192 N.L.R.B. 808 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

UAW Local 422

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 19, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 808 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers , and its Local No. 422 and W. L. Crow Construction Company. Cases 1-CC-871 and 1-CB-1676. August 19, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDY On May : 12,, 1971, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett , issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents, had engaged in and ,were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set -forth in the attached Trial Examiner's . Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exception-to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in support of the Trial Examiner's' Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three- member panel. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondents, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers, and its Local No. 422, their officers , agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. 1 The Respondents' request for oral argument is denied , as, in our opinion , the record and the exceptions and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 192 NLRB No. 127 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARTINS. BENNETT, Trial Examiner : This matter was heard at Boston, Massachusetts, on various dates between November 9, 1970, and January 28, 1971. The complaint, issued October 8 and later amended, and based ' upon a charge filed September 15, 1970, by W. L. Crow Construc- tion Company, herein Crow,, alleges that. Respondents United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-' ment Workers and, its Local No. 422, herein the Interna- tional and the Local , had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1XA) and 8(bx4)(ixii) (B) of the Act' The time for briefs having been extended to March 29, 1971, able briefs have been received from alt parties. Upon the entire record iri`the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. IURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS W. L. Crow Construction Company, a New York corporation, maintains , its principal office in New York City and is a general contractor in the construction industry. It has ' been ' and is engaged in the construction of a major addition to the paintfacility_ of a General Motors Corporation -plant at Framingham, Massachusetts. It receives at its field office on the General Motors premises at Framingham building materials valued in excess of $50,000 per annum directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . I find that the opera- tions of Crow affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers and its Local No. 422 are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. in. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction; the Issues Since March of 1969, Crow, as general contractor, has been engaged in the construction of a major addition of a paint facility at the General Motors assembly plant at Framingham, Massachusetts . Personnel of Crow and some 15 subcontractors have fluctuated between 300 and 700. In addition, in connection with this project, General Motors has also entered into contracts with a number of contrac- tors known as turnkey contractors . These include Binks Manufacturing Co.; Beckwith Elevator Co.; Moss Electric Co.; J.B. Webb Co.; DeVilbiss Co.; and George Koch, Sons ., Inc. This project required the knocking out of walls and adding the new area directly to the old facility.2 The total cost of this project was approximately $25,000,000. 1 The General Counsel having reversed a prior dismissal of a charge in Case l-CB-1676, I granted his motion at the hearing to amend the complaint to add the alleged violation of Section 8(b)(1XA). Timely charges having been filed, a motion at the hearing to add the International as a party was also granted. 2 On the last day of the hearing, I denied a motion by Koch's counsel, UAW LOCAL 422 809 This plant has six guarded gates utilized exclusively by General Motors personnel . Before the construction com- menced in March of 1969, General Motors set up one new reserved construction or south gate for automobile or pedestrian travel solely by employees of Crow, its subcon- tractors, and the turnkey contractors ; it was not guarded. A sign was placed at the gate reading "contractors gate." At all other gates, signs were placed reading "contractors use south entrance ." Crow also erected a sign at the reserved gate identifying itself as the general contractor. On September 15, 1970 , the International commenced a nationwide strike of some 8 weeks' duration against General Motors 3 , The strike at Framingham commenced contemporane- ously with the national strike. Pickets carried signs reading "UAW Local 422 on strike" at all gates at Framingham including the reserved gate; pickets at the latter varied from two to six in number. As a result of the picketing at the reserved gate ; none of the construction employees would enter the premises. At the start of the strike, the new paint facility project was 98.5 percent complete with about 4 weeks- of work remaining in a number