Miami Copper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 29, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 322 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of MIAMI COPPER COMPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 518,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
In the Matter of MIAMI COPPER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS FOR ITS LOCAL LODGE 1342
In the Matter of INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER
WORKERS; MIAMI MINERS' UNION, LODGE 586 AND ROBERT R.
HOLLOWWA, AN INDIVIDUAL and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS FOR ITS LOCAL LODGE 1342
In the Matter Of INSPIRATION CONSOLIDATED COPPER COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS FOR ITS LOCAL LODGE
1342
In the Matter of INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER
WORKERS, LOCAL 586 and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS FOR ITS LOCAL LODGE 1342
Cases Nos. 21-CA-614, 21-CA-622, 21-CB 234, 21-CA-656, and
21-CB-263.-Decided November. 29, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 18, 1950, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents, Miami Copper Company and Inspiration Con-
solidated Copper Company, had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and 8 (a.) (5) of the Act, and recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the
Respondents, International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers,
Miami Miners Union, Lodge 586, and Robert R. Hollowwa, an in-
dividual, had not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (b) ^(1) (A) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint,
and recommended dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions, accompanied by
a supporting brief, to those portions of the Intermediate Report
92 NLRB No. 72.
322
MIAMI COPPER COMPANY 323
recominendhig dismissal of the complaint. No.other exceptions have
been filed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connnection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the .rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error -was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, except as noted below?
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondents, Miami Copper
Company and Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, violated
Section 8 and 8 (a) (5) of the Act in that tlfey adjusted
grievances with" a'minority union notwithstanding the existence of a
certified representative, and Miami Copper Company deprived the
certified representative of an opportunity to be present at the adjust-
ment of a grievance. We adopt these findings, more fully detailed in
the Intermediate Report, solely because of the absence of any ex-
ceptions to them, but without thereby passing on the merits of the
issues involved.
2. The Trial Examiner also found in substance : (1) that, notwith-
standing the existence of a certified representative, the Smelter Work-
ers, a minority union, threatened Miami Copper Company with strike
action unless it met with the Smelter Workers to adjust grievances
of individual employees in the certified unit outside the presence of the
certified representative, and, that, yielding to such pressure, Miami
Copper Company adjusted such grievances with the Smelter Workers
outside the presence of the certified representative; (2) that the
Smelter Workers adjusted other such grievances with Miami Copper
Company and Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, respec-
tively; and (3) that the Smelter Workers engaged in a 24-hour work
stoppage against Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company to com-
pel it to engage in negotiations with the Smelter Workers with respect
to a grievance of an employee belonging to a unit represented by a
certified representative.
The Trial Examiner recommended dismissal of allegations that
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act had been violated on the ground
that that section was not intended to reach the kind of conduct
' In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner stated that he would have found a
violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (C ) of the Act , had such an allegation been made in the
complaint . No exception has been taken to the Trial Examiner 's failure to make such
a finding. In view thereof we need not , and therefore do not, pass on this question.
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
described above. The General Counsel excepts. to the recommenda-
tion of dismissal. In substance the General Counsel argues that the
Smelter Workers violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) because, through
economic pressure, it forced employer action which violated statutory
rights of employees. As stated above, we have found that the Em-
ployers here violated the Act by infringing upon the statutory rights of
employees, only because of the absence of exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's findings as to such violations. However, even assuming
argueiido the validity of these findings when viewed in light of the
merits of the issues involved, we agree with the Trial Examiner that
the 8 (b) (1)' (A) allegations should be dismissed.
As noted by the Trial Examiner, we have previously held that
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) .was intended to eliminate physical violence,
intimidatiol,t, and threats of economic action against employees.2
Where the union's conduct involved violence, threats thereof, or related
conduct,3 or where the union had obtained or was attempting to obtain
economic discrimination against particular employees,' we have found
such conduct proscribed by Section 8 (b) (1) (A). No such factors
are present here. Standing alone, the fact that the Union's conduct
caused the Employer to violate a statutory right of the employees is
not sufficient, in our opinion, to bring that conduct within the limi-
tations which the legislative history requires we place on Section 8
(b) (1) (A) .
