Seafarers Int'l Union of North America, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 1142 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
-mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Lorrayne Johnson immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority
and other rights and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or re-
maining members of Hotel-Motel -Restaurant & Club Employees Union , Local 353,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
BAKER HOTEL OF DALLAS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the'date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room
2093 , Federal Center , 300 West Vickery, Fort Worth , Texas , Telephone Number,
Edison 5-5341, Extension 284, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance ,'with its provisions.
Seafarers International Union of North America , Great Lakes
District , AFL-CIO and Office Employees International Union,
Local 10, AFL-CIO and Allied Marine Section , Great Lakes
Tug and Dredge Region, Inland Boatmen 's Union , affiliated
with Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlan-
tic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters Union, AFL-CIO, Party
to the Contract. Case No. 7-CA-3164. September 28, 190,
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 23, 1962, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report together with,a supporting brief.
The Board i 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
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings; conclusions, and recom-
mendations 3 of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein 4
'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 [ Members Leedom, Panning,
and Brown].
2 We hereby correct an inadvertence contained in section III, B of the Intermediate
Report. It was on May 5, rather - than on May 4 , as stated by the Trial Examiner, that
Respondent relied on its assistant secretary -treasurer 's telegram to justify its refusal to
negotiate further with Local 10 . Accordingly , we find that Respondent ' s actions of
May 2 , 3, and 5 , rather than of May 2 , 3, and 4 , as found by the Trial Examiner, establish
its unlawful refusal to bargain.
3 For the reasons stated in Isis Plumbing 4 Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, we adopt the
Trial Examiner 's recommendation, as set forth in "The Remedy " section of the Inter-
138 NLRB No. 130.
SEAFARERS INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ETC. 1143
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Seafarers Inter-
national Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO,
10255 W. Jefferson Avenue, River Rouge, Michigan, its officers, agents,
representatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, with Office Employees International Union, Local 10,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in
the following appropriate unit :
All office clerical employees employed by Respondent at 10255 W.
Jefferson Avenue, River Rouge, Michigan, excluding supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
(b) Recognizing or dealing with Inland Boatmen's Union, Allied
Marine Section as the exclusive representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in said appropriate unit.
(c) Giving any force or effect to the collective-bargaining agree-
ment dated June 16, 1961, with said Inland Boatmen's Union, Allied
Marine Section, or to any amendment, supplement, or addition thereto.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
mediate Report, that the Respondent 's make-whole obligation include the payment of
6 percent interest on the dues and other moneys withheld and ordered reimbursed while
interest would ordinarily begin running on the date such moneys were illegally exacted,
for reasons of administrative feasibility we shall order that interest, as in the case of
backpay, be computed on the basis of separate calendar quarters . Member Leedom, for
reasons stated in the dissent in the aforementioned case, would not grant any interest in
the instant case.
4 While we adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1)
and (2 ) of the Act by its interference with the administration of, and support of, the
IBU and its Allied Marine Section, we do not adopt his finding that the Respondent's
actions constituted domination of the IBU and its Allied Marine Section in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (1) and (2) of the Act. The IBU was organized and was active as a labor
organization , with a status equal to and on the same level with the Respondent in the
organizational hierarchy of the SIU, long before the events of the instant case In our
opinion the facts detailed in the Intermediate Report , which accurately reflect the record,
are insufficient to establish domination of the IBU and its Allied Marine Section by the
Respondent . Even so, however , we believe that the refunding of moneys exacted under
Respondent 's unlawful contract with IBU in favor of the IBU , as recommended by the
Trial Examiner, is warranted by the circumstances of the case
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Office Employees Inter-
national Union, Local 10, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any
understanding reached.
(b) Withdraw and withhold recognition from Inland Boatmen's
Union, Allied Marine Section, and cease dealing with said union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in the aforedescribed appropriate unit.
(c) Refund to each of the employees in said appropriate unit all
moneys unlawfully exacted from them in the form of initiation fees,
dues, and assessments to Inland Boatmen's Union, as set forth in "The
Remedy" section of the Intermediate Report, as modified herein.
(d) Post at its place of business at 10255 W. Jefferson Avenue,
River Rouge, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Seventh Region, shall, upon being duly signed by
Respondent's representatives, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.
