Shenango Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 1355 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

SHENANGO INCORPORATED
Shenango Incorporated and Richard Ligashesky
United Steelworkers of America, Local 2687, AFL-
CIO-CLC and Richard Ligashesky. Cases 6 CA
10416 and 6-CB-4104
August 25, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On March 30, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents and the
General Counsel each filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief. The General Counsel also filed a brief
in answer to the Respondent's exceptions.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and finds merit in certain of the Respondent Union's
exceptions. Accordingly, the Board has decided to
affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions 3 of the
Administrative Law Judge to the extent that they are
consistent herewith and to adopt his recommended
Order, as modified herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Re-
spondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act by (1) removing Safety Committee Chairman Li-
gashesky from his position because of his activities in
connection with an internal union election; (2) an-
nouncing that an employee was punished for sup-
porting a specific candidate in an internal union elec-
tion; and (3) threatening members with reprisals
because they engaged in internal union activity. We
disagree with the first two findings and affirm the
third.
Ligashesky had been a member of Respondent
Union for about 25 years. Under the collective-bar-
gaining contract, he was chairman of the Union's
Contrary to the General Counsel's motion, the Respondent Ulnlon's ex-
ceptions were timely filed; therefore, the motion is denied.
The Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings Adminis-
trative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an
Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credihbilit unless the
clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence cons inces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Producl, Inc, 91 NL.RB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
3 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that
Ligashesky's distribution of the leaflet is protected under Sec 7 of the Act.
we additionally rely on Ea.lex, Incorporated v N L R B. docket No, 77 453.
and Massv-Ferguson, Inc.. 211 NLRB 487 (1974).
plant safety committee from 1975 until he was re-
moved on February 8, 1977. In November 1976 Sad-
lowski and McBride launched their candidacies for
the presidency of the United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica. Ligashesky actively supported Sadlowski, while
the other agents and officers of Respondent Union
supported McBride. On February 8, McBride was
elected president, and Ligashesky was removed from
the committee because of his activities in support of
Sadlowski. On March 8, when Ligashesky was re-
viewing with Union Financial Secretary Roach the
charges of election irregularity, Roach said, "[T]hat's
what you get for supporting Sadlowski." In June,
Roach saw Ligashesky selling raffle tickets on behalf
of Sub-District 4, Council of Steelworkers and said,
"[W]e're going to hang [your] ass for selling these
tickets."
The issue is one of balancing the employee's Sec-
tion 7 right to engage in internal union affairs against
the legitimacy of the union interest at stake in the
particular case. Thus, in Carpenters Local Union No.
22. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO (William Graziano, d/b/a Grazi-'
ano Construction Companre). 195 NLRB I (1972), the
union had no legitimate interest in fining a member
for opposing the incumbent union officers, so the
balance was properly struck in favor of the employee
and the violation was found. Similarly, in General
American Transportation Corporation, 227 NLRB
1695 (1977). the Board found an 8(b)(1)(A) violation
where the union removed the steward from office be-
cause he filed an unfair labor practice charge with
the Board. There, the union had no legitimate inter-
est in defeating employee access to the Board. See.
generally. Scofield. et al. v N.L.R.B., 394 U.S. 423,
428-430 (1969).
Here, however, the Union does have a legitimate
interest in placing in offices such as chairman of the
safety committee those people it considers can best
serve the Union and its membership. Retention of a
plant safety committee chairman who is hostile to or
in disagreement with the leadership may be undesir-
able or ineffective for a host of valid reasons. That
this may add up to union hostility toward having a
dissident in such positions and make his dismissal a
reprisal, as it did here, does not alter the case. The
union is legitimately entitled to hostility or displea-
sure toward dissidence in such positions where team-
work, loyalty, and cooperation are necessary to ena-
ble the union to administer the contract and carry
out its side of the relationship with the employer. In
the circumstances of this case, the Union's interest
outweighs the interest of Ligashesky in retaining his
office, and, therefore, we do not find a violation in
his removal from office or in the March 8 statement
237 NLRB No. 220
1355
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to Ligashesky informing him that his removal was
caused by his support for Sadlowski.4
The Union's interest in this case is limited to
seeing that Ligashesky was removed from office as
safety committee chairman but does not extend to
generally threatening him with reprisals for his in-
traunion activities. Therefore, in agreement with the
Administrative Law Judge, we find that Roach's
June statement to Ligashesky was violative of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondents, She-
nango Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns; and United
Steelworkers of America, Local 2687, AFL-CIO
CLC, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in said recommended Order,
as so modified:
1. Delete from section B, paragraphs 1(a), (b), and
(c); and 2(a) and (b) and reletter the remaining para-
graphs accordingly.
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's notice marked Appendix B.
4See Newv York Cim Ta ui Drivers tUnion. Loal (l)36.. AF1 (10 7(la i
Maintenance Corp.). 231 NLRB 965 (1977). where the Board found no
8(bX 1)(A) violation when the union threatened to remove an employee fromn
the position of shop chairman because she had published an article critical
of the union's handling of a grievance.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF IHE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with repri-
sals because they engage in internal union acitv-
ity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA. LOCAl
2687, AFL-CIO CLC
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[.EONARD M WA(;MAN. Administrative Law Judge: Upon
charges filed by Richard H. Ligashesky, an individual, the
Regional Director for Region 6, issued a consolidated com-
plaint and notice of hearing on September 30, 1977,'
against Shenango Incorporated, which I shall refer to as
the Company, and United Steelworkers of America, Local
2687, AFL CIO-CLC, which I shall call the Union. The
consolidated complaint alleges that the Company violated
Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by promulgating and
enforcing invalid no-distribution rules and by suspending
Richard H. Ligashesky from his employment for I day be-
cause he violated those invalid rules. It is also alleged that
the Union violated Section 8(b)