Local 6, Longshoremen's Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 666 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Warehouse Union Local 6, International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union and Associated
Food Stores, Inc. Case 20-CB-2877
May 20, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On October 30, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Martin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision,'
and General Counsel and Charging Party filed
answering briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Warehouse Union
Local 6, International Longshoremen's and Ware-
housemen's Union, San Francisco, California, its
i General Counsel has moved to strike Respondent 's exceptions to the
Administrative Law Judge 's Decision on the grounds that they failed to
comply with (1) Sec 102-46(j) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which
provides that exceptions shall be promptly served on all parties , and (2) Sec.
102 46(b) which requires , inter aha, that exceptions set forth specifically the
questions of procedure , fact, law, and policy to which exception is taken as
well as identify the part of the Decision to which objections are being made.
Thereafter , Respondent filed a response to the General Counsel 's motion to
strike exceptions , and the Charging Party filed a brief in support of the
Gcneral Counsel 's motion to strike and an alternative answering brief. The
General Counsel also filed its brief to the Administrative Law Judge as an
answer to Respondent's .exceptions" in the event that we denied the
General Counsel 's motion to strike
We have considered the General Counsel's motion to strike and,
although it appears that there has been substantial compliance with the
service requirements of Sec. 1 02.46(1), we agree that Respondent failed to
comply with the specificity requirements of Sec. 102.46 (b). We do not
condone Respondent 's disregard for our Rules and Regulations , and it is
with some reluctance that we deny General Counsel 's motion in the instant
case . Since, however, it does not appear that either the General Counsel or
the Charging Party were substantially prejudiced by Respondent 's failure to
comply with the above-mentioned Rules and Regulations , and since
General Counsel and Charging Party have filed answering briefs and seem
fully apprised of the issues sought to be raised by Respondent's
"exceptions ," we have proceeded to consider the merits of the case on
review
2 The Respondent has excepted to all credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to
officers , agents, and representatives , shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.3
MEMBER FANNING, concurring:
I agree with my colleagues that the Administrative
Law Judge should be affirmed in finding Respondent
in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
But the Respondent argues that this case, in
accordance with the majority's Collyer policy, should
be deferred to arbitration. While I disagree with the
majority's deferral to arbitration policy, it seems to
me that Respondent is entitled to know why this case
is different from others. In Houston Mailers Union
No. 36 affiliated with International Mailers Union
(Houston Chronicle Publishing Company), 199 NLRB
No. 69, the majority insisted that the rights and
obligations of the parties under their contract should
be presented to an arbitrator for interpretation and
decision. In The Washington Post Company, 207
NLRB Nos. 123, 124, and 126, the majority reached
the same result. Here, as in those cases, the parties
have a contract calling for negotiation and arbitra-
tion of all disputes. The incident involving Garcia's
work performance, the subsequent union meeting,
the discharges, the strike, and the fines levied against
employees and supervisors certainly involve ques-
tions of contract interpretation.
I cannot agree with my colleagues that only one
party, presumably the Union, resorted to economic
force in this case. Under any definition of that term
the Employer's wholesale and arbitrary discharge of
its employees because they were meeting to discuss
their grievance should, it seems to me, be equally
condemned. Certainly, the employees' grievance was
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
3 In response to our concurring colleague , we believe the Administrative
Law Judge properly refused to defer this matter to arbitration . Unlike the
Houston Chronicle and Washington Post cases to which he refers , there is not
alleged to be any contract provision here dealing with the propriety or
impropriety of union fines as applied to supervisors . Furthermore , we find
ourselves fully in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge that a party
which repudiates the peaceful and orderly route afforded by the grievance
and arbitration provisions by resorting instead to economic force in support
of its contentions should not be heard to assert that the very procedures it
has repudiated offer a viable means for resolving disputes as to the legality
or actions taken by it in retaliation against those who did not join in the said
resort to economic force
As for the Employer's alleged resort to economic force , which our
colleague would also condemn , we do not perceive its relevance to the issues
before us in this case . If, as he states, the Employer also had "dirty hands,"
that would be a further basis, in our opinion , for not deferring to
arbitration, so that we are mystified by our colleagues chiding us for not
applying the principle of the above-named cases to this one . Equally
puzzling is our colleague's reference to the Employer's "wholesale and
arbitrary discharge of its employees because they were meeting to discuss
their grievances." No such charge of improper employer conduct is before
us; no such finding was made by the Administrative Law Judge ; and we we
no basis in the record to make such a gratuitous finding in the present
posture of this case.
