N.Y. Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union No. 2

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 770 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD
months without a shipping clerk and suffered no loss. It is highly improbable that
Respondent would have hired an admittedly inexperienced ' shipping clerk as super-
visor of the drivers. -
As to, the allegation that Gutierrez was discharged because he sought to join
Local 27, the sole evidence is the testimony of Gutierrez himself and this ' is con-
fined to the conversation which took place between Gutierrez and Kleinman in the
presence of Ronda and Leggio on May 15. It is to be noted that Gutierrez' testi-
mony that Kleinman told Leggio he was fired because he wanted to join the Union
was not corroborated by Leggio who, as a representative of the Charging Party,
might be presumed to be favorable to Gutierrez .6 Nor does it seem other than
totally irrational that Kleinman, accustomed to dealing with unions , would, after
having been told the purpose 'of Leggio 's visit, wait until Gutierrez appeared and then
tell Leggio that he had fired Gutierrez because he wanted to join the Union. It may
be a suspicious circumstance that Kleinman informed Leggio that Gutierrez had been
fired "2 weeks ago" on the 'very morning that Leggio approached him to ' bargain
concerning Gutierrez ' wages and conditions of employment and to advise him that
Gutierrez had applied for membership . Resorting to the cliche that suspicion is not
proof I cannot find that this, circumstance and Gutierrez ' inherently incredible testi-
mony are sufficient to support a finding of violation and in the words of Ethel Barry-
more, "That's all there is, there isn 't any more."
Respondent had contracts with two unions , there is no evidence of hostility toward
union membership and the fact that Respondent might have to bargain for one' more
employee implied no grave threat to its economic posture. ? There is evidence of a
lack of candor on the part of most of the' witnesses to this proceeding but to support
the General Counsel I would have to credit Gutierrez in full 8 Neither his testi-
mony nor his demeanor was worth such an extension of credit . This case does not
merit extended discussion and it appears to be another in that crescive class'of cases
where the investigatory machinery of the Agency has failed to resolve a simple
credibility issue and it has been sent to hearing for that lone purpose.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 ( a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
6It is not an irrebuttable presumption , at least in the Metropolitan area of New York,
that an agent of a labor organization will favor employees or members as against employers.
7 There Is testimony indicating that Moon paid the replacement for-Guti 'errez $125 per
week. -
8 If the case were to rest on speculation , there is the possibility that Gutierrez , having
been notified of his discharge , prior to May 15, 'applied for -membership in Local 27 for
such protection as it might afford him . Kleinman ' s testimony as to the reason , Gutierrez
gave him for requesting a postponement of the discharge for 2 weeks is a plausible one.
New York Newspaper Printing Pressmen 's Union No.- 2, AFL-
CIO. and - The New York, Times Company and New York Stereo-
typers' Union No. 1; Publishers ' Association of New York
City, Parties in Interest . Case No. 2-CD-988. December 31,
1964
'DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE.,
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, following the filing of charges under Section 8(b)
(4) (D) by The New York Times Company (herein called, the Em-
150 NLRB No. 69.
N.Y. NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION -NO: 2 771•
ployer). The charges alleged that the New York Newspaper Print-
ing Pressmen's Union No. 2, AFL-CIO (herein called the Re-
spondent) had threatened; coerced, and restrained 'the Employer
and induced and encouraged its empolyees to engage in a strike and
a refusal in the course of their employment to use, process, trans-
port,' and otherwise handle and work on goods, articles, materials,
and commodities, and to perform certain services with an object
of forcing and requiring the Employer to assign certain work in-
volving the inspection and marking of plates, the operation of
mechanical conveyors, and all other work taking place between the
cooling arch of the Wood Supermatic_plate casting equipment and
Jampol plate pusher to members of the Respondent rather than
to members of the New York Stereotypers' Union No. 1- (herein
called the Stereotypers).1 -,
A hearing was held before Hearing- Officer Irwin M. Portnoy on
April 28, -29, and 30, and May 1, 1964. All parties' except the
Publishers' Association of New - York City appeared and all 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 Employer, the Respondent, and
the Stereotypers have filed briefs which have been ' duly considered
by the Board.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board makes the, following
findings : 2
I. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
. The parties stipulated and we find that The New York Times
Company is the published of Sunday and daily newspapers, holds
membership in interstate news services, advertises nationally sold
products, and has a gross annual volume of business in excess of
$200,000. As such volume meets the Board's standards for assertion
of jurisdiction over newspapers, we find that The New York Times
Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of -the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and we find that New York Newspaper
Printing Pressmen's Union No. 2, AFL-CIO, and New York
Stereotypers' Union No. 1 are labor organizations as defined in
the Act.
