the selection or retention of its
representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or the adjustment of grievances.
WE WILL NOT threaten any of the above-named
employees or any other employees with being
blacklisted.
WE WILL NOT refuse to accept a travel card from
D. L. Gode or any other employee.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify both the above-named Compa-
ny and the above-named employees that we have
no objection to their continued employment with
The McCally Company.
WE WILL refer employees from our hiring hall
to the full extent of our ability to The McCally
Company.
WE WILL accept a travel card from D. L. Gode.
WE (Respondent Union) WILL make D. L.
Gode whole for any losses he may have suffered
from our failure to accept his travel card, includ-
ing but not limited to any pension or vacation
benefits.
Dated By
Dated By
LOCAL UNION No. 100, UNITED
ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING
AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF
THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
O. D. SEASTRUNK
(Agent)
(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 compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Room 8A24, Federal Office Building,
819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Tele-
phone 817-334-2921.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD J. SEFF, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, on a
complaint issued A ril 29, 1970, was tried before me in
Dallas, Texas, on July 7, 8, and 9, 1970. The complaint
alleges that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1XA) and
(B) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act.'
The Respondent by its answer denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
At the hearing the parties were afforded full opportunity
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
relevant evidence.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs submitted by the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
J. E. McCally, J. R. McCally, and R. H. McCally, herein
jointly called the Employer, are, and have been at all times
material herein, copartners doing business under the trade
name and style of The McCally Company. The Employer
1 The original and first amended charges in Case 16-CB-526 were filed by
the Employer on April 1 , 1970, and April 27, 1970, respectively. The onginal
and first amended charges in Case 16-CB-527 were filed by D. L. Gode on
April 1, 1970, and April 27, 1970, respectively.
LOCAL 100, PLUMBERS
maintains its office and principal place of business at 1929
Record Crossing , Dallas , Texas , where it is engaged in the
business of plumbing , heating , and mechanical work in the
construction industry.
During the past 12 months , which period is representative
of all times material herein , the Employer, in the course and
conduct of its business operations at its Dallas facilit y, pur-
chased , transferred , and delivered to the Dallas facilit
goods and materials valued in excess of $50 ,000, of which
goods and materials valued in excess of $50 ,000 were trans-
rted to said facility directly from the States of the United
Moates other than the State of Texas.
The Employer is now , and has been at all times material
herein , an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union is now , and has been at all times
material herein , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Ever since the Company first opened its doors to conduct
business it has recognized the Union and secured all of its
employees by referral from the Union . The complaint alleg-
es that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B)
and (2) by threatening the employees of The McCally Com-
pany with blacklisting if they didynot comply with demands
of Respondent ; by threatening the employees that Respon-
dent would cause the Employer and/or other employers to
discharge or otherwise discriminate against them because
they filed charges under the Act; by attempting to cause
The McC'ally Company to discharge or otherwise discrim-
inate against employees Lester E. Green , Charles R. De-
Shazo , Joe K . Williamson , Ray Hunsaker, Joe Talbot, and
Delbert Burroughs because of their lack of membership in
Respondent ; by attempting to cause the Employer to select
as his representative , for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or the adjustment of grievances , a person other than D.
L. Gode who had been designated by the Employer for such
purposes ; by attempting to cause the Employer to employ
as foremen , with the authority to adjust gnevances on be-
half of said Employer, only members of the Respondent
Union.
McCally has had several plumbing and mechanical jobs
in the Dallas area , including among others , its Skyline High
School (referred to in the initial stages of development as the
Science Technical High School ) an d the Pepsi Cola pro ect.
Besides resident members of Local 100 , McCally from
time to time had employed "travelers ," or members of
Respondent 's sister locals . These travelers are told by Mc-
Cally to go to Respondent 's hiring hall and be referred out
to the job through Local 100.
