Local 1332, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn., AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1471 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOCAL 1332 , INT'L LONGSHOREMEN 'S ASSN., AFL-CIO 1471
B. Conclusions
I regard the issue presented as administrative rather than juridical and, as was indi-
cated at the hearing , it is an issue which should have properly been submitted to the
Board in the first instance by way of stipulation . No question of either fact or law is in
dispute. The question is solely whether the Board should , when a contract providing
for binding arbitration has been executed by the parties and the dispute relates to a
matter covered by the contract , intervene to police and administer the arbitration
provisions under the guise of preventing an unfair labor practice . I am aware that
the Board and the courts, including - the U .S. Supreme Court, have held that an
employer is obligated to provide information relevant and necessary to enable a labor
organization - to bargain intelligently and'that it constitutes an unfair labor practice
under Section 8(a) (5) to refuse such information . My concern here is with the forum
which should take cognizance of this dispute . The parties have clearly stated that it
should be submitted to arbitration and the Charging Party has, in effect , attempted to
use the Board as a means to discovery and inspection in furtherance of its arbitration
proceeding .4 This is not, at least as I see it, a proper function of an agency already
overburdened by its caseload . Overburdened , one might add, to a point where it may
fail to serve as a functional apparatus for the prevention of unfair labor practices. If
the Board , as it indicated in its recent Cloverleaf decision ,5 intends to leave the parties
to arbitration where the arbitration settlement would also put at rest the unfair labor
practice controversy in a manner sufficient to effectuate the policies of the Act then this
appears to be such a case. This is a matter of policy for the Board and not a Trial
Examiner to decide . 6 The recommendation of this Trial Examiner is in favor of self-
restraint . I would not hold that the Respondent has committed an unfair labor prac-
tice by withholding information where the dispute has been contemplated by the
parties in making their contract and binding arbitration has been established to resolve
that dispute . We are approaching a point where an employer may well wonder if he
has anything to gain by engaging in collective bargaining if any disaffection with the
operation of the contract on the part of the contracting union may be taken to review
by the Board under Section 8(a) (5).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the entire record in this case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 5) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
It would appear anomalous for the Board, which does not provide for discovery and
inspection in its own proceedings, to serve as an instrument for such procedure in
arbitration proceedings
6 Cloverleaf Division of Adams Dairy Co, 147 NLRB 1410.
O For a statement of national policy resliectink the priority which should be accorded
the grievance machinery provided for in a contract see United Steelworkers of America
v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 581.
Local 1332, International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-
CIO and Elwood F. Gunther and Philadelphia Marine Trade
Association , Party to the Contract.. Case No. 4-CB-975. Feb-
ruary 1, 1965 •
DECISION' AND ORDER
On October 5, 1964, Trial Examiner Abraham H. Mailer issued
his Decision , in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
150 NLRB No. 146. •
775-692-65-vol . 150-94
0
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, 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
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, brief, and the entire rec-
ord in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications
noted in the Order hereafter.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order rec-
ommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent
Local 1332, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the fol-
lowing modifications :
Paragraph 1(a) of the Order shall be amended to read as follows :
"(a) Attempting to cause PMTA and its employer-members to
select their employees on the basis of any system, including that of
numbered buttons, which classifies or categorizes persons according
to their membership or length of membership in any labor organi-
zation, or in any other manner attempting to cause PMTA and
its employer-members to discriminate against any of their employees
or prospective employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959."
