Local 320, Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1971

183 N.L.R.B. 1086 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 320, International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC (General
Electric Company) and Katherine Lalonde. Case
3-CB-1308
June 25, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND FANNING
On February 5, 1970, Trial Examiner Josephine
H. Klein issued her Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the 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
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 and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner only to the extent con-
sistent herewith.
The substance of the allegation in the complaint
is that since June 1, 1969, the Respondent has at-
tempted to cause the Company to discriminate
against employee Katherine Lalonde because she
was not a member of the Union, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(2) and, thereby, has restrained and
coerced employees in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
At the Company's Syracuse location are a
number of job classifications in which the
represented employees are grouped. Within each
classification are several work assignments or jobs.
Thus, employees in the mount room of the Televi-
sion Components Department, doing assembly
work, whether on day or incentive basis, were in
the R-5 classification. Within this classification
were such work assignments or jobs as flange weld-
' For many years the Company has been a party to a series of national
collective-bargaining agreements with the International Union augmented
by supplements negotiated with the local unions . The 1966 national agree-
ment and a local supplement entered into by the Company and Local 320,
the Respondent herein covering employees at the Company 's Syracuse,
New York, location was in effect when the situation herein arose Neither
the national agreement nor the local supplement contains special provi-
ing, clip welding, and cathode tab operation. The
established practice for many years has been that
an employee would not be permitted to transfer
laterally in the same classification from one job to
another. The one exception to this practice was
that, on a seniority basis, employees who were not
working full time on incentive rate jobs would be
permitted to transfer laterally to available jobs
where they could work full time for incentive pay.
This practice and the exception was the subject of
an oral agreement between the Company and
Respondent.' In addition, Respondent Business
Agent Stanley testified that in the case of a tempo-
rary upgrade, when such temporary upgrade ter-
minates, the employee is put back on the same job
from which he was temporarily upgraded.
Lalonde, an employee at the Syracuse plant since
1957, worked in the R-5 classification on an incen-
tive piecework basis except for a period from
February to June 1969 during which she was tem-
porarily upgraded. Her work in the R-5 classifica-
tion covered a range of operations including flange
welding, cathode tab, and other assembly jobs.
However, for the month of January 1969, im-
mediately before she was temporarily upgraded,
Lalonde worked on the flange welding job almost
exclusively and did not do any cathode tab work.
Shortly after Lalonde was temporarily upgraded
to the position of group leader,2 the amount of
cathode tab work increased sufficiently to require
another full-time operator. About the end of May
1969, Lalonde was informed by her foreman that
she was being taken off the temporary group leader
job and that she was to go back to the flange weld-
ing work. Lalonde protested the flange welding as-
signment, stating that she should have the cathode
tab job and after meeting with Joseph Cardarelli,
the Company's specialist in union relations and
safety, she was put on the cathode tab operation.3
Upon learning of the placement of Lalonde in the
cathode tab operation, the Respondent objected to
the assignment claiming that it constituted a lateral
transfer that was contrary to the established prac,
tice. Protests to the Company were registered on
several occasions, with Respondent asserting
Lalonde had been accorded preferential treatment.
The Company maintained that Lalonde 's assign.
ment to the cathode tab job was not a lateral
transfer but rather a realignment of an employee to
fill an open job.
sions covering work task assignments and lateral transfers
Y The record does not support the Trial Examiner 's finding that the
leader job is a supervisory position
a At the time Lalonde 's temporary upgrade ended , a reduction of ap-
proximately 70 employees took place because of lack of work in the mount
room A cathode tab job was thereby vacated by an employee with less
seniority
183 NLRB No. 107
LOCAL 320, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
Lalonde concedes that there was no union dis-
crimination involved in the Company's taking her
off the temporary leader job.' The Respondent's at-
tempt to have this assignment of Lalonde to the
cathode tab job rescinded is the conduct alleged to
have been discriminatory.
With respect to Respondent's alleged discrimina-
tory motivation, it appears that, in September 1967,
Respondent filed a grievance demanding that
Lalonde be disciplined for "antiunion activity" con-
sisting of leaving her work station to urge em-
ployees not to engage in a walkout; in February
1968 Florence Shaw, a union steward, told Lalonde
that Respondent would not process a grievance
over her not getting the cathode tab job beyond the
first step because Lalonde was not a member of the
Union; and after Lalonde joined Respondent on
April 1, 1968, Helen Damas , union steward, said
she could do nothing about such a grievance
because Lalonde had not been a member when the
job opened up. On September 28, 1968, Lalonde
withdrew from the Union by a letter which con-
tained a message to Business Agent Stanley com-
plaining of favoritism shown by steward Damas.
