Local 636, Rubber Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 61 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

LOCAL 636, RUBBER WORKERS 61
Local 636, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic
Workers of America , AFL-CIO (Arco Industries,
Inc.) and Cletys A. Logsden , Jr. Case 7-CB-2807
August 26, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On April 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Mar-
ion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
was tried at Kalamazoo, Michigan, on March 12-13, 1974.
The charge was filed by the individual, Cletys Logsden, on
April 9, 1973,' and the complaint was issued on January 30,
1974. The case arose when the Union induced the Compa-
ny, Arco Industries, Inc., to reduce electrician Logsden's
wages from the $5.48 journeyman rate to the $3.80 mainte-
nance electrician rate. The primary issues are whether the
Union, the Respondent, threatened Logsden with dis-
charge, and later caused his demotion, in reprisal for his
opposing the Union's interpretation of the contractual se-
niority provisions, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and in the absences of briefs, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of vinyl and rubber dipped parts at its plant
in Schoolcraft, Michigan, where it annually ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State. The Company admits, and I find, that it
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2),(6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent , Local 636 , United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Schoolcraft , Michigan , its officers , agents,
and representatives , shall take the action set forth in
said recommended Order.
t The Respondent has excepted to certain 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 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
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2
The Respondent has moved to reopen the record , alleging that certain
officials of Logsden's previous employer and previous unions should now be
called to testify concerning his qualifications as a journeyman electrician.
However , our decision rests not upon an assumption that Logsden was
objectively qualified as a journeyman, but on a finding that the Respondent
accepted him as qualified until he opposed its position on seniority. There-
fore the additional testimony requested by the Respondent would not alter
our decision , and we hereby deny the motion to reopen the record.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge: This case
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
There was no question about Logsden's status as a jour-
neyman electrician until he was elected union steward and
became involved, together with the union president, in a
dispute with the other union representatives over the proper
interpretation of the maintenance department seniority pro-
visions in the collective-bargaining agreement.
Logsden had been an electrical and electronics supervisor
in the Navy before his retirement (as chief) in 1968. Thereaf-
ter, his journeyman status was recognized by both the IAM
and the IBEW. In 1968, IAM Lodge 837 issued him a jour-
neyman card in the classification of "Inspector-Radio Elec-
trical and Electronics"-a higher status than journeyman
electrician-when he was employed in that classification at
McDonnell Douglas Corporation. In 1969, IBEW Local
1036 issued him a journeyman electrician card on the basis
of his IAM card. He was then working for Penn Central
Railroad as a journeyman electrician. Later in 1969, he was
hired as an electrician by the Keene Corporation, which
soon promoted him to maintenance supervisor and later to
plant engineer.
In May 1972, the Company readily recognized Logsden's
journeyman status and hired him as a journeyman electri-
cian , although he had lost his wallet-containing his union
journeyman cards-while working for the Keene Corpora-
1 All dates are from September 1972 until August 1973, unless otherwise
stated.
213 NLRB No. 17
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion. As proof of his journeyman status, Logsden produced
a letter from Penn Central Railroad, stating that he was
employed there from December 1968 until September 1969
as a journeyman electrician, and was a member of IBEW
Local 1036 in Jackson, Michigan. Despite the fact that the
Company had insisted on a 6-month probation period for
journeymen hired in anticipation of an apprenticeship pro-
gram, in order to be assured that the journeymen would be
qualified to train apprentices, the Company promoted
Logsden to the top journeyman rate after only 30 days.
Meanwhile, Union President William Schmidt, who as-
sumed the responsibility of assuring that certified journey-
men were being hired, inspected the letter credentials which
Logsden had produced and reported the Penn Central letter
at the time to the Union's executive board.
No question was raised about Logsden's journeyman sta-
tus until November, after the dispute arose over the proper
interpretation of the contractual seniority provisions. The
seniority controversy became heated. Logsden resigned as
union steward and Schmidt resigned as union president.
The remaining union representatives, after months of wran-
gling over Logsden's proof of journeyman status, induced
the Company to reduce his wages on April 9 by over 30
percent (from $5.48 to $3.80) until he presented "a
journeyman's card to warrant the payment" of the journey-
man electrician rate. Logsden continued doing the same
work, at the lower rate, until August 24 when he resigned
to return to work for the Keene Corporation as mainte-
nance superintendent.
