Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 342 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

-342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters [Robert E. L.
Parker Company] and Versie Drake. Case No. 01-CB-911.
March 25, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 23, 1958, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jen-
kins, 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
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire rec-
ord 1 in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
-Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
,of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Los Angeles
County District Council of Carpenters, its officers, representatives,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Robert E. L. Parker Company
or any other member of Southern California Chapter, Associated
General Contractors, or any other employer, to refuse employment
to any employee or prospective employee, including Versie Drake,
or otherwise to discriminate against any such person, in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing Drake,
or other employees or prospective employees of Robert E. L. Parker
Company, or other Association member, or any other employer, in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
1 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , exceptions,
and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
123 NLRB No. 49.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 343
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make Versie Drake whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally
would have earned as wages in the manner set forth in the section
of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its Los Angeles, California, offices and meeting halls
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "appendix." 2 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipts thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF Los ANGELES DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Robert E. L. Parker
Company, or any other member of the Southern California
Chapter, Associated General Contractors, or any other employer,
to refuse employment to any employee or prospective employee,
including Versie Drake, or otherwise to discriminate against
any such person in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
IVVE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees or prospective employees of Robert E. L. Parker
Company or any other member of Southern California Chapter,
Associated General Contractors, or any other employer, in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make Versie Drake whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
Los ANGELES DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS,
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on April 29, 1957, by Versie Drake, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the
General Counsel 1 and the Board, by the then Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued a complaint, dated August 7, 1957,
alleging therein that Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters, herein
called Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the charge and complaint, together with notice of hearing thereon,
were duly served upon Respondent and upon Drake.2
Specifically, the complaint, as amended, alleged that: (1) On or about April
19, 1957, Robert E. L. Parker Company, herein called Parker, offered Drake a job
on a certain construction project it was then performing and issued to Drake a
written memorandum, addressed to Local 844, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 844, requesting Local 844
to dispatch Drake to the aforesaid job; (2) on or about April 19, Drake took said
written memorandum to the official dispatcher of Local 844, who gave Drake a
work order but told Drake that he could not go to work on the aforesaid Parker
job unless or until he had obtained a temporary working card from Respondent;
(3) although Drake requested, on or about April 19, and again on or about April
25, such a temporary working card from Respondent, such card was refused him
because (a) he was not then a member in good standing of any local union
affiliated with Respondent and (b) Drake did not present to Respondent any
membership book showing membership in any local union affiliated with Respond-
ent or membership in the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO; and (4) on or about April 25, Parker refused to hire Drake
because he did not have a "clearance" from Respondent.
On August 26, 1957, Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission
of the unfair labor practices alleged. As, and for, an affirmative defense the
answer averred that Drake, together with others, entered into a conspiracy in
order, among other things, "to intimidate, coerce, exact money from, malign,
harass and defraud this Respondent."
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held from October 27 through October
29, 1958, at Los Angeles, California, before the duly designated Trial Examiner.
The General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel who participated
in the hearing. Full opportunity was afforded the parties to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue
orally at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file briefs on or
before November 20, 1957.3
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner reserved decision on
General Counsel's offer in evidence of two documents which had been marked as
'This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
2 On August 12, 1957, the General Counsel served upon the parties an "Amendment to
Complaint."
3 At the request of Respondent's counsel, the time to file briefs was extended to
December 1, 1958. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from Respond-
ent's counsel which have been carefully considered.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 345
General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 for identification, to which proposed
exhibits Respondent had imposed objections. The objections are hereby overruled
and the documents are hereby received in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibits
Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The General Counsel's request to substitute photostatic
copies of Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 in lieu of the original thereof is hereby granted.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF PARKER
During 1957, Robert E. L. Parker Company, a corporation, was engaged in,
among other things, the business of highway construction. During said year,
Parker also performed work for Aerojet General, for which it was paid about
$250,000. At the time Parker was performing the work for Aerojet, above re-
ferred to, the latter was engaged in the development of solid and liquid propellants
and in the manufacture of missiles for the United States Air Force and for the
United States Navy at an installation located near Sacramento, California. During
1957, Aerojet had about 7,000 persons in its employ at the above-mentioned instal-
lation, whose daily wages aggregated about $140,000.
Since January 1, 1957, Parker has been a member of Associated General Con-
tractors of America, Inc., Southern California Chapter, herein called AGC, an
association composed of construction contractors which exists, in part, for the
purpose of negotiating collective-bargaining contracts for and on behalf of its
members with labor organizations representing employees of its members.
During all times material herein, Holmes & Narver, Inc., has been a member
of AGC. Since 1949, Holmes & Narver, Inc., has been engaged in erecting
facilities and conducting certain tests for the Atomic Energy Commission at AEC's
Eniwetok Proving Grounds located in the southern portion of the Pacific Ocean.