Other evidence shows that Respondent has regu-
larly processed grievances on behalf of the non-
member employees , has filed similar grievances
over antiunion conduct against other employees at
various times, and filed another grievance opposing
the lateral transfer of another employee at the same
time and won , not knowing of her nonunion status,
has successfully grieved over an untimely promo-
tion involving a union steward; and has not before
been charged with discrimination in the per-
formance of its representation obligation. The
record contains conflicting testimony as to whether,
during the discussions of Lalonde 's job placement,
Respondent accused the Company of showing
favoritism to her because of her nonunion status
and referred to her as a scab or whether the Com-
pany during such discussions accused Respondent
of pressing the grievance because of her nonunion
status, or both. A credibility ruling resolving such
conflict was not made. In any event , it is clear that
her nonunion status was adverted to.
The Trial Examiner concluded that Respondent's
action was motivated by hostility against Lalonde
because of her nonunion status and past antiunion
conduct and, therefore, in violation of Section
8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. We agree with
the Trial Examiner that whether the work assign-
ment of Lalonde was a lateral transfer contrary to
'The record does not support the Trial Examiner's statement that
Lalonde testified her supervisor , Larry Lavine, told her that the Union ob-
jected to her getting a tab weldingjob
1087
established practice is not determinative and a deci-
sion on that question need not be made, for the
issue is not whether Lalonde was entitled to the
cathode tab work, but rather whether the Respon-
dent sought to deprive her of such work for a dis-
criminatory reason. However, we disagree with her
conclusion that the evidence establishes a dis-
criminatory motivation. The Trial Examiner's find-
ing of discriminatory motivation is based in sub-
stantial part on her conclusion that no useful union
purpose could be served by the no-lateral transfer
policy. Thus, in so holding, she described the
Respondent's grivance based on this policy as
"perhaps most glaringly point[ing] to a discriminato-
ry motivation" because in her view, the no-lateral
transfer policy served no "apparent Union pur-
pose" or "any possible Union interest." Therefore,
she concluded that "the inference is inescapable
that [the Union's] conduct was discriminatorily
motivated against Lalonde." Reliance on such
matter is misplaced.5 The desirability of lateral
transfers is an issue for determination by the parties
at the bargaining table and not by the Board. Here
the parties have worked out an established practice
on lateral transfers. The fact that the Respondent
may prefer an arrangement other than the
established practice does not change that practice.
Certainly Respondent cannot be faulted for seeking
adherence to that practice.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that a credi-
bility resolution relating to the only evidence ad-
duced to support the alleged discriminatory motiva-
tion other than that introduced for background pur-
poses need not be made, as both versions of the
testimony show that in discussing Lalonde's job
placement her nonunion status was brought into the
open. Either version would establish no more than
that one party to the grievance accused and
suspected the other of discriminatory motivation,
and not the existence of such a motivation.
We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that
Respondent's conduct in the handling of the Hanley
situation has probative value in refuting any sug-
gestion of discrimination contained in the
background evidence. Thus, about the same time or
just prior to the Lalonde affair, a similar situation
arose involving employee Hanley. The Company
granted her request for a transfer to another job
which was a lateral transfer. Upon learning of this
transfer, the Respondent complained to the Com-
pany and Hanley was returned to her former job.
At that time Respondent did not know whether or
' it is not within the province of the Board to "pass upon the desirability
of the substantive terms of labor agreements " N L R B v American Na-
tional Insurance Company, 343 US 395, 408-409
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not Hanley was a member of the Union-6 Of similar
significance , the record shows that when employee
Ray Rose, a union official, was improperly up-
graded, the Respondent protested this improper ac-
tion without regard to his status as a union official
Finally, a discriminatory motive is further
negated by Respondent Business Agent Stanley's
testimony that the requested the Company to
furnish him with Lalonde's vouchers for the period
immediately preceding her temporary upgrade in
order to determine whether she in fact did not have
full piecework opportunities. If she did not, Stanley
stated that there would be no opposition to the
Company's placement of Lalonde in the cathode
tab job since her placement would then be in com-
pliance with the exception to the established prac-
tice against lateral transfers. The Company did not
contradict this testimony, nor did it furnish the
Respondent with the necessary information so as to
resolve this matter
Accordingly, we conclude that the record fails to
establish that Respondent attempted to cause the
Company to refuse to assign the cathode tab job to
employee Lalonde because she was not a member
of the Union, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and
8(b)( I )(A) of the Act. We shall therefore dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed
' In considering the Hanley transfer , the Trial Examiner noted that
Respondent had filed grievances on behalf of two employees seeking job
transfers The Company denied these transfers claiming that they would be
lateral transfers These grievances , the most recent being filed about 2
years before the Lalonde incident , were introduced into evidence to show
company acknowledgment of the existence of the lateral transfer policy As
the question of whether a transfer was lateral , contrary to the policy, must
be made on the facts surrounding each, we can place no significance on the
fact that in one situation the Union might request a transfer and in another
feel compelled to grieve over such a transfer We note that 10 other lateral
transfers were made about the time of Lalonde, yet apparently accorded
with policy because they were the result of application of layoff-seniority
provisions which no one contested
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPHINE H. KLEIN , Trial Examiner: This
proceeding was heard in Syracuse , New York, on
November 19 and 20, 1969,1 on a complaint issued
against Local 320, International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC
(General Electric Company ), on September 17,
pursuant to a charge and an amended charge filed
on July 22 and September 10, respectively, by
Katherine Lalonde . At the hearing the Charging
Party appeared pro se and the General Counsel and
the Respondent Union were represented by coun-
sel. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard and to examine and cross- examine witnesses.
