Millwrights Local Union No. 1102

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 10 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Millwrights Local Union No. 1102, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; Carpenters District
Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicin-
ities, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO and Don Cartage Company
Millwrights Local Union No. 1102, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO; Carpenters District
Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinities,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO; Detroit and Wayne County, Oakland and Macomb
Counties , Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council
and John Quinn . Cases Nos. 7-CD-97-1 and 2 and 7-CD-97-3-4
and 5. February 18,1966
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
The instant proceeding was originally initiated by charges filed by
Don Cartage Company, hereinafter called Don Cartage, and John
Quinn, an individual, alleging that Millwrights Local Union No. 1102,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, hereinafter called Millwrights 1102, Carpenters District Council
of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinities, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, here-
inafter called Carpenters Council, and Detroit and Wayne Counties,
Oakland and Macomb Counties, Michigan Building and Construction
Trades Council, violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by engaging in a jurisdictional dispute at
General Motors Ternstedt Division in Detroit, Michigan, in order to
force or require Don Cartage and the Ternstedt Division to assign
particular work to members of Millwrights 1102 rather than to mem-
bers of Riggers and Machinery Erectors, Machinery Movers Local No.
575, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Ironworkers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Riggers 575.
Before the National Labor Relations Board had issued a decision in
the matter, an agreement was entered into which settled the dispute at
Ternstedt. On August 16, 1965, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a "Decision and Order Approving Settlement Agreement and
Quashing Notice of Hearing" in that case. 1 Don Cartage and John
Quinn thereafter sought court review of the foregoing Decision and
Order. On November 8, 1965, the General Counsel petitioned the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
1154 NLRB 513.
157 NLRB No. 13.
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION NO. 1102 11
for leave to adduce newly discovered evidence which was neither pre-
sented nor available to the National Labor Relations Board in this
proceeding prior to the initiation of the instant review proceedings.
On January 18, 1966, the United States Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia Circuit granted the General Counsel's petition and
remanded the instant proceedings to the Board with the direction that
"such additional evidence shall be taken before the Board . . . and
the Board's modified findings or new findings by reason of the addi-
tional evidence so taken together with its recommendations if any for
the modification or setting aside of its original order shall be
filed . . . ."
Pursuant to the court's order, the National Labor Relations Board
remanded the foregoing cases for further hearing "for the purpose
of adducing evidence bearing on the question whether Don Cartage,
either directly or by virtue of its membership in the Michigan Car-
tagemen's Association, has `agreed upon methods for the voluntary
adjustment of' jurisdictional disputes." The National Labor Rela-
tions Board further ordered that the evidence to be adduced would
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following documents :
1. Agreement between the International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers of America, AFL-CIO, here-
inafter called the Ironworkers, and the Michigan Cartagemen's Asso-
ciation, dated September 27, 1958.
2. Agreement between the Ironworkers and the Michigan Cartage-
men's Association, dated January 25, 1951.
3. The general working rules of the Ironworkers as of Septem-
ber 27, 1958, and all amendments subsequently made thereto.
4. Opinion and decision of the Appeals Board of the National Joint
Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the matter of
Chevrolet Spring and Bumper Plant, hereinafter called the Good-
fellow case, dated August 25, 1965.
5. "Plan for Settling Jurisdictional Disputes Nationally and Lo-
cally" (commonly known as "the green book"), as of September 27,
1958; as of March 1964, when the Ternstedt dispute arose; and as
currently in effect.
6. "Procedural rules and regulations of the National Joint Board
for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes and Appeals Board Pro-
cedures," as of September 27, 1958; as of March 1964, when the Tern-
stedt dispute arose; and as currently in effect.
7. Constitution of the AFL-CIO, in effect on September 27, 1958.
8. Constitution of the Building and Construction Trades Depart-
ment of the AFL-CIO, in effect on September 27, 1958.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE 2
The newly discovered evidence was contained in an opinion and
decision of the Appeals Board of the National Joint Board for Settle-
ment of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Goodfellow case, dated Au-
gust 25, 1965, wherein reference was made to an International agree-
ment dated September 27, 1958, hereinafter called the 1958 agreement,
between the Ironworkers and the Michigan Cartagemen's Association.