The first indented paragraph in the Appendix attached to the
Trial Examiner's Decision is amended as follows :
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause PMTA and its employer-
members to select their employees on the basis of any system,
including that of numbered buttons, which classifies or categorizes
persons according to their membership or length of membership
in any labor organization, or in any other manner attempt to
cause PMTA and its employer-members to discriminate against
any of its employees or prospective employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
LOCAL 1332, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., AFL-CIO 1473
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on October 11, 1963, by Elwood F. Gunther, the Regional
Director for Region 4-of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
on February 28, 1964, issued a complaint on behalf of the General Counsel of the
Board against Local 1332, International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO,
herein called the Respondent or the Union , alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
and (2) of the Act. In substance, the complaint alleged that: The Respondent and
Philadelphia Marine Trade Association, herein called PMTA, had entered into a con-
tract whereby PMTA had recognized the Respondent as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of employees of the employer -members of PMTA ; said contract contains
provisions for hiring priority to be given to individuals who* have worked the requi-
site number of hours in the industry; since on or about July 1, 1963, Respondent,
without the approval and over the objection of PMTA, had instituted a priority sys-
tem contrary to that contained in the collective -bargaining agreement , granting pref-
erence for hiring to those persons who are members of the Respondent ; and since on
or about July 1, 1963, Respondent has caused or attempted to cause employer-
members of PMTA, through their hiring foremen , to hire individuals in accordance
with the system instituted by the Respondent . In its duly filed answer, Respondent
denied the commission of any unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Abraham H . Mailer
at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on March 30 and 31, 1964. The General Counsel and
the Respondent were represented and were offered full opportunity to be heard, to
introduce relevant evidence , to present oral argument , and to file briefs with me.
PMTA did not participate in the hearing. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel
and by the Respondent. Upon consideration of the entire record, including the briefs
of the parties and upon my observation of each of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
PMTA is, and has been at all times material herein , a nonprofit Delaware corpo-
ration which maintains its principal place of business in Philadelphia ; Pennsylvania.
It engages in joint group collective -bargaining activities for and on behalf of its
employer-members and engages in various other trade and trade association activities
in the interest of, and for the benefit of, its members : Members of PMTA are en-
gaged within the port of Philadelphia and its vicinity in such business enterprises as
the operation of foreign and coastal shipping lines and the operation of marine ter-
minals and enterprises providing services to the maritime industry in and about the
port of Philadelphia. Members of PMTA collectively have annual receipts of more
than $10 million derived from services 'supplied by them in connection with the move-
ment of . goods in foreign commerce and domestic interstate commerce and/or from
services supplied by them to firms that are themselves directly engaged in foreign and
interstate commerce . In view of the foregoing , I find and conclude that PMTA and
its employer-members are engaging in commerce , within the meaning of the Act and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board " to assert jurisdiction here.
H. THE RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Respondent , Local 1332, International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-CIO,
is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE ISSUES
1. Whether the Respondent caused or attempted to cause PMTA and its employer-
members to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3), in viola-
tion of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
2. Whether the Respondent restrained or coerced employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The employees represented by the Respondent are known as carloaders. Their
work consists of loading and unloading railroad cars; trucks , teams, lighters, and
barges, transferring freight in and out of storage places, sorting , piling, and other
miscellaneous work not performed by longshoremen represented by other locals.
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carloading on the Philadelphia waterfront is casual employment. Carloaders seeking
employment are required to "shape up" for work each morning. The shapeup takes
place at 7:30 a.m. at approximately 13 shaping points along the waterfront. Selection
of the men who are to work that day is made by the hiring foremen who, though mem-
bers of Respondent Union, are representatives of the employer-members of PMTA.
Approximately 500 men appear at the shaping points each day. Of these approxi-
mately 300 are hired.
Paragraph 3 of the existing contract between the Respondent and PMTA contains
provisions with respect to union security and preference in employment. The pertinent
provisions are as follows:
(a) Union Security: As a condition of employment, each employee covered
by this agreement who is not on the date of the execution of this agreement a
member of the Union, shall become a member of the Union when he has worked
a minimum of thirty (30) days within a maximum period of three (3) calendar
months, and remain a member during the term of this agreement , provided that
no Employer shall justify any discrimination against any employee for non'
membership in the labor organization:
* * k * -k
. (d) There shall be a basic unit of carloaders who shall be entitled to a prefer-
ence in employment over all other carloaders hereafter outlined, and it shall be
known as "Group 1 ." Group 1 shall consist of:
(1) Any man who has worked Nine Thousand (9,000) hours within
the past thirteen (13) years.
(2) Any man who has worked Seven Hundred (700) hours during the
past year.