6In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL upon request, bargain collectively with Office Em-
ployees International Union, Local 10, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and
embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. The
appropriate bargaining unit is :
SEAFARERS INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ETC. 1145
All office clerical employees employed by Respondent at
10255 W. Jefferson Avenue, River Rouge, Michigan, exclud-
ing supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
WE WILL NOT recognize, and hereby withdraw and withhold
recognition from, Inland Boatmen's Union, Allied Marine Sec-
tion, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the above-
found appropriate bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT give any force or effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated June 16, 1961, with said Inland
Boatmen's Union, Allied Marine Section, nor to any amendment,
supplement, or addition thereto.
WE WILL refund to each of the employees in the appropriate
unit aforementioned all moneys unlawfully exacted from them
in the form of initiation fees, dues, and assessments to Inland
Boatmen's Union with interest thereon at 6 percent.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of Office Employees International
Union, Local 10, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, GREAT LAKES
DISTRICT, AFL-CIO,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Industrial Building, 232 W. Grand River, Detroit, Michigan,
Telephone Number, Woodward 2-3830, if they ht,ve any question
concerning this notice.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed May 5, 1961, by Office Employees International Union,
Local 10, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Local 10 or Charging Party, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the General
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel I and the Board respectively , by the Regional Director for the Seventh
Region ( Detroit , Michigan ), issued his complaint dated September 7, 1961, against
Seafarers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District , AFL-CIO,
herein called the Respondent or SIU-GL. The complaint alleged that Respondent
SIU-GL had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2 ), and (S ) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended , herein called
the Act, by assisting , recognizing , executing , and enforcing a collective -bargaining
agreement with Allied Marine Section , Great Lakes Tug and Dredge Region, Inland
Boatmen 's Union , affiliated with Seafarers International Union of North America,
Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters Union , AFL-CIO, herein referred to as
Allied Marine or IBU, covering the clerical employees of SIU-GL, and thereby
refusing to bargain with Local 10 as the exclusive bargaining representative of those
clerical employees.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but
denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
By order of the Regional Director IBU was permitted to, and did , intervene in
order to protect its interest.
Pursuant to notice a hearing thereon was held at Detroit , Michigan , on Novem-
ber 20 and 21, 1961 , before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson . All parties appeared
at the hearing, were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to be
heard , to produce , examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence
material to the issues, and were advised of their right to argue orally upon the
record and to file briefs , proposed findings and conclusions or both . At the conclu-
sion of the hearing the Respondent and Intervenor moved to dismiss the complaint.
This motion was taken under advisement and is hereby denied. Briefs were received
from Respondent and Intervenor and from General Counsel on January 29, 1962.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Seafarers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO
(SIU-GL) is a labor organization having its headquarters and a place of business
at 10225 W. Jefferson Avenue, River Rouge, Michigan . SIU-GL is affiliated with
and chartered by Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf,
Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO (SIU-A and G) which, in turn, is
affiliated with and chartered by Seafarers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO (SIU). SIU, and SIU-A and G both maintain an office and place of
business at 675 Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, where Respondent SIU-GL
also maintains an office.
SIU, SIU-A and G, and Respondent SIU-GL at their various offices and places of
business are now and have been at all times material herein engaged in the representa-
tion of their respective members in collective bargaining concerning wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment and maintain collective-bargaining
agreements with various employers engaged throughout the United States in the
transporting by means of ships, vessels , boats, barges , and other methods of water
transportation , of goods and raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000 among
the several States of the United States
SIU-A and G and Respondent SIU-GL are now and have been at all times
material herein subordinate labor organizations affiliated with and existing by virtue
of charters issued by SIU and are subject to and bound by the constitution of SIU.
Annually in the normal course of conduct of its business operations, SIU, a
national organization with over 75,000 members and 105 port branches, receives
at its Brooklyn , New York, office from points outside the State of New York, dues,
initiation fees, assessments , and other moneys from members and other individuals
through its affiliated and subordinate labor organizations , including Respondent,
which collectively represent over 20,000 members and over 40 port branches, in
amounts in excess of $400,000.
Annually, in the normal course and conduct of its operations , Respondent
SIU-GL receives at its River Rouge, Michigan, headquarters and place of business
dues, initiation fees, assessments , and other moneys from its members and other
'This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the
hearing
SEAFARERS INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ETC. 1147
individuals in amounts in excess of $200,000, and during the same period, in the
normal course and conduct of its operations, Respondent sends from its headquarters
and place of business in River Rouge, Michigan, directly to Brooklyn, New York,
checks, drafts, money orders, and other moneys in amounts in excess of $50,000.