Paragraph 6 of this agreement provides that:
The Employer [Michigan Cartagemen's Association] agrees to
abide by the General Working Rules of (the Ironworkers) and
to pay the scale of wages, work the schedule of hours and con-
form to the conditions of employment in force and effect in the
locality in which the (Michigan Cartagemen's Association) is
performing or is to perform work provided that such conditions
are not in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
Paragraph 9 of this agreement provides that :
In case a dispute arises which involves a question of the scale
of wages or the General Working Rules of the (Ironworkers),
the matter shall be referred to the general president of the (Iron-
workers) and he or his representative shall meet with the repre-
sentative of the (Michigan Cartagemen's Association) who shall
take steps at once to ascertain the facts and render a decision
thereon.
Where the dispute involves scale of wages any decision ren-
dered shall be retroactive to the date on which the dispute
originated.
In case the representative of the (Michigan Cartagemen's Asso-
ciation) and the representative of the (Ironworkers) are unable
to reach an agreement on the facts in the case they may select an
agency mutually agreeable to them to hear and pass upon the case
in dispute.
In 1958 the Ironworkers general working rules provided that claims
pertaining to machinery (moving, hoisting, lowering, and placing on
foundations) "are subject to trade agreements and final decisions of
the AFL-CIO." In 1960 the Ironworkers amended its general work-
2As to the 1951 agreement ( item No. 2 in the Board 's remand order ), the record
establishes that in 1951 , Michigan Cartagemen 's Association 's predecessor , 'Greater
Detroit Cartage Assoc. & Affiliates" entered into an agreement with the Ironworkers
containing substantially the same provisions as the 1958 agreement Don Cartage, among
others, was listed therein as an affiliate , although not all of the affiliates were named in
the agreement. The record further establishes, however, and it is admitted by John H.
Lyons , general president of the Ironworkers , that the 1951 agreement was terminated on
March 17 , 1958 , and that from this date until the effective date of the 1958 agreement,
September 27, 1958, no one was bound . The record also shows that the word "affiliates"
was not used , nor was any affiliate listed, in the 1958 agreement between "Michigan
Cartagemen ' s Association" and the Ironworkers.
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION NO.11102 13
ing rules so as to provide that claims pertaining to machinery "are
subject to trade agreements and decisions of the National Joint Board
for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes."
It is the General Counsel's position that Don Cartage and the Mich-
igan Cartagemen 's Association are, by virtue of the 1958 agreement,
bound to the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdic-
tional Disputes and, therefore , have agreed upon a voluntary method
for settling jurisdictional disputes . More specifically , the General
Counsel contends that Don Cartage and the Michigan Cartagemen's
Association have agreed to "abide by the General Working Rules" of
the Ironworkers as set forth in paragraph 6 of the 1958 agreement.
The General Counsel also contends that the reference to the AFL-
CIO in the general working rules in force in 1958, which provide that
jurisdictional claims were "subject to trade agreements and final de-
cisions of the AFL-CIO," may reasonably be interpreted "to be in
part a reference to the Joint Board for at the time the International
Agreement was executed in 1958, , and at all times since , the Joint
Board was an arm of the AFL-CIO charged with the responsibility
of resolving jurisdictional disputes in the building and construction
industry ." Based on the foregoing , the General Counsel concludes,
in effect, that the 1960 change in the wording of the general working
rules to the effect that jurisdictional claims "are subject to trade agree-
ments and decisions of the National Joint Board for the Settlement
of Jurisdictional Disputes " did not change the meaning or intent as
expressed in 1958, that these working rules have been incorporated in
the 1958 agreement , and that, therefore , Don Cartage and the Mich-
igan Cartagemen 's Association have agreed to abide by the decisions of
the National Joint-Board.
FACTS
The records shows that the Michigan Cartagemen's Association is
composed of three divisions : the Upstate Division, whose function is
not clearly disclosed; the Heavy Haulers Division, which is composed
of companies engaged in moving and erecting machinery, of which
Don Cartage is a member; and the parent Michigan Cartagemen's
Association, whose members are engaged in general drayage.3 ' The
Association is composed of a president, vice president, secretary, and
treasurer, and a board of directors composed of 12 members from
MCA, and 2 each from the Upstate and Heavy, Haulers Divisions.