(3) Any man who has. worked Seven Hundred (700) hours per -year
during any three (3) of the past five (5) years.
(4) Any carloader who would have qualified for classifications (1) and
(2) hereof except for absence due to military service or service as a Union
official, or to disability within the provisions of the PMTA-ILA Welfare
Plan, or under the provisions of any compensation law. Union officials
shall be entitled to a credit of forty (40) hours per week during service in
office. -
(e) Carloaders covered by this agreement shall have identification insignia
distributed to them, having met the requirements of Sub-sections (1), (2) or (3)
above. The parties also agree that the registration and distribution of identifica-
tion and preferential insignia shall be accomplished on or before March 1, 1960.
(f) There shall be a supplementary unit of carloaders to include all of those
persons not covered in the basic unit of carloaders provided for in the previous
paragraphs hereof.1
To implement the preferential hiring provisions, PMTA issued "picture cards" to,
persons who qualified for group 1 status, and these men were given priority by hiring
foremen at the shapeups.2
Respondent disagreed with PMTA's implementation of the contract. It took the
position that the contract called for three classifications in group 1, in order of priority,
and that the picture cards issued by PMTA should, by color or otherwise, reflect the
three different classifications. PMTA disagreed and refused to change the picture
cards.
B. Attempts to change hiring preference
In July 1963 Respondent , after failing to induce PMTA to accept its interpretation
of the contract with regard to preferential hiring, instituted its own system. It issued
to its members buttons bearing Respondent's name and superimposed thereon either
the numeral "1" or the numeral "2." Number "1" buttons were issued to persons who
i The foregoing provisions were contained in the agreement effective October 1, 1959,
and expiring September 30, 1962 It was incorporated without change in the current'
agreement which was adopted pursuant to recommendations of the Special Board
appointed by the President of the United States, of which' Senator Wayne Morse
was chairman. The current contract was due to expire on September 30, 1964.
2 The picture cards consist of a photograph of the holder together with a legend in-
dicating that he was recognized by PMTA as a member of group 1. No distinction was
made on the picture cards to indicate whether the holder belonged to any of the sub-
categories listed in subparagraph ( d) above. '
LOCAL 1332, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., AFL-CIO 1475
had been members of the Respondent for 5 years or more; number "2" buttons were
issued to persons who had been members of Respondent less than 5 years. According
to Aaron-Daniel, .president of the Respondent, the purpose of the button system was
to prevent discrimination against the older men, which he claimed was being practiced
by hiring foremen. PMTA refused to accept Respondent's button system as a standard
for preferential hiring. Under date of July 18, 1963, the executive secretary of
PMTA wrote the Respondent in part as follows:
We are not interested in any "button system" created unilaterally by Local 1332.
All hiring shall continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of our collective
bargaining agreement with you.
Following the institution of the button system, Respondent called a meeting of the
hiring foremen, who were members of Respondent, and explained to them how the
button system would work; i.e., holders of number "1" buttons were to be hired first
and number "2" buttonholders had the next priority. Respondent also issued a circu-
lar to that effect to the foremen. President Daniel admitted that the purpose of the
button system was that buttonholders would be hired in preference to nonunion car-
loaders and that a nonunion carloader could secure a number button only by joining
the Union. President Daniel also spoke to individual hiring foremen at the piers and
demanded that they abide by the button system. Various foremen told him that they
had been instructed by PMTA to hire according to the picture cards and showed him
a copy of the letter which the executive secretary had sent to the Respondent, quoted
above. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Elwood F. Gunther, the
Charging Party, President Daniel told John Hudson, a hiring foreman, that if Hudson
"couldn't do like everybody else that he could take his Union book from him and put
him out of the Union." Hudson replied that he did not care, that he could hire whom
he wanted then. President Daniel then said, "I would stop work at this pier and close
it down but being that the men had been hired, I'll let it go. I won't say nothing this
time but I will be back." Apparently the Respondent's button system attained some
isolated recognition. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Gunther, he had
gone to pier 78 to seek employment. Lucian Blackwell, hiring foreman at pier 78
and also vice president of the Respondent, told Gunther that he would like to hire him,
but he would have to wait until he got all his number "1" button men first. On another
occasion, according to the uncontradicted testimony of Gunther, at pier 40 the hiring
foreman identified as "Pete" had had some number "2" button men who had been
working with him rather steadily. President Daniel told Pete, "Hire the Number 1
men first, then your Number 2 men." The foreman complied with these instructions,
and some of the number "2" button men who had been working with him were not
hired.
