Local 101, Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 577 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

LOCAL 101, CARPENTERS
Local Union No. 101, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO (Fruehauf-
Fischbach Automation) and George E. Lang, Jr.
Case 5-CB-1044
June 25, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On March 30, 1971, Trial Examiner Gordon J.
Myatt issued his Decision in this proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting 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 this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Local Union No. 101,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and represent-
atives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order as herein modified:
1. Delete the following from paragraph 1(b) of the
Order: "or any other employer."
2. Substitute the attached Appendix for the Trial
Examiner's Appendix.
' The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's recommendation that
it be ordered to cease and desist from restraining and coercing employers
other than Fruehauf-Fischbach. Since the record is void of any evidence or
suggestion that Respondent's unlawful actions were directed against any
other employer, we find ment to this exception and shall amend the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order
577
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found,
after the trial before a duly designated Trial Examiner,
that we violated Federal law by restraining and coerc-
ing Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation in that Com-
pany's selection of individuals to represent it for pur-
poses of adjusting grievances of millwright employees
on the post office jobsite in Baltimore, Maryland, we
hereby notify our members and all millwright em-
ployees employed by Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation
that:
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Fruehauf
Fischbach Automation in the selection of repre-
sentatives chosen, or likely to be chosen, for the
purposes of collective bargaining or the adjust-
ment of grievances.
WE WILL notify Fruehauf-Fischbach Automa-
tion that we have no objection to that Company
hiring George E. Lang, Jr., as a millwright general
foreman and Forrest A. Sours as a millwright fore-
man on the post office project in Baltimore, Mary-
land.
WE WILL make whole George E. Lang, Jr., and
Forrest A. Sours for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered as a result of our unlawful conduct
which caused Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation to
rescind its decision to hire them on the post office
project in Baltimore.
LOCAL UNION
No. 101,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
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 directed to the Board's
Office, Room 1019, Federal Building, Charles Center,
Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Telephone 301-962-2822.
191 NLRB No. 108
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed
by George E. Lang, Jr., an individual (hereinafter called Lang
or the Charging Party), on July 13, 1970,' and an amended
charge filed on September 25, against Local Union No. 101,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO (hereinafter called Respondent Union), a com-
plaint and notice of hearing was issued by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 5 on September 29. The complaint alleged,
inter alia, that Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation (hereinafter
referred to as FFA) hired Lang and Forrest A. Sours as
general foreman and foreman respectively of millwrights to
be employed by FFA at its construction site at the main post
office building in Baltimore, Maryland. It is alleged that the
Respondent Union caused FFA to rescind its decision to hire
Lang and Sours by threatening FFA with labor disputes and
violence. It is further alleged that Lang and Sours, as repre-
sentatives of FFA, would have adjusted grievances of mill-
wright employees on the project. The complaint asserts that
the alleged conduct on the part of the Respondent Union
restrained and coerced FFA in the selection of its representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining or adjustment
of grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
Respondent Union's answer admitted certain allegations of
the complaint but denied commission of any unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act.
This case was tried before me on November 24 and 25 in
Baltimore, Maryland. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard and to introduce relevant evidence on the
issues. Briefs were submitted by counsel for the General
Counsel and counsel for the Respondent Union. They have
been fully considered by me in arriving at my decision in this
case.
Upon the entire record herein, including my evaluation of
the testimony of the witnesses based on my observation of
their demeanor and upon consideration of the relevant evi-
dence, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation (FFA) is a Delaware cor-
poration engaged throughout the United States as a general
contractor in the construction and erection of conveyors and
conveyor systems in government and commercial buildings.
In the course of its business FFA has been awarded contracts
to perform work on post office buildings in various states
along the eastern seaboard of the United States. Installation
of a conveyor system in a new main post office in Baltimore,
Maryland, is one of FFA's current contracts. For the Bal-
timore project FFA has received goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the
State of Maryland.
