Teamsters Local 839 (Bechtel Corp.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1984

271 N.L.R.B. 1209 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 839 (BECHTEL CORP.)
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Warehouse-
men, Garage Employees and Helpers Union,
Local No. 839 and Bechtel Power Corporation.
Case 15-CB-4841
24 August 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
Upon a charge filed by the Employer 24 June
1983 the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint on 5 August
1983. The complaint alleges that the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by process-
ing internal union charges against Supervisor Ray
Hutchinson and then expelling him from member-
ship because of his exercise of supervisory responsi-
bilities.
On 22 November 1983 the Employer, the Re-
spondent, and the General Counsel filed a "Motion
to Transfer Case to the Board and Stipulation of
Facts in Lieu of Hearing." The parties waived a
hearing and the issuance of a decision by an admin-
istrative law judge and submitted the case directly
to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and decision. The parties also agreed that their
formal stipulation and the exhibits attached thereto
would constitute the entire record before the
Board.
On 13 March 1984 the Board issued an order
granting the parties' motion, approving the stipula-
tion, and transferring the proceeding to the Board.
Thereafter each of the parties filed a brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
On the entire record and the briefs, the Board
makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, Bechtel Power Corporation, is a
Delaware corporation engaged in the construction
of a nuclear power plant at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation in the State of Washington. In the
course and conduct of its business operations the
Employer annually purchases and receives goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from sources outside the State of Washington, or
from suppliers within the State which in turn ob-
tained such goods and materials directly from
sources outside the State. Accordingly, we find
that Bechtel Power Corporation is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent is a labor
271 NLRB No. 173
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Stipulated Facts
The Employer recognizes the Respondent as the
exclusive representative of its truckdrivers em-
ployed at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
During the spring of 1983 Ray Hutchinson worked
as a foreman for the Employer at the Reservation
and served as one of its representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances within the purview of Section 8(b)(l)(B)
of the Act. Hutchinson was also a member of the
Respondent.
On 25 March 1983 driver James Moore filed in-
ternal union charges against Hutchinson alleging
that he had violated several articles of the Re-
spondent's constitution and bylaws. By letter dated
28 March Respondent Secretary-Treasurer William
Sarver notified Hutchinson of the charges and that
a trial would be held. On 18 April and 9 June 1983
the Respondent conducted a trial concerning the
charges. At the trial Moore alleged that while serv-
ing as a foreman Hutchinson had assigned away
work which belonged to the Respondent's mem-
bers and that Hutchinson had reported him for fail-
ing to wear a safety vest which resulted in his dis-
charge. By letter dated 14 June the Respondent's
president, Bill Robinson, notified Hutchinson of the
Respondent's decision to expel him and of his right
to appeal that decision. The Respondent admits
that it expelled Hutchinson based on charges in-
volving and arising out of his exercise of superviso-
ry responsibilities.
Under the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Respondent and the Em-
ployer, Teamsters members were required to take
orders from only a Teamsters foreperson. Follow-
ing Hutchinson's expulsion Robinson advised the
Employer that the Respondent's members did not
have to take orders from anyone that was not a
Teamsters general foreman and if anyone was fired
because they refused to take an order from Hutch-
inson he would grieve it. Subsequently Robinson
informed the Respondent's members that they must
obey Hutchinsqn's orders pending his internal
union appeal.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel and the Employer contend
that the Respondent coerced the Employer in the
selection of its representative for purposes of col-
lective bargaining and the adjustment of grievances
in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by
1209
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trying and expelling Supervisor Hutchinson based
on his performance of supervisory duties. The Re-
spondent asserts that it exerted no coercion on the
Employer through Hutchinson since its actions did
not cause Hutchinson a loss of benefits or privi-
leges which would restrain his effectiveness as the
Employer's representative. The Respondent also as-
serts that to find an 8(b)(l)(B) violation would im-
properly interfere with its internal union affairs re-
lating to membership.
C. Discussion
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides that it
shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organi-
zation "to restrain or coerce an employer in the se-
lection of his representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of griev-
ances." The Respondent admittedly expelled Fore-
man Hutchinson based on his exercise of superviso-
ry responsibilities and then advised the Employer
that pursuant to the parties' collective-bargaining
agreement the Respondent's members were re-
quired to take orders from only a Teamsters fore-
person. The Respondent further informed the Em-
ployer that, if any one of the Respondent's mem-
bers was fired because he refused to take an order
from Hutchinson, Robinson would grieve the dis-
charge.
Robinson's statement that the Respondent's
members need not obey Hutchinson's orders de-
prived the Employer of Hutchinson's services as its
supervisor as effectively as a refusal by the Re-
spondent or its members to work with Hutchinson
and thus coerced the Employer in the selection of
its 8(b)(1)(B) representative.2 Accordingly, we con-
clude that, by expelling Hutchinson based on his
performance of supervisory duties and by subse-
quently advising the Employer that its members
need not follow Hutchinson's orders, the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(b)(l)(B). 3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
The contract provision which set forth this requirement was not in-
cluded in the record. The General Counsel does not contend that as writ-
ten this provision was violative of Sec. 8(b)(1)(8).
2 The Respondent does not contend that its notification to members
that they must obey Hutchinson's orders pending his internal union
appeal serves as a defense to the complaint allegations.
I In view of the rationale expressed above, we find it unnecessary to
pass on the General Counsel's and the Employer's contention that the
Respondent's trial and expulsion of Hutchinson alone coerced the Em-
ployer in violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(B) under the theory that such discipline
would affect how Hutchinson would choose to perform his supervisory
duties.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing the Employer in
the selection of its representatives for the purposes
of collective bargaining or the adjustment of griev-
ances, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Warehousemen, Garage Employees and
Helpers Union, Local No. 839, Pasco, Washington,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing Bechtel Power Corporation in the selec-
tion of representatives chosen by it for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances.
(b) Expelling, refusing to membership, or other-
wise disciplining Foreman Ray Hutchinson because
of his performance of work as the Employer's se-
lected representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the action taken in expelling Ray
Hutchinson from membership in the Respondent,
expunge from its records all the references to the
discipline, and notify him in writing that this has
been done and that the discipline will not be used
as a basis for future action against him.
(b) Make Ray Hutchinson whole for any losses
he may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's action in expelling him from membership in
the Respondent, with interest.4
(c) Post at its offices and union halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies
4 Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See generally Isis Plumb-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
s If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
Continued
1210
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 839 (BECHTEL CORP.)
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, after being signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce Bechtel Power Corporation in the
selection of representatives chosen by it for the
purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment
of grievances.
WE WILL NOT expel, refuse membership to, or
otherwise discipline Ray Hutchinson because of his
performance of work as the Employer's selected
representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or the adjustment of grievances.
WE WILL rescind the expulsion of Ray Hutchin-
son, expunge from our records all references to
such discipline, and notify him in writing that this
has been done and that the discipline will not be
used as a basis for future action against him.
WE WILL make Ray Hutchinson whole for any
losses he may have suffered by reason of our expul-
sion of him from membership, with interest.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, GA-
RAGE EMPLOYEES AND HELPERS
UNION, LOCAL No. 839
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
1211