of respects set forth in the record by Plant Engineer William Malone. The strike activity at the reserved gate was enjoined in Federal Court on October 14, 1970. The General Counsel contends herein that the picketing was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(iXiiXB) of the Act on the theory that the construction work was unrelated to the normal or regular-operations of General Motors and that it therefore did not fall within the standards,permitting such picketing as reflected in Local 761, Electrical Workers v. N.L.R.B. -(General Electric), 366 U.S. 667; and in United Steel Workers v. N.L.R.B. (Carrier Corp:), 376 U.S. 493. He also contends that by physically obstructing passage through the reserved gate and by requiring entering personnel to, obtain passes from Respondents the latter have engaged in conduct-violative-of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Respondents deny the last allegation and contend further that the admitted picketing falls within the Generat Electric and 'Carrier standards. They also deny that the International was - party to any of the foregoing conduct. The General Counsel and the Charging Party counter with the claim that because of the actual involvement of the International , together with the language of its Constitu- tion providing control over the Local, they are in essence "united in holy matrimony" and joint responsibility which can not lightly or readily be cast aside by an oral disclaimer of such a joinder. B. Use of the Gates and Equipment The record supports the position of the General Counsel that with several minor exceptions construction workers utilized only the reserved gate, as testified by Project Manager Dennis 'Fleming of Crow. There is no evidence that employees of General Motors used this gate and the guards at the other gates were instructed to pass only General Motors personnel. Shop Committeeman Augustini of the Local claimed that he saw construction personnel use the General Motors gates . But his later testimony , as I read it, is an admission to the effect that this was equipment destined to the construction firms which was sent, to- General Motors in error. His testimony is also countered by that of- Plant Engineer Malone, which I credit , that during a period of several weeks in July and August when production was shut down, General Motors opted to run new pipe and gas lines through the middle of the area used by construction personnel for parking their cars . As a result, the latter were permitted to use the other gates and parking areas temporarily during this period. The maintenance force of General Motors varies between 260 and 270 employees; of these,: some 150 are skilled and, according to Malone, the function of the latter is to maintain and relocate existing facilities . On occasion, they do perform minor construction, work and, as is apparent, they are substantially outnumbered by the outside construction crews. As part of its defense, Respondents have contended that both construction personnel and General Motors mainte- nance people utilize General Motors tools and equipment. Both Fleming -of Crow and. Malone of General Motors agree that the use of General Motors tools and equipment was strictly forbidden. Fleming conceded that there had been occasional unauthorized , use of forklift trucks. Malone testified, and I find, that the outside contractors were directed to provide and-Fuse solely -their own equipment -and that General Motors on several occasions had complained to the contractors, seeking abandonment of this ,unauthorized practice. A number of union witnesses testified that they had seen such usage , despite the ban, and one of them, William Murphy, complained to a General Motors engineer, Fothergill, about the use of forklift trucks; he was advised that this- was unauthorized. I find that the evidence preponderates that there was a bona fide effort by Crow and General Motors to keep Crow construction personnel away from General Motors equipment and that this was largely complied with. C. The Contract Language Respondents seek to buttress their claim for the new construction performed by Crow and the other contractors on language in the national contract which expired in September 1970. Section 183(c) provides as follows: It is the policy of the Corporation to fully utilize its seniority employes in maintenance skilled trades classifications . in the performance of maintenance and construction work, as set forth in its letter, dated December 14,1967, (Appendix F),'to the Union on this subject. But I find the language of Appendix F to be most persuasive refutation of their position. Appendix F, a letter also counsel for Crow, to intervene because no new evidentia y facts were affected some 136 to 155 General Motors plants ; it appears that the others proffered and because , if a violation were found, the Remedy would also were not struck because they produced parts for competitors of General extend to Koch . Motors. 