210 NLRB No. 105
LOCAL 6, LONGSHOREMEN 'S UNION 667
cognizable under their contract and their subsequent
strike was defensive in response to the discharges. If,
as the Administrative Law Judge charges, the Union
has "dirty hands," the Employer's hands should be
equally open to inspection.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN S. BENNETT , Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard at San Francisco, California , on August
1, 2, 3, and 6, 1973. The complaint, issued May 23 and
based upon a charge filed April 9, 1973, by Associated
Food Stores , Inc., herein the Employer , alleges that
Respondent Union, Warehouse Union Local 6 , Interna-
tional Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (B) of the Act. Briefs have been
submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent Union.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Associated Food Stores, Inc., a California corporation,
maintains its principal office and place of business at
Union City, Califorma, where it is engaged in the
wholesale distrib Jion of grocery products. During the past
year, it received goods and products valued in excess of
$50,000 which were shipped to it directly from points
outside the State of California. I find that the operations of
the Employer affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union, Warehouse Union Local 6 , Interna-
tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction,' the Issues
It is undisputed that Respondent Union and the
Employer have enjoyed a collective- bargaining relation-
ship for some years covering warehouse employees,
including working foremen. At the time material herein,
the applicable contract covered the period from June 1,
1970, to May 31, 1973, and provided that Respondent
Union will not "engage in any strikes, or stoppages of work
.." It also granted the Employer the right to discharge
employees for failure to perform required work and for
engaging in strikes or work stoppages. There also was a
grievance procedure for the appeal of disciplinary action
which forbade any cessation of work pending a decision.
This warehouse operates with two shifts, a day shift and
a swing shift which commences work at 3:30 p.m. On
Friday, December 8, 1972, most of the rank -and-file
members of the swing shift convened in the lunchroom
after 3 : 30 p.m. and performed no work that day, as well as
on December 9, 11, and 12 . They were discharged by the
Employer, except for two who returned to work later that
afternoon under circumstances described below.
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent Union
thereafter variously disciplined certain of the supervisory
and rank-and-file members of Respondent Union for
working and refusing to engage in this work stoppage or
strike. This conduct by Respondent Union is alleged to be
violative of Section 8(bx1XA) and (B) of the Act.
The manager of operations at the warehouse was and is
Richard Calton, who possessed full authority in the areas
of contract negotiations , grievances, and day-to -day labor
relations . Responsible directly to him were Warehouse
Foreman John Seals and R . C. Russell , who were classified
under the contract as "working Foreman A," and were
over the swing and day shifts respectively.' Both Seals on
the swing shift and Russell on the day shift, it is
undisputed , had been granted the authority to issue work,
transfer employees , train new employees , authorize over-
time, and to discharge employees . They also have authority
to handle and adjust work-related problems or "low-line"
grievances on the work floor with shop stewards and they
exercised this authority in all of the foregoing areas.2 It is
also uncontroverted that Foremen Bob Hamilton, Doyle
Satterfield , I. Dudley , and J . Prior, all classified as
"Working Foremen A," enjoyed responsibilities in essence
identical with those of Seals and Russell . I also find that all
had varying numbers of rank-and-file employees under
their direct supervision.
As for these six supervisors who handle low-line
grievances , Calton testified , and I find, that in 1972 he and
Respondent Union's business representative, Vigil,3 agreed
that it would be desirable to handle grievances at this lower
level when feasible , rather than to undertake the grievance
procedure provided under section 19 of the contract by
formally convening a grievance committee of several
representatives from each of the parties . Stated otherwise,
this envisaged the handling of low -line grievances by the
shop steward and the foreman on the scene and this was
done.