The primary function of the directors representing the Upstate. and
Heavy Haulers Divisions is to ascertain generally. what is going on in
the trucking business and,to report back to their, respective divisions.
3 For purposes of clarification , the term "Michigan Cartagemen 's Association" or "MCA"
refers to the division engaged in general hauling, and the term "Association " refers to the
composite of the three divisions.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although the secretary of the Association collects dues from each divi-
sion, keeps a record of their participation in the Association, and takes
notes of the meetings held by each division, the three divisions are
practically autonomous in that they have separate officers, pay sepa-
rate dues, control their own affairs, and conduct their own labor nego-
tiations.4 Each division is primarily interested in protecting and
promoting its own interest; in effect, they formed the Association in
order to have an entity to further their similar but different interests.
As indicated above, Heavy Haulers Division conducts its own labor
negotiations without the prior approval of, or the subsequent ratifi-
cation by, the board of directors of the Association. Upon joining the
Heavy Haulers Division, each member submits to this division a power
of attorney which authorizes a committee chosen by its own members
to enter into labor negotiations on behalf of the membership, subject
to ratification by the membership of all labor contracts. It is undis-
puted that the foregoing has always been the method by which labor
contracts have been negotiated in this division. This was well known
to-Riggers 575 which, on one occasion, actually had the Heavy Haulers
negotiating committee physically submit the powers of attorney. It is
clear that both Riggers 575 and Heavy Haulers had the right to ratify
any agreement reached by their negotiating committees, and if their
respective organizations refused to do so, the parties went back into
negotiations. The record is also clear that neither of the other two
divisions, nor any officer thereof, had any authority to bind any other
division. Despite the foregoing, however, William Thorpe, president
of the Association in 1958, signed the 1958 agreement which was cap-
tioned as being between the"Michigan Cartagemen's Association" and
the Ironworkers.,' Thorpe testified, however, that he had no authority
to sign the 1958 contract and that he did so at the request of Schaeff-
ner, MCA's attorney now deceased, because Schaeffner had told him
that if Thorpe would sign the agreement, this would extricate one of
Schaeffner's private clients from a labor dispute. Thorpe further
testified that he knew nothing about being bound to the National Joint
Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes when he executed
the 1958 agreement, that he never received a copy of the Ironworkers'
general working rules, and that he never received any notification of
4 At some time in the past, prior to 1958, the board of directors of the Association
delegated to each division the power and authority to conduct their own negotiations with
complete autonomy.
5 Article VI of the bylaws of the Association , revised as of 1957, delineates the officers
of the corporation and their duties. Section 4 thereof , in outlining the duties of the
president , states, inter alma, that the president "shall execute all written contracts of the
Corporation and shall countersign all checks with the Treasurer and shall perform all
such other duties as are incident to his office ." This, however , appears to be descriptive
of ministerial acts only , and does not cover substantive matters.
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION NO. 1102 15
the change in the wording of the general working , rules in 1960 or
thereafter . He further testified that he never notified the Iron-
workers of his lack of authority to execute the 1958 agreement.
The foregoing was corroborated by the testimony of Attorney Ed-
ward Sanders , executive secretary and custodian of the record of the
Association from 1954 to 1961 , at which time he left the Association.
Sanders testified , in addition ,, that he transmitted the executed. 1958
agreement to the Ironworkers upon Schaeffner 's direction to him to do
so and that although he protested that the agreement should have a
corporate attestation , Schaeffner directed him to forget it in this in-
stance. He also testified that the board of directors never learned of,
or discussed , the 1958 agreement , and that this agreement had never
been brought to the attention of the membership or the negotiating
committee of the Heavy Haulers Division . Sanders further testified
that he does not know how the 1958 agreement got into the MCA
files, but that he assumes that Schaeffner placed it there.