Upon the foregoing, I find that FFA is, and has been at all
times material herein, an employer as defined in Section 2(2)
of the Act engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein refer to 1970.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 101, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The main offices of FFA are located in California and its
construction work throughout the country is under the direct
supervision of Peter Robbins, construction manager. With
the exception of a national agreement with the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, FFA does not have na-
tional contracts with the various craft unions whose members
are employed by it.' The Company follows a practice of sign-
ing agreements negotiated by the local craft unions and the
local chapters of the Associated General Contractors (AGC)
in the areas where its work is to be performed.
Prior to the award of the post office job in Baltimore, FFA
had never worked on a contract in the Maryland area. In
early March, the Company sent its assistant construction
manager, Jones, and a field superintendent, Knock,' to confer
with the officials of the Respondent Union. The purpose of
their visit was twofold: to sign a local agreement with the
Respondent Union; and to insure a supply of millwrights for
the project once it commenced.
The two FFA representatives conferred with Catterton,
president of the Respondent Union, and Meadows, the mill-
wright business agent. They were informed that the Union
was in the midst of negotiations and engaged in a strike
against the local AGC chapter for a new contract. Jones
informed the union officials that it was the policy of the
Company to abide by the local agreement and that it would
look to the Union for its source of millwright employees.
Meadows told Jones that the Union had three individuals
available who were capable of running a job the magnitude
of the post office project, and when the work was scheduled
to commence the Union would supply FFA with the three
names from which they could choose a general foreman. The
meeting concluded with the Union agreeing to see that men
were available for the job and the FFA representatives agree-
ing to sign a contract with the Union when it was finally
negotiated and to give the Union 2 weeks notice before the
job started."
On April 2, the Charging Party, Lang, went to the post
office jobsite and was introduced to Robbins by the represent-
ative of the architect for the project.' The architect's repre-
sentative had previously informed Lang that FFA was going
to employ millwrights and would need a millwright general
foreman. Robbins and Lang reviewed his qualifications and
his familiarity with the kind of work FFA was scheduled to
perform on the project. Lang told Robbins that he was not
familiar with the type of conveyors that FFA was going to
install, but that he was an experienced millwright in good
standing with the Union and had worked on a number of jobs
as a foreman. Lang testified that Robbins said that as far as
he was concerned Lang could have the job, but the final
In addition to the Electrical Workers, FFA employs millwrights, iron-
workers, operating engineers, laborers, and, on occasion, painters.
The field superintendent scheduled to handle the post office project for
FFA was Walter Kentch. However, he was ill in a hospital in Ohio, and
Jones and Knoch made the preliminary contact with the Union so that the
project could proceed as scheduled.
" The above account is taken from the unrefuted testimony of Catterton
and Meadows
Lang stated that he met with Robbins during the latter part of March,
but was uncertain of the exact date. In a letter received into evidence
Robbins placed the date of the meeting as April 2, and I accept his recollec-
tion in this regard.
LOCAL 101, CARPENTERS 579
decision would have to be made by'FFA's field superinten-
dent (Kentch) who would be in town at a later date. Robbins
testified that he did not hire Lang nor did he inform him that
he could have the job. According to Robbins, he told Lang
that he would advise the field superintendent that he had
spoken with him, and that the field superintendent would
make the final decision.
On April 15, Lang attended a special call meeting at the
union headquarters and while there spoke to Business Agent
Meadows. Lang told the business agent that he was scheduled
to go to the post office jobsite the next day to meet with
Kentch concerning the general foreman's job. Lang asked the
business agent if he wanted to come along. Meadows stated
that he did not know Kentch and refused to go with Lang to
the jobsite. He also informed Lang that he had already met
with FFA representatives and had a commitment for the men
who were to work on the job.
The following day Lang went to the post office jobsite
accompanied by Forrest Sours, a fellow union member and
millwright. Lang had discussed the job with Sours and had
agreed that Sours would be the first millwright employee
hired. During the course of the interview with Kentch it was
agreed that Lang would be the millwright general foreman
and Sours would be the first millwright employee, with the
understanding that he would become the first foreman on the
job when the number of millwrights increased.' Kentch told
Lang and Sours that the project was tentatively scheduled to
begin the following Monday, April 20, and they were to
report for work at that time. Kentch, Lang, and Sours then
left the project and went to the union hall. Kentch intended
to execute a contract with the Union for FFA and discuss the
availability of millwrights to start the job.