The complaint alleges, Respondent and Intervenor admit, and the Trial Examiner
finds, that Respondent SIU-GL is engaged in commerce.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Office Employees International Union, Local 10, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of Respondent SIU-GL.
Allied Marine Section, Great Lakes Tug and Dredge Region, Inland Boatmen's
Union, affiliated with Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic,
Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent and is affiliated
with and chartered by SIU-A and G. Allied Marine at all times material herein
has maintained an office and a place of business at 10225 W. Jefferson Avenue,
River Rouge, Michigan.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. The relationship of the parties hereto
Structurally SIU, AFL-CIO,2 one of America's great maritime unions, is a com-
plicated organization composed of a large number of affiliated unions chartered by
SIU. The main component parts of SIU are the following: (1) SIU-Atlantic, Gulf,
Lake and Inland Waters District (SIU-A and G); (2) Sailors' Union of the Pacific
(SUP), and (3) Canadian Seamen's Union.
These named affiliated and chartered unions are themselves, in turn, composed
of other subsidiary affiliated unions which each have themselves chartered.
Thus SIU-A and G is composed, in part, of subsidiary affiliated and chartered
organizations known commonly as (1) SIU-Great Lakes District (SIU-GL); and
(2) since 1960, Inland Boatmen's Union (IBU).
To complete the story as relevant here, IBU itself is composed of the following
similarly affiliated unions chartered by itself: (1) Tugmen's Union; (2) Dredgemen's
Union; and (3) Allied Marine. Prior to their 1960 affiliation, the Tugmen's Union
and the Dredgemen's Union had been autonomous international unions themselves
with some 60 years' history.
For the sake of simplicity a genealogical chart of SIU would look like this:
SIU
Canadian Sleamen's
SUP SIU-A and G Union
SIU-GL IBU
Tugmen Dredgemen Allied Marine
A summary of some of the officers of these various organizations is also perti-
nent to the questions at issue here:
By virtue of the constitutional amendment adopted in April 1960, SIU-A and G
had the following officers, among others: Paul Hall, president; Cal Tanner, execu-
tive vice president; Al Tanner, vice president in charge of the lakes and inland
waters; Al Kerr, secretary-treasurer.
The constitution of the Inland Boatmen's Union adopted in November of 1960
provided for the following officers pro tem until the permanent officers were elected
in an election to be held in May 1961: Paul Hall, national director; Al Kerr,
2In the interest of time and space all official titles have here been shortened to those
In common usage
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
secretary-treasurer; Lindsey Williams, Gulf coast area director; Earl Shepard, At-
lantic coast area director; Al Tanner, Great Lakes area director.
The elected head of SIU-GL was Fred J. Farnen, its secretary-treasurer. The
assistant secretary-treasurer of SIU-GL was Stanley F. Thompson. The assistant
secretary-treasurership of SIU-GL is an elective office.
As a result of the IBU election of May 1961, August Wolf became its national
director and Robert Jones, its Great Lakes area director. Jones had his head-
quarters at 10225 W. Jefferson Avenue, River Rouge, Michigan, the same building
where SIU-GL had its headquarters.
The constitution of SIU-A and G under which both SIU-GL and IBU were
chartered contains the following:
Article II
Affiliation
SECTION 1. This Union shall be affiliated with the Seafarers International
Union of North America and the American Federation of Labor-Congress of
Industrial Organizations. All other affiliations by the Union or its subordinate
bodies or divisions shall be made or withdrawn as determined by a majority
vote of the Executive Board.
SEC. 2. In addition to such other provisions as are contained herein, all
subordinate bodies and divisions seeking a charter from and/or affiliation with
this Union, shall be required to adopt, within a time period set by the Executive
Board, a constitution containing provisions as set forth in Exhibit A, annexed
to this constitution and made a part hereof. All other provisions adopted by
such subordinate bodies and divisions as part of their constitution shall not
be inconsistent therewith. No such constitution or amendments thereto shall
be deemed to be effective without the approval of the Executive Board of this
Union, which shall be executed in writing, on its behalf, by the President or,
in his absence, by any other officer designated by it. Such approval shall be
deemed to be recognition of compliance herewith by such subordinate body
or division.
