Millwrights and Machinery Erectors Local 1102

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1962

140 N.L.R.B. 79 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

MILLWRIGHTS AND MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 1102 79
Millwrights and Machinery Erectors Local 1102 , United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, and its
Agent George Horn and Port Huron Sulphite and Paper Com-
pany. Case No. 7-CD-79(2). December 11, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act following charges filed by Port Huron Sulphite and
Paper Company, herein called the Company, alleging that Millwrights
and Machinery Erectors Local 1102, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,1 and its agent George Horn,
had threatened, coerced, or restrained the Company, with an object
of forcing or requiring the Company to assign certain work to members
of Respondent Union rather than to the Company's own employees
who are members of Local 156, International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 156.
A duly scheduled hearing was held before William Naimark, hearing
officer, on August 16, 17, 23, and 24, 1962. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The briefs filed
on behalf of Respondent Union and Respondent Horn and on behalf
of the Company have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record, the Board makes the following findings : 2
1. The Company is engaged at Port Huron, Michigan, in the manu-
facture of lightweight papers and related products. During its last
fiscal year, it sold and shipped to points directly outside the State of
Michigan products valued at $8,000,000. During the same period, it
purchased raw materials valued at approximately $5,000,000 from
points directly outside the State of Michigan. We find that the Com-
pany is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. As stipulated by the parties, Respondent Union and Local 156 are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The dispute :
A. The facts
In 1961, the Company began an expansion program consisting of
the construction of a new warehouse, the erection of a new paper
1 Herein called Respondent Union or Local 1102.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Leedom and Brown].
140 NLRB No. 22
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
machine, herein called the No. 7 machine, and the construction of a
building to house the No. 7 machine. At prejob conferences in 1961
and early 1962, the Company related to representatives of Building
and Construction Trades Unions, including Respondent Union, its
intention to contract out all construction work involved in its expan-
sion program with the exception of the erection of the No. 7 machine
which, it indicated, would be assigned to its maintenance employees.
Respondent Horn, business agent or representative of Respondent Un-
ion, asserted that the machine erection should be performed by mill-
wrights represented by Respondent Union and that it would use every
legal means to secure the work. Local 156, the representative of the
Company's maintenance employees, asserted and maintained its claim
to the work and the Company stood fast in its assignment of the work
to its maintenance employees. Subsequently, in February 1962, the
Respondent Union invoked the Internal Disputes Machinery of the
AFL-CIO in an effort to secure the disputed work for its members.
On May 10, 1962, the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades
Department, to which the dispute was referred, sent it back to the
local level for settlement. The resultant meeting on June 8, 1962,
attended by representatives of the Building and Construction Trades
Department, the Company, and Local 156, produced no change in the
positions of the parties and no solution to the dispute.
Thereafter, on June 19,1962, two members of the Respondent Union
began to picket the Company's plant with a sign reading:
Sulphite Paper Mill Co. assigns work to other than members
United Brothers Carpenters and Joiners. (This is informational
only.)
Employees of the contractors engaged in constructing the building for
the No. 7 machine walked off the job and those who had not yet begun
work refused to enter the premises. Picketing by the two men con-
tinued until enjoined on July 16, 1962, and no work was performed
during that time.
At the end of the hearing herein on August 24, 1962, the Company
introduced into evidence a letter dated July 31, 1962, written by the
executive assistant to the president of the AFL-CIO to the president-
secretary of the International Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers.
This letter indicated that the claim of Local 1102 to the disputed work
had been withdrawn by the Building and Construction Trades Depart-
ment. The Respondent Union and Horn disclaimed any previous
knowledge of the action to which the letter referred. However, in
their brief filed with the Board subsequent to the hearing, Respondent
Horn and the Respondent Union indicated their acquiescence in the
withdrawal of Respondent Union's claim by its superior, the Building
and Construction Trades Department.'
3 By letter to the Board dated November 14, 1962, copies of which were served upon
the parties, the Respondents reaffirmed the position taken in their brief
MILLWRIGHTS AND MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 1102 51
B. Contentions of the parties
The Company contends that Local 1102 violated Section
8(b) (4) (D), that that Union is not entitled to the work, and that
the Board should award the work to the Company's maintenance em-
ployees. Local 156 takes no position as to whether Local 1102 violated
the Act, but otherwise agrees with the Company. The Respondents
deny any violation, and take the position that having submitted the
claim of Local 1102 to the AFL-CIO Internal Disputes Machinery,
they are bound by the result therof and have made no claim to the work
since the result came to their attention. The Respondents move that
the notice of hearing be quashed.
C. Conclusions as to the applicability of the statute
We find it unnecessary to pass upon the merits of the contentions
advanced with respect to a proper award of the work inasmuch as
there are, at present, no competing claims necessary to establish a
dispute cognizable under Section 10 (k) of the Act. While it is true
that conflicting claims to the work existed in the earlier stages of the
proceeding, the Respondents, since learning of the Building and Con-
struction Trades Department's withdrawal of the challenge of Local
1102 to the Company's work assignment, have consistently manifested
their intention to be bound by that decision. Therefore, the present
posture of the matter is that Local 1102 is no longer making any claim
to the work, and all the parties are in agreement with the Company's
assignment. Thus there has been, in effect, a settlement of the dispute.
In these circumstances we shall quash the notice of hearing.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
MEMBER LEEDOMM, dissenting :
I do not agree that the Respondents have withdrawn all claim to
the work in dispute. The Respondents have expressed their acquies-
cence in the Building and Trades Department's withdrawal of their
claim with obvious reluctance, declaring at the same time their dis-
satisfaction with that action and their continued belief that the dis-
puted work falls within their jurisdiction. Such an equivocal position
does not, in my view, give assurance that further work interruptions
will not occur. As I do not believe, in the circumstances of this case,
that the dispute has been settled, I would not quash the notice of hear-
ing but would proceed to a determination on the merits. Whether
an unequivocal disclaimer by Respondents would have warranted
quashing the notice of hearing is a matter I do not have to decide.