3 According to International Representative Erskine Barrett, this 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dated December 14, 1967 to then Vice President Wood- cock of the International from Vice, President Seaton of General Motors, states as follows: It is the policy of the General Motors,Corporation to perform maintenance work with its. own employes, provided it has the manpower, skills, equipment =and facilities to do so^ and can do the work competitively in quality, cost and performance and within the projected time, limits. At times the Corporation does not deem advisable doing the work itself, and it must, as in the past, reserve to itself the right to decide whether it' will do any particular work or let the work to, outside contractors. This letter is not,to be regarded as impairing that right inany way. I The Corporation hereby assures the Union that it has no plans to change its policy and that it expects to continue its general operating policy of placing primary reliance on its own skilled trades employes to perform maintenance work to the extent consistent with sound business practice, as in the past. The Corporation is genuinely interested in maintaining maximum employment opportunities for its skilled trades- employes consistent with the needs of, the Corporation. Therefore, in making these determina- tions, the Corporation ' intends always to keep the interests ' of 'General -Motors personnel in., mind. -[Emphasis added], As I read the letter, it fully supports the position of the General Counsel and General Motors, that -there is a dichotomy between -a major plant addition and mainte- nance work. It flatly -reserves to General Motors "the right to 'decide whether-it will do any particular work' or let the work" to outside contractors." ,It recognizes the' primary responsibility of its own skilled trades employees to be in maintenance work., Obviously, if General Motors deems it not advisable for its own' employees to perform mainte- nance work, a fortiori a'major addition of this magnitude is in a stronger category. It seems most obvious that a $25;000,000 plant, addition which'General Motors chose to erect through'an' outside contractor is a far cry from repair, maintenance, or relocation of an assembly line. Malone uncontrovertedly testified that this is company policy and this is not controverted by evidence of any other major construction projects being' performed 'by the company itself at Framingham., So far as this record discloses, General Motors had not previously undertaken a project of this magnitude at Framingham. Stated otherwise, this was not a departure from past practice. ' I ' see ` no support for Respondents" claim that the contract"language envisaged the use of outsiders only, for overflow work not performa- ble by the ; General Motors maintenance crew.4 'The record demonstrates how General Motors strove to walk a tortuous path in interpreting the contract. Thus, early ` in July 1970, General Motors assigned to its maintenance crew the job of relocating a spot welding facility from the old building to the new enlarged building. As a result, - some ' of the employees of "the outside contractors struck and did not return until the General Motors, maintenance peoples finished,the ,project and left the area., Again, on August 17, when a productionlacility was similarly being relocated, electricians and pipefitters, of the outside contractors similarly struckfor I day. As I view it, this work ., assignment was entirely consistent_ with General Motors interpretation of its` contract with Respon- dents. Respondents adduced evidence that outside roofers had worked on the old building in connection with the new addition. Shop Committeeman Augustini claimed that General Motors carpenters normally, did repair work, on the roof and had'for years. I note that he performed little maintenance work, being engaged as a committeeman for some 7 hours per shift. But again, Project ,Manager Fleming of, Crow testified, and,I' find, that their contract provided for some work to be "done on theoldbuilding as it was necessary to penetrate the old roof to tie it into the roofing on the new addition. I see little ,support for Respondents here as it was clearly a facet of, the major new addition. D. Was the Construction Contract Part of the. Regular or Normal Operations of General Motors? A number of witnesses for Respondents who were in the maintenance crew presented testimony in an effort to establish that the outside construction crews were perform- ing normal' and regular duties,of maintenance, personnel. This testimony is substantially contradicted by Plant Engineer Malone as, well as by their, own admissions. Thus, Shop, Committeeman Augustini is a, millwright in the maintenance department and is on the shop committee. He initially insisted that General Motors millwrights and other., crafts work side by side in the new addition. with employees of the outside contractors and perform the same type of work in a location known- as the final line pit. His later testimony revealed, however, that these groups were not working on the same projects. This corroborates the testimony, of Plant„ Engineer Malone that, an outside construction crew installed a 200- foot extension of the- final line assembly, in the new addition. After -August 17, 1970, General, Motors sent its maintenance personnel into the area to set up the newly installed line for production. This involved tasks, of lesser substance such as the-, installation