Where a subordinate body or division violates any of the foregoing, and, in
particular, seeks to effectuate any constitutional provision not so authorized
and approved, or commits acts in violation of its approved constitution, or fails
to act in accordance therewith, this Union, through its Executive Board, may
withdraw its charter and/or sever its affiliation forthwith, or on such terms as it
may impose not inconsistent with law, in addition to exercising any and all
rights it may have pursuant to any applicable agreements or understandings.
SEC. 3 This Union shall also have the power, acting through its Executive
Board, and after a fair hearing, to impose a trusteeship upon any subordinate
body or divisions chartered by and affiliated with it, for the reasons and to
the extent provided by law.
The constitution of each of these members of the SIU family of unions contains
identical sections to those above quoted.
The headquarters of SIU-GL is, as previously noted, located at 10225 W Jefferson
Avenue, River Rouge, Michigan, where Fred Farnen, secretary-treasurer 3 and
Stanley F. Thompson, assistant secretary-treasurer, have their offices. In addition
Al Tanner, vice president SIU-A and G in charge of the Great Lakes district and
also, until the elections of May 1961, Great Lakes area director pro tem of IBU
under the IBU constitution adopted about November 1,960, had offices in the same
building. Furthermore, Robert Jones, elected area director for IBU, had his head-
quarters in this same building
At this location SIU-GL also employs a staff of six clericals, stenographers, clerk-
typists, telephone operators, etc , who perform the clerical work required by SIU-A
and G, SIU-GL, and by IBU and its affiliates, Dredgemen's Union, Tugmen's Union,
and Allied Marine.
The following interrogation of employee Christine Plump, who objected to the
description of her position as the "private secretary" to Al Tanner, although ac-
knowledging that she did most of Tanner's secretarial work, is informative:
Mr CHERPELIS• Did you do any work for Mr. Jones [area director IBU]9
The WITNESS: I guess I worked for just about every man that has been in
that building, as far as working for the SIU. I have done work for Mr. Jones,
yes.
3 Until the 1960 amendment to the SIU constitution, the office of secretary-treasurer
in the family of SIU unions had been traditionally the top elective office
SEAFARERS INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ETC. 1149
Mr. CHERPELIS: That is part of your normal work pattern even today?
The WITNESS: Yes, very definitely 1 work at whatever is the most important
that day. If it is for Mr. Jones, we work on that. If for Mr. Tanner, we work
on that. If it is for Mr. Denison, whatever has first priority gets my time and
attention and the other girls.
This clerical staff is paid by funds of SIU-GL except for some few instances when
one or more of them were paid from funds of the St. Lawrence Seaway Organizing
Fund, a fund made up in part by contributions from S1U-A and G.
2. The Negotiations
For about 15 years, or since about 1947, this clerical staff of SIU-GL has been
represented in collective bargaining by Office Employees International Union, Local
10, and for about that same period of time there have been in existence collective-
bargaining agreements between SIU-GL, as the employer, and Local 10 as the
exclusive bargaining representative of these same clerical employees.
It also so happens that the New York Local of Office Employees International
Union has represented and had collective- bargaining contracts covering the clerical
staff employed at SIU headquarters located at 675 Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn, New
York, where officers and officials of SIU, SIU-A and G, SIU-GL, IBU, and others
have also been stationed.
On or about October 27, 1960, Thelma O'Dell, president and business representa-
tive of Local 10, notified SIU-GL that at the termination of its present agreement
on December 31, 1960, Local 10 desired to negotiate changes in that agreement.
Under date of November 18, 1960, Ray Denison, then office manager for SIU-GL
in River Rouge, notified Local 10 as follows:
In reference to your letter of October 27 in which you served notice that it is
the desire of Local 10 to make changes in the current collective-bargaining
agreement, this will advise you that all matters relating to the negotiation of
agreements are now being handled by the New York offices of the Union.
I would suggest that you contact Mr. Al Kerr at the Seafarers International
Union, 675 Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn 32, New York, in reference to arranging
for negotiations.4
On January 26, 1961, Kerr for the Respondent and O'Dell and Ethel Hurst,
Local 10 shop steward at SIU-GL and an SIU-GL employee for 20 years, sat down
in Detroit and, in the estimation of Al Kerr at least, agreed upon the terms for the
new contract.
