Local 592, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 999 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

LOCAL 592, UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS, ETC. 999
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce , or restrain any person engaged in commerce
or an industry, affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or
require such person to cease doing business with Ypsilanti Press, Inc., or forc-
ing said company to recognize or bargain with Local Union 154, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, unless said organization has been certified
as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of
the Act.
WASHTENAW COUNTY AFL-CIO COUNCIL,
Agent of Local 154, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO.
Dated--- ---------------- By----------- ------------------------------Re resentative (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.
Local Union No . 592, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO [Brunswick Corporation] and
Russell L. Johnson
Central Indiana District Council of Carpenters , United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and
Russell L. Johnson . Cases Nos. 25-CB-436 and 25-CB-439.
February 13, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 30, 1961, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had not engaged in unfair labor practices
as alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b). of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 these
cases, and hereby adopts the findings, recommendations, and conclu-
sions, only to the extent that they are consistent with our conclusions
and order herein.
135 NLRB No. 99.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents did not
violate Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) by maintaining and enforcing an
unlawful agreement, arrangement, or practice whereby employment
with the Brunswick Corporation 1 conditioned on membership in Re-
spondents' organization or on other unlawful requirements. The evi-
dence establishes that although the Company looked, to the Respond-
ents as a ready source of workmen, it retained at all times its freedom
to hire from any source and was not contractually bound to require its
employees or applicants for employment to be members in Respond-
ents' organizations or to seek referrals therefrom. We do not regard
the single instance of the discharge of an employee for lack of a work
permit from the Respondents as sufficient evidence establishing the
existence of an illegal hiring agreement, arrangement, or practice?
2. We find, however, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondents violated Section 8 (b),(2) and (1) (A) of the Act by causing
the Company to discriminate against employee Johnson in violation
of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
As set forth in the Intermediate Report and reflected in the record,
Brunswick began installing bowling alleys at Ball State Teachers Col-
lege in Muncie, Indiana, in February 1961. William Trues was the job
superintendent and Arthur Oakes was the job foreman. Both were
members of Indianapolis Carpenters Locals which, in turn, were con-
stituents of Respondent Council. Although the Company had the
right to hire men off the street, it nevertheless, in accordance with the
usual practice, called the local business agent to arrange for additional
qualified labor. William Knight, Respondent Council's business
agent, on a visit to the job shortly -after it started, observed carpenters
at work who were unknown to him and he offered to refer local appli-
cants as needed. It appears, although at what period of time is not
certain, that there were only four members of Respondent Local 592
employed on the Ball State job 3
In December 1960, Foreman Oakes had suggested to Johnson that
work would be available for him in Indianapolis about February 15,
but advised Johnson that he would have to join the Union. In Febru-
ary, Johnson sought out one Ralph McCaslen in Indianapolis who
knew of Oakes' whereabouts, in order to obtain work. McCaslen in-
formed Johnson that Oakes said he, Johnson, should join the "union"
and report to the Muncie jobsite. Pursuant to Oakes' suggestion, John-
son applied for membership in Carpenters Local 60 in Indianapolis, a
member of the Respondent Council, and upon part payment of dues
Herein referred to as the Company.
See Carpenters District Council of Detroit, etc. (W. J. C. Kaufmann Company), 125
NLRB 546, 555
3 Although not adverted to by the Trial Examiner, Knight referred three men to the
Ball State project at the request of Oakes ; two of them were accepted and one was re-
jected Knight offered to send a substitute for the man who was rejected, but Oakes
replied that he could get along without another man
LOCAL 592 , UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS , ETC. 1001
and $3 for a work permit , received from Haldeman , the financial secre-
tary,,a work permit in lieu of a membership card.4 The work permit
stated on its face that it was "good in the District ." The uncontra-
verted evidence in the record shows that such work permits were issued
to individuals who were in the process of perfecting their membership.