There is conflicting testimony concerning the discussion at
the union headquarters. Lang testified that Kentch told Cat-
terton and Meadows he had hired Lang as general foreman
and asked for a copy of the union contract. According to
Lang, Meadows stated that Lang would not be the general
foreman of the job because the Union already had a man
picked for the spot. Lang stated that when Kentch insisted
upon his employment as general foreman, Meadows replied
that if FFA hired Lang, millwrights would not be available
to work on the project because he would see that they were
assigned to other jobs. Lang further testified that Meadows
told Kentch that there would be a possibility of disputes on
the jobsites with other crafts and if FFA obtained an injunc-
tion against a particular craft, another craft would then cause
a dispute. According to Lang, Meadows indicated he might
not be available to settle disputes on the job as he had to cover
the whole state and might be out of town at the time. Lang
testified that when Meadows made this remark, Catterton
reprimanded him and assured Kentch that if the business
agent were not available he would personally handle any
disputes that arose on the job. During the discussion Mead-
ows told Kentch that Lang was not qualified to run the job
as general foreman.
Sours' testimony was essentially the same as that of Lang,
except that Sours stated Meadows told him he could not work
on the post office project because he was already employed.
According to Sours, he replied that his current job was almost
completed, but the business agent was adamant in opposing
his employment on the post office project. He stated that
Sours would not work on the project in any capacity. Sours
testified that Meadows told Kentch that he would see if there
Under the terms of the union contract a foreman was required for every
10 millwrights employed (art. XV, sec. 1) The journeyman rate was $6 40
per hour with the foremen receiving 50 cents and the general foremen
receiving $1 more than the basic rate.
were not some way to stop the two men from going on the
job, and he did not care if they took the matter to the Labor
Board. Meadows stated he would do everything he could to
stop them from going on the job.
Meadows and Catterton testified that Meadows com-
plained bitterly about Kentch apparently ignoring the com-
mitment made by Jones and Knoch. Meadows said that he
questioned Sours about his present job and stated that Sours
replied he was going to quit the job, as he was only interested
in himself. Meadows also admitted that he informed Kentch
that there might be disputes on the job and he would not be
available at all times to come to the jobsite. Both Meadows
and Catterton testified that the latter took him to task for that
statement and promised that all disputes would be handled,
even if he had to handle them personally.
Kentch was not available to testify at the time of the trial
because he was hospitalized in Ohio due to a serious illness.
However, he had given a deposition in a prior state court
proceeding involving this matter, and the deposition was read
into the record. According to Kentch's deposition, when he,
Lang, and Sours went to the union hall on April 16, he
notified the union president that FFA would need a steward
and two journeymen to get the job started the following week.
He also stated that Lang and Sours had been hired as general
foreman and foreman. The union officials took the position
that Lang did not qualify for a job of that size, and Catterton
stated that Lang did carpentry work as opposed to millwright
work. Catterton said that, while the Union could not legally
stop Kentch from hiring Lang, the Company would be asking
for trouble. Meadows, according to the deposition, stated that
there would be a lot of jurisdictional disputes on the job and
he would not be able to settle them unless ordered by Catter-
ton, and even then he might not be available. Meadows also
stated that if FFA were successful in getting an injunction
against one craft, another craft might then cause a dispute.
Kentch stated in his deposition that the argument was heated
and loud. He further stated that he was told the Union had
three men qualified to be general foreman, and one of these
individuals had been waiting 3 months for a job. Before
Kentch left the union offices, he signed an interim agreement'
with the Union and asked to be supplied with a steward and
two journeymen for the following Monday!
According to Kentch's deposition, after he left the union
offices he contacted Robbins in California and reported the
events that had taken place. Robbins informed Kentch that
the Post Office Department was pressing for the job to com-
mence. He stated the Company had to go along with the
Union because there was a penalty clause contained in the
post office contract. Meadows also called Robbins in Cali-
fornia after the meeting with Kentch. He complained about
Kentch refusing to honor the commitment made by Jones
regarding the hiring of the general foreman. Robbins prom-
ised to look into the matter and get back to the business
agent?