By letter dated February 24, 1961, O'Dell, however, introduced four new and
different items as a "counterproposal." By letter dated March 3 Kerr accepted two
of these items and rejected two, thereby leaving hospitalization and severance pay
as well as sick leave still unsettled.
This was followed, apparently, by some telephonic conversations between the
New York headquarters of OEIU and Kerr over the disputed items. Again agree-
ment apparently was reached. Although maintaining that the New York head-
quarters of OEIU were not authorized by Local 10 to conduct such negotiations
with Kerr in New York, O'Dell expressed her satisfaction with the results to OEIU
but not to Respondent.
By letter dated April 4, 1961, on the letterhead of SIU-A and G, Kerr advised
O'Dell as follows.
This letter is to advise you that any further negotiations , relative to the
office employees in our Detroit office are to be conducted with Al Tanner, our
vice president in charge of our Great Lakes operations.
You will find Mr. Tanner located in our Detroit office.
About the middle of April O'Dell met with the SIU-GL employees who expressed
dissatisfaction over the fact that no agreement had been executed and that apparently
one of their two 15-minute break periods had also been eliminated. Employee
Plump insisted that Local 10 sign the agreement which, of course, contained a wage
increase O'Dell stated that she wanted to "play around" a bit on the question of
the second coffee break and on the amount of severance pay. The members voted
to authorize O'Dell to call a strike if necessary. The sole dissenting vote was cast
by Plump.
d The Al Kerr referred to in said letter was on the date of said letter the secretary-
treasurer of SIU, the secretary-treasurer of SIU-A and G, and the secretary-treasurer
pro tem of IBU.
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About April 23 Del Robinson became SIU-GL office manager replacing Denison.
Robinson arranged for a further negotiation meeting with Local 10 for May 2.
At this May 2 meeting Robinson stated that, as he had to live with this contract,
he reserved the "option to negotiate" its terms. O'Dell, on the contrary, maintained
that the parties were meeting only for "clarification and interpretation" of terms
already agreed upon. When Robinson proposed some modification in the preamble
of this contract, O'Dell admittedly "broke up" the meeting and walked out.
As O'Dell left the meeting, she met employees Evelyn Sundquist and Bonser and
told them of the events of the meeting whereupon those two employees said, "Why
don't we put down our pencils and walk out right now." O'Dell had told them,
"We broke off the negotiations."
With that meeting concluded, the pace of events picked up perceptibly. O'Dell's
first move thereafter was to notify the Mediation Service of the dispute between
Local 10 and Respondent SIU-GL. The Mediation Service thereupon scheduled
a meeting between the parties for May 5. Robinson 5 let no grass grow under his
feet either. He promptly reported the breakup of the meeting to employee Christine
Plump who had been voicing her dissatisfaction with Local 10 to Tanner, Farnen,
Robinson, Thompson, and apparently any other officer or official who would listen
to her. Robinson told Plump that there had been some changes he wanted to make
in the contract but that Local 10 wanted to renegotiate the whole thing.
Later that afternoon, but prior to quitting time, Robinson held a meeting in
Farnen's office with employees Plump, Sundquist, Bonser, and Ernest. He informed
the girls that he understood that there was "dissatisfaction" among them over their
representation by Local 10, that while he could not in any way tell them what to do
about that unless they joined another union, he would promise to give them the
New York contract which he thought was a better contract than the contract Local
10 was trying to negotiate and that he could give them the same hospitalization plan
which SIU members had. He produced a copy of the New York contract, told them
to look it over, consider it over night, and give him their decision in the morning.
About 10:30 the following morning, May 3, Stanley F. Thompson, the elected
assistant securetary-treasurer of SIU-GL and who, according to the evidence, had
been "loaned" to Jones of IBU at some indefinite date in April to be his "assistant
Area Director," met with Plump, Sundquist, Bonser, and Ernest in Farnen's office.
Because of the commitments Robinson had made to the employees the evening
before, Thompson had to call Robinson into the meeting for a few minutes to explain
those commitments. After further discussion with the girls after Robinson's de-
parture, Thompson was able to emerge from the conference with application cards
for Allied Marine Section, IBU, signed by each of the four employees, Plump having
been the first to sign. When during this conference he was asked about the absence
of employees Hipps and Hurst from the meeting, Thompson explained that all he
"needed" was a majority of the employees.6
About 2:30 p.m. on May 4 Thompson called employees Hurst and Hipps into
Farnen's office where he told them that he had almost 100 percent of the employees
sign up in the IBU but wanted them to join. When Hurst asked why they had not
been invited to the meeting in the morning, Thompson stated that that "would have
tipped my hand to Thelma." Thompson vainly requested them to execute cards
for Allied Marine Section.