, All of the above-captioned parties, with the exception of the Publishers ' Association
of New York City ( herein called the Association ) participated in the hearing . The Asso-
ciation did not enter an appearance.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , as amended , the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members
Fanning, Brown , and Jenkins].
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M. THE DISPUTE
The particular incident encompassed by the charge, and before
the-Board in this proceeding, involves the Employer's use on Decem-
ber •3, 1963, of new Wood Tensionplate Supermatic machinery to
produce and finish plates at its. West 43d Street,' New York, City,
printing plant, and' its stationing of a stereotyper at the end of the
machine, adjacent to a new continuous (Jampol plate pusher), con=
veyor connected with the main conveyor to the presses. In colinec-
tion with previously used noncontinuous machinery such stereotyper
was stationed some 10 feet farther toward the begining of the, plate
casting operation. The Respondent does not dispute that it caused
a'work stoppage and that its object was that alleged in the charge.
The Employer and other newspapers in the New York City area
have a contractual relationship' with both' the Respondent and the
Stereotypers --through their membership in the Association.' 'This
relationship has been adverted to as of long standing by the Board
in a prior case .3 None of the contracts expressly covers all the work
alleged to be in dispute .4 `
The 'Employer utilized exclusively a noncontinuous plate casting
and finishing process prior to July 1962. Plates were produced by
this process solely at its, West 43d Street, New York City, plant and
some were shipped to its West End Avenue plant, which` prior to
that time did not produce or finish plates but only engaged in- print-
ing. At its West 43d Street plant the Employer had assigned four
stereotypers, as follows : The first stereotyper fed lead into a furnace
where it was heated to a molten form. The second stereotyper
placed mats of fibrous material bearing the imprint of a page (which
was set in type in the composing room) in a casting machine, 'into
which the molten lead was poured, thus producing a cast' of semi-
cylindrical printing plate. The third stereotyper lifted the cast
plate off the casting machine, put it on an adjacent table, ,and put
excess metal which the- casting machine had cut from the plate back
into the furnace for remelting. The fourth stereotyper picked up
the plate from the table, inspected it for latent and patent defects
which may have been caused in casting, marked the plate with a
folio number, and then sent it through the shaver,5 miller,6 and
3 Publishers ' Association of New York City, et at., 139 NLRB 1092, 1093
4 The current contract with the Stereotypers expressly covers ' inspection of plates:
The
prior contract with the Stereotypers , as amended , covered expressly the adjustment of any
temporary mechanical difficulty in the conveyor leading from the Supermatic to the auto-
matic ( Jampol ) plateboy at The New York Times ' plants.
5 The shaver performs the function of shaving the bottom or inside of the plate to
give it the correct thickness to fit the presses.
0 The miller grooves the bottom of the plate . The grooves in the plates are designed
to fit grooves in tension lockup presses If there is not an accurate fit, the plates will
fly off the presses , causing damage to property and possible injury to employees.