The following Monday, Robbins called Kentch at the job-
site. He stated that he had talked with the union president
and had been told that three men were available to run the
job. Robbins instructed Kentch to call Catterton and advise
' An interim agreement was necessary because the Union had just com-
pleted negotiations with the local AGC, and the new contracts had not been
printed. There was an understanding that Kentch would sign the new agree-
ment as soon as it was available.
I Although FFA was scheduled to begin the job on April 20, Kentch
called the union headquarters and cancelled the order for millwrights be-
cause of a delay in delivering material to the site
' The above is based on the unrefined testimony of both Meadows and
Robbins
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him that the first choice, who the Company suspected was
William Otten , was not acceptable , but either of the other two
individuals on the union list would meet with approval.
Kentch called Catterton and stated that FFA would accept
any of the Union's choices except Otten . According to
Kentch's deposition, Catterton replied , "it was his town and
he would run it and the Company could not tell the Union
who would be hired ." In the deposition Kentch stated that
Catterton said, "when FFA decided to take Otten as general
foreman , the project would start." Kentch relayed this infor-
mation to Robbins and was instructed to wait a few days to
let the matter calm down . He was then to accept the Union's
selection , because the Post Office Department was exerting
pressure on FFA to start the project.
On April 22, Lang and Sours visited the jobsite and Rob-
bins was there with Kentch. Robbins told the two men that
he had to attend a meeting and did not know when the job
was going to start . He also stated that he did not know what
Lang had done to the union president or to the business agent,
but he had never heard any man "run down another as badly
as they had talked about Lang." Kentch told Lang and Sours
that he did not know what was going on and that the project
was delayed.
On April 24, Sours went to the union headquarters because
he heard that there was a prejob conference taking place
between the Company and the union officials at the jobsite.
Sours testified that he asked Catterton if he could sit in on the
conference and was told that it was up to Meadows. Sours
stated that when he asked the business agent if he could
attend the prejob conference , Meadows replied "when you
are going to jerk a man off, you don't take no witnesses with
you." Meadows gave a different version of this event. He
stated that he had been out of town for several days and on
his return was told that there was a dispute between the
millwrights and ironworkers over which craft would perform
the rigging and unloading . Sours was present at the union
headquarters and overheard the union officials discussing the
matter . According to Meadows , his conversation with Sours
related only to the jurisdictional dispute and that was the
purpose of his visit to the jobsite.10
On April 27 Kentch called the union headquarters and
asked Meadows for a general foreman and two journeymen.
Meadows testified that he informed Kentch that Otten was
the only man available . The post office project started April
28, and Otten was hired by FFA as the general foreman.
Neither Lang nor Sours was hired by FFA to work on the
post office project in any capacity.
There is considerable testimony in the record regarding the
duties of the general foreman and the foremen on the FFA
project, as well as testimony concerning foremen's duties on
other projects. Both Lang and Sours testified that on other
projects where they worked , the foremen and general fore-
men were the contractor 's representatives who dealt directly
with the "rank-and-file" employees . According to these wit-
nesses, the foreman usually received the complaints or griev-
ances from the shop steward and they would take the matters
up directly with the general foreman for resolution . The com-
plaints described included such matters as hazardous work-
ing conditions , lack of proper tools, discrepancy in pay, work
assignments , lack of drinking water, and failure to provide
proper toilet facilities.'1
Catterton and Otten , on the other hand , testified that a
general foreman and lesser foremen only exercised the
amount of authority granted by the job superintendent, and
this varied from contractor to contractor . There was no union
policy or requirement in the contract that the foremen or
general foremen resolve employees ' job disputes or com-
plaints. It was stated that on some projects the general fore-
man ran the job and handled all matters relating to the em-
ployees. On other projects , however, the general foreman and
the lesser foremen had virtually no authority and all matters
were handled by the job superintendent.
Robbins testified that FFA followed a policy of reserving
the right to make all decisions affecting the job to the Com-
pany's "direct personnel" (the field superintendent or assis-
tant field superintendent) when the union contract did not
specifically spell out a formal grievance procedure . Since the
collective-bargaining agreement between FFA and the Re-
spondent Union did not contain a formal grievance proce-
dure," Robbins stated that the field superintendent or his
assistant were the only individuals authorized to handle
grievances . Robbins cited two occasions when he personally
handled complaints of the employees on the post office job.