Then with the signed application cards in his pocket, Thompson walked out of
the building at 10255 W. Jefferson, located a Western Union office, and sent the
following telegram to Del Robinson at the building Thompson had just left:
The Allied Marine Section of the Inland Boatmen's Union hereby serves
notice of representation of a majority of your employees. I hereby ask for
your recognition and serve an immediate desire for collective bargaining for
a contract. Notice is also served in view of my representation of a majority
of your employees that you are not to engage in any further or other collective
bargaining session with any other group.
STANLEY THOMPSON,
Assistant Regional Director,
Inland Boatmen's Union.
The meeting of May 5 with the Mediation Service was successfully broken up
when Robinson displayed the aforequoted telegram from Assistant Secretary-
5 Robinson did not testify , being neither in Detroit nor employed by SIU-GL.
G Although Thompson testified that the girls approached him and "voluntarily "
signed
IBU cards , it seems too clear for any discussion that Thompson was, on the contrary,
getting the " decision" Robinson had demanded the evening before of the employees.
SEAFARERS INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ETC. 1151
Treasurer of SIU-GL and Assistant Area Director of IBU Stanley Thompson and
refused to negotiate further with Local 10 in view of this conflicting claim.
On June 16, 1961 , a collective -bargaining agreement covering the SIU-GL
clerical staff was executed for Seafarers International Union-Great Lakes District
by Al Tanner and Fred Farnen and for Allied Marine Section, Inland Boatmen's
Union, by Robert Jones. The negotiation of this collective-bargaining agreement
was conducted between Robinson, the office manager of SIU-GL, and Stanley
Thompson, who although on loan to IBU as its assistant area director was still the
elected assistant secretary-treasurer of SIU-GL and, consequently, one of Robinson's
superiors.
One of the clauses in this agreement required membership in IBU on or after
the 31st day of the agreement. About 31 days after the execution of the agreement
Farnen informed employee Hurst that due to this Union-security clause she would
have to join IBU in order to retain the job she had been performing for the past 20
years. Hurst then executed an IBU card but has been paying .her dues monthly in
cash rather than through the checkoff.
B. Conclusions
Perhaps this Intermediate Report should be entitled "Boys will be Boys"- or `Em-
ployers will be Employers"-or, perhaps, "Even Unions, as Employers, will be
Employers."
There can be no question, although not an issue here, that SIU-GL gave its
clerical staff an excellent collective-bargaining agreement-as all beneficent
employers do.
Yet neither can there be any question but that the key word in ,the above sentence,
used advisably, is the word "gave." It is used in the sense that any paternalistic
employer "gives" good wages, conditions, etc., to his employees.
But the question at issue here is not whether the wages, hours, working conditions,
etc., are good or bad. On the contrary the question at issue here is whether SIU-GL
as an employer bargained collectively with the authorized bargaining representative
of the majority of its employees in an appropriate unit and whether SIU-GL as
an employer illegally assisted IBU thereby enabling itself to sit on all sides of the
bargaining table by turning 'IBU into what is euphemistically called a "company-
dominated union.'
Respondent SIU-GL and Intervenor IBU have moved to dismiss the complaint
herein on two grounds which stated simply are: (1) IBU is an autonomous inter-
national union just as capable of representing the employees of SIU-GL as any
other union including OEIU; and (2) it was Local 10 which refused to bargain so
that SIU-GL was thereby prevented from bargaining and, thus, could not have
refused.
The first question to be decided is whether or not the Allied Marine Division of
IBU has the capacity to represent the SIU-GL employees. Under the facts of
this case the answer to that question must be "no."