The General Counsel contends that the Union first
threatened Logsden with discharge, and later induced the
Company to demote him instead, because of his dissident
activity in connection with the seniority issue . The Union,
which did not file a brief or make any closing argument,
apparently contends that its sole motivation was to enforce
its agreement with the Company and assure that the Com-
pany was hiring certified journeymen, qualified to train
apprentices (under the apprenticeship program which was
finally established almost a year later).
B. Logsden's Dissident Activity
Soon after Logsden was elected union steward in the
maintenance department in October, he (along with Presi-
dent Schmidt) interpreted the seniority provision to give
maintenance department seniority precedence over plant
seniority in the selection of shifts. They relied on section 2
of article 12, which provided:
Section 2. Basis : Seniority shall be on a plant wide
basis with the exception of the following protected job
groups:
s s s •
Group 3-Machinist , Electrician , Maintenance
Man.
• f / f
Employees in protected job groups will have group
seniority first andplant wide seniority second. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Chief Steward Ella Walton, other executive board mem-
bers, and International Field Representative John Izzard,
who were familiar with the interpretation of the agreement
before Logsden and Schmidt were employed, disagreed
with this interpretation. They took the position that plant
seniority prevailed in the assignment of shifts in the mainte-
nance department. They relied on past practice, a 1961
understanding with the Company, and section 6 of article
12 of the Agreement, which read:
Section 6. Transfers: If as a result of a reduction in
the work force . . . or as a result of the job bidding
procedure of this Agreement an employee is transfer-
red to another job, his plant wide seniority shall be
effective immediately. [Emphasis supplied.]
Although this section 6 provided that plant seniority "shall
be effective immediately," it did not specifically nullify the
explicit provision in section 2 that maintenance department
seniority (or "group" seniority for Group 3 machinists, elec-
tricians, and maintenance men) would come "first and plant
wide seniority second." However, the senior plant represen-
tatives were aware of the 1961 understanding which the
Union had with earlier management of the Company, inter-
preting an earlier version of the agreement. This under-
standing was in writing, but had not been incorporated in
the agreement. It provided that in certain departments, in-
cluding the maintenance department, "the successful
bidder's plant wide seniority shall become his department
seniority" 60 days after his transfer into the department.
Logsden not only disagreed with these senior representa-
tives' interpretation of the seniority provision, but he suc-
ceeded in convincing Master Mechanic John Dyhstra (who
supervised the maintenance department) to assign shifts in
that department according to departmental seniority. Two
maintenance department employees (Kellogg on November
7 and Houts on November 9) filed grievances in protest,
claiming violations of Section 6. Dyhstra denied the griev-
ances on the basis of departmental seniority, citing section
2 of article 12.
Early in November, Logsden got into an argument with
Chief Steward Ella Walton over interpreting article 12.
Logsden credibly testified that at a stewards' meeting, "I
took one interpretation. Ella took another. We talked it over
and she said well, this may be what it says but it was not
the intent of the contract. . . . I says, `It's the King's Eng-
lish written down here in black and white and it says plant
wide seniority is second to group seniority in the protected
job groups.'. . . Well, she said she had helped negotiate the
contract and 'This wasn't the intent of the contract' and my
statement to that was'Well, in contracts, the intent must be
written down because who wrote or negotiated it may not
be around and if this was not the intent of the contract, there
were correct and legal ways to amend this contract if that
was the intent they desired.' " Meanwhile, Logsden and
LOCAL 636, RUBBER WORKERS 63
Union Vice President Betty Uithoven repeatedly discussed
their opposing views regarding article 12. Logsden also
talked to other members of the executive board about the
disagreement.
Later in November, Logsden got into a heated argument
with International Field Representative John Izzard, in the
presence of Chief Steward Walton, other members of the
executive board, and President Schmidt. Izzard disagreed
with Logsden's and Schmidt's interpretation of article 12.
As Logsden credibly testified, "I ... asked Mr. Izzard if he
had read this article in the contract and he says no, he
hadn't ... before coming back and my remark to that was
`Don't try to jam something down my throat unless you read
it.' . . . I become sort of hostile and I walked out of it."