Administrative Business Agent William Burke of Res-
pondent Union , Vigil's predecessor as business agent,
attempted to downgrade the role of the working foreman,
in effect contending that he was not authorized to act in
the area of low-line grievances . Yet, he conceded that there
were occasions "when matters could be discussed with
some positive results by the stewards with the working
foremen" ; he cited paycheck shortages or the assignment
of personnel with low seniority to higher rated jobs as
examples.
i Something has been made by Respondent of the fact that their titles union membership contrary to union regulations , despite their supervisory
vary and that they are also known as warehouse supervisors or warehouse status Solely relevant herein is their alleged supervisory status and the
foremen Be that as it may , it is undisputed and I find that they were known action directed at them by Respondent Union
by all these titles and that their responsibilities were unaffected . 3 Also spelled differently in the transcript.
2 1 see nothing to Respondent Union 's claim that they continued their
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find , on a preponderance of the credible evidence and
in accord with the contentions of the General Counsel, that
the above-named personnel were supervisors within the
meaning of the Act . I further find that at all times material
herein , Seals and Russell handled and adjusted work-
related problems on the work floor with shop stewards and
that the other four supervisors , at the very least, similarly
represented Respondent in 1972 in handling and disposing
of "low-line grievances."
B. The Garcia Incident
The trigger incident leading to the instant case stemmed
from an attempt by Calton to meet with Richard Garcia,
an order selector on the swing shift. For some months prior
to December 8, 1972, in the belief of management, Garcia's
work performance had been unsatisfactory in two respects,
viz, excessive absenteeism and low production.4
Calton had previously discussed this problem with Seals
on a number of occasions and, on December 6, directed
Seals to observe the performance of Garcia during the next
2 days. Absent improvement, Seals was to instruct Garcia
to bring a union business agent with him when he reported
for work on December 8. The record indicates, as
Administrative Business Agent Burke of Respondent
Union admitted, that it is standard procedure when
discipline of an employee is under consideration to ask a
shop steward to be present and either the steward or the
employee may also call in a union business agent, if this is
deemed desirable.
Calton also instructed Seals to pull Garcia's timecard on
December 8, if Garcia's work had not improved in the
interim , and place it on his, Calton's, desk as a reminder to
Calton to talk with Garcia at the start of the swing shift at
3:30 p.m. on December 8. There is uncontroverted
evidence by the Employer, and I find, that this was
standard plant procedure when it was desired to talk with
an employee prior to the start of the shift, this preventing
the employee from commencing his shift and avoiding the
meeting.
I further find that this did not amount to discharge of the
employee, but was solely a device to bring him to
management for a talk. As Calton put it, the Employer had
invested time and money in Garcia, he believed that
Garcia could improve, and he had not considered
discharging the man. The testimony of Chief Steward
Sterling Darnell, as he later told the employees, that this
was tantamount to discharge, is found to be contrary to the
fact.
The performance of Garcia did not improve on Decem-
ber 6 and 7 and, on December 7, Supervisor Dudley,
apparently so instructed by Seals, informed Garcia that he
was to bring a business agent to the plant on December 8.
His timecard was pulled by Seals at the conclusion of the
December 7 shift and placed on the desk of Calton.
Early on December 8, according to Calton and I so find,
he took the initiative in attempting to reach a business
agent and have him present for the meeting with Garcia.
He learned from the union office that none was available
that day; and, it appears that Garcia made a similar
fruitless attempt, because he advised Seals, on reporting for
work on December 8, that no business agent was then
available.
C. The Work Stoppage on December 8, 1972;
Subsequent Events
Garcia duly reported for work on December 8, discov-
ered that his timecard was missing, and so informed Swing
Shift Steward Stuart.5 It is undisputed that employees are
paid for working time lost on such an occasion. Stuart,
accompanied by Garcia, asked Seals for the reason and
Seals responded that Garcia had been instructed to bring a
business agent with him that day.6 Stuart and Garcia then
enlisted the support of Chief Steward Darnell . According
to the latter, Stuart asked him to assist in a "grievance."