In February 1964 the Respondent changed its button system. If a carloader joined
the Respondent in 1964, he received a number "3" button and would not be eligible
for a number "2" button until he had been a member for 7 years. However, those who
had joined during 1963 and already had the number "2" buttons would retain that
classification. Number "1" buttons were given to those who had been in the Union
for 13 years.
Concluding Findings
Under the picture card system, a nonunion carloader could receive preference in
hiring equal to union members, as the system is based upon the number of hours
worked on the waterfront, and it is undisputed that nonunion carloaders are hired
every day .3 Under the button system (either the two-button or the three-button
system), a nonunion carloader would receive no preference whatsoever, but would
be hired only if union members are not available. While the stated purpose of the
button system was to give preference to the most experienced men over those with
less experience, the clear effect is to put the nonunion carloader at a disadvantage
vis-a-vis even the least experienced union member.
It is argued that the contract provision on preferential hiring is ambiguous; that
PMTA incorrectly interpreted the provision to create only one class of preferred
carloaders, whereas the true intent was to establish three priority classes in order of
B Although the contract between Respondent and PMTA provides for union security,
a person is not required to become a meniber of Respondent unless he has worked a
minimum of 30 days within a maximum period of 3 calendar months. In view of the
casual nature of the work, it is possible for a carloader to work less than 30 days in a
3-month period and still accumulate the requisite number of hours to qualify for a
picture card
1476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
preference; 4 and that the button system is necessary to prevent abuses.5 These
arguments must be rejected. Assuming arguendo that the contract provisions on
preferential hiring are ambiguous, this does not avail the Respondent, as neither of
its button systems accords with its own interpretation of the contract. Instead, its
systems set up entirely new and different classifications which are based on the length
of membership in the Union, whereas the contract provisions are based upon'hours
worked on the waterfront. And while there may be merit in Respondent's purpose
in setting up these classifications, an issue which I do not decide, it cannot absolve
the Respondent from violating the Act.
That the button system, if followed by PMTA, would result in discriminatory
treatment of nonunion carloaders is evident from President Daniel's testimony to
the effect that under it even a member holding a number "3" button would be hired
before a nonunion carloader. And, manifestly, if there were sufficient buttonholders
to fill the need, nonunion applicants would not be hired. It is well settled that such
discrimination with regard to hire by the Employer is clearly violative of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, and a union which causes or attempts to cause such discrimina-
tion violates Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. See, e.g., Jarka Corporation of Philadel-
phia, 94 NLRB 320, enfd. as modified 198 F. 2d 618 (C.A. 3).
Admittedly, Respondent has not been successful in requiring PMTA to accept its
button system and thus prefer union members over nonunion carloaders. But suc-
cess in this regard is not an essential element of a violation of Section 8(b) (2). In
the language of that section, it is an unfair labor practice for a union to "attempt to
cause" an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of Section
8(a)(3).
As noted above, PMTA ordered the hiring foremen not to follow the button sys-
tem, and many foremen obeyed these orders, disregarding instructions from the
Respondent. Respondent then resorted to stronger methods to secure compliance.
President Daniels threatened Foreman Hudson with the loss of his union dues book
and intimated that he might close down the job at that pier if the button system was
not followed in the future. Such conduct goes beyond mere request or persuasion.