Similarly, Izzard testified that Logsden talked about "not
cramming that down my throat," and "took off." Chief
Steward Walton testified that Logsden "said he didn't buy"
Izzard's explanation, and that Logsden was angry, "got real
red in the face and . . . just stomped and tore around and
out the door he went." She claimed that Logsden used pro-
fane language. Vice President Uithoven testified that she
was somewhat shocked by Logsden's conduct, because
"you don't usually see somebody fly up like that," and
"usually you carry respect for somebody like our Interna-
tional Rep." She also claimed that Logsden used some pro-
fane language, but that she could not remember what.
Shortly thereafter, on December 7, Logsden resigned as
union steward. However, the controversy over seniority
continued.
Union representatives (excluding President Schmidt) per-
suaded the Company to reverse itself on the issue, and a
maintenance department employee (Gibson) was assigned
to the evening shift, despite his greater departmental senior-
ity than another day-shift employee. He protested to Master
Mechanic Dyhstra, and also to Union Vice President Uitho-
ven, to no avail. Logsden (then no longer a steward) wrote
out a grievance for him, and he signed it and gave it to Chief
Steward Walton. She indicated her displeasure a day or so
later when she told the employee "she hoped I knew what
I was doing." (Walton, who did not impress me as being a
candid, trustworthy witness, denied knowledge that Logs-
den had written the grievance. But whether or not she had
such knowledge, she was clearly aware of the controversy
to which Logsden had contributed-causing dissension in
the maintenance department and in the Union, and interfer-
ence with the Union's interpretation of the agreement.) On
February 26-the same day President Schmidt wrote Vice
President Uithoven a letter expressing his opinion that there
was no contractual requirement that Logsden produce a
card to prove he was a certifiedjourneyman-Uithoven and
other members of the executive board filed charges against
Schmidt for "gross neglect of duty" and "malfeasance in
office." Schmidt resigned on February 28, citing as his first
reason the seniority dispute: "I refuse to train a mainte-
nance helper to the maintenance man level, so he can bump
me to second or third shift." (His second assigned reason
was the Union's treatment of Logsden-improperly requir-
ing him to have a journeyman's card: "Makes a person
wonder who's side we are on.") Uithoven replaced Schmidt
as union president on March 1.
The parties agree that the proper interpretation of the
contractual seniority provisions is not an issue in this pro-
ceeding.
C. Union's Demand for Logsden's Demotion
1. The Union's grievance
The Company was satisfied with Logsden' s experience,
ability, and certification as a journeyman electrician. How-
ever, beginning in November (the month when Logsden got
into the argument over seniority with Chief Steward Walton
at a stewards' meeting and also with other members of the
union executive board, and when Logsden had a heated
argument with Field Representative Izzard about the same
subject in the presence of the executive board), Walton and
other union representatives questioned Logsden's proof of
journeyman status . Finally, on February 14, Walton, Vice
President Uithoven, and another member of the executive
board filed a grievance, alleging violation of a 1970 memo-
randum agreement concerning hiring of journeymen, and
requesting that all journeymen "show Co. and Union their
journeymen cards."
The 1970 memorandum agreement, "Subject : Staffing of
New Classifications through the Employment of Certified
Journeymen," provided that the Company "will employ
necessary Journeymen to staff the newly created positions
of Journeymen Electricians, Tool and Die Maker and Mill-
wright Machinists," at an initial rate of $5, with a 6-month
probationary period for the initial group, as "one of the
initial steps towards implementation of an Apprenticeship
program." (There was no explicit requirement for a journey-
man card.) Some of the initially hired journeymen were no
longer employed; and, apparently because of changes in
management, the implementation of the apprenticeship
program had been delayed. When the grievance was filed,
there were two journeyman electricians (Logsden and
Payne), and one journeyman tool-and-die maker (Meyers).