of lights; hooking,up water, fountains, power tools, for production, and stock cap fixtures to test brakes; and,relocation of certain equipment from the old to the new building. While the two groups were manifestly working in the same area, I find that General Motors did maintain its policy of using outside contractors on major construction and assigning relocation of facilities to its maintenance crew and that they were separated. William Murphy, a spray man and a representative on the second shift for maintenance personnel, claimed that between February and September and specifically` during June and' July of 1970, he observed General Motors skilled trades maintenance personnel working in 'the new addition in connection with the spot welding station and ,'a 4 As is apparent, and as will appear further, both Crow and General Motors utilize personnel with similar skills. UAW LOCAL 422 811 conveyor. Malone's testimony, treated-above, reveals the distinction that was made and, more particularly, that the spot welding station was really a relocation of an existing one. Walter Kopacz, a jig and fixture builder, testified how he' constructed jigs to be used on conveyors installed -by J , W. Webb Co. These ,Were to hold car frames to the' body carrieras they were dipped into the paint tank . He installed the first 2 pairs and, then delivered ' 516 additional pairs to Webb for installation . Again, Malone pointed out that these pins or locking ' clamps were not-part of the contract with Webb, that their shape and location on the car frame depended on the opening in the latter, and-that at the''time the contract was let to Webb, General Motors did not have full details on body changes ; hence, they were not covered by the contract. - The engineering department of General Motors obtained a sample of the pin from another General Motors plant which had experience of this nature and turned it over to its tooling department , in which Kopacz worked, to modify and create . While Kopacz claimed that the initial pins were made by an outside contractor , he did not identify same and this, moreover , is satisfactorily explained by the testimony of Malone that they were obtained from another General ' Motors plant. Nor does the testimony of Kopacz that he installed the first two pins and explained the installation , techniques to personnel of outside 'contractors, who in turn installed the additional 516 pairs, detract from the dichotomy 'attempted herein in this area and 'substan- t'ially carried out by General Motors. Joseph Knox, a General Motors electrician , testified that he had worked on the spot welding location . This has been considered and explained above . Similarly, Robert Ripley, a former official of the Local, testified concerning his work on_ the wiring of hydraulic pumps, relocation of a radio transmitter to an upper level of the plant, . and„ the installation of the pumps for transmission fluid lines., But' his, testimony in essence supports the position of the General Counsel and General Motors. Although claiming that the outside construction crews did the same work, he did, he admitted that it was not done on the same equipment. He- also admitted that the pumps were in the relocated spot welding station treated above and that the transmission fluid lines were similarly relocated from the old to ' the new building. He repeated that although the work was similar , the outside contractors were performing different jobs . I see no support for Respondents herein. Roland Grimant , a General Motors carpenter , claimed that he and General Motors crews installed air condition- ers in the new building , laid a new tile floor in a scheduling office, installed locks on doors leading to a dip tank, ran air lines to, spray guns, patched roofs on the old building, built switches for one , of the conveyors installed by Webb, built jigs for the latter , and built silhouettes of the cars for use by Webb in cutting entrances to the new ovens. -Again, his cross-examination and the testimony of Malone disclose no real support, -for Respondents. The air conditioners were in an office being relocated from the old to the new building.-As for the air lines; these were lines being hooked into main lines installed by outside crews. The jigs were built for the ,conveyor being installed by Webb and the doors of the oven had to be recut with,each body style change; obviously, the latter was something within the peculiar ken of General Motors. As for the door locks, they had been installed by, the-original contractors and General Motors found, it necessary to replace them. While - Grimant testified, that 'he moved certain, old furniture from the -old building to the - new and hung warning signs on newly installed escalators, I fail, to see, how this lends any support to Respondents. As noted, Malone pointed out how it was necessary to use General Motors personnel in the cutting of jigs and silhouettes or templates. These were to be used in checking the, dimensions of the installations. The outside contractor, Webb,, could then establish that he was , making the installation according.to General Motors specifications as set forth in the-contract. As urged by the General Counsel, it is clear and I find