Charles Quig, manager of the MCA and keeper of this division's
records since August of 1961, testified that the minutes of the Associ-
ation contained no reference whatsoever to this 1958 agreement. This
fact was further corroborated by the minutes of the Association dated
several months prior and subsequent to the date on which the 1958
agreement was executed , which were introduced into evidence both by
testimony and by documentation . Quig testified that he first learned
of the 1958 agreement subsequent to the issuance of the opinion and
decision of the Appeals Board of the National Joint Board in 1965,
in the Goodfellow case. Thereafter , Quig searched his files, found the
agreement , and notified MCA and the other two divisions of this
agreement . Quig further testified that the Heavy Haulers Division
has always negotiated its own contracts and that the president of the
Association has no connection whatsoever with such contracts. Quig
also testified that he had never received any general working rules
from the Ironworkers or any notification of any changes in the
working rules. _
Donald Jardine, general manager of Don Cartage from approxi-
mately 1950 to 1961, and thereafter president of his own company
which is a member of the Heavy Haulers Division, in effect, cor-
roborated the foregoing testimony . Thus, Jardine testified that the
MCA had never participated in negotiations or signed a contract with
Riggers 575, and that MCA is completely independent and separate
from the Heavy Haulers Division . He also testified that Thorpe had
no authority to sign the 1958 agreement on behalf of the Heavy Haul-
ers, that neither he nor Don Cartage had ever delegated authority to
Thorpe to sign the agreement, and that he had never before heard of
the 1958 agreement , nor received any general working rules or notifi-
cation of any changes in these work rules.
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richard Royce, present treasurer and general manager of Don
Cartage as well as a member of the Heavy Haulers negotiating com-
mittee and the board of directors of the Association, testified that only
Don Cartage can sign contracts on behalf of Don Cartage, that neither
Thorpe nor anyone else was ' authorized to execute contracts on Don
Cartage's behalf, that MCA is completely separate from Heavy
Haulers and does not participate in any way in Heavy Haulers nego-
tiations, and that Heavy Haulers negotiates its own contracts subject
to ratification by its members.
John H. Lyons, general president of the Ironworkers, testified that
although the Ironworkers may unilaterally change'the general work-
ing rules and thereby bind an employer, the' absence of such provision
in the 1958 agreement would not change this result because this' was
a "matter of practice." There' is, however, nothing in the 'record
beyond the foregoing assertion that such is, in fact, a matter of, prac-
tice. Lyons' fu'rther' testified that the general` working rules appli-
cable in 1958, which stated that jurisdictional claims are "subject to
trade agreements arid final decisions of the AFL-CIO` did not change
any established practice even though, in 1960, the general working
rules were changed by the Ironworkers to state that jurisdictional
claims are "subject to trade agreements and decisions of the National
Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes." In
explicating this statement, Lyons testified to the effect that originally
the AFL made craft jurisdictional determinations by convention
action, later jurisdiction was determined by the Building and Con-
struction Trades Department, later in 1948, by the Building Trades
Department under the'National Joint Plan. In effect, Lyons testi-
fied that some arm in the labor movement made craft jurisdic-
tional determinations and implied that the'National Joint Board was
specifically empowered to do so, at least in 1958.6 Lyons also testi-
fied that an employer must abide by the general working rules if that
employer is in' contract with the Ironworkers itself or with a local
6In 1958, as well as in 1966, the green book ( plan for settling jurisdictional disputes
nationally and locally ) provided that "It shall be the duty of the Joint Board to consider
and decide cases of jurisdictional disputes in the building and construction industry,
which disputes are referred to it by any of the International Unions involved in the
dispute, or an employer directly affected by the dispute on the work in which he is
engaged or by a participating organization representing such employer " There is,
however, no evidence in the instant case that anyone referred any dispute to the Joint
Board.
The procedural rules and regulations of the National Board for the Settlement of Juris-
dictional Disputes, as amended , in both 1949 and 1965 provide as follows : "These pro-
cedures shall apply to: ( a) contractors who employ members of the organizations af-
filated with the Building and Construction Trades Department , AFL-CIO, and who have
signed a stipulation setting forth that they are willing to be bound by the terms of the
agreement establishing the Joint Board, or who are members of a signatory association of
contractors with authority to bind its members, or who are parties to a collective-bargaining
agreement providing for the settlement of jurisdictiodal disputes under the procedures
herein set forth , ( b) all unions affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades
Department , AFL-CIO, in the building and construction industry."