On February 22, Master Mechanic Dyhstra submitted the
Company's formal answer to the grievance. Copies of the
credentials on file (a state license card for Payne, a certifi-
cate of apprenticeship completion for Meyers, and an
IBEW Local 1036 memorandum for Logsden) were at-
tached to the answer, which stated: "Journeyman in ques-
tion [referring to Logsden] does not have card in possession
and is presently trying to obtain one." At this point, I specif-
ically discredit the testimony by Chief Steward Walton and
Vice President Uithoven that they did not know before the
grievance that there was any question concerning Logsden's
journeyman status. In the first place, the grievance answer
itself, referring to the "Journeyman in question," demon-
strated that the grievance concerned Logsden. Secondly,
both Walton and Uithoven gave contradictory testimony, in
effect admitting such prior knowledge. Although Walton
positively testified that she did not know that Logsden did
not have a journeyman card until the grievance was an-
swered, and that she had no idea that there would be a
problem with Logsden's credentials until then , she else-
where admitted that she had questioned President Schmidt
about the journeymen's credentials. She testified that, after
the stewards' meeting in November, the question of
journeymen's credentials arose; that she asked Schmidt
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about them; and that he said that Payne had a card, Meyer
had a certificate, and Logsden had "a letter of some kind"
in the front office . (Schmidt , who was a maintenance fore-
man at the time of trial, credibly testified that the lack of
a journeyman card had been discussed in Walton's pres-
ence ; that he had said he had read "the letter from Penn
Central saying that [Logsden] was a journeyman electri-
cian" and that he had "accepted" it; but that Walton said
"you had to have a journeyman's card to be a journeyman
for Arco Industries.") Uithoven testified that she did not
"know" until after the February 14 grievance was filed that
there was any question concerning Logsden's journeyman
status . However, she later "explained" her answer by testify-
ing that Schmidt had reported Logsden's (Penn Central)
letter as proof of journeymanship "so we just took it for
granted that he had his proof along with everyone else."
(She, like Walton , impressed me as being less than candid
on the stand.)
Sometime before the February 22 grievance answer was
submitted, Logsden had lost a day from work, seeking proof
of his journeyman status from IBEW Local 1036 in Jackson,
Michigan, which was about 60 miles away. The Company
and the Union had met, and (in the words of Chief Steward
Walton), "We asked Cletys [Logsden] to get further proof
of his journeyman 's card . . . his foreman was to go to him
and tell him to get more proof." Apparently the next morn-
ing, Logsden's foreman went to him and, as Logsden credi-
bly testified, mentioned a meeting the day before and said
"you are not to report back to the plant until you either have
a union card or proof of journeyman." Logsden immedi-
ately left the plant; telephoned the new financial secretary
of Local 1036 in Jackson , stating that he wanted something
to substantiate his being a journeyman in the IBEW; and
then traveled to the secretary's home in Jackson and picked
up a memorandum which the secretary prepared from Local
1036's records. (The memorandum is quoted below.) By 3
p.m. Logsden was back at the plant, where he showed the
memorandum to Acting Plant Manager Frank Miller, Pro-
duction Manager Donald Paul, and Master Mechanic John
Dyhstra. It is undisputed, as Logsden credibly testified, that
all three of them agreed at that time that this was acceptable
to prove his journeyman status . Logsden gave the memo-
randum to Dyhstra, who submitted a copy (as mentioned
above) with his February 22 grievance answer to the Union.
Logsden asked, and Paul agreed, that Logsden be allowed
to be present the next time the Company met with the
International representative if the Union did not accept
Logsden's credentials.
2. Union's rejection of journeyman credentials
When the Company met with the Union's executive
board and Jack Lowry (the International representative re-
placing Izzard) soon after the Company's February 22
grievance answer was submitted , the Union rejected
Logsden's journeyman credentials. At that time, the compa-
ny and union representatives had before them the May 8,
1972, Penn Central Railroad letter (which the Company had
accepted as proof of Logsden's certified journeyman status
at the time of hire), and the aforementioned IBEW Local
1036 memorandum (which the company management also
had accepted as such proof). The letter and the memoran-
dum, respectively, read:
To whom this may concern:
This is to certify that Cletys A. Logsden Jr. was
employed with Penn Central Railroad from December
1968 thru September 1969 as a Journeyman Electrician.
He was a member of Local 1036 International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Jackson, Michigan.
Cletys A. Logsden Jr.
"BA" Membership # 1972462.
Member of Local 1036 from April 1969 thru Aug.
1969. Worked as electrician in Kalamazoo on
journeyman's rate. [Emphasis supplied.]
The letter and memorandum, both on official stationery,
were signed, respectively by the roundhouse supervisor and
the financial secretary.