that they were part-.of a revision of existing production facilities necessary for a model, change. Related to the foregoing is, a large number of grievances filed against General Motors by Respondent Local. I permitted evidence by Respondents as to the number filed but did not permit litigation of the merits. I see little herein to assist Respondents. The record demonstrates that most of these grievances related to overtime, work being performed - by outside contractors on Saturdays and Sundays when General Motors maintenance personnel were not utilized. Totally aside from the fact that the outside personnel outnumbered the General Motors maintenance personnel,5 the simple, answer is that the grievances basically- did not pertain to the respective types of work being performed by the two groups. As witnesses for Respondents put it, and particularly Augustine, Respondents wanted General Motors to ex- haust "all the hours [i.e., utilize General Motors personnel on Saturdays and Sundays] and then if that is not enough, then they can -bring in the outside:-contractors." The witness to the contrary, this begs the legal issue involved. Stated otherwise, Respondents wanted the overtime work irrespective of the employer policy flatly provided in the National Contract. In addition, both Augustini and Murphy conceded that many of these grievances related to matters outside of Section 183 of the National Contract such as discipline, clothing, and work performance by foremen in violation of seniority and wage agreements. I am at a loss to see how this, involves the, performance of work by,outsiders which was normally or generally performed by General Motors maintenance personnel. It-is of interest to note that as- of July 1970 General Motors was faced with approximately 2;600 of-these grievances.6 While the General Counsel stresses that none of these grievances went to arbitration and that there was a tentative,-package settlement for a relatively minor =sum- of $10,000, without payment thereon, the simple answer is, that, in great measure at the very least, they do not shed 5 There is no contention that maintenance classifications were reduced grounds of relevancy. Needless to say, this hearing would probably still be in number because of this work. I under , way if these were being litigated and, as is readily apparent, these are 6 As noted, the litigation of the merits of these was not permitted on not deemed by the Examiner to be dispositive of the instant basic issue. 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD light, on the basic issue -herein, namely, was this outside construction , work normally or regularly performed , by General, Motors maintenance personnel. As, stated, the evidence strongly preponderates that it,did not; indeed, one notes thevery, numbers involved, 300 to 700 employees of -Crow and, its subcontractors, totally aside from the personnel of the turnkey contractors, as contrasted with the 260 to 270 employees in the entire maintenance department of whom but 150 or 155 were in comparable skilled classifications. This^demonstrates the magnitude, of the,project and thoroughly supports- General Motors as to the nature of the project and its decision to, utilize outside contractors. As Malone testified, this was a job of first impression and the inference is well warranted that the maintenance crew could not handle it because of the number of skilled personnel' required. Stated otherwise, if the position of Respondents were to prevail, General Motors would have had to engage in a major recruiting drive of skilled construction personnel, assuming that they were available, rather than proceed as it did, entirely consistent with the National Contract. It manifestly anticipated such a contingency and chose, consistent with the contract, to rely upon the established nucleus of skilled personnel in general contractors who operated in this field.? To sum up, Crow and the other contractors performed no, work in the plant other than the ^construction of the paint facility and they were not assisted in this by any General Motors employees. - At or near the end of the construction, General Motors commenced production in the new paint' facilities., On August .12, it assumed beneficial occupancy of the entire new building and commenced preparations ^ for production work which actually started as of August 27. However, after production commenced, the various contractors continued on their assigned construction assignments . During this -period,, employees of General Motors also performed such tasks as moving production material into the area, introducing inspection equipment and gauges, and providing prod uction=facilities. This explains why at times employees of General Motors and employees of the contractors would work side by side, but always on different projects. It is tru6-that there was, a' certain amount of communication= between the two groups. This is explained by Plant Engineer Malone who gave as an example the conveyors installed by Webb. This was a new type- of conveyor with which General Motors employees were not familiar and it was necessary to brief, them on operations. As another example, while Webb was installing conveyors- late , in August General