N.Y. NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 2 773
cooling arch,? observing whether these operations were functioning
properly. If he observed such machines were not running properly,
'he would signal a plateboy stationed at a short conveyor beyond the
cooling arch, to return the plate to' the stereotype department. The
plateboy -lifted the plate from the end of the short' conveyor onto
the two-way main conveyors to the printing presses, and while doing
so, checked the plate for obvious defects and folio numbers. The
plateboy also marked press numbers on the plates so that the'plate-
boy at the numbered press could take off the plate for that press.
The journeyman pressman also inspected plates for obvious defects
and -returned' them to the stereotype' department if defective, as it
was that department's primary responsibility to inspect the plates.8
In July 1962 the-Employer installed continuous process machinery
-(Wood Tensionplate Supermatic), with the caster, shaver, miller,
and cooler in one enclosed machine, to produce and finish stereotype
plates at its West End Avenue plant. It also installed a continuous
conveyor from such machine to the main conveyor to the presses,
and an automatic one-way conveyor, which eliminated the need for
marking of press numbers and the need for a plateboy near the main
conveyor. ' Pursuant to a settlement agreement between the Stereo-
typers and the Employer, referred to• infra, the Employer assigned
two stereotypers to the machinery. The first stereotyper fed a mat
into one end of the machine and started it. The second stereotyper
lifted the plate out at the other end (the cooling arch end),'in-
spected it and marked it with the folio number, then placed it back
on the conveyor where an automatic Jampol plate lowering.device
lowered it onto the main conveyor to the presses. From there it
went-to the proper press where a plateboy and journeyman press-
man were stationed, performing the same functions they had before.
The Respondent has never objected to the Employer's assignment
at this West End Avenue plant.
On December 3, 1963, the Wood Tensionplate Supermatic machin-
ery was installed at the West 43d Street plant, replacing some of the
noncontinuous Wood automatic plate caster and allied machinery.
Continuous conveyors were also 'installed from such machinery to
the conveyors to the presses, and a Jampol plate pusher was also
installed which eliminated the need for a plateboy to lift the ,plates.9
7 This is the last step in the production and finishing of stereotype plates. There the
plates are cooled by water.
9 There is testimonial conflict as to whether the fourth stereotyper could inspect plates
for shaving and milling defects, as the,plates passed out of his control before the shaving,
milling , and cooling operations under the noncontinuous , process. However, we find .that
the stereotyper did such inspection , visually and by listening to the sound of the machines
9 The Jampol plate pusher at the West 43d Street plant is at the same relative location
in-the process and performs the same function as'the Jampol plate lowering device at the
West End Avenue plant.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When the Employer assigned two stereotypers to the new machinery,
and the second stereotyper was observed doing the inspecting for
obvious defects in the plates, the Respondent struck, admittedly for
the purpose of compelling the Employer to assign all work between
the .cooling arch and the Jampol plate pusher, including inspection
and marking of plates and clearing jams on the conveyor , to plate-
boys represented by it instead of to stereotypers represented by the
Stereotypers to whom the Employer assigned the work.
IV. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Respondent in its brief concludes with a claim of all work
described in the charge, although at one point in its brief its dis-
claimed any other work than marking and inspecting plates and
operating the mechanical conveyor. Its claim is premised chiefly'
on two bases, one, that plateboys stationed at the end of the cooling
arch under the noncontinuous process have always performed the
sole manual inspection for obvious defects in the plates , including
milling and shaving, and have always checked the folio numbers
and trim in the Employer's plant and in all plants in the New York
City area; and two , that its members are not only qualified to per;
form , such duties but are , required to perform them in order to
become journeymen ,, and if not permitted to continue to perform
them, destruction of its journeymen program will occur . It also
makes other contentions discussed infra.
The Stereotypers claims all the work which the Employer has
assigned to employees represented by it. Its claim is in part but-
tressed on the same bases argued by the Employer; i.e., that the
assignment is in accordance with contract , tradition , New York area
and nationwide practice, and, the practice at the West End Avenue
plant. The Stereotypers also argues that only its members are
qualified to perform all the inspection and that considerations of
safety, efficiency , and economy favor the assignment to them.
V. APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
As observed, supra, the Respondent has conceded in its brief that
a jurisdictional dispute exists. The record shows that when the
Jampol plate pusher was placed in operation the president of the
Respondent issued orders to the plateboys not to handle plates from
the Supermatic until the stereotyper, who was to perform inspection
work, was moved back from his station after the cooling arch. ' It
is clear, and we find, that an object of the Respondent 's orders was
as alleged in the charge' and, on the basis of the entire record before
us, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation
N.Y. NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 2 775
of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act has occurred and that the dispute
is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k)
of the Act.
VI. THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirma-
tive award of disputed work, after giving due consideration to vari-
ous relevant factors. The following factors are asserted in support
of the claims of the parties herein :
1. Collective-bargaining agreements. The Employer and the
Stereotypers rely on the contract effective from March 31, 1963, to
March 30, 1965, between the Association and the latter as expressly
giving jurisdiction to the Stereotypers over the inspection and mark-
ing up of plates and the adjustment of mechanical difficulties such
as jam-ups in the portion of the plate conveyor leading from the
Supermatics to the Jampol plate pushers. The Stereotypers relies
also on a settlement agreement amending the prior agreement and
incorporated by reference in the above agreement.1° The Respond-
ent appears to have abandoned its contention, made at the hearing,
that its collective-bargaining agreement effective from December 8,
1960, to December 7, 1962, with the Association gives it jurisdiction
over this work. In any event, we find that there is nothing in this
agreement which expressly gives the Respondent jurisdiction over
the work in dispute. On the other hand, we find that the current
Stereotypers agreement alluded to does expressly give it jurisdiction
over inspection of plates and adjustment of mechanical difficulties in
the conveyor, although it does not expressly give it jurisdiction over
the other claimed work."
2. Natiowwide, New York City area, and Employer practice. The
evidence as to a nationwide practice on the noncontinuous process
appears to be inconclusive. However, Craemer, secretary-treasurer
10 The settlement agreement is in the form of a letter of May 29, 1962 , in which the
Stereotypers contract effective December 8, 1960, was amended as it affected the Em-
ployer. It provided for no less than two journeymen to operate a Wood Supermatic, thus
compromising the claim of the Employer that only one rather than four as formerly was
needed to operate the new machine and operate the mechanical conveyor to the automatic
plateboy It expressly applies to all Supermatics at either plant of the Employer provided
they are substantially similar to those installed at the West End Avenue plant.
11 Section 40 of the current agreement , entitled "MANNING," provides that manning
of machines or equipment as an addition to or as nonidentical replacement of machinery
or equipment presently manned by stereotypers shall be in accordance with agreement of
the parties , or, in the event of a dispute between them , by the Joint Conference Commit-
tee. It provides further, however , that the manning of Wood Supermatic casting machines
at The Times and the Daily News shall be in accordance with the settlement agreements
incorporated by reference The Times agreement , dated May 29, 1962, provides , -inter alie,
that one of two stereotypers assigned to such machine shall have the duty to "adjust any
temporary mechanical difficulty . . . in that portion of the plate conveyor leading from
the machine to its automatic plate boy ." Section 43 of the current agreement , entitled
"JURISDICTION," states : "The jurisdiction of the Union shall include : all branches of
stereotyping . . . and all other methods of duplicate printing plate making . . . the
casting and molding of plates . . . for printing . . . the inspection and finishing and
every process for the completing of such plates for printing and other purpose."
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Stereotypers, testified that in all 17 plants which had Super-
matics in 1962, only stereotypers represented by his Union marked
page numbers on the plates 12 and inspected them for latent and
patent defects, including shaving and milling, and that in all in-
stances such inspection was after the cooling process. However,
Craemer admitted that the journeymen pressmen rejected plates that
were not properly shaved or milled, if they escaped the primary
inspection.