6
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION NO. 1102 17
union, since, in the latter event, each local agreement incorporates the
General Working Rules, and they are binding upon each local. Lyons
further testified that although the local unions must comply with the
Ironworkers' general working rules, an employer need not do so if the
local has not incorporated the General Working Rules in a contract
with the employer. Lyons also testified with regard to paragraph 9
of the 1958 agreement which, in effect, provides that attempts to settle
disputes involving the general working rules -shall be made first by
representatives 'of the Ironworkers and the,employer and that if they
"are 'unable to reach an agreement-on the. facts in, the case they may
select an agency mutually agreeable tc them to hear and pass upon
the case in dispute." Lyons stated as follows with regard to the ques-
tion of whether, since br- before 1958,• there has been any dispute in-
volving paragraph 9.
Q. Do you know from your knowledge whether or not there
were any such disputes which 'arose between the International
and the Michigan Cartagemen's Association or Don Cartage?
A. No, not between the International. But disputes were re-
ferred to the International in accordance with 9, and a settlement
was reached.
Q. Between who?
A. Between Michigan Cartagemen's Association and the In-
ternational Association and the local union involved.
Q. That would be Riggers 575?
A. No. Various locals around the country.
Finally Lyons testified that the 1957 arbitration award which at-
tempted to settle the running jurisdictional dispute between Mill-
wrights 1102 and Riggers 575, and which was used by the Ironwork-
ers in an attempt to settle the dispute in this proceeding, is a "trade
agreement." 7
Paul Allen; business manager and a member of Riggers 575's nego-
tiating committee since 1937, corroborated testimony to the effect that
Heavy Haulers negotiated with Riggers 575 pursuant to powers of
attorney and subject to ratification of any agreement reached by the
membership of the Heavy Haulers, and that Riggers 575 once re-
quired Heavy Haulers to physically produce these powers of attorney.
He also testified that the Ironworkers is not a party to Riggers 575's
contracts, that the Ironworkers do. not require the general working
rules to become part of Riggers 575's contracts, and that the Iron-
workers have approved every Riggers 575's contract ever negotiated.
7 On October 16, 1957, Don Cartage signed an affidavit of agreement to abide by the
1957 award in order to save a job on which it was working in return for a cessation
of a strike in which members of Millwrights 1102 were engaged against Don Cartage
at the time. Don Cartage, however, cancelled and terminated this agreement on
April 5, 1960.
1$ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He further testified that the General Working Rules are not incor-
porated in Local 575's contracts with any member of Heavy Haulers
and that these employers are not bound by the general working rules-
"if they were binding we would put them in our collective bargaining
agreement." Allen also testified that the 1957 arbitration award is
not an International agreement.
In addition to the foregoing, evidence in the record further indi-
cates that attempts to settle jurisdictional disputes between the
parties were made without reference to or utilization of the 1958
agreement. Thus, in a letter dated March 2, 1960, from Ironworkers
General President Lyons to the attorney then representing the Heavy
Haulers Division and pertaining to disputes in which members of this
division have been involved with Millwrights 1102, President Lyons
stated, inter alia :
The more important or fundamental question in this entire
subject matter is whether the Heavy Haulers Division of the
Michigan Cartagemen's Association is interested in trying to
find by negotiation a mutually acceptable solution to these
principles . . .
President Lyons further stated:
In conclusion I wish to state that President Hutcheson [presi-
dent of Carpenters] and I are willing to arrange for meetings to
be held between the International Unions, the Local Unions and
the Heavy Haulers Division of the Michigan Cartagemen's Asso-
ciation, at which meetings Mr. John T. Dunlop would be present
[unless specific objection is' raised by your committee] to see if
we can not resolve by mutual agreement, the problems that appar-
ently exist as per your letter of January 27.