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the Nation ;d Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents , Miami Copper
Company, Miami , Arizona, and Inspiration Consolidated Copper
Company, Inspiration , Arizona, and their respective officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Adjusting grievances with International Union of Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers or its Miami Miners ' Union , Lodge 586, or any
of their agents , including Robert R. Hollowwa, on behalf of em-
ployees within the appropriate units represented by, and covered
by the contracts of, Local Union No. 518, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL, or of Local Lodge 1342, International
8 National Maritime Union of America, at. at., 78 NLRB 971 ; Perry Norvell Company,
et. at., 80 NLRB 225.
8 United Mine Workers (Union Supply Co.), 90 NLRB 436; Cory Corporation, 84 NLRB
972; Irwin-Lyons, 87 NLRB 54.
1 Clara-Val Packing Co., 87 NLRB 703.
MIAMI COPPER COMPANY 325
Association of Machinists, or of any other exclusive bargaining
representative;
(b) Depriving the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers or any other exclusive bargaining representative of an opportunity
to attend the adjustment of grievances affecting employees within the
respective appropriate units, and covered by the contracts, of said
exclusive bargaining representatives;
(c) In any other planner bargaining collectively with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, or concerning the negotiation of an agreement, or any
questions arising thereunder, with International Union of Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers or its Miami Miners' Union, Lodge 586, or any
of their agents, including Robert R. Hollowwa, on behalf of em-
ployees within the appropriate units represented by the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Association
of Machinists, or any other exclusive bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at their respective operations at Miami, Arizona, and
Inspiration, Arizona, copies of the appropriate notice attached to
the Intermediate Report, marked Appendix A.5 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,
shall, after being signed by the respective Companies' representatives,
be posted by the Companies and maintained by them for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Companies to insure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
each Company has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Miami
Miners' Union, Lodge 586, and Robert R. Hollowwa violated Section
8 (b) (1.) (A) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
J. W. Cherry, Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Edward W. Rice , Esq., of Globe, Ariz., for Inspiration Company.
5 Each said notice is hereby amended by deleting the words , "The recommendations of
.a Trial Examiner ," and substituting in lieu thereof , the words , "A Decision and Order."
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order ," the words , "A Decree
of the United States . Court of Appeals Enforcing."
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
James R. Malott, Esq., of Globe, Ariz., for Miami Company.
Mr. Edward M. Skagen, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Machinists.
Mr. Alfred Shackelford, of Tucson, Ariz., for the Electrical Workers.
Mr. W. D. Taylor, of Tucson, Ariz., for the AFL Metal Trades Department.
Mr. Robert R. Hollowwa, of Miami, Ariz., for himself and the Smelter Workers-
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by Local Union No. 518, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL therein called Electrical Workers), and by
International Association of Machinists for its Local Lodge 1342 (herein called
Machinists), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California),
issued a consolidated complaint on May 26, 1950, against Miami Copper Com-
pany (herein called Miami), Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company (herein
called Inspiration), and against International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers, and its Miami Miners' Union, Lodge 586 (herein jointly called the
Smelter Workers), and the Smelter Workers' alleged agent, Robert R. Hollowwa,
an individual. The complaint alleged that Respondents Miami and Inspiration
have engaged and are engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, and that the Respondent
Smelter Workers and its agent, Hollowwa, have engaged and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
Copies of the complaint and amended charges were duly served upon the Re-
spondents. The several Respondents filed individual answers denying that they"
had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 11 and 12, 1950, at Globe,
Arizona, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and
the Respondent Companies were represented by counsel, and the other parties
by representatives. The parties participated in the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence hearing on the issues. The parties presented oral argument
before the undersigned and also were afforded an opportunity to file briefs, which
the General Counsel did, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the demeanor
of witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Miami Copper Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Miami, Arizona, where it is engaged in the mining and milling
of copper bearing ore and copper concentrates. During the year 1948, the value
of the Company's out-of-State sale of concentrate production was approximately
$11,000,000; during the same period, the Company purchased equipment, mate-
rials, and supplies valued at approximately $3,000,000, of which 90 percent origi-
nated and 28 percent was directly obtained from out-of-State sources.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company is a Maine corporation with its
principal place of business in Inspiration, Arizona, where it is engaged in the
mining and milling of copper-bearing ore and copper concentrates. During the
year 1948,, the Company's out-of-State shipments, including those shipments
MIAMI COPPER COMPANY 327
which were made for its account, exceeded a value of $10,000,000; during this
same period , the Company purchased equipment , materials , and supplies valued
in excess of $2,000,000, more than 50 percent of which was obtained from out-
of-State sources.