In Oregon Teamsters' Security Plan Office et al. (Ofice Employees International
Union, Local No. 11), 119 NLRB 207 at 211, where the Teamsters had set up its
own affiliated labor organization to represent its own office-clerical employees much
as was done in the instant case, the Board had this to say:
As the Board stated in Bausch & Lomb [ 108 NLRB 1555, 1959], a union must
approach the bargaining table "with a single-minded purpose of protecting and
advancing the interests of the employees who have selected it as their bargain-
ing agent and there must be no ulterior purpose." Where, as here, a union
has allegiances which conflict with that purpose, we do not believe that it can
be a proper representative of employees. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner's
recommendation that the Respondents Local 223, Local 206, and Security
Fund be required to withhold recognition from Local 223 "until certified," will
be modified by eliminating the quoted phrase.
Without belaboring the point, there exists between SIU-GL and Allied Marine
Section of IBU such an ultraclose filial relationship due to similar affiliation, charter
provisions, and, indeed, interrelated financial affairs as to make SIU-GL and IBU
"blood brothers" rather than mere "brothers under the skin" by way of affiliation
through AFL-CIO.
Just as an example, the testimony here indicated that SIU-GL charged IBU for
the services rendered to IBU by the office-clerical employees of SIU-GL in the IBU
operations at SIU-GL headquarters at River Rouge. As good businessmen IBU
will be interested in keeping IBU expenses, including those for the clerical services
of the six office clericals whom IBU purports to represent , at a minimum. On the
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other hand, IBU as representative of those same clerical employees must seek
with a single-minded purpose the highest possible wages and working conditions for
those same clerical employees. The better IBU represents those clericals, the higher
the expenses IBU will be charged for their services. In the light of even this small
example IBU must necessarily enter into any negotiations with SIU-GL for higher
wages for the office clericals with at least a divided mind.
Then we come to the dramatis personae. Here the "who," the "what," and, par-
ticularly, the "when" becomes all-important. First, there is Al Kerr to whom Local
10 was referred as the individual who would negotiate for SIU-GL. Yet this record
fails to show Kerr as an official of SIU-GL although it does show him to have been
secretary-treasurer of SIU-A and G as well as secretary-treasurer pro tem of IBU,
at least until the elections of May 1961. Then there is Al Tanner who succeeded
Al Kerr as negotiator for SIU-GL in the negotiations with Local 10 and who signed
the June 16 agreement with IBU on behalf of SIU-GL despite his own insistence
that his only office was that of vice president of SIU-A and G. However, the record
discloses that this same Al Tanner was also Great Lakes area director pro, tem
of IBU until those May 1961 elections.
Finally the sockdolager, of course, occurred when the duly elected assistant
secretary-treasurer of SIU-GL, Stanley F. Thompson, organized his own SIU-GL
office-clerical staff into IBU to whom he was temporarily on loan as its assistant
area director and then proceeded to "negotiate" on behalf of these same employees
and IBU the contract of June 16 with his own SIU-GL subordinate, Office Manager
Del Robinson.
As though this merry mixup of personalities and positions alone were insufficient
to prove beyond a peradventure of a doubt the incapacity of IBU to represent these
office-clerical employees of SIU-GL, it must be remembered that IBU Officials
Jones and Stanley F. Thompson were just as much the bosses and employers of
these office-clerical employees whom they purported to represent as were SIU-GL
Officials Tanner, Farnen, and this same Stanley F. Thompson.
Under the facts disclosed in this record the Trial Examiner can do nothing but
hold that IBU and its Allied Marine Section do not have the capacity to represent
the office-clerical employees of Respondent SIU-GL and further that Respondent
SIU-GL dominated and interfered with administration of IBU and its Allied Marine
Section and contributed financial and other support to IBU in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
The second question as to whether SIU-GL refused to bargain with Local 10
is a much more difficult question to answer.
Respondent SIU-GL and Intervenor IBU maintained at the hearing and in their
brief that at the meeting of May 2, 1961, Local 10 itself refused to bargain in good
faith and thus relieved Respondent SIU-GL of its obligation to bargain.
There seems to be some merit in this contention. Both O'Dell and Hearst admitted
that O'Dell "broke up" the meeting on May 2 with Robinson and refused to allow
him his "option to negotiate." The excuse given by O'Dell for this action on May 2
was that the terms of the contract had all been agreed upon and that the parties
were only there to execute the document-and for "clarification" of its terms. It
seems quite obvious that, if the clarification proved unsatisfactory to O'Dell, she
Intended to negotiate a proper "clarification " Furthermore, O'Dell maintained that
the hospitalization and severance pay terms had been determined through negotiations
between the OEIU office in New York with Al Kerr-but she also maintained that
the OEIU office in New York had no authority to negotiate on behalf of Local 10
as well as admitting that she had never notified Respondent that Local 10 had
accepted Kerr's terms. As if that was not bad enough, O'Dell also contended that,
if she could get the second 15k-minute break, she would be ready to sign the contract.