Oral argument was waived. A brief has since been
filed by Respondent.
Upon the entire record, consideration of Respon-
dent's brief, and observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
A. The General Electric Company ( GE), a New
York corporation with its principal office in New
York City, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of electrical motors, appliances , equip-
ment , and related products . GE's plant located at
Electronics Park , Syracuse , New York , is the only
plant involved in this proceeding.
During the past year , a representative period,
GE, in the course and conduct of its business
operations , purchased , transferred, and delivered to
its Syracuse plant goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50 ,000, of which goods and materials
valued in excess of $50 ,000 were transported to
said plant directly from points outside the State of
New York. During the same period GE, in the
course and conduct of its business operations,
manufactured , sold, and distributed products in ex-
cess of $50 ,000, of which products valued in excess
of $50 ,000 were shipped from said plant directly to
points outside the State of New York.
GE is now, and has been at all times material
herein , an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.2
B. Respondent Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Issue
The Union attempted to prevent the employer
from giving an employee the work assignment she
desired. The complaint alleges that the Union took
this action "because said employee was not a mem-
ber" and thus violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) and
8(b)(2). The Union, on the other hand , maintains
that its conduct was motivated solely by a desire to
prevent preferential treatment to the employee in
question, thus maintaining uniformity of treatment
among employees in pursuance of its duty of fair
representation.
B. The Facts
Katherine Lalonde, the Charging Party, has been
employed in GE's Television Components Depart-
Unless otherwise stated, all dates herein are in 1969
r National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 6I Stat 136, 73 Stat 519,
29USC Sec 151,etseq)
LOCAL 320, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
ment (TCD) since 1957. For an undisclosed,
though apparently extended, period of time prior to
February 1, 1959, she had been working full time at
operations paid on an incentive (piecework) basis
Her principal assignment was an operation known
as flange welding, but, since that operation was not
constantly required on a full-time basis, she also
worked at other jobs, all of which were in the same
classification and paid at an incentive rate. The in-
centive rates are the same on all operations within a
classification so that theoretically any employee
would realize the same earnings regardless of the
specific operation being performed.
In Lalonde's division, there was one full-time
position in an operation known as "cathode tab" or
"cathode tab welding." However, there was often
need for a second cathode tab welder on a part-
time basis. Lalonde did that overflow cathode tab
welding. At one time, she worked full-time at
cathode tabbing for 2 weeks, during the vacation of
Krasnewich, who then was the regular full-time
cathode tab operator.
Lalonde believed she could realize higher
earnings at cathode tabbing than at flange welding'
In the early part of 1968, she had unsuccessfully at-
tempted to secure cathode tab work on a full-time
basis. (See details infra.)
During the month of January 1969 there was no
overflow cathode tab welding to be done. Ac-
cordingly, during that month, Lalonde did primarily
flange welding, with some time spent at other
operations, all in the R-5 classification and all at in-
centive pay.4
On February 1, Lalonde was temporarily up-
graded to a supervisory position. According to
White's uncontradicted testimony, shortly
thereafter-around February or March-the
amount of cathode tab welding work increased suf-
ficiently to require two full-time employees. Em-
ployee Lee Brock was assigned to the new full-time
cathode tab job.
Sometime in May the Company decided to fill
existing supervisory jobs on a permanent basis, with
the result that Lalonde's temporary upgrade was to
end on or about June 1.5 About the same time, a
reduction in force in TCD was scheduled, with
about 70 employees to be laid off on or about June
1. Although these two events occurred at the same
time, there is no indication that they were interre-
lated. The reduction in force was to be effectuated
' Charles M White, manager of union relations at TCD, indicated that
which of the various jobs yielded the higher earnings depended primarily
on the specific dexterity and talents of individual employees There was no
substantial evidence that employees generally found cathode tab welding
more remunerative than other operations
Although no specifics were provided, it appear that during that month
she had received some pay at the hourly rate However, it appears to have
been for "down-time" rather than pursuant to regular assignment
' There was no contention that Lalonde was entitled to the supervisory
position on a permanent basis Lalonde indicated that the Union had in-
sisted on permanent appointments to the supervisory position because they
were then being temporarily held, in large part, by nonunion members
while union members had sufficient seniority for permanent promotions
However, it is not alleged that the termination of Lalonde's temporary
1089
on a seniority basis, with employees hired after
April 3, 1967, being laid off and senior employees
whose jobs were being eliminated moved to con-
tinuing jobs made vacant by the layoff of junior em-
ployees One of the junior persons to be laid off was
Lee Brock, leaving a full-time cathode tab job to be
filled.