I find that each of the Companies is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND THE RESPONDENT AGENT INVOLVED
The Machinists, the Electrical Workers, and the Smelter Workers (Inter-
national and Local) are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act. The Respondent Hollowwa is an international representative of
the International Smelter Workers.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary statement of the problem
It will be necessary later in this Report to define and refine the issues presented
for decision. Nonetheless, a preliminary statement of the general problems in-
volved, in terms of the pleadings, may lend meaning to the factual presentation
to follow. The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent Companies vio-
lated the Act by treating with the Respondent Smelter Workers in regard to
grievances filed by employees in units represented by the Electrical Workers
and the Machinists and for which these latter Unions have been certified. The
case against the Smelter Workers and Hollowwa is that they caused the Com-
panies to adjust such grievances with the Smelter Workers rather than with the
respective statutory representatives. The answers of the several Respondents
raise, among other things, the question whether the conclusion of unfair labor
practices follows even assuming the accuracy of the facts alleged by the General
Counsel.
B. Representative status of the Unions and their contracts with the Companies
There is no dispute, and I find, that at all times material to this matter, the
Machinists, the Electrical Workers, and the Smelter Workers have been, and
are, the exclusive bargaining representatives following Board certifications, of
respective appropriate units at the Miami operations and of respective appro-
priate units at the Inspiration operations. During the period material to this
case, as well, these Unions have had collective bargaining agreements covering
their respective units with each Company.
The 1948 contracts of the Electrical Workers and the Machinists, which were
operative during the events under consideration, recite that, in accordance with
the afore-mentioned Board certifications, "the Company recognizes [these Un-
ions] as the exclusive representative [of the employees in the described units]
for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment." 1 The recognition Article
'The agreements of the Electrical Workers and the Machinists are included in master
contracts between these and other member affiliates of the Globe-Miami Metal Trades
Council of the American Federation of Labor with the respective Companies . The Com-
panies recognized each Union and/or the Globe-Miami Metal Trades Council as the
bargaining agent under the respective contracts.
328 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Inspiration contract with the Electrical Workers and the Machinists also
provides, in this connection :
Nothing in this Article or in this Agreement as a whole shall limit the
rights of employees under the proviso of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
The various contracts of the three Unions, including the Smelter Workers,
contain detailed grievance procedures. The contracts of the Electrical Work-
ers and the Machinists with each Company also provide that there will be no
strikes "on account of any controversy . . . respecting the provisions of this
agreement" (Article IX, Section A, of the Miami and Inspiration contracts).
The towns of Miami and Inspiration are about 3 miles apart and the oper-
ating sites of the Respondent Companies adjoin each other. The various Un-
ions involved in this proceeding, while representing separate units among each
Company's employees, embrace within the same respective locals the employees
of both Companies ; thus, employees of Inspiration and Miami together coin-
prise Local Union No. 518 of the Electrical Workers, Lodge 1342 of the Ma-
chinists, and Lodge 586 of the Smelter Workers, respectively.
C. The grievances
The complaint sets forth, and there is but little factual dispute concerning
three separate instances of grievances regarding which the Respondents al-
legedly engaged in unlawful conduct : two involve the Miami Company, one
involves the Inspiration Company, and all three involve the Respondent Smelter
Workers. I shall consider these grievances in chronological order, the first
dealing with R. H. Childress, J. C. Young, and G. L. Kennemer.
Childress, Young, and Ifennemer were Miami employees in October 1949.
They were members of the unit represented by the Electrical Workers and ac-
cordingly were covered by that Union's contract with Miami. Sometime before
October 12, 1949, in accordance with the grievance procedure set forth in the
Electrical Workers' contract, a shop steward of the Electrical Workers pre-
sented to Foreman C. A. Ross a grievance on behalf of these three employees.
