LOCAL 250

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 930 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Robinson, John Weber, Andrew High, Leighton
Roddy, Ray Wegener, Ernst Kaja, Joseph
Romanowicz , Thomas West , Edward Ruechler, Ralph
Sauve, Raymond Whelan , Francis LaVine, Raymond
Schumacher , Forrest Wiener, John Ligman , Michael
Shade, Harold Williams, Elmer Matsdorf, Clarence
Schmidt , Daniel Wiltzins, Henry Misch, Herman
Schwabe, Raymond Wolff, Henry Narewski, Boleslaus
Semashcko , Michael Lessener, Frank Nowak, Michael
Sonnenburg , Arnold Babisch , Rudolph Patkos, John
Spreen , Charles Baumel , Victor Schaefer, Fred
Stolarczyk, Stanley Beffa, Gerald Schaefer , William
Stelmaszewski , Anthony Beffa, Wayne Shively, Cletus
Syme, Elmer Brunslik, Edward Shively, Marvin
Theisen, Frank Bue, Virgil Schrinner , George
Thompson, Carl Burgoon , Robert Sell, Byron
Torcivia, Anthony Ellwitz, Herbert Schneider, Emil
Versailles, Raymond Erickson, Duane Stanek, Horst
Volkmann, Le Roy Frost, Anthony Steeves, Ralph, Jr.
Wagner, Emmett Fry, Lane Szczepanski , Stanley
Walwick, Thomas Guse, Erwin Wilbur, Paul
Weber, Andrew Herrell , Ryland
Local 250, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U. S. and
Canada, AFL-CIO [Bechtel Corporation and Southern Cali-
fornia Chapter, Associated General Contractors ] and Pat-
rick J. Meehan . Case No. 01-CB-831. May 14, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 30, 1957, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report .attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and
Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified hereinafter: l
1 We have adopted the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent , which operated an
exclusive contractual hiring hall for members of Southern California Chapter, Associated
General Contractors, violated Section 8 (b) (2) and ( 1) (A) of the Act by refusing to
refer Meehan to any job from August 4 through September 7, 1956, because he had
120 NLRB No. 131.
LOCAL 250
ORDER
931
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 250, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the U. S. and Canada, AFL-CIO, its officers,
representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or- attempting to cause Bechtel Corporation or any
other members of Southern California Chapter, Associated General
Contractors, or any other, employer over whom the Board would
assert jurisdiction, to refuse employment to any employee or prospec-
tive employee, including Patrick J. Meehan, or otherwise to discrimi-
nate against such person, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing Meehan,
or any other employees or prospective employees of Bechtel Cor-
poration or other Association members or of any other employer
over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction, in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized
by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Patrick J. Meehan whole for any loss of pay he may
-have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he nor-
mally would have earned as wages from August 4 through September
7, 1956, less his net earnings during this period.
(b) Post at its Los Angeles, California, offices and meeting halls
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's rep-
resentative , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous-places , including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
written George Meany , president of the AFL-CIO, a letter critical of the Respondent's
operations . The complaint does not allege that the contract itself under which the dis-
crimination was practiced was unlawful For this reason, and as the issue was not
litigated , we do not in this proceeding pass upon the legality of the hiring-hall contract
between the Respondent and Southern California Chapter, Associated General Contractors.
But see the announced criteria for legal hiring-hall contracts in the Board 's opinion in
Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors , Inc., 119 NLRB 883.
1In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decsion and Order" the
=words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent to insure that 'said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 250, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOUR-
NEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING
INDUSTRY OF THE U. S. AND CANADA, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Bechtel Corporation or
any member of the Southern California Chapter, Associated
General Contractors, or any other employer over whom the Board
would assert jurisdiction, to refuse employment to any employee
or prospective employee, including Patrick J. Meehan, or other-
wise to discriminate against any such person in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees or prospective employees of Bechtel Corporation or
any member of Southern California Chapter, Associated General
Contractors, or any other employer over whom the Board would
assert jurisdiction , in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in £ labor organization as
a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
WE WILL make Patrick J. Meehan whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered as' a result 'of the discrimination against him.
LOCAL 250, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOUR-
NEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY
OF THE U. S. AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted' for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on September 4, 1956, by Patrick J. Meehan, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General
LOCAL 250 933
Counsels and the Board, issued a complaint, dated December 21, 1956, against
Local 250, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting industry of the U. S. and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called Re-
spondent , alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and
(2) and Section 2 (6). and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
More specifically, the complaint alleged that since on or about August 4, 1956,
Respondent has discriminated against Meehan in, issuing job referrals through its
dispatch and hiring hall because he wrote a letter to George Meany, president of
AFL-CIO, criticizing the manner in which Respondent conducted its official affairs.
On January 17, 1957, Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission
of the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on February 5 and March 29, 1957,
at Los Angeles, California, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The Gen-
eral Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel. Full opportunity was
afforded all parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce
evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally at the conclusion of the taking of
the evidence, and to file briefs. 'Respondent's motion, made at the conclusion of
the hearing, to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof is hereby denied.