The evidence as to New York City area practice on the noncon-
tinuous process is also inconclusive. However, it is undisputed that
upon the advent of the Supermatics at the New York Daily News 13
and the Employer, the only New York City papers utilizing such
machines, the stereotypers inspected for both latent and patent de-
fects, including shaving and milling, and marked pages where ma-
chines had no automatic numbering device. In fact, as observed,
the Respondent has never objected to the work of the stereotypers
at the West End Avenue plant where only Supermatics are utilized.
On the other hand, prior to 1962 there were posted in both plants of
the Employer instructions that plateboys were to "check all plates
to see that they are properly milled." Also, in March 1959 at the
43d Street plant there were posted job instructions to pressroom
juniors assigned to a shaver to, inter alia. "Keep plates from jam-
ming in the conveyor from the shaver ..."; "Check the folio on the
first plate in each series to be sure it corresponds with the number
put on the plate by the shaver operator"; "Mark the proper press
number on each plate";' "Watch for bad trim, hot plates and other
obvious defects and call them to the attention of the head plateboy."
In December 1955 a "Manual for Juniors" had been issued in the
pressroom containing the same instructions above. While the in-
structions remained posted until shortly before the hearing in this
case, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether they remained job
requirements after the advent of the Supermatics. Prior to the ad-
vent of the Supermatics, the practice at the Employer appears to
have been for the stereotypers to perform the complete primary
inspection at the shaver, including the marking of page numbers,
while the plateboy in the pressroom took care of the conveyor from
the cooler and lifted the plates from it to the main conveyor to the
presses, while incidentally making a check for obvious plate defects
which would be called to the attention of the stereotype department,
which bore primary responsibility.
'12 In some plants the Supermatic machines contained automatic numbering , thus elimi-
nating the need for anyone to mark the page numbers on the plates.
18A settlement agreement dated August 8, 1962, pertaining to the Daily News is, like
the Employer 's settlement agreement, incorporated into and made a part of the Stereotypers
contract of March 31 , 1963. It is similar to that made with the Employer , but because
there is a wall at the Manhattan plant beyond the cooling arch, inspection is made by
lifting the cover thereof. - '
N.Y. NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 2 777
3. Skill and training. The Respondent does not • dispute that
stereotypers represented by the Stereotypers for years have been
trained to inspect plates under their apprentice program. It also
does not dispute that its members have no training in inspection for
latent defects. However, it does dispute that the stereotypers at the
Employer, prior to the advent of the Supermatics, were trained to
perform manual inspection for obvious defects and it points out that
prior thereto the stereotypers had no responsibility over the con-
veyor. While it does not appear that the marking of plates involves
any greater skills possessed by stereotypers than by plateboys, it also
does not appear that the plateboys are qualified to inspect for latent
defects. Further, it does not appear that inspection for obvious
defects, or clearing the conveyor, involves any greater skills pos-
sessed by plateboys than by stereotypers at the Employer's plants.
4. Safety, efficiency, and economy of operation of- Wood Super-
matics. While the testimony is conflicting, it would appear " to be
safe and efficient to inspect the plates emanating from the Wood
Tensionplate Supermatic only after the cooler. At any rate this is
the Employer's assessment of the situation and we are not convinced
otherwise by the record. It would in our view be inefficient and
uneconomical for the Employer to station two employees side, by
side, the one, a stereotyper, to inspect for latent defects, the other,
a plateboy, to mark the plates, inspect for obvious defects, and clear
jams on the conveyor. Commonsense as well would appear to sup-
port the reasonableness of the Employer's assignment.14 It appears
that the introduction of automatic plate movers (Jampol plate
pushers) has eliminated the need for a plateboy where the stereo-
typer now stands. We observe, at this point, that the Wood Super-
matic has also resulted in a reduction from four to two stereotypers.