Sometime in May, Larry Lavine, who was then
Lalonde's foreman, told her that on June 1, at the
end of her temporary promotion, she was to return
to flange welding She objected, saying she wanted
cathode tab work According to Lalonde, Lavine
(who did not testify) told her that the Union ob-
jected to her getting a tab welding job. Lalonde
requested and was granted an interview with Joseph
Cardarelli, specialist in union relations and safety at
TCD. Cardarelli then consulted supervisory person-
nel familiar with the situation and thereupon as-
signed Lalonde to full-time cathode tab welding as
of June 1.
The Union objected to Lalonde's assignment to
full-time cathode tab welding as "preferential treat-
ment." According to the Union, since she was not
affected by the layoff, she should have been
returned to flange welding, which had been her
principal, if not sole, work in January. The Union
claimed that the assignment to cathode tab welding
constituted a "lateral transfer," contrary to the
Company's established practice. Union representa-
tives registered their protest to company represen-
tatives on several occasions According to Car-
darelli, Business Agent John Stanley indicated that
the Company's continued refusal to place Lalonde
back at the flange welding job would cause "a lot of
trouble," possibly including an areawide strike. On
June 19, the Union filed 115 mimeographed
grievances protesting the Lalonde placement. Each
grievance purported to be a request by an in-
dividual employee for a job transfer. The Company
refused to entertain any of the grievances, main-
taining that they amounted to sheer harassment.'
The Company maintained that Lalonde's assign-
ment to the cathode tab job was not a "lateral
transfer," but rather a "realignment" of an em-
ployee to fill an open job. The Company stood its
ground and did not move her back to the flange
welding job. The dispute ended, at least temporari-
ly, on June 30, when Lalonde became ill. She was
still on sick leave at the time of the present hearing.
promotion was violative of the Act
s The mimeographed text of the grievance read
Due to the recent K Lalonde decision by Union Relations in Build-
ing 6, TCD, which in the Union's eye appears to mean that job picking
is legal, I hereby request to be moved to job in area
Relief Requested That I be allowed to make this move toute-de-
suite
Written answer requested within 24 hours after receipt of grievance
Two were introduced into evidence with a stipulation that they were
representative In one of those two, the employee requested a transfer to
"Chairman of the Board of Directors New York City Ist shift " In
its brief, Respondent says that these grievances "were submitted to
emphasize the absurdity of the Company's position "
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Discussion and Conclusion
The relevant provisions of the governing collec-
tive-bargaining agreement read:
Article XI, section 1, of the National Agree-
ment:
Whenever there is a reduction in the work-
ing force or employees are laid off from their
regular jobs, total length of continuous service,
applied on a plant, department, or other basis
negotiated locally, shall be the major factor
determining the employees to be laid off or
transferred (exclusive of upgrading or transfers
to higher rated jobs.) However, ability will be
given consideration.
Article I, section 2, of the Local 320 Supple-
ment:
(a) Employees who are removed from a
group because of lack of work in accordance
with the provisions of the GE-IUE (AFL-CIO)
National Agreement will be able to displace
the shortest service employees on the same or
similar work of the type for which they would
normally be hired (but not on higher rated
jobs) where no training beyond a rasonable
breaking-in time will be required.
Such transfers will be made as soon as the
necessary openings can be created by remov-
ing the shorter-service employees.
The parties agree that the contract does not itself
prescribe the mechanism for effectuating layoffs or
resolve the question of Lalonde's placement upon
the end of her temporary upgrade
The parties have developed certain practices to
implement the contractual provision for having
seniority govern reduction in force. While these
practices were not described in detail, it appears
that the Company generally prepares "bump
sheets," which set forth the relative rights of vari-
ous employees to retain employment Union Finan-
cial Secretary Kyram Phelan , who was also assistant
chief steward in TCD on June 1, 1969, testified that
he had examined the "bump sheet" used in connec-
tion with the layoff on that date. GE representa-
tives, however, maintained that no "bump sheet"
had been prepared for this reduction. The Trial Ex-
aminer gained the impression that the disagreement
between the parties on this point was a matter more
of verbal fencing than of substance. Whether or not
there was a document called a "bump sheet ," there
is no disagreement that junior employees were laid
r The evidence is confused as to the precise mechanism of "bumping "
However, the record does show that 10 employees ( in addition to Lalonde)
were reassigned within their established classifications So far as appears,
off and senior employees whose jobs were being
eliminated replaced those laid-off employees whose
jobs were not eliminated.7
Union Business Agent John Stanley testified that
the Company had always maintained a policy
against permitting lateral transfers , i.e., transfers
between jobs within the same classification, and the
Union had generally acquiesced in this policy. How-
ever, sometime in 1956 or 1957, Stanley, for the
Union, and a Mr. O'Brien, then acting for GE, had
reached an understanding that , on a seniority basis,
employees who were not working full time on in-
centive-rate jobs would be permitted to transfer
laterally (i.e., within the same job classification) to
available jobs where they could work full time for
incentive pay." With this exception, the company
policy against lateral transfers has been maintained.