The travelers are an asset to the Company since they
provide manpower . Union Manager O. D. Seastrunk testi-
fied that these men represent a continuing source of irrita-
tion to him . Seastrunk holds his job as business manager of
the Union as the result of being elected by the members of
Local 100 . Seastrunk admitted that he is under intermittent
pressure from Respondent Union 's members to get rid of
the travelers . The pressure occurs when travelers are work-
ing on a job close to a member 's home or whenever a travel-
er has a good job that a local member wants for himself.
Seastrunk testified that in order to relieve this pressure from
953
time to time he has asked travelers to leave the Dallas juris-
diction to make room for local union members. He also
stated that travelers, upon coming to the Dallas jurisdiction,
receive instructions that they are expected to leave the job
when work is slack to make room for the local members.
The case of traveler Joe Talbot, whose home local is
located in Lubbock, Texas, is an example of the way Sea-
strunk has operated. The record shows that Seastrunk on
cross-examination admitted that he came upon Talbot
while he was working on the Skyline High School job and
stated as follows: "Joe, you are a journeyman and you are
a traveler. You should learn how travelers conduct them-
selves."
He also said that he told Talbot he would probably have
trouble as a traveler if he continued to conduct himself in
this manner. He further told Talbot that he would have
trouble elsewhere in Texas; wherever he traveled he was
going to have trouble from then on.
Seastrunk explained that by "this manner" he meant that
travelers should leave the job when Dallas members were
out of work. Talbot testified Seastrunk then made his threat
to Talbot more explicit:
Q. All right, sir. Was there anything else said?
A. Yes, sir. He went on to tell me that I was the
second man to do this to him from West Texas, and
Earl Green was first, and that he sure didn't appreciate
me staying on the job like that.
He said, "If I was your business agent I would make
a special effort to go to wherever you were and bring
you back if you were a member of my local, and I don t
see why Charlie Dunham [manager of the Lubbock,
Texas local] doesn't do this."
"If you continue to stay in this town without
picking up your travel card and going to work where
some other work is, that I will personally see that no
other man from West Texas will ever work in this juris-
diction again."
s s s q
Q. What did he say about the business agents?
A. He said, "We business agents stick pretty close
together, I guess you know. We keep in pretty close
contact, and any man that does like you are doing, we
have got a list of them and we'kind of refer to this as
a little ole ' black list. Your name will sure be on it. I
will see to that."
And he went on to say that he would guarantee me
that I would never work anywhere in the State of Texas
again.
i i i • 11
And he said, "Lad, I am going to ruin you."
Seastrunk denied having made the above-quoted threats
as were testified to by Talbot.
It should be remarked that throughout Seastrunk' s testi-
mony there runs a fairly steady thread of evasiveness. For
example:
Q. [By Seastrunk's attorney] Did you tell Mr. Talbot
on that occasion that you would personally see that no
other men from West Texas worked in town again?
A. I told him that things of this nature made it diffi-
cult for other people from that local to come here.
Early in the month of January 1970 2 Seastrunk made a
2 All references to dates relate to events that occurred in 1970 unless
otherwise specified.
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
somewhat similar threat to employee Owen Hunsaker while
he was workin as a plumber on Employer's Pepsi Cola
project. When Seastrunk noticed that Hunsaker was the
only man on the job he stated , "Well, I'm going to starve
you damn travelers to death drivin g backwards and for-
wards from here to your home local"
In his testimony Seastrunk did not deny that he had made
the above-quoted statement to Hunsaker . His recollection
of the remark was to the effect that if he had to file charges
for violation of the contract then "he would spend a lot of
time on the road between here and his home local" It
should be noted that Seastrunk did not explicitly deny the
remark attributed to him . He hedged by prefacing what he
said with "The best I can remember ...... I do not credit
Seastrunk's evasive comment and do credit the straightfor-
ward testimony of Hunsaker . I find that in the context in
which it was uttered that Seastrunk intended his statement
to be a threat and that is how it was taken by Hunsaker.