5. The Respondent's apprenticeship program. This aspect of the
case is dealt with separately from the training and experience of
members of Respondent because the evidence shows that the actual
experience received by plateboys in the plants of the Employer does
not include all the training described in the correspondence course
required for apprentice pressmen. While it is conceivable that such
complete experience might be required of plateboys in those few
plants utilizing noncontinuous machinery, where plateboys appear
to perform duties herein performed by stereotypers, there is no evi-
dence that in the plants of the Employer plateboys in fact gained
practical experience in all phases of such course. Further, the evi-
dence is inconclusive as to whether all journeymen pressmen at the
Employer had been plateboys or apprentices at all. Thus, there is
141nternataonal Association of Machinists , Lodge No '1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones
Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410-1411.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no showing that an assignment of the work to stereotypers will
prejudice the Respondent in its apprenticeship program.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, we believe that stereotypers, rather
than plateboys, are entitled to the work in dispute. In reaching this
conclusion, we rely on the settlement agreement of May 29, 1962,
between the Employer and the Stereotypers, the current collective-
bargaining agreement between the Association, of which the Em-
ployer is a member, and the Stereotypers, the prior nationwide,
New York City area, and Employer practice concerning the disputed
work under the continuous processes, the skills of stereotypers, and
safety, efficiency, and economy of the operations.
Based upon the foregoing, we determine that the disputed work of
marking and inspecting plates, operating the mechanical conveyor,
and all other work between the cooling arch of the Wood Tension-
plate Supermatic machine and the Jampol plate pusher belongs to
stereotypers.16 In making this determination we are, of course,
assigning the disputed work to the employees represented by the
Stereotypers and not to that Union or its members.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent is not entitled by means
proscribed by Section 8'(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require the
Employer to assign the disputed work to its members rather than
to employees represented by the Stereotypers.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute,
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Employees engaged as stereotypers, currently represented by
New York Stereotypers' Union No. 1, are entitled to perform the
inspection and marking of plates, the operation of mechanical con-
veyors and all other work between the cooling arch of Wood Ten-
sionplate Supermatic Machines and Jampol plate pushers at the
plant of The New York Times Company at West 43d Street, New
York City.
2. New York Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union No. 2, AFL-
CIO, is not entitled by- means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) to
force or require The New York Times Company to assign work be-
tween the cooling arch of any Wood Tensionpiate Supermatic ma-
15 Cf. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers ' Union of New York City and Vicinity ( The New
York Times Company), 142 NLRB 704, 707.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS, ETC., LOCAL 526 779
chine and its Jampol plate pusher to employees engaged as plate-
boys, who are currently represented by the New York Newspaper
Printing Pressmen's Union No. 2, AFL-CIO.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, New York Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union
No. 2, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 2,
in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring
the New York Times Company by means proscribed by Section
8 (b) (4) (D) to assign the work in dispute to plateboys rather than
to stereotypers.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
526, AFL-CIO, and Its Agent P . C. Cummins and Bel-Toe
Foundation Co. Case No. 23-CD-79. January 4, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, following a charge filed by Bel-Toe Founda-
tion Co., hereinafter called the Employer, alleging that United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Union 526,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Local 526 or Respondent, and its agent
P. C. Cummins, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of
the Act. The charge alleges in substance, that the Respondent and
its agent P. C. Cummins induced and encouraged employees to en-
gage in a strike or refusal to work, and threatened, coerced, or
restrained the Employer with an object of forcing or requiring the
Employer to assign particular work to employees represented by
Respondent rather than to employees represented by Local 450,
International Union of Portable and Hoisting Engineers, AFL-
CIO, herein called Operating Engineers, Local 450, and by Local
116, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Laborers, Local 116.
Thereafter, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Evert P.
Rhea on July 14 and 15, 1964. 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 by
the Respondent and the Employer have been duly considered.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair-
man McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
150 NLRB No. 70.