While no GE representative testified specifically
concerning any "understanding" between Stanley
and O'Brien , they did agree that, generally speak-
ing, the company's policy was as outlined by Stan-
ley. Cardarelli testified that some exceptions to the
no-lateral-transfer rule had been made in the past
but he provided no specifics. Stanley said he knew
of no previous lateral transfers. For the purpose of
this Decision, the Trial Examiner will assume, as
maintained by Respondent Union, that the policy
had been uniformily adhered to.
Stanley also testified that it had been "resolved
over the years" that at the end of any temporary
upgrade the employee is returned to the "very same
job" he was on when temporarily upgraded. This
testimony was not denied. However, it should be
pointed out that there was no evidence that any
temporarily upgraded employees had ever
requested reassignment to jobs other than the ones
from which they had been promoted. Further, there
was no indication that there had ever previously
been a situation like the present, in which the end
of a senior employee's temporary assignment coin-
cided with a general layoff or other circumstance
creating an "open" job.
On the present record, the Trial Examiner would
be hard put to decide whether the assignment of
Lalonde to the cathode tab job on June 1 was a
"lateral transfer" contrary to any established policy
or practice, as the Union contends. Fortunately,
that question need not be answered. See Local 282,
Teamsters (Lizza & Sons), 165 NLRB 997, enfd
412 F.2d 334 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1038.
In that case, an employee who had been promoted
to a supervisory position later sought to return to
the status of a rank-and-file employee. The em-
ployer referred him to the union to secure restora-
tion of his seniority. The collective-bargaining
agreement did not contain any relevant provisions
but the established practice of the parties had been
for the union to make all seniority determinations.
Lalonde 's assignment was the only subject of complaint by the Union
"There are both day - rate and incentive -rate operations within the same
classification
LOCAL 320, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
The union's executive committee at first voted to
restore the employee's seniority but reversed its
position when other employees objected because of
his antiunion conduct as a supervisor. In holding
that the union had violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) and
8(b)(2), the Board said:
... The issue in the case is not whether [em-
ployee] Melillo is entitled to seniority, but
rather whether the Union revoked his seniority
for a discriminatory reason. . . . Thus the
question of Melillo's right to restoration of
seniority ... is not really dispositive of the is-
sue. For the Union has undertaken to judge
seniority, and, accordingly, we must look to
the Union to see if that power was exercised
lawfully.
In enforcing the Board's order, the Court of Ap-
peals for the Second Circuit expressly approved the
Board's having pretermitted the question of Melil-
lo's seniority rights. The court said that the
question was "whether a union which had assumed
the task of determining an employee's seniority per-
formed this task in a discriminatory fashion. If the
union so discriminated it violated the Act, even in
the absence of an independent Labor Board deter-
mination of the employee's actual seniority status."
412 F.2d at 336.
Whether or not Lalonde was "entitled" to the
cathode tab job, the Union's attempts to deprive
her of it were violative of the Act if her nonunion
status or "anti-union activities played at least some
part in the union's final determination." Ibid. 412
F.2d at 336. The record in the present case leaves
no reasonable doubt that the Union was motivated,
at least in substantial part, by animus against
Lalonde because of her past and present relation-
ship to the Union.
In September 1967,9 the Union filed a grievance
demanding that Lalonde be disciplined for her al-
leged antiunion activity.10 The Company rejected
the grievance for lack of evidence warranting
disciplinary action." That grievance apparently did
not proceed beyond the second level of the
grievance procedure.
Lalonde testified that she first learned of a full-
time opening in cathode tabbing on August 7,
1967, but, according to her foreman, it was being
given to employee Krasnewich, who, though junior
to Lalonde, had had previous experience in that
' It does not appear whether Lalonde was a member of the Union at that
time Although there was no direct testimony to this effect, the record in-
dicates that she had previously belonged to the Union but had resigned at
an unspecified time before February 1968
" 0 The text of the grievance reads
"Union demands that Kate Lalonde be reprimanded for urging employees
not to exercise their rights to walk out on Tuesday, September 12, 1967 on
an exhausted grievance Mrs Lalonde left her work station during working
hours for the purpose of urging employees not to participate in the walk-
out We assume this was done without the permission of her foreman A
steward, for this type of action, would have received disciplinary action
Will this be done in the case of Mrs Lalonde, a foreman's wife'? Union
requests that Mrs Lalonde be disciplined and told to mind her own busi-
ness as she always is meddling in other people 's affairs "
1091
operation. In February 1968 Lalonde asked Union
Steward Florence Shaw to file a grievance on her
behalf, seeking the cathode tab job. According to
Lalonde, Shaw said that the Union would not
process such a grievance beyond the first step
because Lalonde was not a member of the Union.
Lalonde thereupon joined12 the Union on April 1,
1968, and then spoke to Helen Damas, a steward,
about the matter. Damas said she could do nothing
about it because Lalonde had not been a member
of the Union when the job opened up " Because of
Shaw's and Damas' statements, Lalonde took no
action and no grievances were filed. As neither
Shaw nor Damas testified, there was no direct con-
tradiction of Lalonde's testimony in this connec-
tion. Nor did Respondent offer any affirmative ex-
planation of why no assistance was afforded
Lalonde in her attempt to secure the cathode tab
job in February and April 1968. Lalonde impressed
the Trial Examiner as an honest and conscientious
witness entitled to belief. Accordingly, the Trial Ex-
aminer credits her testimony summarized above.