In view of this testimony it appears very clear that the agreement was still in the
process of negotiation.
Robinson admittedly had some changes he wanted made in the contract while
claiming his "option to negotiate" at the May 2 meeting.
In view of this, on May 2 O'Dell, exercising a woman's privilege perhaps, was
denying Robinson the right to negotiate anything but what she, O'Dell, wanted to
negotiate. This constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith by Local 10 on May 2
However, promptly after breaking up the meeting of May 2, Local 10 displayed
its willingness to return to bargaining in good faith by taking the dispute to the
Mediation Service.
There can be, of course, no doubt but that just as promptly after the breakup of
the meeting of May 2 Respondent SIU-GL committed acts constituting a refusal
to bargain by enticing a majority of its employees away from Local 10 as their
representative and into a "company dominated union," IBU, and then on May 4
SEAFARERS INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ETC. 1153
relying upon its own assistant secretary-treasurer's telegram claiming the majority
of the employees for IBU to justify its refusal to negotiate further with Local 10.
These actions by Respondent SIU-GL on May 2, 3, and 4, 1961, constitute a refusal
to bargain with Local 10 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The
Trial Examiner so finds.
Farnen's enforcement of the union-security provisions of this illegal agreement
of June 16 on and after the 31st day of its execution in requiring employee Hurst to
join and pay dues to IBU also constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that on May 2, 1960, and at all times thereafter, Respondent
has refused to bargain collectively with Office Employees International Union, Local
10, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent 's office-
clerical employees in the appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent,
upon request , bargain collectively with said Local 10.
It having also been found that the Respondent dominated and interfered with
administration and contributed financial and other support to IBU and its Allied
Marine Section and has executed a contract with it covering the aforementioned
office-clerical employees as the purported representative of such employees , the Trial
Examiner will recommend that Respondent withdraw and withhold recognition of
IBU and its Allied Marine Section as such representative and that it cease giving
any force or effect to the contract executed with IBU on June 16, 1961. Because of
the ultraclose inter-relationship of Respondent and IBU, 1BU does not have the
capacity to act as the bargaining representative of the office -clerical employees of
Respondent.
It having also been found that Respondent exacted dues and other moneys from
its office-clerical employees by reason of the union-security provisions contained
in the illegal agreement it executed with IBU on June 16 , 1961, on pain of loss of
employment , the Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondent refund to each
of said employees the amount of money so exacted from each with interest at 6
percent.
The past history of the relationship between the Respondent and Local 10 over
a period of some 15 years convinces the Trial Examiner that the Respondent does
not have an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general but that the
present instance is merely a single aberration so that he will not recommend a broad
cease-and -desist order here.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Office Employees International Union, Local 10, AFL-CIO, and Inland Boat-
men's Union, Allied Marine Section, affiliated with the Seafarers International
Union, A and G, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meeting of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. Seafarers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-
CIO, is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.7
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
4. All office-clerical employees of Respondent employed at 10255 W. Jefferson
Avenue, River Rouge, Michigan, but excluding supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit apropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
7 Office Employees International Union, Local 11 ( Oregon Teamsters ) v. N L R.B ,
353 U S 313
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. At all times mentioned herein , Office Employees International Union, Local
10, AFL-CIO, has been , and now is , the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
6. By failing and refusing on, and at all times since , May 2, 1961, to bargain
collectively with Office Employees International Union, Local 10, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
7. By dominating and interfering with administration and contributing financial
and other support to Inland Boatmen 's Union and its Allied Marine Section , Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Daniels Construction Company of Virginia and Local Union
1018, Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers
of America . Case No. 5-CA-2022. September 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 19, 1962, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi-
ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
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 [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
THE REMEDY
We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the backpay obliga-
tions of the Respondent with respect to the discriminatees shall include
1 Member Rodgers is not convinced that the record evidence herein is sufficient to estab-
lish the alleged violation . Accordingly , he would dismiss the complaint . Nor, for the
reasons set forth in his dissent in Isis Plumbing d Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, would
Member Rodgers grant interest on backpay.
138 NLRB No.,135.