There is much conflict in the testimony regarding what
was said in the late February meeting, but I accept as true
the quoted part of Vice President Uithoven's pretrial affida-
vit, which she reaffirmed at the trial. Uithoven revealed in
the affidavit that Field Representative Lowry stated that the
Penn Central letter was not proof because it said that Logs-
den "was 'employed as' a journeyman but did not say he
`was' a journeyman." Concerning the IBEW memorandum,
giving Logsden's membership number, Lowry rejected this
as proof of journeyman status, but he (and also Chief Stew-
ard Walton) acknowledged that if Logsden had an IBEW
card, showing that he was a journeyman electrician that
would be sufficient proof that Logsden was a certified jour-
neyman electrician. (The Union was aware that Logsden
had lost his IAM and IBEW cards with his wallet.)
Thus Logsden's credentials, which had been accepted by
the Company as proof that he was a certified journeyman
electrician, and which showed that he had been employed
as a journeyman electrician and had an IBEW membership
number (although he had lost his union journeyman card),
were rejected by the Union because he did not have the
actual card. (As heretofore mentioned, President Schmidt's
February 28 resignation letter protested this treatment of
Logsden, stated that "The [June 1970] memorandum agree-
ment does not require a journeyman's card," and concluded
that the Union's rejection of the proof of Logsden's certifi-
cation of journeyman status "Makes a person wonder who's
side [the Union] is on." )
3. Union's threat of termination
Logsden credibly testified that after he was called into the
February meeting and after Field Representative Lowry
rejected his journeyman credentials, Logsden stated that he
was a member of the Union, but "I worked for the Arco
Industries, not the Union," and the Union "was supposed
to work for me." Logsden also stated he had done all he
could do to obtain proof of journeymanship. The discussion
became heated , and Lowry said "that I had 30 days to come
up with a union card or I would be terminated." Logsden
angrily left the meeting. This testimony is confirmed in part
by Vice President Uithoven's pretrial affidavit, in which she
LOCAL 636, RUBBER WORKERS 65
stated, "Lowry said he could ask for Logsden's discharge
because the job shouldn't have been put up for bid if Logs-
den wasn't a journeyman but that we wanted proof, not to
have him fired, and that Logsden would be given 30 days
to get the proof. [Production Manager] Paul said little dur-
ing the meeting except to agree at the end to the 30 days
grace." (Paul testified that he was uncertain whether Lowry
said "terminated in relationship to [Logsden's] journeyman
status," or "terminated" from employment. He did not ap-
pear to have a clear recollection of what was said at the
meeting . Chief Steward Walton testified that Lowry said
that Logsden would be "terminated as a journeyman" un-
less he produced a card. Lowry, claimed that he told Logs-
den in the meeting that if Logsden did not substantiate his
journeyman status by the Monday following 30 days, "by
mutual agreement between the Company and the Union,
it's been decided that you are not eligible to be receiving"
the journeyman rate of pay and "would have to be reduced
in pay to the same status as the rest of the maintenance
people in the plant that were not certified journeymen." I
find that this testimony by Lowry was fabricated, because
he later testified that in a meeting with the Company on
April 5-following the expiration of 30 days-there were
"many suggestions by members of the local union commit-
tee" and the Company "on what should be done in Cletys
Logsden's case," and that the Company inquired "was the
Union asking that this individual be discharged to settle the
issue." Walton also testified that in the April 5 meeting
Uithoven suggested the reduction in Logsden's pay. I deem
it most unlikely that such conversations would have been
held on April 5 if the Company and the Union had already
decided on the demotion in February.)
Thus I find, as alleged in the complaint, that the Union
threatened to obtain Logsden's termination unless he pro-
duced proof of his journeyman electrician status. The
Union's motivation is discussed later.
4. Logsden's demotion
About 2 days after the late February meeting , as Logsden
credibly testified, he talked to Production Manager Paul
and Master Mechanic Dyhstra about his credentials and
ability. Paul expressed his opinion that Logsden's creden-
tials were acceptable, and Dyhstra said that Logsden's abili-
ty was satisfactory.