On September 28, 1968, Lalonde withdrew from
the Union, in a typewritten letter sent in duplicate
originals to the Union and the GE payroll depart-
ment. On the bottom of the one sent to the Union,
she penned the following note:
To John Stanley:
I had intended to stay in the union when I
rejoined April 1st 1968. But with section
stewards like Helen Dumas[14] who only does
things for favorite ones it is my best bet to get
out.
I ask Helen if she would check on something
for me. The first question she asked me was if I
were in the union when it happened. I said no
& she said she couldn't help me. If that's the
way the union plays the game, I'll play it my
way & be $4.75 richer each month.
There is no question that the Union received this
letter. However, Stanley testified that the Union's
bookkeeper handles all withdrawals from the Union
and that he personally had never seen or heard of
Lalonde's note until he received a subpoena duces
tecum to produce it at the present hearing. Stanley
did not provide any further elucidation of the
method in which resignations are normally handled.
The bookkeeper was not called as a witness. On
" "There is no evidence of harassment or of the individual leaving her
work station without the foreman's permission
12 Apparently for the second time
The stenographic transcript of Lalonde's testimony at this point reads
1 went to her and asked her if she would find out why I wasn't asked
for that job The first thing she asked me was if I was in the job at the time
the job was opened and I said no She said that she was sorry that she could
not help me " ( Emphasis supplied ) The Trial Examiner's recollection, the
context, and other evidence indicate that the word "union" was used in
place of the italicized "job " The transcript is hereby corrected ac-
cordingly
14 The testimony indicates that the correct spelling of this name is
"Damas "
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 70
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cross-examination by Respondent's counsel,
Lalonde testified that she "had reports" that her
having sent Stanley "a nasty letter" was mentioned
at one of the grievance meetings in April or May
which Stanley had attended. is
Stanley's denial that he knew of Lalonde's
resignation message of September 28, 1968, does
not coincide with probability. Lalonde obviously
was something of a cause celebre, as demonstrated
by the previous grievance in which she was accused
of antiunion conduct and "always . . meddling in
other people's affairs." It seems unlikely that, under
the circumstances, a minor union employee would
take it upon herself to withhold from Stanley the
note which Lalonde had addressed to him per-
sonally. Finally, the Trial Examiner's impression of
Stanley's demeanor as a witness was not entirely
favorable. He seemed more interested in justifying
action against Lalonde than in illuminating the
Union's conduct.
On all the evidence, the Trial Examiner finds that
when Stanley aggressively opposed Lalonde's hav-
ing the cathode tab job she wanted, he knew of her
prior resignation from the Union and her accusa-
tion of favoritism practiced by the Union.
The factor which perhaps most glaringly points to
a discriminatory motivation is the total absence of
any possible union interest to be served by the "no-
lateral-transfer" policy which the Union claims was
violated by the Lalonde assignment. Indeed, Stan-
ley made it clear that the policy was imposed by the
Company and somewhat reluctantly acquiesced in
by the Union. On direct examination, he testified:
... the company appreciated the fact that the
union understood that individuals could not
select their jobs. I think it would be completely
untenable and the company could not operate
if every individual on seniority would indicate
another job on piece-work just because he had
the seniority. It would be impractical and cause
chaos. [16]
On subsequent questioning by the Trial Examiner,
Stanley reinforced the basic fact that in the
Lalonde matter he was undertaking to assure en-
forcement of a company policy which was basically
15 While this testimony is clearly hearsay , counsel did not object Indeed,
he pursued the matter after the hearsay nature of the testimony became ap-
parent
0 You really don't know whether Mr Stanley ever saw it or not, do
you9
A I had reports it was brought up at a second level meeting, yes
Q At which second level meeting9
A At one of the meetings at General Electric it was brought up that
I had sent him a nasty letter
Q When was that
A Atone of the meetings in April or May
"It is a matter of common knowledge that employee job preferences are
often honored, even in large units For example , the National Agreement
between General Motors and the United Auto Workers contains such a
undesirable to the Union. He testified as follows:
... if it were possible, certainly the union
would like the longer service employee to have
preferential jobs as such. But the union recog-
nizes-the company made the complaint to the
union-and the union recognizes in practice it
would be impossible to carry out.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Why? I'm trying to figure
out why it would be difficult for the union.
THE WITNESS: It would be-not, be difficult
for the union, but it would present a problem
to the extent that the company would not do it.
If the company would allow this, yes, the union
would be in favor of having longer service em-
ployees get what is considered to be a
preferential job.
if the company agrees, we'll be willing to
negotiate and the union will be happy to pro-
vide longer service employees preferential
jobs, but it's the company that will not agree to
this. The Union has no objection to allowing
longer service employees to take jobs which
are preferential.
The instant case thus presents the odd spectacle of
a union attempting to compel an employer to en-
force a policy which the Union basically opposes
and to deny an employee a privilege which the
Union favors in principle.