Even though unsuccessful, it constituted an "attempt to cause" within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (2), as it was indeniably " intended to cause a violation of Section
8(a)(3) and . . . [was] reasonably calculated to bring about that result." (United
Association of Journeymen, etc. (Carrier Corp.), 112 NLRB 1385, 1387, enfd. 231
F. 2d 447 (C.A. 5).) American Bakery & Confectionery Workers, etc. (Continental
Baking Company, Inc.), 128 NLRB 937, 938-939; N.L.R.B. v. International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local No. 12, AFL (Associated General Contractors), 237
F. 2d 670, 673 (C.A. 9), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 910, enfg. 113 NLRB 655; N.L.R.B.
v. George D. Auchter Company, 209 F. 2d 273, 277 (C.A. 5). Compare: Retail
Clerks Local Union No. 1222 (Mayfair Markets), 133 NLRB 1458, 1460; Bonnaz
Embroideries Tucking, etc., Union Local. 66 (V. & D. Machine Embroidery Co.),
134 NLRB 879, 880; International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, Local 7, AFL-CIO (Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc.), 135 NLRB
865, 866. In view of the foregoing, I find and conclude that Respondent attempted to
cause PMTA and its member employers to discriminate against nonunion carloaders
in violation of Section 8(a)(3), and thereby violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
By said conduct, Respondent also restrained and coerced employees in the exer-
cise of their rights, in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. While there is no
direct evidence to this effect, that fact may be and is inferred from the following
undisputed circumstances: (1) Nonunion men shape up every day at the various
shaping points; (2) the union men wore number buttons openly; (3) President Dan-
iels at shapeup time openly directed hiring foremen at the shaping points to hire
according to the buttons. It is inconceivable that nonunion men would be unaware
* It is noted that the contract sets up classifications within "Group 1" in apparent
order of preference. Thus, classification 1 embraces those with most experience ; i.e.,
a person who has worked 9,000 hours within the past 13 years ; classification 2 comprises
those with substantial recent experience ; i.e., those who have worked 700 hours during
the past year; and classification 3 includes those with substantial experience, although
some of it may not have been recent ; i.e., those who have worked 700 hours per year
during any 3 of the past 5 years.
H Some of these abuses, according to the undisputed testimony, are preferential hiring
by foremen who receive a kickback in the form of whiskey, or who lend money to car-
loaders at a usurious rate of interest, the hiring of "giddyap " carloaders who act as
secondary foremen and do the pushing for the foreman so that the foreman does not get
blamed for pushing the men, and the hiring of younger men who disregard safety
precautions.
LOCAL 1332, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., AFL-CIO 1477
of the fact that the Respondent was attempting to set up a hiring preference system
which would redound to their economic detriment if it were followed by the hiring
foremen. This would tend to coerce them to join the Union to protect their hiring
rights and would restrain them from exercising their right not to join the Union. It
is well settled that an attempt by a union to cause an employer to discriminate against
an employee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) may constitute a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) as well as of Section 8(b)(2). See, e.g., International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 291
(Wisconsin Axle Division), 92 NLRB 968, 973-974; Local 294, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, etc. (Valetta Trucking Company), 116 NLRB 842, 844; Local 212,
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Workers, etc.
(Chrysler Corp.), 128 NLRB 952, 953; Carpenters Local #40, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters, etc. (Stop & Shop, Inc.), 143 NLRB 142, 143.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in con-
nection with the business operations of PMTA and its employer-members set forth
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 thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, Respondent,
Local 1332, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, its officers, rep-
resentatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Attempting to cause PMTA and its employer-members to discriminate against
any of their employees or prospective employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
(b) Restraining or coercing employees or prospective employees of PMTA or its
employer-members in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them 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 authorized by Section 8(a)(3), as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 4, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative,
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by Respondent for 60
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Decision, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with?
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner". If the Board's Order Is enforced by a decree of a United States Court
of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision
and Order".
7If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause PMTA and its employer-members to discrimi-
nate against any of their employees or prospective employees in violation of
Section 8 ( a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees or prospective employees of
PMTA or its employer-members 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 in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
LocAL 1332, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. Pennypacker 5-2612, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance Workers
International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA-9734. Febru-
ary 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 4, 1964, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel
filed exceptions to the scope of the Recommended Order in the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The Charging Party
filed cross-exceptions to the scope of the Recommended Order and
an answering 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 case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
150 NLRB No. 135.