Darnell, accompanied by Stuart and Garcia, then ap-
proached Seals, asked the same question that Stuart had
previously put and received the same answer. According to
Darnell, Seals stated that he had told Garcia not to report
for work unless accompanied by a business agent.
According to Garcia, Seals refused to allow him to work
unless a business agent was present. Be that as it may, this
is not inconsistent with Respondent's position that Calton
intended and had planned to talk with Garcia before he
started work that day.
It was then just minutes before the 3:30 starting time.
Darnell asked to meet with Calton and Seals replied that
Calton was not available. It is undisputed that Calton, who
planned to meet with Garcia at 3:30 p.m. that day, had
been called into a meeting at the plant with one of his
superiors at 3 p.m. and was tied up until approximately
3:40 p.m.
Darnell contended herein that Seals told him that he
could not meet with Calton because Seals was representing
management, and that he should meet with Seals. Garcia's
testimony is silent as to this, and Stuart did not testify. I do
not accept Darnell's testimony in this respect, because it is
clear that Calton intended to meet personally with Garcia
at this hour, and, indeed, the timecard of the latter at that
very moment was on Calton's desk. Also illustrative of the
tenor of Darnell's testimony was his claim that this was all
a "plot" on the part of the Employer.
Darnell became angry at this point and, accompanied by
Stuart and Garcia, left Seals. As he passed the arriving
swing shift employees, he beckoned them to follow him
and most of the shift followed him to the plant lunchroom.
This group, it appears, had punched in but had not
commenced work at 3:30 p.m., as scheduled. At this point,
Day Shift Foreman R. C. Russell, who had observed the
incident, joined Seals and, at approximately 3:35 or 3:40
p.m., Seals and Russell went to the plant lunchroom; their
testimony is in substantial accord as to what took place
thereafter.
I find, consistent with their mutually corroborative
testimony, that they entered the lunchroom and asked
Darnell if this was a work stoppage or strike. Darnell, who
conceded herein that he was in charge of the meeting,
4 I deem it unnecessary to treat herein with the merits of this. 6 This is based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Seals. Garcia
5 Also appearing in the record as Stewart. testified only as to a subsequent conversation with others present.
LOCAL 6, LONGSHOREMEN 'S UNION 669
hesitated before replying and ultimately responded that he
was tired of the Employer continually harassing Garcia.
Darnell was asked by the two supervisors if the men were
returning to work and replied that they would not until a
business agent came to the plant.7
Seals and Russell left and immediately advised Calton of
the state of affairs. Calton instructed them to bring
stewards Darnell and Stuart as well as Garcia to his office
and this was done. Darnell did most of the talking and
asked why Garcia's card had been pulled. Calton, as he
and Russell agree , responded that this was consistent with
Calton's practice and was done to insure that he meet and
talk with the employee before he started his shift. Darnell
asked if Garcia was discharged and Calton replied in the
negative , also acknowledging the unavailability of a
business agent. As Seals put it, Calton urged everyone to
return to work and promised that he would immediately
meet thereafter with Stuart and Garcia. I so find.
Calton then told the union group that he would give
them 15 minutes to advise the assembled employees in the
lunchroom that Garcia was not discharged and that he
would meet with the grievance committee after the men
returned to work; Darnell, it may be noted, placed the time
granted as 10 to 15 minutes. It is deemed significant, as
Darnell conceded, that he had previously told the
assembled employees in the lunchroom that the Employer,
by pulling the timecard of Garcia, had prevented him from
commencing his shift and that this was the Employer's
established technique of discharging an employee.