Mrs. Uithoven (then the union president) testified that
during the next month, she "tried on my own and then I also
tried jointly with Mr. Don Paul" to investigate the letter
from IBEW Local 1036 by repeatedly attempting to contact
the person who signed the letter. When asked why she did
not write the IBEW Local for confirmation, she responded,
"I feel proof of journeymanship is for the person to find out,
not for me. This is their responsibility."
On April 5, after Logsden had failed to obtain a duplicate
copy of his IBEW journeyman electrician card, the Compa-
ny and the Union met. The Union demanded that Logsden
be demoted to maintenance electrician until he produced a
journeyman card, and Acting Plant Manager Miller agreed,
upon the condition that there would be no claim for back
wages in the event Logsden did produce such a card.
Logsden continued to perform the same work, but was
reduced in pay on April 9 from $5.48 to $3.80 an hour.
Several weeks later, Logsden received a letter from IAM
Aerospace District Lodge 837, dated May 3, stating that
Logsden, an employee of McDonnell Douglas Corporation,
was initiated in the IAM on "February 5, 1968 as a Journey-
man in the classification of Inspector-Radio Electrical and
Electronics." The Union rejected this also as proof of jour-
neyman status.
5. Union motivation
The union representatives vigorously denied that their
rejection of Logsden's credentials as a journeyman electri-
cian was connected with Logsden's disagreement over the
contractual seniority provisions.
Field Representative Lowry denied that he was even
aware of Logsden's disagreement with the union officials
over seniority until the charge herein was filed. He claimed
that the Union and the Company agreed at the late Febru-
ary meeting that Logsden's credentials were not satisfactory
proof that he "was a certified journeyman so that we could
start our skilled trades [apprenticeship] program." When
asked if he was aware that the Company already had anoth-
er journeyman electrician at that time, Lowry answered, "I
would be unable to answer that. I am not aware if they had
at the time or not." Like other parts of his testimony, I find
that this was also fabricated. Lowry was aware that the
Company had hired journeyman electrician Payne (a copy
of whose 1972 state license card was attached to the
Company's grievance answer). In fact, Lowry later admitted
that "somebody from the local union had made me aware
that [Payne] was in the process of getting a card renewed."
Therefore Lowry was aware, before the late February meet-
ing, that there was another journeyman electrician available
to train any apprentice electrician. (The apprenticeship pro-
gram was not signed until late January 1974, nearly a year
later, and no apprentices had been hired by the time of trial
in March 1974.)
Another defense witness, Edward Elkins, director of the
International's skilled trades department, testified that
Field Representative Lowry had telephoned him about the
sufficiency of the IBEW memorandum and the IAM letter.
However, Elkins gave the implausible testimony that he
knew nothing about the circumstances. He testified, "The
entire conversation was merely Mr. Lowry said that he had
some communications he would like to read to me and for
me to give him my feelings towards the communication.
That was all. . . . I told him no. He said that's all I wanted
to know. I said they would not qualify an individual as a
journeyman. I didn't know who it was." To the contrary,
Lowry testified that he reported to Elkins "that this individ-
ual had indicated that he had a journeyman electrician card
and that card had been lost . . . the Company had been told
by Cletys Logsden . . . that he had a journeyman's electri-
cian card that he told the Company had been lost . . . that
he was in the process of trying to replace the card," etc. I
discredit Elkins' claim of such limited knowledge.
Elkins testifeid that the IBEW memorandum did not qua-
lify as proof of journeyman status because "it merely said
that he worked as an electrician on a journeyman's rate and
because a man works as an electrician does not necessarily
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
qualify the man for an electrician." He testified that he did
not recall the Penn Central letter (which stated that Logsden
was employed "as a Journeyman Electrician" ). He testified
that, when Lowry called him about the IAM letter (about
a month after Logsden's demotion), Lowry merely asked if
this letter would qualify an electrician as a journeyman and
"I said no because it is talking about an inspector not an
electrician." (It is undisputed that in the IAM and at Mc-
Donnell Douglas Corporation, a journeyman in the classifi-
cation of inspector-radio electrical and electronics is in a
higher status than a journeyman electrician.) Elkins also
gave his opinion at the trial that the Penn Central letter
would not qualify a person as a journeyman electrician
"Because the electrical work performed in a railroad shop
is altogether different than the electrical work performed in
an industrial shop." This testimony is not persuasive, inas-
much as the IBEW issued Logsden a journeyman electrician
card, on the basis of his IAM journeyman card, when Logs-
den was working at Penn Central as journeyman diesel
electrician. Furthermore, both Lowry and Chief Steward
Walton testified they would have accepted as sufficient
proof a duplicate of the IBEW journeyman electrician card.