The grievance involved a question of seniority, including the rights to promotion
of these allegedly senior employees, matters which were dealt with in the
Electrical Workers' contract and constituted, therefore, a "grievance" as de-
fined in Section A of Article VIII of said contract. ("Any controversy, com-
plaint, misunderstanding, or dispute arising as to the meaning, application,
or the observance of any provision of this agreement shall be regarded as a
grievance and shall be handled as a grievance in accordance with the provisions
of this Article.") Ross did not dispose of the matter to the satisfaction of the
aggrieved employees; at this stage, in order to carry the grievance further
under the grievance procedure outlined in the Electrical Workers' contract,
the grievance must be in writing and signed by the aggrieved employees and
their shop steward. The grievance was thereupon reduced to writing and
signed by the shop steward ; however, the Company did not accept the grievance
because the employees in question had not signed the document. The grievance
was consequently marked "unadjusted."
Meanwhile a written notice of grievance was submitted to the Company
covering the identical matters involved in the Electrical Workers "unadjusted"
grievance. This notice, dated October 12, 1949, was signed by the three ag-
MIAMI COPPER COMPANY 329
grieved employees, as well as by "Pablo Avalos, Grievance Committee" ; Avalos
was chief steward of the Respondent Local and the notice appeared on a Smelter
Workers form containing its name.
Miami 's general manager, R. W. Hughes, called Avalos on October 14 to ar-
range a meeting on the grievance appeal. Avalos stated during the course of
the conversation with Hughes that "they"-whom I find to mean the Smelter
Workers-would not meet with the Company if an AFL representative were
present ; Avalos further stated that "there was no reason to proceed to further
steps on the grievance, as the union [which I find to refer to the Smelter Work-
ers] had decided it would be decided in their favor or they would not go to
work." The Company's attorney, James R. Malott, then discussed the matter
with Orville Larson, an international representative of the Smelter Workers,
and. Hughes had another conversation still later that same evening with either
Larson or Avalos. The Smelter Workers finally agreed to meet with Hughes the
following morning.. I find in this connection that the Respondent Local and
International threatened strike action against the Company for the purpose of
causing the Company, and that it thereby did cause the Company, to deny to
the Electrical Workers an opportunity to attend a meeting at which a final
disposition was made of the grievance in question as herein after`related.
The grievance was taken up the morning of October 15: representing the
Company were Hughes and B. R. Coil, assistant general ' manager of Miami,
and representing the aggrieved employees were Smelter Workers representa-
tives Larson (who took charge of the meeting), Avalos, Glen Proctor (a grievance
committeeman of the Smelter Workers), A. Cortez (financial secretary of the Re-
spondent Local), Gallardo (president of the Respondent Local), and Vito
Giorgio ( a member of and spokesman, in this connection, for the Smelter
Workers). Neither the Electrical Workers nor the Metal Trades Council was
represented. The night before, the Company had advised the Metal Trades
Council and perhaps the Electrical Workers, as well, of the arrangements for
the meeting , but did not invite them to attend because of the Smelter Workers'
threatened refusal to meet with the Company in the Electrical Workers' presence.
However, the Company did request them to be available in the event the Smelter
Workers "would allow their presence." At the meeting the Smelter Workers
stated it would be "inadvisable" to have the Electrical Workers attend. After
the meeting, the Company informed the Electrical Workers what had taken
place.
The aggrieved employees stated at the meeting that they wanted the Smelter
Workers to handle their grievance, whereupon the parties proceeded to consider
the grievance with reference to the substantive provisions of the Electrical
Workers' contract. The matter was finally settled on the basis of promoting
two of the employees in question, the third admitting he didn't have the quali-
fications therefor. Thus, the employees prevailed in their grievance, and this
constituted a final disposition of the matter. During the course of the meeting
the parties also discussed the broader aspects,of problems relating to the train-
ing of employees ; this discussion resulted in an agreement at the meeting
between the Company and the Smelter Workers that the Company would "work
gut an arrangement whereby employees tinder the journeyman's classification
can gain more experience." This agreement applied to all employees of the
Electrical Workers unit.