In the present case, all considerations of adminis-
trative practicality favored the Company's action.
A cathode tab job was being opened by the layoff;
Lalonde, who had had experience in that operation,
was being made available by the termination of her
temporary upgrade.11 As a result, two problems
would be met by the single act of assigning Lalonde
to the cathode tab job. The Union's position, how-
ever, would involve complications. According to
the Union, Lalonde should have gone to flange
welding, displacing the employee who was then oc-
cupying the job. The union witnesses did not make
provision, as follows
It is the policy of Management to cooperate in every practical way
with employees who desire transfers to new positions or vacancies in
their department Accordingly, such employees who make application
to their foremen or the Personnel Department stating their desires,
qualifications and experience, will be given preference for openings in
their department provided they are capable of doing the job In
case the opening is in an equal or lower rated classification and there is
more than one applicant capable of doing the job, the applicant with
the longest seniority will he given preference
Any claim of personal prejudice or any claim of discrimination for
Union activity in connection with transfers may be taken up as a
grievance CCH, Union Contracts, Arbitration, par 59, 905 22, page
85,004
" White testified that Lalonde had been given the cathode tab job
because of her experience and seniority He said that, had she not been in a
temporary upgrade, she would have been given the cathode tab job
"[w]hen it became a full-time piece-work job "
LOCAL 320, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
it entirely clear where that employee would be
moved but at one time Stanley said that she would
have been placed in the cathode tab job. There is
no evidence that that employee, who had been em-
ployed by GE only a little over 2 years, had any
cathode tab experience or that she had any interest
in securing any. It certainly is strange to see a union
insisting that several moves should be made, with
the end result that an employee with 2 years' ser-
vice gets the job desired by an employee with over
12 years' service and experience on the particular
job, while the employer wants to make one simple
assignment which meets the preference of the
senior employee. Absent any apparent union pur-
pose to be served, the inference is inescapable that
its conduct was discriminatorily motivated against
Lalonde. 19
Respondent maintains that the absence of dis-
crimination against Lalonde is demonstrated by its
having filed a grievance protesting the "lateral
transfer" of another employee, Rose Hanley. The
entire evidence concerning the Hanley matter is
less than one page of testimony by Stanley. So far
as appears, Hanley requested and the Company
granted her a lateral transfer to a "job which ap-
parently is an easier job" than the one she was
doing. When the Union complained, Hanley was
returned to her earlier job. On direct examination,
Stanley's testimony in this connection concluded:
Q. Did you know at the time the [protest19]
was put in whether Mrs. Hanley was a union
member or not?
A. No.
Q. Did you find out subsequently whether
she was or not?
A. I think we did find out that she was not a
member.
From the meager information provided, it cannot
be said that the Hanley and Lalonde cases were
comparable. There is no suggestion that Hanley was
at the time scheduled to be moved from one job to
another, as was Lalonde from her temporary up-
grade. On the other hand, Respondent itself
established that on March 18, 1966, and July 20,
1967, it had filed grievances seeking to secure
"lateral transfers" for employees Mary Jane
Holihan and Hazel Kessler , respectively. 20 Respon-
dent advanced no reason for favoring those
requests while opposing Hanley's and Lalonde's.
The Union also points to the case of Ray Rose to
demonstrate its lack of discrimination between
members and nonmembers. Ray Rose, a union
steward, was granted a promotion for which he was
not qualified by seniority, experience , or ability.
1s Cf International Typographical Union, Columbus Typographical Union
No 5, AFL-CIO, 177 NLRB 855, cited by Respondent . There the Board
found that denial of a particular job to an employee was not violative of the
Act because the union was seeking to enforce an established shop rule
which served the legitimate interests of the union and there was no
"evidence that the rule was arbitrarily applied to [the employee], that
[she] was otherwise singled out for discriminatory treatment , or that the
action taken against her was related to her union or other concerted activi-
1093
The Union protested and the promotion was
rescinded. Cross-examination of Stanley developed
the fact that the Union had taken action in the
Rose matter upon the vociferous protests of several
employees, including, primarily, a Mr. LaFram-
boise, who was entitled to and eventually got the
job to which Rose had been improperly promoted.
Again, the Rose matter bears no resemblance to the
Lalonde incident.
Respondent's representatives testified that at
seminars for stewards and at stewards' regular
meetings instructions were frequently given that
grievances were to be processed with regard to the
union membership or nonmembership of the griev-
ing employees. Additionally, there was testimony
that over the years the Union had filed and
processed many grievances on behalf of nonmem-
bers, who generally comprise around 20 percent of
the unit employees. Accepted at its face value, this
evidence does not tend to establish the absence of
discriminatory motivation for the affirmative action
which Respondent's representatives admittedly
took to thwart Lalonde's reasonable desire.
The Trial Examiner concludes that the Union's
conduct was motivated by hostility against Lalonde
for her nonunion membership and allegedly antiu-
nion conduct in the past. The Union thus violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A).