During 1957, Holmes & Narver paid the persons it employed on said Eniwetok
project wages in excess of $100,000 and during said year received compensation
from AEC for the work and services performed for the said project in excess
of $1,000,000.
Upon the undisputed facts, the Trial Examiner finds that during all times
material herein Parker was, and now is, engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.4
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discrimination against Versie Drake
1. The pertinent facts
In 1952, Drake, who then was a member of Local No. 844, Los Angeles County
District Council of Carpenters, herein called Local 844, whose headquarters then
were, and now are, located at Reseda, Los Angeles County, California, moved to
Fairbanks, Alaska, where he became a member of Carpenters' Local 1243.5
On December 17, 1956, Drake returned to Los Angeles. In February 1957,6 he
went to the headquarters of Local 844 and registered for a job. On March 8,
after he paid Lewis J. Howard, a business agent of Local 844, $4 for a temporary
work card, he was sent to a job at Aetna Construction Company. On March 13,
while working on the Aetna job, Drake was injured and was hospitalized for
several days. Upon recovering from his injuries, he again registered for work
with Local 844.
' See Local 0 50, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry, etc. (Bechtel Corporation et al.), 120 NLRB 930; Local No. 1400,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters etc., et al. (Pardee Construction Company), 115 NLRB
126; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 12, AFL (Associated General
Contractors, etc.), 113 NLRB 655.
5 Since 1954, Drake's membership in Local 1243 has been uninterrupted. At all times
material herein, Drake was, and now is, a member in good standing in Local 1243.
0 Unless otherwise noted all dates hereinafter mentioned refer to 1957.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 19, William I. Hopkins, the business representative of Local 844, told
Drake, to quote Drake 's credible and undenied testimony , "there was a job up
there [Parker 's] a form job up there , and he [Hopkins ] would recommend me to
this job , and he [gave ] me a piece of paper with a recommendation on it" to give
to the foreman on the job. Drake then went to the Parker job, and handed the
Hopkins note 7 to Dwight Catron , Parker's job superintendent . Catron then in-
quired of Drake as to whether he had ever performed the type of job to be done.
Catron apparently was satisfied with Drake 's qualifications for he wrote at the
foot of Hopkins ' note, "Make work order for Monday morning . D. Catron" and
then instructed Drake to report for work on April 22.
Upon leaving Catron, Drake went to the union hall. What transpired there is
reflected by the following credible testimony of Drake:
Q. (By Mr. Heimann .) What was the first thing that was said when you
got there?
A. The first thing he ( Hopkins ) said was he couldn't give me a work order,
a work card.
Q. O.K. When you got there did you say something first?
A. When I got there , I presented this here note to him, that I did have the
job up there with the Parker Company.
Q. Then did Mr . Hopkins say something?
A. Then he had the work order made out for me and told me that I had to
go by the District Council to get my work card, because he wasn 't allowed
to give me another.8
Q. Did he say anything else?
A. He told me to be sure to go to the District Council, and not to present
this work order on the job until I went to the District Council and got my
work card.9
That same morning , April 19, Drake went to the headquarters of the District
Council , which were , and still are , located in the City of Los Angeles. There,
after exhibiting his Alaskan local's paid-up work card to two men who had
identified themselves to Drake as being "councilmen ," Drake requested that a
work card be issued to him, adding , to quote Drake's credible testimony, "I had
a job out here in the Valley ( where the Parker job was located ), and I wanted
to get . a work permit to go out on the job." The "councilmen" informed
Drake, to again quote his credible testimony , "they couldn 't give me a work
permit, unless I had my book , and they told me if I had my book they couldn't
give it ( work permit ) before Tuesday."
Upon leaving the District Council headquarters , Drake went to the Board's
office where he was advised to return to the Parker project and ascertain whether
the proffered job was still available.
On Thursday , April 25 , Drake went to the Parker job and told Catron that he
was unable to secure a work card from the District Council . Drake then asked
Catron if he secured a work card from the District Council could he go to work.
Catron told Drake to report for work after he "got straight with the union."
That same morning, April 25, Drake went to the District Council and asked
the female receptionist to issue him a work card . When she replied that she could
not do so , Drake asked to see a councilman . Thereupon , the receptionist called
over a man who then spoke to Drake in the presence of the receptionist . Drake,
after presenting his Local 1243 work card to this man, whose name Drake did not
know, asked that a work card be sold him. The man replied that he could not
sell Drake a work card unless Drake produced his membership book. Drake could
7 The so - called "Hopkins note" reads :
Catron -Parker Co.
This man has
had lots of
Class A work
if can use.
Burbank Howard
& 844
Balboa
8 The work card which had been issued to Drake on March '8 expired on March 22.
9It is significant to note that , although questioned about what transpired between him
and Drake after the latter handed him the above -referred -to Catron request to issue Drake
a referral , Hopkins did not deny that he had instructed Drake to secure a work card from
the District Council before reporting for work on the Parker job.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 347
not produce his membership book because at that time it was in Local 1243's
Fairbanks, Alaska, offices.