Johnson proceeded to the jobsite in Muncie , where he showed his
work permit to Foreman Oakes and Superintendent Truex . The two
supervisors took him to Day, the union steward on the job, and asked
Johnson to show the permit to Day. The latter said that while the
permit looked all right to him , he would have to check with the business
agent of Local 592, but in the meantime Johnson could work , and John-
son was put to work that afternoon .' The next morning Day brought
the matter to the attention of Business Agent Knight , who instructed
him to send Johnson to the Local Union hall . Upon receiving Knight's
message , Johnson informed Foreman Oakes thereof,° and was given
permission to leave the job in order to comply with Knight's instruc-
tion. At the union hall , Knight told Johnson that his work permit was
defective . When Johnson requested that a valid work permit be issued
to him, Knight refused and instructed Johnson to go back to the job
and tell Foreman Oakes that the work permit was "no good in Muncie
... and strictly against the Constitution ." Oakes, upon being in-
formed of Knight 's pronouncement , discharged Johnson and asked
him to sign the payroll vouchers before leaving.
On the basis of the foregoing facts and the record as a whole, we
find that Knight's message to Oakes, particularly when viewed in the
light of the surrounding circumstances , amounted to an order or
demand that Oakes terminate Johnson's employment because he did
not have a work permit from the Council or Local 592, and Oakes so
understood it. No other construction of Knight 's message is possible
in the context of Foreman Oakes' repeated instruction to Johnson to
join "the union" before he could be employed; Supervisors Oakes'
and Truex 's inspection of Johnson 's permit when he did report and
their requirement that he submit it to Union Steward Day for in-
spection before he was hired ; Day's statement that he would have to
check the validity of the permit with Knight and his subsequent action
in doing so ; Day's clearing Johnson for work until he had checked
with Knight; Foreman Oakes' permission to Johnson to leave the
4It is undisputed that Haldeman lacked the authority to sign Johnson's work permit
since he was not a business representative of the Central Indiana District Council ; and
that the Eastern Indiana District Council which purported to issue the permit was then
defunct by virtue of its amalgmation with the Central Indiana District Council. How-
ever , there is nothing on the record to show that Johnson was aware of Haldeman's lack
of authority, or that Johnson conspired to secure a fraudulent work permit.
6It was Day's duty, as the Respondent Local's steward, to check the work cards of
members
O It is clear that Oakes must have been aware that Knight wished to see Johnson in
connection with the work permit, in view of Day's earlier statement that he would have
to check with Knight as to its validity
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
worksite during working time in order to call on Business Agent
Knight at the Union's hall concerning his work permit; Knight's
conclusion. that the -permit was- invalid and refusal to issue a valid
one; and Foreman Oakes' action in terminating Johnson immediately
upon receipt of Business Agent Knight's message.
- We are persuaded that Knight caused Johnson's discharge not for
,any fraud in the procurement of a work permit, but because Knight
did not consider Johnson a member of the Carpenters Union, entitled
to work on the project. Moreover, although Knight, as a business
representative of the Respondent Council, could have issued a new
permit to Johnson as an applicant for membership in a constituent
local of the District Council, we find that his failure to do so was
based on his desire to give preference in employment to members of
Respondent Local.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondents, by causing the Com-
pany to discharge Johnson in violation- of Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, violated Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) .of the Act.
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operation of the Employer hereinabove described, have
a' close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing the free flow of commerce. -
THE REMEDY
Having found, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the Respond-
ents have engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order them to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the Respondents caused the Company to dis-
charge employee Russell L. Johnson because of his lack of member-
ship in Respondents' organization. We shall therefore order Re-
spondents to notify Brunswick Corporation, in writing, and furnish
a copy to Johnson, stating that it withdraws its objections to John-
son's employment and requests Brunswick to offer him reinstatement
at its Muncie, Indiana, operation, if it is still in existence. We shall
also order Respondents to make Johnson whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have
earned as wages from the date of the discrimination until his em-
ployment would have been terminated for lawful reasons, or until 5
days after Respondents notify Brunswick and Johnson, in writing,
that they have no objections to his employment. The loss of earnings
LOCAL 592, UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS, ETC. 1003
will be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. As the Trial Examiner did
not find that Johnson was discriminatorily discharged, the period
from the date of the Intermediate Report to the date of the Order
herein shall, in accord with our usual practice, be excluded in com-
puting the amount of backpay due Johnson.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent Local Union No.
592, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, and Respondent Central Indiana District Council of
Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Brunswick Corporation, or
any-other employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction,
to discharge or deny employment to Russell L. Johnson, or any other
employee or applicant for employment, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, or otherwise discriminate against him because such em-
ployee is not a member of Respondents' Union.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees
or applicants for employment of Brunswick Corporation, or any other
employer over whom 'the Board would assert jurisdiction, in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Jointly and severally make Russell L. Johnson whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him as set forth in the section of this Decision and Order
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Brunswick Corporation and Russell L. Johnson, in
writing, that they have no objections to Johnson's employment; and
also notify Russell L. Johnson, in writing, that henceforth they will
not coerce or restrain him by unlawfully infringing upon the rights
guaranteed to him by Section 7 of the Act.
(c) Post at their offices, meeting halls, and hiring halls, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents' authorized
7In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United iStates Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondents to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Additional copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap-
pendix" shall be signed by authorized representatives of the Respond-
ents and shall be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for the
Twenty-fifth Region for posting by Brunswick Corporation, the Com-
pany willing, at its business offices and construction projects within
the State of Indiana, where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps they
have taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION No. 592, UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND
OF CENTRAL INDIANA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF BRUNSWICK CORPORATION
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, we hereby give notice that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Brunswick Corpora-
tion, or any other employer over whom the Board would assert
jurisdiction, to discharge or deny employment to Russell L. John-
son, or any other employee or applicant for employment in vio-
lation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, or otherwise discriminate
against him because such employee is not a member of Respond-
ent Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees or applicants for employment of Brunswick Corpora-
tion, or any other employer over whom the Board would assert
jurisdiction, in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify, in writing, the Brunswick Corporation that
we have no objections to the hiring or employment of Russell L.
Johnson without regard to his union membership.
WE WILL notify, in writing, Russell L. Johnson that we have
no objections to his employment with the Brunswick Corpora-
LOCAL 592, UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS, ETC. 1005
tion, and henceforth we will not coerce or restrain him by unlaw-
fully infringing upon the right guaranteed him by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally make 'Whole Russell L. Johnson
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him.
LOCAL UNION No. 592, UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
CENTRAL INDIANA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS , . UNITED 'BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana (Tel.: MElrose
2-1551), if they have any question concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This consolidated proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , hereinafter sometimes called the Act , was heard before me at
Muncie, Indiana, on July 11, 1961 , with all parties represented and accorded full
opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issues . Following the hearing
briefs were filed for the General Counsel and the Respondents . The issues are (1)
whether or not the Respondents maintained and/or enforced a hiring arrangement
with Brunswick Corporation I whereby only applicants for employment who were
members of and/or cleared by Respondents were hired by Brunswick at its Muncie,
Indiana, jobsite, and (2 ) whether or not pursuant to the aforesaid arrangement
Respondents caused Brunswick to refuse employment to the Charging Party, Johnson.
The complaint alleges , the answers deny, the commission of unfair labor practices
defined in Section 8 (b)(1) (A) and 8 (b)(2) of the Act by such arrangement and
discrimination.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
In accordance with a stipulation of the parties I find that Brunswick , a Delaware
corporation with its principal office in Chicago , Illinois, and places of business in
'Respondent in Case No . 25-CB-436 is hereinafter called Local 592; Respondent in
Case No. 25-CB-439 is hereinafter called District Council ; Brunswick Corporation is
hereinafter called Brunswick.
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Muskegon, Michigan, and elsewhere throughout the'Uuited States, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale,. distribution,, and, installation of bowling and billiard equipment,
and during the 12 months preceding the hearing, a representative period, produced
at its Muskegon, Michigan, plant and shipped to points outside Michigan, products
valued in,excess of $100,000;. the parties further, stipulated and, I find that at the
installation project at Muncie, Indiana, here involved, Brunswick brought in ma-
terials from outside Indiana valued at more than $125,000. I find that Brunswick
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6),t and. (7): of-the Act
and that assertion of jurisdiction is warranted.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The pleadings establish and I find that Local 592, and the District Council are
labor organizations within Section 2(5) of the Act. -
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction to the issues -
In February 1961, Brunswick was engaged in the installation of bowling alleys
at Ball State. Teachers College in Muncie, Indiana,. and. employing about 15 members
of the carpenters trade. William J. Truex was Brunswick's superintendent on the
job. He is a member of Carpenters Local Union 60 in Indianapolis. Arthur Oakes,
a member of Carpenters Local 758,. Indianapolis, was Brunswick's foreman on the
job .2 In December 1960, Oakes had made the acquaintance of the Charging Party,
Russell Johnson, when the two, together with Ralph McCaslen, a member of one
of the Indianapolis locals, were working in Kentland. At that time Oakes suggested
to Johnson that there would be work available for Johnson with Brunswick in
Indianapolis about February 15, but he would have to join the Unions Johnson's
efforts to follow through on this invitation from Oakes and secure employment with
Brunswick on the Ball State job led up to the events which form the basis and caused
the filing of the charge herein.