Upon the entire' record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Southern California Chapter, Associated General Contractors, herein called the
Association, is an association composed of employing construction contractors and
exists in part to negotiate collective-bargaining contracts for and on behalf of its
members with labor organizations, including Respondent.
Bechtel Corporation, a California corporation, has its principal office in San
Francisco, California. Bechtel 'is engaged in the construction industry in and
outside of the State of California. During its -last fiscal year, Bechtel shipped
products and furnished services, valued in 'excess of $50,000, directly to points
located outside the State of California."
Bechtel, as well as the other members of the Association, at all times material
hereto have, pursuant to contract, obtained construction employees through a dis-
patch and hiring hall operated and maintained by Respondent.
Upon the above-admitted facts the Trial Examiner finds that, during all times
material, Bechtel Corporation and other Association members were engaged in and
are now engaged in'commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act for the Board'to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 250, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of 'the U. S. and Canada, AFL'CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of Bechtel and other members of the
Association.
IH. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discrimination against Patrick J. Meehan
Meehan was initiated into the New York, New York, sister local of Respondent
on January 27, 1926, and in July 1954 he became a member of Respondent.' While
a member of the New York local, Meehan became acquainted with George Meany,
a fellow member thereof.
In or about April 1956,1 while employed as a pipefitter on the Seal Beach, Cali-
fornia, job of Bechtel, Meehan wrote Meany, who was then, and now is, president
of the AFL-CIO, a letter reading as follows:
Mr. GEORGE MEANY, President,
AFL-CIO Union,
Washington, D. C.
FRIEND GEORGE: As you were one of my vouchers January 27, 1926, in Local
Union 463, I know of your honesty as business agent of Local 463, as President
i This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
bearing
2 Unless otherwise noted, all dates refer to 1956.
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the New York Federation of Labor, and also Secretary-Treasurer and
President of the AFL and now President of the AFL-CIO.
Enclosed are articles which I believe you are not aware of and I feel you
should know about. We have a very bad situation and some serious problems
here. I am also enclosing two work orders issued to me that would not be
accepted by the Shop Steward though there were men working on this job who,
did.not belong to the Union and had no Union Books.
This situation becomes worse each day and is' getting beyond control. I
would - appreciate your looking into this matter and giving us any assistance
or advice you may see fit to do so.
Hoping that I may hear from you as soon as possible , I'remain your sincere
friend as always.
----------------------------------------
PAT MEEHAN-Card #250496
1519 E. 7th Street
Long Beach 13, Calif.
Phone: Hemlock 5-0844
On or about July 13, Meehan's employment with Bechtel terminated . He then
went to Respondent 's union hall to secure a referral to another job. There , Charlie
Blay, the dispatcher, called Meehan into his office and queried Meehan about the
Meany letter. Meehan denied any knowledge of such a letter. Blay evidently
did not believe Meehan because, as Meehan credibly testified without contradiction,
the interview ended with Blay remarking, "We have ways of taking care of people
that write letters like this." However, within three-quarters of an hour, Meehan
was dispatched to a job at the Shell Oil Company refinery.
On August 4 Meehan's Shell Oil job was terminated. The-same day he registered
at the union hall in order to secure a referral for another job.
Regarding a conversation he had on or about August 11 with Richard Picard,
one of Respondent's business agents, Meehan testified as follows:
Q. What were the circumstances, would you tell us what you said and what
he (Picard) said?-A. I asked him if there would be any chance of getting
dispatched, a lot of people were going to work and I had a few bills to pay
and I would like to get back to work, so he asked me about this letter I wrote
to Meany and he told me that he had a photostatic copy of this letter and that
Archie Virtue 3 had a photostatic copy of this letter and he told me, "We have
ways of taking care of people that write letters like that."
Q. When he first asked you about the letter, what, if anything, did you say
to him?-A. I told him I didn 't know anything about the letter.
Meehan further testified that on or about August 31, he had another conversation
with Picard , in which the following transpired:
Well, I asked him (Picard) the same thing, if there would be any chance of
getting dispatched,' that there was a lot of people going out and that I would
like to get out on one of these jobs and he said that I had done more harm
than any man in the organization by writing this letter to George Meany and
that if I would see Archie Virtue and get this letter straightened out, I could
come back and he would put me to work.
With respect to Meehan , Picard testified on direct examination as follows:
Q. Now then, Mr. Picard , you were here this morning and you heard the
testimony of Mr. Meehan with respect to the two alleged conversations which
took place between you and him in connection with the letter sent to Mr.
Meany, did you have such conversations with Mr. Meehan?-A. Not that' I
remember, no.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Meehan with respect to the
letter?-A . I probably said, "Good morning Pat ," or something like that, yes.
Q. Did you have any conversation with him with respect to a letter which
he sent to Mr. Meany?-A. I think I mentioned it once to him.