Darnell's testimony as to what he did when he returned
to the lunchroom may best be described as roaming all
over the lot. He initially testified that he returned to the
lunchroom, encountered an increasingly angry mood on
the part of the employees, and then reported what had
taken place in the office of Calton. Darnell claimed that he
was in the room no more than 3 or 4 minutes when Seals
and Russell , pursuant to Calton's instruction , appeared on
the scene. He then conceded that he had been delayed
some 5 minutes before returning to the lunchroom while
awaiting a telephone call. He next contended that he did
not have adequate time to report fully to the assemblage
about his conversation with Calton.8
As stated , Seals and Russell went to the lunchroom to
ascertain why the men had not returned to work. They did
so after a period of time variously estimated from 8 to 15
minutes . According to the composite testimony of Seals
and Russell, they entered the room, were told that the
meeting was still in progress , that they represented
management, and that they were to leave . Darnell repeated
that the men would not return to work until a business
agent appeared on the scene ignoring the suggestion of
Russell that they work through the grievance procedure of
the contract. Upon ascertaining that Garcia had not been
discharged , two of those assembled declared that there was
no problem and duly returned to work. Seals announced
r By way of contradiction, the thrust of the testimony by Burke of the
Union was that Respondent had breached the contract by asking that a
business agent be present as a precondition to Garcia going to work that
day Stated otherwise, the representatives of Respondent complained both
of the absence of a business agent and the attempt by the Employer to have
one present . I find that there was no breach by the latter.
9 It is readily apparent that an instruction from a steward to return to
that the other men would be discharged if they did not
return to work. As indicated, all concerned and especially
Garcia and Darnell were well aware that no business agent
was available that day.
Darnell conceded that Seals had a seniority list with him
and threatened to read off the names of the men, this being
tantamount to their discharge . He claimed herein that he
asked for and was refused 5 additional minutes with the
men. On his version, I fail to see how this improves the
legal position of Respondent Union . The two supervisors
duly reported this turn of events to Calton and he
instructed them to return to the lunchroom with him. The
time was variously placed between 4:30 and 4:45 p.m., and
I so find .9
According to Calton , he asked the assembled employees
if Darnell had reported that Garcia was not discharged.
Several indicated that Darnell had explained this, but
maintained that they were not returning to work. About
4:45 p.m., at Calton's instructions , Seals read off the
seniority list, this signifying the discharge of those whose
names were read , namely all those then in the lunchroom
including the two stewards . According to Calton, and I so
find, he observed the discharged employees congregate
immediately thereafter outside the plant with a placard
roughly captioned, "Strike."
Seals substantially corroborated Calton, placing the
discharge of the men at approximately 5 p.m. that day and
testified further that the two stewards and approximately
one-half of the men stated that they were not returning to
work. It was then that he read the seniority list at Calton's
request . The credited testimony of Russell is to the same
effect . Darnell testified only that when the three returned,
he, Darnell , wanted 5 more minutes ; Calton declined and
stated that they were discharged . Darnell claimed that this
was a lockout and instructed the men to leave , which they
did.
Darnell testified that he did not direct the men to return
to work as he lacked sufficient time . Yet, he contradicted
himself on an earlier occasion, on March 10 , 1973, when he
testified at a union trial of Seals and another , Ludwig, that
he had instructed the men in the lunchroom to return to
work because the Employer was willing to sit down and
discuss the grievance with them. He next became evasive
herein and testified that he was confused . His testimony is
not accepted where in conflict with that of the above-
named witnesses for the General Counsel.
Respondent and the Employer, by agreement, did meet
on Monday morning, December 11. The first shift did not
report for work that day. The Employer offered to reinstate
all but the two stewards , Darnell and Stuart, but no
agreement was reached. It appears that many, if not a
majority of the rank-and-file employees failed to work on
December 9, 11, and 12. All employees did return to work
on December 13 after other litigation . As set forth, the
instant case involves various types of union discipline of
work and then negotiate can be most rapidly accomplished if that is what
those affected choose to do. According to Calton , Darnell stated that he
would explain to the men that Garcia was not being discharged and that
they should return to work.
9 There is some conflict, which I deem unnecessary to resolve , as to when
Calton contacted President Curtis McClain of Respondent Union by
telephone that afternoon.
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rank-and-file as well as supervisory employees who worked
during the strike.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
Initially , it is to be noted that there is no question herein
of supervisors performing unit or struck work . Indeed,
Respondent Union flatly conceded that such discipline as
was forthcoming stemmed solely from the basic principle
that the men had worked and not from the nature of the
work performed . And the record discloses that no struck
work was performed by supervisors . Stated otherwise, so
far as is revealed herein, some supervisors apparently
performed their customary percentage of unit work and
did not augment this in any manner.