In one instance, the steward complained to him about the
lack of water in the toilet facilities and he had the condition
corrected . The second incident arose when the millwrights
refused to work because water from a rainstorm the evening
before constituted a hazard in the working area. Robbins said
he investigated the condition and then decided the complaint
was valid and sent the men home. In both instances , however,
Robbins was unable to state whether the steward had first
discussed the matter with the general foreman or the fore-
men.
Otten testified concerning his specific duties at the post
office job and disclaimed any authority to handle matters
relating to employee grievances or complaints . He stated that
when he first reported to the job, he was told by Kentch that
he was not to handle any problems, "no matter how small."
Otten testified that he then told the union steward to take all
problems directly to Kentch since he (Otten) was only a"messenger boy." According to Otten, these instructions
were never changed by Kentch or' his successor on the
project.13 Otten stated that he would ' lay out the work and
determine if additional employees were needed. If so, he then
informed the superintendent who would make the decision to
employ more men and the number needed . Once this decision
was made, according to Otten , the general foreman would
call the union hall and get the men. Otten testified that while
he did select the millwrights to become foremen as the work
force increased , the superintendent could refuse to accept his
choice and did so on one occasion. Otten admitted that he
held weekly safety meetings with the employees, but stated
that he never handled any problems or complaints. Accord-
ing to him, he merely told the employees what he had ob-
served by way of job hazards and what they should anticipate
in terms of safety conditions as the job progressed. He stated
that he would then leave the meeting to the men and the
union steward.
Kentch, by way of his deposition , indicated that Otten had
authority to hire, fire, or lay off any employee; that he was
in charge of directing the work through the foremen ; and that
he had authority to adjust grievances or complaints and to
resolve questions regarding job safety . In an affidavit, also in
10 Sours was given a referral by Meadows to another job that same day
He started working on the job the following Monday.
" Another witness , James Long , also testified on the basis of his experi-
ence as a foreman concerning the scope of the duties of a general foreman
or a foreman on a jobsite . His testimony coincided with that of Lang and
Sours
" The only provision in the contract containing a formal grievance proce-
dure related to contracting and subcontracting on the jobsite (Resp Exh.
1, art XVII.)
" Kentch was succeeded by another field superintendent in August
LOCAL 101 , CARPENTERS 581
evidence, Kentch stated that the general foreman was not
used in processing grievances . This was a matter handled by
the superintendent , the business agent, and the union stew-
ard. In a letter subsequent to the affidavit , likewise in evi-
dence, Kentch stated that he meant that the general foreman
was not involved in matters pertaining to the administration
of the union contract . According to the letter , Kentch
claimed that the general foreman initially handled "minor
grievances" such as safety matters, job conditions , work as-
signments, or millwright work claimed by other crafts.
Kentch stated that the superintendent only became involved
in these situations if the general foreman was unable to re-
solve them to the satisfaction of the men and the Union.
There is also testimony in the record regarding the au-
thority of the general foreman and foremen by a millwright
formerly employed on the post office job during June and
July. This millwright , Hefner, testified that his foreman , Silli-
man, began criticizing the length of time that he was spending
on a particular section of a conveyor . Hefner stated that he
and Silliman got into an argument and the foreman told him
to come along to see Otten . The employee refused and the
foreman fired him on the spot. Hefner testified that as he was
gathering his tools the union steward asked him what was
wrong . When he explained , the steward suggested that they
go and speak with Otten but the employee was angry and
refused to do so. Hefner stated that he was paid off before he
left the jobsite and that the foreman went into the office and
had a check made out for him. According to Hefner , Kentch
spoke to him as he was leaving his hard hat in the office trailer
and said that he would like for the employee to stay, but that
he could not override the foreman's decision.
Otten testified that the foreman came to him and stated
that he would like to get the employee 's check and that he and
the foreman went to the superintendent's office to discuss the
matter with Kentch . The foreman told Kentch that when he
complained about the length of time the employee was spend-
ing on a job , the employee swore at him. According to Otten,
Kentch then said he would make up the employee's pay-
check , and Otten instructed the foreman to tell the employee
to gather up his tools.