Q. Will you tell us in what connection, Mr. Picard?-A. I said, "What's
the matter with you, Pat," I said, "I understand you wrote a letter to Meany
about the local here," and he says , "No, I did not ," and I just kept on walking
and went into the office.
8 Respondent 's general organizer.
I
LOCAL 250 935
Q. Did•you ever say to him, "We have ways of taking care of people like
you"?-A. I have never made that statement in my life to anyone because I
don't operate that way.
Q. Did you ever state to Mr. Meehan that because of the letter, he was not
going to be dispatched out on any job?-A. Definitely not.
On cross-examination, Picard testified as follows:
Q. You are aware of the fact that Mr. Meehan-had written a letter to Mr.
Meany, weren't you?-A. Just a rumor.
Q. Just a rumor?-A. That's right.
Q. When did you find out about it?-A. I don't recall, I know someone told
me, he said, "Do you know Meehan wrote a letter to George Meany," and I
said, "No, I didn't." -
Q. You didn't know the contents of that letter?-A. No, I didn't.4
Q. Do you recall who told you that Meehan had written a letter to Meany?-
A. I believe it was Archie Virtue.
TRIAL EXAMINER: When was this?
The WITNESS: I don't remember.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, before you received a copy of the charge in this
case or after?
The WITNESS: I believe it was after.
TRIAL EXAMINER: After you received a copy of the charge?
The WITNESS: I wouldn't know.
-
Q. (By Mr. Grodsky.) 5 . . . At the time that you mentioned the letter
to Mr. Meehan, was that the period that Mr. Meehan was not working?-A. I
believe he was out of work, because I met him out on the sidewalk in front
of the office one morning.
Q. Do you recall how the subject came up about the letter?-A. What I said
to Meehan?
Q. Yes -A. Well, I told you that a little while ago, that all I said to him is,
"What did you want to do that for, write a letter to Meany. Haven't you been
O. K. around here? " He said, "I want to go to work." Arid I told him, "There
is no work around here, you know that." That's all there was to it and I
walked away and went in.
In the light of the Trial Examiner's observation of the conduct and deportment
at the hearing of Meehan and Picard, and after a very careful scrutiny of the record,
all of which has been carefully read, and parts of which have been reread and re-
checked several times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect
to the importance which each has placed upon the credibility problems here involved,
and of the fact that Meehan's testimony with respect to his conversation with Blay
was not contradicted and no explanation given why Blay was not called as a witness,
the Trial Examiner finds Meehan's version of his conversations with Picard in
August 1956 to be substantially in accord with the facts. In addition, Meehan,
unlike Picard, impressed the Trial Examiner as being a person who is meticulous in
not enlarging his testimony beyond his actual memory of what occurred.
On Friday, September 7, the day Respondent admittedly received a copy of the
charge in this case, Meehan was dispatched to a job starting the following Monday,.
Upon the credible evidence, summarized above, including the fact that from
August 4 through September 7 Meehan presented himself each workday at the union
hall and remained therein during the hours jobs were being dispatched, coupled with
the fact that during said period 923 persons were dispatched to jobs, and upon the
record as a whole, the Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that Respondent refused
to refer Meehan to any job from August 4 through September 7 because he had written
Meany a letter critical of Respondent's operations. By such action Respondent
violated Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act and since such conduct necessarily restrained
and coerced Meehan in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7, Respondent
also violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) .6
4 On redirect examination, Picard testified he never saw a copy of the letter before
the opening of the bearing herein.
5 Counsel for the General Counsel.
"The legislatise history of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) demonstrates that one of
the major purposes of these sections was to eliminate the very practices here engaged
in by Respondent, including the use of discriminatory hiring halls, by not dispatching
a person because "the union does not like him." (Statement of Senator Taft, 93 Cong.
Rec. 38:l6, 4191.)
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection
with operations of Bechtel and of the other members of the Association described
in section I, above, have a close , intimate , and substantial relation 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 '
It having been found that Respondent from August 4 through September 7, 1956,
had engaged in certain unfair labor practices violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and
(2), it will be recommended that Respondent take certain affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily restrained Patrick J. Meehan from
being employed from August 4 through September 7, 1956, the Trial Examiner recom-
mends that Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as a
result of its unlawful conduct , by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the
amount he would normally have earned as wages during said period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case , the Trial Examiner makes the following: ,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 250, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U. S. and Canada, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Bechtel Corporation and other members of the Association are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By refusing to issue a job referral slip to Patrick J. Meehan from August 4
through September 7, 1956, thereby causing Bechtel 'and other. Association members
to discriminate against him in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, Respondent
has engaged , and is engaging , in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing Patrick J. Meehan in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.] r
Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers , Cosmetologists and Pro-
prietors International Union of America, AFL-CIO and Chi-
cago and Illinois Hairdressers Association
Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers , Cosmetologists and Pro-
prietors International Union of America , AFL-CIO and Na-
tional Hairdressers' and Cosmetologists' Association, Inc.
Cases Nos. 13-CC-135 and 13-CC-137. May 14, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 23, 1957, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Charging
120 NLRB No. 122.