While Hunsaker is carried on the payroll with the classifica-
tion of superintendent, at the time this conversation took
place Hunsaker testified without contradiction that he was
working with his tools . The record is barren of evidence to
show that Hunsaker ever exercised any supervisory authon-
ty. Respondent in its brief argued that since Hunsaker had
the title of superintendent he was a supervisor and thus
beyond the protection of the Act . As aptly stated by the
General Counsel in his brief Hunsaker told Seastrunk at the
time this conversation took place that he was the "onhest
man on the job" and thus could not have been anybody's
supervisor.
The record contains a number of exhibits all of which
point to the fact that the Employer was in need of manpow-
er for a long period of time and had repeatedly made re-
quests of Seastrunk that men should be sent on the job so
he could complete his contracts . None of these requests
were fully honored . The situation became very difficult and
consequently J. R. McCally on or about March 18 called
Seastrunk and requested that he meet with him to explain
the additional manpower needed for the Skyline and an-
other job in Greenville , Texas. Such a meeting was agreed
to by Seastrunk and it took place on March 19, at the
coffeeshop of the Marriott Motor Hotel in Dallas.
McCalfy explained to Seastrunk that the general contrac-
tor at the Skyline job had cleared away certain problems
that he had been contending with and therefore McCally
was confronted with a schedule completion date of August
1970. In order to accomplish the necessary work McCally
needed an additional 10 plumbers , 2 welders, and 2 fitters,
plus 4 plumbers at the Greenville job. In connection with
this meeting the record shows the following:
Q. Did Seastrunk reply to that , and if so tell us what
he said.
A. Mr. Seastrunk told me , quoting him, I would have
difficulty in getting men to work for the McCally Com-
pany because of their lack of cooperation with the Un-
ion.
s s s
Well, I asked Mr. Seastrunk what he meant by lack
of cooperation.
He said, "We have asked you to get rid of Don Gode,
Jim Williamson, Earl Green, Joe Talbot, Ray Hunsak-
er, Delbert Burroughs, and ... Charles DeShazo....
through our refusal, we had gotten a bad reputation for
cooperating with the Union.
[McCally explained to] Seastrunk that these men
that he named had been good employees, they had
performed their work well, and [he] had no intention of
terminating their employment.
Seastrunk told me that there was one way that we
could cure our problems at Science Technical or Sky-
line, and that was to put Mr. Jimmy Bradshaw, who
was crew foreman on the job , into the ultimate position
of hiring and firing all employees on the job.
I told Mr. Seastrunk that we would not change the
authority that we had given to Mr . Don Gode.
He was our general foreman and he would have the
authority to hire and fire.
The record also shows that Seastrunk told McCally:
. he had been in touch with , the business representa-
tive for the Union in Lubbock , and had told this repre-
sentative that there would be no Lubbock travelers
allowed to work in the Dallas jurisdiction until that
Lubbock business agent got Mr. Earl Green and Mr.
Joe Talbot out of Dallas.
.. I am going to exert every possible pressure on these
travelers even if I get sent to the penitentiary for killing
one of the ratty bastards.
Seastrunk denied in general terms the accusations con-
tained in the above-quoted testimony from the record.
McCally telephoned Seastrunk to ask him what decision
had been made about McCally's proposal concerning the
providing of additional men.
McCally testified:
He [Seastrunk] said that he had been double-crossed
by the McCally Company so many times in the past
with agreements, that he required some indication of
my good faith to keep my bargain about the transfer-
ring of these additional men.
And I asked him what he thought an example of my
good faith would be.
And he said that if I would set Jimmy Bradshaw up
with the authority to hire and fire on the Skyline School
job, that he would consider that an indication.
B. The Events Concerning Don Gode
Gode was first employed by The McCall y Company i
March 1966 as a journeyman plumber working on the Aca-
n
demic Center of the University of Texas in Austin. He was
transferred to Dallas in September 1968 and his title on this
new job was that of general foreman. He testified that over
him he was answerable to G. C. Woodward who is the
project manager.