Shortly after the meeting, the Respondent Local distributed at the plant a
leaflet under its letterhead and signed by Avalos as chairman of the Local's
929979-51-vol. 92--23
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
grievance committee, stating that the grievance meeting had been held betweenx
the Company and the Smelter Workers ; that the matter was settled "to the
satisfaction of the department involved" ; and reciting, among other things, the-
afore-stated agreement respecting job training.2
The complaint next alleges a grievance involving E. C. Humphrey and Vito,
Giorgio.
Humphrey and Giorgio were employed by Respondent Miami in the unit
represented by the Machinists. They were accordingly covered by the Machinists'
contract with the Company when their grievance arose in October 1949. A
written notice of grievance was filed on October 15, under the letterhead of
the Smelter Workers and signed by "A. Cortez, Grievance Committee," and by
the two complaining employees. All parties are agreed that the subject related
to a matter under the Machinists' contract and therefore constituted, I find,
a "grievance" as defined in Article VIII, Section A, of the Contract, as set forth
above ; and it is also agreed that the grievance proceedings were taken up under
the grievance provisions of the Machinists' contract.
A grievance meeting was held on October 18: representing the Company were
Coil, J. W. Steel, and its attorney, J. R. Malott; representing the aggrieved em-
ployees were Smelter Workers representatives Robert R. Hollowwa ,(a party
Respondent and the Respondent Union's representative at the hearing in this
matter) and Cortez, among others. R. T. Jones, a Machinists' representative,
also was present. The aggrieved employees stated at the outset that they de-
sired the Smelter Workers to repreesnt them in the matter. Jones objected
to the handling of the grievance through the Smelter Workers, whereupon
Hollowwa refused to permit him to continue. When Jones made a second
attempt to speak, the entire delegation of Smelter Workers representatives
walked out. Nothing further was done in the matter within 72 hours where-
upon the Company considered the grievance as settled within the applicable
terms of Section C., Subsection 2, Clause B of the Machinists' contract.
On October 27, 1949, another notice of grievance, covering the identical sub-
ject matter involved in the grievance just discussed, was filed by the same parties,
again under the letterhead of the Respondent Union and signed by "Vito Giorgio,
Grievance Committee." Two meetings were held thereon, between represent-
atives of the Company and the Respondent Union, the latter representing the
aggrieved employees. Jones, the Machinists' representative, also attended these
meetings, but took no active part, if any at all, in the discussions. The latter
meeting on November 10, 1949, resulted in a final disposition of the grievance to
the effect that it had no merit within the applicable substantive provisions of
the Machinists' contract.
The third grievance incident set forth in the complaint relates to Hardy James
Jackson.
Jackson was employed by Respondent Inspiration in December 1949. He was
a member of the Machinists unit and was covered by the Machinists' contract
with Inspiration. (I do not credit Jackson's evasive and confused testimony to
the contrary.) On December 7, 1949, a written notice of grievance was sub-
mitted to the Company on behalf of Jackson. The notice appeared on a printed
form of the Smelter Workers and was signed by "H. J. Jackson, Grievance Com-
mittee," the record also showing, in this connection, that Jackson, the aggrieved
employee, was a steward of the Respondent Local at the time. The subject
2 The transcript in this case, at pages 130-131, mistakenly refers to I. B. E. W. Exhibit
No. 1 as I. B. E. W . Exhibit No. 2, and vice versa. The correction is hereby made.
MIAMI COPPER COMPANY 331.
matter of the grievance involved an application of the Machinists' contract and:
was ultimately. resolved under its substantive terms. I find, accordingly, that
the grievance in question constituted a "grievance" as defined in Article VIII,.
Section A, of the Machinists' contract, identical in wording to the afore-statedt
definition of a grievance in the Miami contract.
Jackson Informed the Company that he desired the Smelter Workers to rep-
resent him in prosecuting the grievance. The Company then advised the Machin-
ists concerning the grievance and further advised it as to the time and place of
the meeting thereon. The meeting, held on December 20, was attended by com-
pany representatives, the aggrieved employee, representatives of the Smelter
Workers (including Hollowwa and the Respondent Local's recording secretary
and elected Chief Shop Steward Robert Barcone), and by Shop Steward Jesse
Wolf of the Machinists. Wolf took no part in the proceeding except to protest
the handling of the grievance by the Smelter Workers. It was determined at this
meeting, upon an application of the substantive provisions of the Machinists'
contract, as stated above, that Jackson's complaint had no merit ; thus was the
grievance finally resolved.