Under date of May 20, Respondent sent Drake a letter reading, in part, as
follows:
This is to inform you that neither the Los Angeles County District Council
of Carpenters nor any of its constituent Local Unions have any objection to
your employment by the E. L. Parker Company, or any other employer.
As evidence of this we are providing you with this letter, copy of which is
being sent to E. L. Parker Company and to the National Labor Relations
Board 21st Region.
Upon some undisclosed date Drake received the above letter and a copy
thereof was received by the Board on the date it bears. Parker never received a
copy of the letter because it was sent to E. L. Parker of La Canada, California,
instead of to Robert E. L. Parker of Claremont, California. However, on some
undisclosed date Drake took the letter to the Parker job and handed it to the
foreman. The foreman, after reading the letter, told Drake that there was no job
open because the project was coming to an end and Parker was commencing to
lay off men.
On May 27, Local 844 referred Drake to a job. While en route, he inquired
of a policeman for directions and was informed that the job was located a long
distance away. Drake did not go to the job.
On July 4, Drake left Los Angeles for Alaska and, as far as the record discloses,
remained there until shortly before the opening of the hearing.
2. Concluding findings
The contract, in effect during the period covered by the complaint, between AGC
and "United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, for its affiliated
District Councils and Local Unions in Southern California, which have jurisdiction
over the work in the territory hereinafter described," 10 contained an exclusive
hiring-hall clause which obligated Parker to secure its carpenters exclusively from
Respondent." It was therefore incumbent upon Respondent to select applicants
for referral to jobs on a nondiscriminatory basis. The evidence, as epitomized-
above, discloses Respondent did not do so. Instead Respondent based its referrals-
upon the obtaining, after production of a membership book in a local affiliated.
with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, of a.
work card. By refusing Drake such a card because he was unable to produce-
his membership book, Respondent prevented Drake from obtaining employment
on the Parker project to which he had been referred by Hopkins, provided he-
first secured a work card from the District Council, and on which project he had
been offered employment by Catron.12 It is well established that a labor organiza-
tion, which has the exclusive right to refer applicants for employment violates
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act when it engages in conduct such as
disclosed by this record and the Trial Examiner so finds.13 The Trial Examiner
10 Contrary to Respondent ' s contention , the Trial Examiner finds that it is bound by the
terms of this contract.
11 In fact , Catron testified without contradiction , and the Trial Examiner finds, that
he secured all his carpenters from Local 844.
12 The following credible testimony of Howard presents a convincing confirmation of
this finding:
Q. Did you write the work order that he [Drake] took to the Parker job?
A. I did.
Q. Did he require anything other than that work order to go on that job?
A. Well, he is supposed to have a card , we will say an adequate working card.
Q. Well, what would that be?
A. Could be a permanent card showing him paid up full in dues in any local that
he might belong to, or it could be a temporary working card given to him for the
conditions existing at that time.
Q. What did he require to go to work on the Parker job at the time you gave him
the work order?
A. Well, he would have required a temporary card at that time since he wasn't a
member of our local , nor did he signify any desire of transferring to our local.
22 Bechtel Corporation, 120 NLRB 930 ; Pardee Construction Company, 115 NLRB 126;
Associated General Contractors , 113 NLRB 655 , enfd. as mod . sub nom. International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12 , 237 F. 2d 670 (C.A. 9). Cf. Los Angeles-Seattle
Motor Express , Incorporated, 121 NLRB 1629 ; Roy Price Inc., 121 NLRB 508.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
further finds that Respondent's affirmative defenses as set forth in its answer are
not supported by the credible evidence.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with Parker's business affiliation and its business operations described in
section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and such of them as have been found to
constitute unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, the Trial Examiner will recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that Respondent discriminatorily conditioned the right
of Drake to obtain employment upon his production of his membership book in a
local of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
it will be recommended that it make Drake whole for the loss of pay suffered by
him as the result of the discrimination found, by the payment to him of a sum
of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned from April
22, 1957, the date Catron requested Drake to report for work, to the date when
Drake exhibited Respondent's May 20 letter to Parker's foreman, less his net
earnings during such period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Robert E. L. Parker Company, Claremont, California, is, and at all times
material to this proceeding has been, an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act.
2. Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters is, and during all times
material to this proceeding has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By its restraint and coercion of employees in the exercise of certain rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent is engaged in and has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By attempting to cause and causing Robert E. L. Parker Company and other
employers to discriminate against employees or applicants for employment, and
thus to commit an unfair labor practice as defined in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Piasecki Aircraft Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local No. 840.1 Case No. 4-CA-
1496. March 25, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 19, 1958, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
i Herein referred to collectively as the Union.
123 NLRB No. 43.