Concluding Findings
The basic questions in this case are twofold: did the Union
prevent FFA from hiring Lang and Sours as general foreman
and foreman respectively on the post office project through
the use of threats of work stoppages , alleged inability to
insure a supply of millwright employees , and other job prob-
lems?; and, if so, did this constitute restraint and coercion of
FFA, within the meaning of 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, in the
selection of its representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances?
The record fully supports the General Counsel 's conten-
tion that the Union prevented FFA from employing Lang as
millwright general foreman and Sours as a potential mill-
wright foreman on the post office project. The testimony
adduced from the General Counsel 's witnesses and also from
the Respondent 's own witnesses make this conclusion inesca-
pable. Although the Union sought to cast a cloud, on the
legitimacy of the hiring of Lang and Sours, it is clear that they
were in fact hired by Kentch on April 16 . 14 The testimony
clearly indicates that Kentch first satisfied himself that they
were members of the millwright local in good standing and
that their qualifications were satisfactory . Having assured
1° Lang's testimony implied that he had been assured the job by Robbins
at their initial meeting in early April. It is apparent , however, both from his
testimony and that of Robbins , that the final decision rested solely with the
field superintendent
himself on these points Kentch made the decision , which was
within his express authority , to hire both of these individuals
in the capacities indicated . This decision was thwarted solely
as a result of the pressure exerted on the FFA representatives
by the union officials.
When the union officials were informed of Kentch 's selec-
tion of Lang and Sours , their reaction was one of immediate
anger expressed by threats of creating difficulties for FFA on
the job . Meadows told Kentch he could expect craft disputes
at the site , that he would not be available to settle on-the-job
problems, and that it might be possible that millwrights
would not be available to work when needed . " Implicit in
Meadows' remarks to Kentch was that the problems would
not arise if FFA accepted the Union's choice for general
foreman. Nor does the fact that the Union claimed a prior
commitment from other FFA representatives provide justifi-
cation for the conduct of its officials . There was nothing in the
union contract which required the Employer to accept the
Union's choice of a general foreman , or of any of the other
foremen on the job. The March meeting between Jones,
Knoch, and the union officials was nothing more than a
preliminary conference in anticipation of the start of a project
in the area . This meeting was in keeping with the company
policy whereby the Employer became a party to local agree-
ments and selected its personnel from the members of the
various craft unions. The Union 's claim that it had a binding
commitment regarding the selection of the general foreman
and other foremen on the project with FFA under these
circumstances is totally unwarranted . Moreover , it is patently
clear on this record that the Union was interested in placing
one particular individual on the job as the millwright general
foreman , even though it offered the Employer three names
from which to choose . Thus, when Kentch told the union
president FFA would accept anyone from the list but Otten,
Catterton stated that "this [Baltimore] was his town, he
would run it to suit himself," and that Kentch "could not tell
him what men he would hire and what men he would not
hire." Catterton further stated that whenever FFA agreed to
take Otten as general foreman the post office job would start."
Further evidence of the union officials' ability to stymie
FFA's selection of its supervisory millwright personnel is
indicated by the events relating to Sours. He was told that he
would not work on the FFA job in any capacity , and on April
24 Meadows sent him to another° project as a millwright.
On the basis of the above , it is eminently clear that the
record fully supports the General Counsel's contention that
the Respondent Union forced the FFA representatives to
accept its choice of the individual to be the general foreman
and compelled them to rescind the decision to hire Lang as
the general foreman and Sours as the initial foreman on the
project. Having so concluded, there remains the ultimate
question of whether this conduct constituted restraint and
coercion of FFA in the choice of its representatives for collec-
tive bargaining or adjustment of grievances . In the absence of
15 Meadows only acknowledged making a statement that he might not be
available to settle disputes on the jobsite . He testified that he immediately
apologized to Kentch for this remark after being reprimanded by Catterton.