We would like to know if the Employers whom you represent
desire to negotiate these questions or problems which are subject
to amendment or resolution and of course, we desire to know if
your Employers are willing to negotiate in good faith and on a
practical basis. If so, it must be expressly understood that if an
agreement is reached, the members of the Heavy Haulers Division
of the Michigan Cartagemen's Association would be expected to
sign a stipulation that they would conform to such agreement,
and make all assignments of work in accordance therewith.
This conclusion is further manifested in a letter from the construc-
tion industry joint conference to the Association, dated August 16,
1965, which stated, inter alia :
As you are well aware, I have long felt that it would be fruit-
ful for the Michigan Cartagemen's Association, the Ironworkers
International Union and the Carpenters International Union to
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION NO. 1102 19
sit down around a table to discuss the problems which created
jurisdictional strife in the Detroit and Eastern Michigan area
over the installation of machinery. It is my conviction that only
in this way may a practicable, viable and permanent meeting of
minds to be achieved.
I would like to propose more specifically that a committee of
the Michigan Cartagemen's Association join me in Washington
late in the afternoon of Wednesday, August 25, for a discussion
including dinner and for a meeting throughout the next day,
Thursday, August 26, with a committee representing the Iron-
workers International Union and the Carpenters International
Union to explore fully the problems and to consider ways of
settling jurisdictional controversies. Such a joint meeting should
be held in my view, without any conditions being imposed by
anyone of the three sides.
Based on all of the foregoing, we are not satisfied that the record
as a whole substantially supports the General Counsel's position that
the Employers had agreed to be bound by the procedures of the Joint
Board as an agreed upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the
present jurisdictional dispute. Accordingly, we find no need, on
the basis of the supplemental record, to revise our prior order issued
herein.8
MEMBER JENKINs, dissenting in part :
I join in my colleagues' finding that the record developed on remand
shows that neither Don Cartage Company nor Michigan Cartage-
men's Association was or is bound to the National Joint Board for
settlement of this dispute. However, my colleagues have treated the
remand order of the court as permitting no recommendation concern-
ing the Board's original decision in light of the evidence developed at
the hearing on remand. With this I disagree.
8 During the course of the hearing, Don Cartage and the Heavy Haulers Division, and
Riggers 575 and John Quinn raised certain motions and appeals relative to the course
and conduct of the hearing which, by agreement, were to be disposed of by the Board rather
than by the Hearing Officer. In view of our disposition of this proceeding , we find that
the motions and appeals are moot. In the absence of any opposition thereto, we hereby
grant Millwrights 1102's and Carpenters Council's motion to correct official report of
proceedings.
While the record does not establish that all parties hereto have agreed upon methods
for voluntary adjustment, which would be the occasion for quashing the original notice
of hearing in this or like disputes, neither does it, in our view and contrary to our dis-
senting colleague 's estimate , wholly foreclose the possibility that Joint Board awards in
future disputes of this character submitted by the two contending unions may prove
acceptable to this Employer or helpful to the Board if its procedures are again invoked.
We consider this matter not to be encompassed by the court 's remand, however.
221-374-66-vol. 157-3
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In dissenting from the original decision not to determine this dis-
pute, I observed that not only was the dispute of long standing, but
that it was incumbent upon the Board to make a proper determination
of it. The facts related by the majority herein buttress that position;
they disclose that the Employers were and are not bound to submit
this longstanding and continuing dispute to the Joint Board, and
both the Employers and Riggers apparently were careful to avoid
doing so. This attitude can, on the evidence now before us, be ex-
pected to persist, thereby undercutting a principal reason for the
Board's original refusal to determine the dispute, namely, the hope
that the Joint Board would provide a channel for resolution of this
dispute. Consequently, I see little hope for labor peace in this area
unless this Board undertakes a proper consideration of this case. This
Board, it appears from the evidence offered on remand, is the only
forum which presently can make an effective decision.
For the above reasons and in accordance with the terms of the
remand, I would recommend to the court that it return the case to the
Board for a determination of the dispute and an award in accordance
therewith.
Local 370, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO and Baughan Plumbing and Heating
Company, Incorporated . Case No. 7-CC-306. February 21,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 29, 1965, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial
Examiner further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
an exception to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
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 Trial
157 NLRB No. 2.