B. The hiring arrangement, at the Ball State project
The complaint alleges that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices by
maintaining and enforcing an agreement or practice with Brunswick whereby the
latter was caused to limit employment on the Ball State job to applicants who were
members of and/or cleared by the Respondents. The evidence reveals the existence
of a rather loose working arrangement whereby Brunswick looked to the Respondents
as a source of skilled workmen on its Ball State job but at no time surrendered its
hiring prerogatives. Truex testified that when Brunswick commenced the Ball State
project, in accordance with its usual practice, it contacted the local business agent
to arrange to get qualified labor but that at all times he retained the right to hire a
man off the street on the project. Oakes testified that on coming into Muncie, Bruns-
wick brought five employees who were members of Indianapolis locals and put them
to work on the Ball State job before any approaches were made to any representative
of the District Council. Knight, business agent of the District Council at Muncie,
went to the Ball State jobsite a couple of days' after work started and saw carpenters
at work there who were unknown to him. At that time he talked with Oakes and
offered to refer applicants as needed. Knight testified that there were only four
members of Local 592 on the Ball State job. The testimony of Oakes and Knight in
this regard is not contradicted.
The evidence in this case indicates at most that a substantial number, perhaps all
but one, of the employees on the project were members of various locals of the
United Brotherhood. There is no evidence of any written or oral agreement re-
stricting employment to carpenters cleared by Local 592 or the District Council.
There was at least one workman on the job who was not a member of any local
of the United Brotherhood. The evidence thus falls' short of establishing the
existence of the discriminatory hiring arrangement alleged. I shall recommend dis-
missal of this count of the complaint.
C. The discrimination against Johnson
Pursuant to his earlier conversation with Oakes, Johnson went to Indianapolis on
February 11, telephoned McCaslen, and was eventually informed that Oakes had
2 Oakes does not appear to be an officer or agent of either Respondent.
3 Oakes did not specify any particular union and Johnson understood him to refer
merely to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.
LOCAL 592, UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS , ETC. 1007
said he should join the Union 4 and report to'the Muncie jobsite. Johnson called on
Haldeman,5 finanical secretary of Local 60, and paid him $32 initial payment on
dues and $3 for a work permit which stated on its face "good in the District."
Johnson then drove to the jobsite, looked up Oakes, and in reply to Oakes' question
as to whether he was okay to go to work showed him the work permit issued by
Haldeman. After talking with Oakes and Truex, Johnson showed the permit to the
steward on the job, Kenneth Day.e -
Day said that while the permit looked all right to him, he would have to check
with the business agent of Local 592, but in the meantime Johnson could work.
Johnson worked the balance of that day. On reporting for work the next morning
he was told by Day to report to Knight, business representative of the District
Council. When Johnson showed his permit to Knight the latter said that the permit
was no good in the Muncie area and strictly against the constitution of the Brother-
hood? Johnson testified, and I credit him, that he asked Knight to issue him a work
permit that would be good and Knight refused. Knight testified, and I credit him,
that he did not in this conversation tell Johnson that he could not work on the
Ball State project.