Gode testified on direct examination that his duties were
to solve problems that might arise from the contractual
relationship existing between labor and management and
that when disputes arose the job steward would present
them to him. In other words job stewards presented griev-
ances to Gode who testified that he would attempt to de-
termine whether the subject matter of the grievance was due
to a fault of the contractor or if McCally was in violation
of the agreement. He would than attempt to rectify the
situation. He further stated that he was the only representa-
tive of management who made final disposition of griev-
ances presented by the Union's representatives.
The General Counsel offered in evidence the Union's
constitution and contends that despite the clear language of
this document Seastrunk has refused to accept Gode's travel
LOCAL 100, PLUMBERS
card and has taken this position in an effort to deprive The
McCally Company of its designated representative on the
job. Particular reference was made to sections 180 and 181
of the Union 's constitution.
Gode went to his local business agent in Austin and se-
cured a travel card from him . Gode presented this travel
card to Mr. Seastrunk when he first came into the Dallas
jurisdiction in September of 1968 . Gode testified that he
placed his travel card on Seastrunk 's desk together with a
letter from McCally notifying Seastrunk that Gode was to
be employed by McCally . At the time the card was first
presented to Seastrunk he had with him in his office a Mr.
Patterson who is Seastrunk 's business agent . Patterson
made a comment that Gode would probably be out on ajob
only 30 to 90 days after which he would go back to Austin.
Gode further testified that under the Union 's constitution
Seastrunk was bound to accept this travel card and he was
duly presenting it to him under that document . Gode then
said that Seastrunk picked up the constitution and placed
it in his fingers and proceeded to bend it and said , ' that if
they wanted rules to be made to where they wouldn't bend
them , they would have to place the book in a cast iron
cover."
On a number of subsequent occasions Gode again offered
his travel card to Seastrunk but Seastrunk persisted in re-
fusing tp accept it. In addition, Gode wrote a number of
letters and sent a telegram to the Union 's main office in
Washington in an attempt to get his travel card accepted.
The only answer he ever received from Washington was that
the matter had been referred to the general organizer of this
area, a Mr. Earl Griffin . In response to other and further
efforts to have Seastrunk acce pt Gode 's travel card the an-
swer that Gode received from Seastrunk was "Don , I'm not
ready to accept it now."
The record also shows that when Gode was asked what
effect the refusal on Seastrunk 's part to accept his travel
card would have on his membership Gode answered that he
had been denied the right of membership in a local union
that is a member of the association that he belongs to, the
Plumbers and Pipefitters of America . This refusal to accept
his travel card had the result of denying him the benefits of
vacation , and the right to be a member of the pension plan.
Furthermore, the refusal to receive his travel card would
prevent Gode from becoming a resident of Dallas and mak-
ing his home there as he had attempted to do because the
constitution in section 181 states that to become a member
of a local union Gode would have to have his travel card
on deposit 1 year before a transfer card could be accepted.
Shortly after Gode filed charges with the NLRB he had
a telephone conversation with Mr. Seastrunk in the course
of which Seastrunk asked him if he was aware of the perjury
and penitentiary offenses in the charge that he had filed.
The precise meaning of this statement by Seastrunk is not
made clear from the record.
It should be pointed out that in the testimony given by
Mr. McCally, which has been quoted supra, in response to
McCally's re quest for additional manpower Seastrunk said
that The McCally Company would have difficulty in getting
men to work for them because of their lack of coo peration
with the Union . When pressed as to what he meant by "lack
of cooperation ," according to McCally, Seastrunk said,
"We have asked you to get rid of Don Gode , Jim William-
son, Earl Green , Joe Talbor , Ray Hunsaker , Delbert Bur-
roughs, ... and Charles DeShazo [you did not cooperate]."
At another point in the record Seastrunk allegedly told
McCally that there was one way the Company could cure
its problems and that was to put Mr . Jimmy Bradshaw into
the ultimate position of hiring and firing all employees on
955
the job . Bradshaw is a strong union member and he is also
a member of the Union 's financial committee and appren-
ticeship committee.