By notice dated January 8 , 1973, employees Dick
Shipman , Ted Benson , Bob Banks , Phyllis Marsden,
Dennis Anderson , Bob Brennan , and A . Fernandez, as well
as supervisors , I. Dudley , R. C. Russell , Bob Hamilton,
Doyle Satterfield , and S . Pryor, were cited to appear before
Respondent 's grievance committee on charges alleging
violation of the declaration of principles and oath of
obligation as stated in its constitution.
On or about January 20 , the above-named personnel
were found guilty of working behind Respondent Union's
picket line . As noted, the vice of the supervisors was for
working and not because of the nature of the work
performed ; in any event , they did not perform any unit
work beyond that normally performed. In addition, all,
except Hamilton, were fined and suspended from member-
ship for 6 months.
On or about January 23 , Respondent cited Supervisor
John Seals and employee William Ludwig to appear before
a trial committee . On or about March 28, they were found
guilty of violating the oath of office in the constitution of
Respondent and were expelled from membership for the
same reason.10
It is true that the proviso to Section 8(bx1)(A) assures a
labor organization of the right to prescribe its own rules
with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership.
N.L.R.B. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175 (1967).
But subsequent decisions have restricted this right . Thus, a
labor organization violated Section 8(b)(IXA) of the Act
when, in the guise of enforcing its own rules , it penalized a
member for filing charges against it with the Board.
N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 391 U.S. 418 (1968). And,
in Communication Workers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO, (Roches-
ter Telephone Corporation), 194 NLRB 872, the Board
found a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act where a
labor organization endeavored to enforce conduct found
violative of Section 8(d) and 8(b)(3) of the Act.
In Rutherford, President, Local No. 18 International Union
of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Morgan), 205 NLRB
No. 75, the Board found unlawful the fining and expulsion
of members who had crossed a picket line where the
picketing violated the secondary boycott provisions of the
Act. Indeed , in Glazier 's Local 1162, Brotherhood of
Painters (Tusco Glass Inc.), 177 NLRB 393 and Local 2419,
International Union of District 50 (National Grinding Wheel
Company), 176 NLRB 628, the Board flatly found a
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) when there was internal
union discipline against a member who refused to join a
union-sponsored strike where the contract, as in the
present case , contained a no-strike clause . I find, in view of
the foregoing, that by citing, fining, suspending, and
expelling from membership the employees named above,
Respondent has engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(b)(IXA) of the Act.
As found, Respondent fined Supervisors Russell, Hamil-
ton, Satterfield, Dudley, and Pryor and suspended them
from membership, save Hamilton, because they worked
during the dispute. It also expelled Supervisor Seals from
membership for the same reason. As they enjoyed and
exercised the authority to represent the Employer as its
representatives with regard to grievances and were supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, it
follows that the discipline of them was violative of Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. See New York Typographical Union
No. 6 (Daily Racing Form), 206 NLRB No. 83.
I see no basis for deferring this matter to arbitration
under Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837. The only
dispute is the statutory one between Respondent Union
and these employees and supervisors. Moreover, Respon-
dent renunciated the most basic of collective-bargaining
principles by repudiating its obligation under the grievance
procedure of the contract which is the quid pro quo for the
no-strike clause and is present with dirty hands, as it were.
Western Electric Inc., 204 NLRB No. 94. See also,
Communications Workers, Local No. 1197, (Western Electric
Co.), 202 NLRB 229.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Associated Food Stores is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union, Warehouse Union Local 6,
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Un-
ion, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By instituting disciplinary proceedings against em-
ployees Dick Shipman, Ken Benson, Bob Banks, Phyllis
Marsden, Dennis Anderson, Bob Brennan, and A. Fernan-
dez and against Supervisors I. Dudley, R. C. Russell, Bob
Hamilton, Doyle Satterfield, and J. Pryor for crossing its
picket lines ; by fining and suspending from membership
for 6 months all of the foregoing except Hamilton; and by
expelling employee William Ludwig and Supervisor John
Seals for the same reason, Respondent Union has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
to While there is some evidence of other allegations against the group,
he foregoing was at least a major contributing factor
LOCAL 6, LONGSHOREMEN 'S UNION 671
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(l)(A) and (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that
it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, to refrain from
any like or related infringement upon the Section 7 rights
of its members and to take certain affirmative action
designed to remedy the unfair labor practices found above.