(I noted that no license is required in Michigan for employ-
ment as a journeyman electrician in a manufacturing plant.
In view of Logsden's credited testimony, I disregard gar-
bage hauler William Irwin's testimony about Logsden's re-
pairs on a degreaser.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By threatening in late February 1973 to have Cletys Logs-
den discharged and by causing the Company to demote him
on April 9, 1973, in reprisal for his protected, concerted
activity, thereby restraining and coercing him in the exercise
of Section 7 rights, the Union engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
8(b)(1)(A) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it
necessary that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and to take
certain affirmative action.
The Respondent having unlawfully caused the Company
to demote Cletys Logsden on April 9, 1973, from journey-
man electrician to maintenance electrician , I find it neces-
sary that the Respondent be ordered to make him whole for
the resulting loss of earnings from that date until his resigna-
tion on August 24, 1973, plus interest at 6 percent per an-
num as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
D. Concluding Findings
I find that Logsden was a highly qualified journeyman
electrician, whose. qualifications as a certified journey-
man-to train apprentices in the anticipated apprenticeship
program-were never in any real doubt.
After considering all the evidence and circumstances, in-
cluding the lack of candor on the part of the defense wit-
nesses who took part in persuading the Company to reduce
Logsden's wages, I find that the Union seized upon his
failure to obtain a copy of his lost IBEW journeyman elec-
trician card as a means of taking a reprisal against him for
his outspoken opposition to the Union's interpretation of
the seniority provisions.
Clearly, Logsden's opposition to the Union's position on
seniority was protected, concerted activity, although it
caused dissension in the maintenance department and in the
Union, and tended to undercut the Union's interpretation,
which was based largely on past practice and a prior under-
standing which had not been specifically incorporated into
the collective-bargaining agreement.
I therefore find that the Union, when threatening in the
late February meeting to have Logsden discharged if he did
not get a duplicate of his IBEW [journeyman electrician
card, and when having him demoted on April 9 "until a]
journeyman's card is presented," was motivated by a desire
to retaliate against him for engaging in the concerted, pro-
tected activity. Accordingly, I find that the Union thereby
restrained and coerced Logsden in the exercise of Section
7 rights, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In view
of these findings, I do not deem it necessary to pass upon
other proposed grounds for finding violations of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) on the Union's part.
ORDER2
Respondent , Local 636, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum
and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Schoolcraft,
Michigan, its officers , agents, and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening any employee with
discharge, or causing Arco Industries, Inc., to demote or
otherwise discriminate against any employee , for engaging
in protected , concerted activity.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Cletys Logsden whole for his lost earnings in
the manner set forth in the Remedy.
(b) Notify the Company, in writing , with a copy to Mr.
Logsden , that the Respondent has no objection to the Com-
pany employing him as a journeyman electrician.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records , timecards, person-
nel records and reports , and all records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recom-
mended Order.
2 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.
3 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."
LOCAL 636, RUBBER WORKERS
(d) Post at its offices and union hall, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consec-
utive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to en-
sure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Forthwith return to the Regional Director sufficient
signed copies of the notice for posting by the Company, if
willing, at all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted.
(f) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar
as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after
trial, that we violated Federal law by causing Arco Indus-
tries , Inc., to demote a former union steward for opposing
67
our interpretation of the maintenance department seniority
provisions:
WE WILL pay Cletys Logsden the earnings he lost as
a result of his April 9, 1973, demotion from journey-
man electrician, plus 6-percent interest.
WE WILL notify the Company, in writing, with a copy
to Mr. Logsden, that we have no objection to the Com-
pany employing him as a journeyman electrician.
WE WILL NOT cause, or threaten to cause , the Compa-
ny to discharge, demote , or discriminate against any
employee for opposing our interpretation of the senior-
ity provisions.
Dated By
LOCAL 636, UNITED RUBBER,
CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-
CIO
(Labor Organization)
(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 direct-
ed to the Board 's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washing-
ton Boulevard , Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone
313-226-3200.