I find, however , that his remarks to Kentch were not as limited as he
attempted to portray Rather , I credit the testimony of Lang and Sours and
the deposition of Kentch and I find that Meadows also spoke of the other
possible difficulties FFA would encounter if Lang and Sours were hired
16 Catterton testified that he told Kentch that Otten was the only person
on the union list currently available. I do not credit Catterton in this regard
as the statements attributed to him in Kentch 's deposition are more consist-
ent with the Union's prior actions regarding the placement of the general
foreman on the post office job. It is also significant to note that the project
started on April 28, after FFA agreed to accept Otten as general foreman.
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such a finding, the Union 's conduct, no matter how reprehen-
sible, does not violate the National Labor Relations Act.
There is ample testimony in the record regarding the scope
of the duties of millwright general foremen and foremen. It
is evident from this testimony that as a general matter the
authority and duties of foremen and general foremen varied
from project to project and depended upon the latitude
granted by the job superintendent . In some instances the
general foreman virtually ran the entire millwright operation
and handled all matters pertaining to the job, including job
complaints of the employees and the resolution of matters
concerning the administration of the union contract . In these
instances the general foreman or foreman , as the case may be,
clearly acted as representative of the employer . In other in-
stances, the job superintendent reserved to himself the right
to make all decision affecting millwright employees . It is also
apparent that there were all sorts of variations of this alloca-
tion of authority , depending upon the particular job and the
wishes of the particular employer . While this testimony did
not specifically relate to the FFA project in question here, it
was relevant and admissible to show the full range of possible
duties and the extent of the authority of foremen and general
foremen working in the millwright trade in the Baltimore
area.
With regard to the FFA project , Robbins testified that it
was the Employer 's practice , when there was no contrary
requirement in the applicable collective -bargaining agree-
ment , to reserve the right to make all decisions concerning
grievances to the Employer 's "direct personnel." Since there
was no contrary provision in the contract with the Respond-
ent Union , Robbins testified that the decision -making process
rested with the field superintendent . Otten also testified that
the field superintendent handled all problems "no matter how
small," and he (Otten) was only a "messenger boy."
Kentch 's deposition , on the other hand, indicated that Ot-
ten had authority to hire or fire anyone or to layoff any
employee, and that he was in charge of directing the work
through the foreman and had had authority to adjust griev-
ances or complaints or resolve questions regarding job safety.
While in his affidavit Kentch stated that the general foreman
was not used in processing grievances, his subsequent letter
indicated that he was referring to matters relating solely to
the administration of the contract . Kentch stated that "minor
grievances" such as safety matters, job , conditions, work as-
signments , or work claimed by other crafts that the mill-
wrights felt belonged to them were handled initially by the
general foreman and the steward . The field superintendent
only became involved if the steward and the general foreman
were unable to resolve the problem to the satisfaction of the
men and the Union.
I am cognizant of the fact that Kentch 's affidavit and his
subsequent clarifying letter were not subject to cross-exami-
nation and appear to be at odds with the testimony of Rob-
bins concerning FFA's policy and the testimony of Otten. But
I am nevertheless persuaded that Otten's job was not as de-
void of authority as he recited . One of the factors which
causes me to conclude that he was involved in the adjustment
of "minor grievances" is the incident regarding millwright
Hefner . After Hefner got into a dispute with his foreman over
the length of time it was taking him to complete his work, the
foreman instructed him to go to the general foreman. When
Hefner , refused he was told that he was fired and to pick up
his paycheck . When the steward learned that Hefner was
leaving , the job, he too suggested that they take the matter up
with Otten. This leads me to conclude that Otten was indeed
looked upon by the millwrights and the union steward as the
person to whom they should initially take their complaints
concerning the job or job conditions for resolution."