I shall, therefore, recommend rescission of the fines and
expulsions and the withdrawal of all pending intraunion
charges against those named above. In the event fines have
been collected, it will be recommended that these be
refunded plus interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
And, to the extent those suspended or expelled may have
been deprived of benefits they would have otherwise
enjoyed, it will be recommended that Respondent Union
make them whole for the loss of any such benefits.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record herein, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
(e) Notify in writing all members directly concerned in
the paragraphs above of what steps it has taken to comply
herewith.
(f) Post at its offices and meeting halls and at all places
where it customarily posts notices to members copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." i2 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 20, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent Union, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained 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 Union to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other materials.
(g) Mail signed copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for Region 20 for posting by Associated Food
Stores , Inc., the latter willing, at all locations where notices
to its employees are customarily posted.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
iORDER"
Respondent Union, Warehouse Union Local 6, Interna-
tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Instituting disciplinary proceedings, and fining,
suspending, or expelling from membership any of its
members for crossing a picket line and not engaging in a
strike violative of a no-stake clause in any collective-
bargaining agreement between it and Associated Food
Stores, Inc.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
its members in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
Associated Food Stores, Inc., in the selection and retention
of its representatives for the purposes of collective-bargain-
ing or the adjustment of grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all disciplinary proceedings pending
against any member of Respondent for not staking and for
crossing the picket line established by it against Associated
Food Stores, Inc., in violation of a no-strike clause.
(b) Rescind all fines imposed, all suspension notices, and
all expulsion orders entered against the employees and
supervisors named above.
(c) Make whole any of those named above for fines
collected pursuant to such action with interest thereon at 6
percent per annum and make them whole as well for any
loss of benefits suffered by reason of suspension of
membership.
(d) Offer to James Ludwig and John Seals immediate
and full reinstatement to membership in Respondent
Union without prejudice to any rights and privileges to
which they would have been entitled from the date of their
expulsion and reimburse them for any losses or expenses
suffered because of their expulsion as heretofore provided
in the section entitled "The Remedy."
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
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
12 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT institute disciplinary proceedings, fine,
or suspend or expel from membership any of bur
members crossing a picket line and not engaging in a
strike violative of a no-strike clause in any collective-
bargaining agreement between us and Associated Food
Stores, Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce our members in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce Associated Food Stores, Inc., in the selection
and retention of its representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
WE WILL withdraw all disciplinary proceeding
pending against any of our members including Dick
Shipman, Ted Benson, Bob Banks, Phyllis Marsden,
Dennis Anderson , Bob Brennan , A. Fernandez, I.
Dudley, R. C. Russell, Bob Hamilton, Doyle Satter-
field, S. Pryor, John Seals, and William Ludwig, for not
striking and for crossing a picket line established by us
against Associated Food Stores, Inc., in violation of a
no-strike clause.
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL rescind all fines imposed, all suspension
notices, and any expulsion orders against our members,
including those named above, resulting from them not
striking and crossing a picket line established by us
against Associated Food Stores, Inc., in violation of a
no-strike clause.
WE WILL make whole any of our members for fines
collected pursuant to the foregoing action with interest
thereon at 6 per cent per annum as well as for any loss
of benefits suffered by any of them by reason of
suspension of membership.
WE WILL offer James Ludwig and John Seals
immediate and full reinstatement to membership
without prejudice to any rights and privileges to which
they would have been entitled from the date of their
expulsion and reimburse them for any losses or
expenses suffered by reason of said expulsion.
WAREHOUSE UNION LOCAL
6, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION
(Union Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 13018
Federal Building, Box 36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco , California 94102, Telephone 415-556-0335.