It is noted, in recapitulating some of the details common to all the foregoing:
grievances, that the aggrieved employees indicated they were filing individual
grievances and stated their choice of the Respondent Smelter Workers to rep-
resent them in the matter ; the Respondent Companies regarded the grievances
as individual grievances ; the grievances were filed on forms of the Respondent
Smelter Workers and were prosecuted by the Smelter Workers, as such, over the-
protest of the interested exclusive bargaining representatives. (I reject the.
suggestion of the Smelter Workers' representative at the hearing that the Smelter
Workers' officers and other representatives who participated in the grievance.
did so as individuals and not as union officials and representatives ; moreover, the
testimony of the Smelter Workers' own witnesses belies this contention.) The
respective. grievances involved the application of substantive provisions of either
the Machihists's,.or Electrical Workers' contracts and therefore constituted
grievances within the meaning of, and as defined in, these contracts; and a final!
disposition of the grievances was made in each instance with reference to these
contracts. No contention is made, so far as the record shows, that the ultimate
resolution of the merits of the respective grievances was inconsistent with the
pertinent substantive provisions of the contracts of the Machinists and Electrical
Workers. Nor is any contention made that either the Machinists or the Elec-
trical Workers was- unwilling to handle the grievances in question because the-
aggrieved employees were members of the Respondent Union, or that these unions
were guilty of any other disparate treatment of members of the Smelter Workers.
in regard to grievance matters.
D. Other conduct of the Respondent Smelter Workers
The record shows that the Smelter Workers presented other grievances onv
behalf of employees within bargaining units other than their own at the Miami,
and Inspiration operations. The General Counsel also offered credible testimony
to the effect that there was a 24-hour strike at Miami operations on or about
November'15, 1949,'and that Avalos later stated, in effect, that the strike was
called by the Smelter Workers because of their dissatisfaction with the Com-
pany's handling of grievances. The General Counsel attempts to relate this
strike activity to grievances which the Smelter Workers presented on behalf of
employees in units other than their own. The Giorgio-Humphrey grievance, it
X32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
may be recalled , was concluded on October 27, unsuccessfully from the -aggrieved
employees ' viewpoint . However, I am unable to find on the record before me
that the November 25 work stoppage was an aftermath of this grievance or
related to any other grievance which the Respondent Smelter Workers may
have presented on behalf of employees in other units.
There was another 24-hour work stoppage , this time at the Inspiration opera-
tions in February 1950 . This stoppage followed the Company 's announcement
•of its decision adverse to an employee , in connection with a grievance of the
employee within the bargaining unit of the Operating Engineers ! The Smelter
Workers had handled this grievance on behalf of the employee and the General
'Counsel contended that the Smelter Workers instigated this strike in protest
against the Company's disposition of the grievance . The record shows there
was picketing during the strike ; that Respondent Hollowwa and other members
of the Smelter Workers were on the picket line ; that pickets bore signs con-
taining the legend "Miners ' Holiday" ( the Respondent Local is named "Miami
Miners' Union , Local No. 586") ; that Hollowwa and the Respondent Local 's presi-
dent admitted on the day after the strike to Inspiration 's general manager,
T. D. I. Honeyman , that members of the Respondent Local had called the strike
in protest against the Company's action respecting the grievance ; that on the
afternoon of the strike Hollowwa requested Honeyman to reconsider the griev-
:ance, stating during the course of the conversation , "Well , we are out on a
work stoppage . You better do some more talking about this grievance" ; and
that Hollowwa notified Honeyman later that evening that it had been decided
at a meeting of the Respondent Local that the men would return to work.
The Smelter Workers took no position at the hearing on the question of its
:responsibility for the Inspiration strike or the purpose thereof, nor did it
'offer any affirmative testimony to refute the inferences which the General
Counsel sought to establish on the basis of the afore-stated evidence. In any