Furthermore, it is conceded here that the general foreman
possessed the authority , in the interest of the Employer, to
assign work, transfer employees , responsibly direct the work
of foremen , and effectively recommend the promotion , layoff,
or discharge of any millwright employee. It is also conceded
that the foremen had authority to assign and direct the work
of millwright employees under them and, as evidenced by the
Hefner incident, to discharge employees. Inherent in this
range of supervisory responsibility is the authority to adjust
complaints or grievances that employees might have regard-
ing matters pertaining to the work and job conditions. But
even if the exercise of such inherent authority was restricted
by the field superintendent on the FFA jobsite, the foremen
and the general foreman would nevertheless be the logical
choices to handle employee grievances if the field superinten-
dent chose to vary the policy and lift the restriction . Toledo
Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoen-
gravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade
Company, Inc.), 175 NLRB 1072, TXD. Therefore, the pres-
sure exerted by the Union in causing FFA to rescind its
decision to hire Lang as general foreman and Sours as fore-
man restrained and coerced FFA in the selection of its repre-
sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances or in the selection of future choices
for this purpose. Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of the
Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union; AFL-
CIO, supra; Freight, Construction, General Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Union, Local287, IBT (Grinnell Com-
pany of the Pacific), 183 NLRB No. 49. 18 In all of the
circumstances, therefore, I find that the Respondent Union's
acts constituted restraint and coercion of FFA in the selection
of its representatives within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B)
of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local Union No. 101, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation is an employer as
defined in Section 2 (2) of the Act engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The positions of millwright general foreman and mill-
wright foreman on the FFA post office project are super-
visory positions within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act and the occupants of said positions are representatives of
FFA for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjust-
ment of grievances, or possess such substantial supervisory
authority in regular contact with the millwright employees so
as to be potential and likely future representatives of FFA for
the purposes of collective bargaining or adjustment of griev-
ances within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
4. By threatening work stoppages , craft disputes, and the
withholding of millwright employees , the Respondent Union,
through its president and its business agent , coerced and
restrained Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation, within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, in order to compel
said Employer to rescind its decision to hire George Lang, Jr.,
11 I am not unmindful of Robbins' testimony that on two occasions he
adjusted certain grievances that the men had on the jobsite While Robbins
said that he handled these matters personally , he also acknowledged that he
did not know whether these matters had been taken with the general fore-
man prior to being brought to him by the steward.
11 Compare San Francisco-Oakland Mailers ' Union No. 18, International
Typographical Union, 172 NLRB No. 252.
LOCAL 101, CARPENTERS 583
as millwright general foreman and Forrest Sours as a mill-
wright foreman on the post office project in Baltimore, Mary-
land.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union has engaged in
and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend the issuance of an order that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent Union restrained and
coerced FFA into rescinding its decision to hire Lang as
millwright general foreman and Sours as a millwright fore-
man, I shall recommend that the Respondent Union, through
its officials, notify FFA that it has no objection to the Em-
ployer hiring the above individuals in the capacities indicated
on the post office project in Baltimore, Maryland. I shall
further recommend that the Respondent Union make whole
Lang and Sours for any loss of earnings they may have suff-
ered as a result of the unlawful conduct found herein. The
backpay, if any, shall be computed on a quarterly basis in a
manner consistent with the Board policy described in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6
percent per annum computed in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Accordingly, upon the basis of the foregoing findings of
facts and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in
this case, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the
following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER19
Respondent, Local Union No. 101, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters, and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with the selection of a millwright general
foreman or a millwright foreman by Fruehauf-Fischbach
Automation for the post office project in Baltimore, Mary-
land, or for any other Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation
project within the Respondent Union's jurisdiction, by
threatening Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation with work
11 In the event no exceptions are filed to this Recommended Order as
provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and
Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 10(c) of the Act
and in Section 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.
stoppages, craft disputes, or alleged inability to supply mill-
wright journeymen.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation, or any other employer, by
interfering with the selection of its representatives for pur-
poses of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify the representatives of Fruehauf-Fischbach
Automation that the Respondent Union has no objection to
George E. Lang, Jr., being hired as millwright general fore-
man and Forrest A. Sours being hired as a millwright fore-
man on the Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation post office
project in Baltimore, Maryland.
(b) Make whole, in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy," George E. Lang, Jr.,
and Forrest A. Sours for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct which caused
Fruehauf-Fischbach Automation to rescind its decision to
employ them on the post office project in the positions in-
dicated.
(c) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent Union immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent
Union for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail or deliver to the Regional Director for Region 5,
signed copies of said notice for posting by Fruehauf-Fisch-
bach Automation, provided the Employer is willing, at its
construction offices.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in the com-
plaint setting forth violations not specifically found herein be
dismissed.
10 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 be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN OR-
DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read-
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days of
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."