The Union apparently argues that its conduct
could not in any event be violative of Section
8(b)(2) because it was designed to secure uniform
treatment and to prevent or undo allegedly
preferential treatment by the Employer. In its brief,
Respondent argues:
... we are faced ironically with an inchoate
8(a)(3) charge being transmuted into an actual
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) charge when the Union
protested the blatant preferential treatment of
a particular employee.
On the present record, there is no evidence that
GE's assigning Lalonde to the cathode tab job was
in any part motivated by her nonunion membership
and/or antiunion activity. No 8(a)(3) charge was
ever filed against GE. The 115 grievances filed by
the Union do not allege unlawfully discriminatory
action.
GE's representatives White and Cardarelli
testified that, in discussing the matter, union
representatives several times referred to Lalonde as
a "scab." The union representatives, however,
maintained that the company officials had adverted
to Lalonde's nonunion status, stating their opinion
that Stanley was pressing the matter so vigorously
only because she was not a member of the Union.
ties, or her failure to engage in such activities , or that it was for the purpose
of encouraging or discouraging union activities."
"The stenographic transcript contains the word "process" in place of
protest " "Protest," however, coincides with the Trial Examiner's
recollection and is clearly indicated by the context
d1 Steward Shaw, who discouraged Lalonde in February 1968 (see
supra), filed Kessler's grievance
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner finds it unnecessary to deter-
mine which of these versions is correct-they might
well both be true. The salient fact, shown by the
testimony of both sides, is that Lalonde's nonunion
status was brought into the open as a consideration.
Thus, the "Company knew-or, at the very least,
had some reasonable basis for belief-that Respon-
dent Union was seeking" to deprive Lalonde of the
cathode tab job for impermissible reasons. Parisian
Bakeries , Inc., 169 NLRB 1047. It is established
that a transfer without change in pay or classifica-
tion can constitute unlawful discrimination . Monroe
Auto Equipment Company, 169 NLRB 142, enfd.
420 F.2d 861 (C.A. 5). Thus, had GE transferred
Lalonde from the cathode tab to the flange weld
job because of the Union's discriminatory demand,
it would have violated Section 8(a)(3). Ac-
cordingly, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) by
attempting to keep the cathode tab job from her.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Electric Company is, and at all
material times has been, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Local 320 , International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, is,
and all material times has been , a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By seeking to prevent employee Katherine
Lalonde from securing and retaining assignment to
full-time work as a cathode tab welder in the
Television Components Department of the General
Electric Company plant in Syracuse, New York,
Respondent has restrained and coerced employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By attempting to cause General Electric Com-
pany to discriminate against Katherine Lalonde
with respect to her work assignment in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
5. The above-described unfair labor practices
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce
and constitute unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
21 In the event no exceptions are filed 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 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 In the event
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that Respondent cease
and desist from the unfair labor practices it has
committed. Affirmatively, it will be recommended
that Respondent notify the Employer that Respon-
dent has no objection to the assignment of
Katherine Lalonde to full-time cathode tab welding.
Posting of notices in the manner customary in such
cases will also be recommended.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record , and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner recommends
that Respondent , Local 320, International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC, its officers, agents , and represen-
tatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing , while acting as exclusive bargaining
agent for employees at the Syracuse , New York,
plant of General Electric Company , to represent all
such employees in a fair and impartial manner.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause the above-
named Company to discriminate against Katherine
Lalonde , or any other employee, with regard to
hire , tenure of employment , or any other term or
condition of employment, including job assign-
ments, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action , which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify the appropriate representatives of
General Electric Company's Television Com-
ponents Department in Syracuse , New York, that
Respondent has no objection to the assignment of
Katherine Lalonde to full-time work as a cathode
tab welder.
(b) Post at its business office and meeting halls, if
any, and on bulletin boards, if any, maintained by
Respondent on company premises , copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."2' Copies of said
notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 3, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof , and be main-
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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
LOCAL 320, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 3
signed copies of the "Appendix" for posting by
General Electric Company, the latter being willing.
Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director , shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent 's representative , be returned forthwith
to the Regional Director for such posting.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision , what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.22
M In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the law and
has ordered us to post this notice telling our mem-
bers what we have been ordered to do and not to
do in the future.
The Board has ordered us to tell you that WE
WILL:
Inform the Television Components Depart-
ment of the General Electric Company in
Syracuse, New York, that we have no objec-
tion to the assignment of Katherine Lalonde to
1095
full-time work as a cathode tab welder.
The Board has ordered us to tell you that WE
WILL NOT:
Attempt to cause the above-named Com-
pany to withhold from Katherine Lalonde full-
time work as a cathode tab welder.
Make any attempt to cause the above-named
Company to discriminate against Katherine
Lalonde or any other employee in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
(except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring union
membership as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act).
In any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act (except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring union membership as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act).
Dated
LOCAL 320,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS,
AFL-CIO-CLC
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office, 4th Floor, The 120 Building, 120
Delaware Avenue , Buffalo, New York 14212,
Telephone 716-842-3112.
By