Gode impressed me as being a responsible and reliable
witness whose testimony was given in a straightforward
manner . It had the ring of authenticity . Comment has previ-
ously been made of the fact that denials by Seastrunk car-
ried no conviction and, in fact, they were made in evasive
and indirect answers which causes me to credit the testimo-
ny of Gode and to discredit that of Seastrunk.
The General Counsel states in his brief that the choice
between Gode and Bradshaw was no choice at all and in
effect was tantamount to an ultimatum that Gode be re-
placed with an active union adherent , Bradshaw , and that
this demand by Seastrunk constitutes a clear violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act . The General Counsel cites in
support of this contention the case of Haverhill Gazette, 123
NLRB 806. There is no question that Gode is the sole collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Employer in charge of
the adjustment of grievances at the Skyline jobsite . Thus, it
is clear that the threats directed against The McCally Com-
pany insisting that it remove Gode and put in his place
Jimmy Bradshaw represents the direct coercion of an em-
ployer in violation of 8(b)( 1)(B) of the Act.
The General Counsel in his brief points out that the effect
of refusing to accept Gode 's travel card is threefold: He has
been unable to participate in the retirement fund , he cannot
participate in the union activity of the local in whose juris-
diction he lives, and he can never transfer his membership
into the city wherein he wishes to live. Section 182 of the
Union's constitution requires that the travel card be accept-
ed for a year's time before a member can transfer to another
local.
The General Counsel takes the position that when Seas-
trunk attempted to force the Company to discharge Gode,
Talbot, Hunsaker , Green , Williamson , DeShazo , and Bur-
roughs the Union was violating Section 8 (b)(1)(A),
8(b)(1)(B), and 8(b)(2). Agreement to take this action was
described by Seastrunk as "cooperation with the Union."
Seastrunk told J . R. McCally that unless these thin gs were
done the Company would not be provided with sufficient
manpower through the only source available to it: the union
hiring hall . I agree with the General Counsel.
In its defense the Respondent 's Union states that whatev-
er comments were directed against the men named above
concerned individuals who were supervisors who are not
covered by the Act . In this connection it should be noted
that apart from the use of a classification of "foreman,"
which title is not conclusive of anything , the record is barren
of any evidence to show that these employees enjoyed and/
or exercised supervisory authority as set forth in Section
2(11) of the Act. So far as employees Green and Williamson
are concerned it was not contended that they are supervi-
sors and thus beyond the protection of the Act.
In the case of Local 964, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners ofAmerica, AFL-CIO (Contractors & Suppliers
Assn . of Rockland), 181 NLRB No. 154 , one of the employ-
ers (Helmer -Cronin Construction, Inc.) had used the local
hiring hall only as his main source of supply . After the
employer refused to assent to the local 's request to change
its collective-bargaining representative , it "experienced dif-
ficulty in recruiting carpenters through Respondent's hiring
hall ...." The Board found that "Respondent used its
control over the labor supply of carpenters as a means of
pressuring the Employer in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B)."
Here it is admitted that McCall hires no employees not
referred to it by Respondent andythe least that can be said
is that McCally has "experienced difficulty in recruiting
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plumbers through Respondent 's hiring hall ." In other
words , although Respondent does not have as much power
over the labor supply in Dallas as it would if it had an
exclusive hiring hall agreement , it has used whatever power
it does have in an attempt to secure the discharge of Green,
DeShazo , Williamson, Hunsaker, Talbot, and Burroughs in
violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) and the discharge
and/or replacement of Gode in violation of Section
8(b)(IXB).
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union, set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of The McCally
Company. have a close , intimate , and substantial relation-
ship to trade , traffic and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union and its agent,
O. D. Seastrunk, have engaged in unfair labor practices I
will recommend that they, and each of them , cease and
desist therefrom.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The McCally Company is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 100,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause The McCally Company to dis-
cri minate against D. L. Gode in violation of Section
8(b)(1XB) of the Act and against employees Joe Williamson,
Earl Green , Joe Talbot , Ray Hunsaker , Delbert Burroughs,
and Charles DeShazo , the Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices affectm com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(bX2) and (1XA) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]