When Johnson reported back to the jobsite after his conversation with Knight, he
talked first to Oakes and told him what Knight had said to the effect that his work
permit was no good in Muncie and strictly against the constitution. Thereupon
Oakes asked him to wait a few minutes to sign the payroll vouchers. Then Johnson
went to Day and told him what Knight had said, Day indicating that this confirmed
his original suspicions concerning the work permit. Johnson then picked up his
tools and left the job. He was eventually refunded his $35 a few days later .8
The fair interpretation of the evidence is that Oakes terminated Johnson's em-
ployment on the Ball State project because of Knight's pronouncement, reported to
him through Johnson himself, that Johnson's work permit was strictly against the
constitution. This falls short of indicating that the Respondents caused Brunswick
to terminate Johnson pursuant to an agreement requiring membership in or a clear-
ance by the Respondent Local or District Council. Johnson in effect elected to come
to the Ball State project under union auspices; he thereby assumed the burden of
having the proper credentials. The uncontradicted testimony in this case is clearly
to the effect that the work permit he showed on the project was in fact strictly against
the constitution of the United Brotherhood inasmuch as it purported to be issued by
a defunct District Council.
The complaint alleges that the Respondents caused or attempted to cause Bruns-
wick to refuse Johnson employment because of his nonmembership in Local 592
and/or the District Council and their refusal to refer, sponsor, or approve him for
employment by Brunswick at the Ball State project. The evidence indicates that
Knight acting on behalf of the District Council caused the termination of Johnson's
employment because he sought to work under fraudulent credentials. There is no
indication on this record as to what would have happened to Johnson if he'had re-
ported directly to the jobsite without in any way seeking the sponsorship or clear-
ance of either of the Respondents .9 The evidence thus falls short of establishing the
violation alleged in the complaint.
4 There is no indication that any particular "union" was specified in these instructions
McCaslen, who does not appear to be an agent of either Respondent, gave Johnson the
address of Local 60 in Indianapolis.
5 Haldeman's direct examination placed Johnson's visit as occurring at Haldeman's
home ; his cross-examination and Johnson's testimony placed it at Haldeman's office where
I believe it occurred.
6 Day was the union steward on the job by virtue of his being the first member of
Local 592 to be employed. As steward it was his duty to check the working cards of
members of the United Brotherhood on the job
7 Knight's uncontradicted testimony is that the work permit purported to be issued
by the Indianapolis District Council, an organization whose charter was surrendered in
1959 when it amalgamated into Respondent District Council.
8 When first offered the refund by Haldeman, Johnson said he did not want his money
back but rather to go to work. A day or two later, however, Johnson accepted the refund
but only after having been in two or three times to see Haldeman.
O After his conversation with Knight, Johnson, although making repeated efforts to get
work through Knight, made no further applications to Brunswick. The record thus in-
dicates that Johnson at no time sought employment of Brunswick other than his initial
hiring under spurious credentials.
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
• CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Brunswick Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondents are labor organizations within the purview of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. The Respondents have not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Audio Industries , Inc.' and General Teamsters , Chauffeurs and
Helpers, Local Union No. 298. Case No. 13-CA-4130. Febru-
ary 14, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 30, 1961, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial
Examiner's Intermediate Report and the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
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 briefs, and the entire record in the
case ,2 and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following exception.
' The Respondent 's name as set forth above conforms to the pleadings as amended at
the hearing.
2 On December 26, 1961 , the Respondent filed with the Board a "motion to reopen and
remand ( the case ) to the Trial Examiner for further hearing," and a supporting brief.
Respondent points to the fact that , on September 5, 1961 , the Charging Party herein
filed another charge against Respondent ( Case No 13-CA-4424 ), alleging that the re-
fusal to recall certain employees other than those Involved herein was discriminatory,
and that these employees "should have been named in the complaint issued June 16,
1961 " The Regional Director refused to issue a complaint on the ground that the evi-
dence was insufficient , and the General Counsel sustained his ruling . Respondent alleges
that, since the surrounding facts In the two cases are similar , the refusal to issue a com-
plaint In the one should dictate the same result in the other , and it therefore asks that the
record herein be reopened In order to Introduce the record of Case No . 13-CA-4424 and
to argue its point. Respondent 's motion is opposed by the General Counsel.
We see no merit in Respondent 's contentions , and therefore see no necessity to reopen
the record in this case . The fact that the totality of circumstances and events In Case
No. 13-CA-4424 was deemed insufficient to warrant the issuance of a complaint does not
mean that the circumstances and events In the Instant case are insufficient to have
warranted the issuance of a complaint herein, even assuming that the background facts
In the two cases are the same or similar. The motion is hereby denied.
s The Respondent bled a lengthy list of exceptions to the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner . We find that only Respondent 's exceptions
135 NLRB No. 103.