Motors employees were working nearby in the production of automobiles. In brief, it is impossible that such a major facility could be, constructed without some communication between the involved groups. But this physical proximity falls' fat short of proof that the work functions between' the 'two groups overlapped herein. This supports the position of General T There is still other evidence adduced herein, and duly considered, as to the merits of the assignment of this work under General Electric and Carrier., Suffice it to say that the evidence in the entirerecord preponderates strongly in favor of the position of the General Counsel. I therefore believe that it Motors,that although similar crafts were involved, a careful line was drawn between the construction of the new facilities and the tasks normally performed by- General Motors maintenance personnel. And, of course , the large number - of, outside personnel ,, exceeding that of the maintenance department , fully supports this position..I find that this - reserved gate picketing was directed at outside construction employees and contractors and was unprotected. I find; therefore; that construction ,of the plant addition was not part of the regular or normal operations, of General Motors. I further find that the picketing at the reserved gate was, violative of Section 8(b)(4xi)(ii)(B) of the Act. Janesville Typographical Local 197 (Gazette Printing), 173 NLRB No. 137. E. Physical and Other Obstruction of the Reserved Gate According to Project Manager Fleming of Crow, and I so find, there were three or four occasions during the strike when pickets positioned' automobiles across-the reserved gate entrance so as , to bar entry by other automobiles. He was corroborated by, Project Engineer Elwin 'McNutt of Crow, who saw'the gate blocked approximately six times. This was done by positioning a' barrel, in the center of the driveway and bracketing, it' with two or three cart .8 Executive Vice President Kenneth Keene of the Local, who was in charge of the strike committee, claimed the gate was wide enough- for four automobiles to be placed init. $ut he later conceded that two cars and a barrel could be so positioned as to block passage. Respondents also engaged in another, tactic. Anyone wishing to pass through the reserved gate'was directed to the office of the =Local and instructed to obtain a pass. There, an official would issue the pass, But, as 'Keene admitted, such passes were issued only to managerial and clerical personnel who used them and not to'rank-and-file construction personnel The only exception was when under a special agreement , passes were issued to outside roofers to perform emergency work. I find that this physical obstruction of the reserved gate accompanied by policing access through a system of passes issued by' the Local constituted' conduct violative ° of Section 8(bXIXA) of the Act, because it restrained and coerced employees in'the exercise of, their right to refrain from engaging in concerted activities under - Section 7 of the Act. F. Liability of the International The relationship between an international labor organi- zation and its constituent locals, and the degree of control of an international over its'locals, obviously varies greatly from union ° to union. In the instant case, the evidence strongly preponderates that (1) the control-of Respondent International over its locals is indeed strong because of constitutional provisions ,, and (2) there is substantialactual involvement of representatives of the International' `in would be unnecessarily cumulative to set it forth herein- 8 Contrary to Respondents, I see no inconsistency between his testimony herein and in the United States District Court. UAW LOCAL 422 813 affairs of the. Local. This warrants the conclusion that the International is jointly responsible herein. The following factors, and -there are others, are persuasive: - (1) Theverystiuctureof Respondents is noteworthy. The Regional Director for they area , of several New England states, including the Framingham plant, one of a number of -areas in which Respondent ' International functions, is elected-by representatives oflocal unions who are delegates to an annual; convention. - , ' (2)- The Regional Director appoints a subregional director. Currently, this appointee is Alfred Olerio who testified that he is an employee of the international. (3) The Regional Director and Respondent Internation- al,' according to Olerio ,-jointly assign International repre- sentatives to the Region. (4) Olerio' supervises 'the International representatives assigned to, the Region ,.-and. International Representative Barrett negotiates ,- - local contracts for the Local. (5) Of dues collected by the Locals, including Respon- dent Local, 60 percent are remitted to Respondent International. -.(6) Strike benefits to members of a local on strike are paid from this 60 percent - of dues remitted to Respondent International. (7) For strikers to -receive strike benefits, the strike by Respondent Local - must be authorized by Respondent International, and it was. - (8)- If a, strike is not authorized by Respondent Interna- tional, strike benefits are, not paid by Respondent Interna- tional (9) Any local contract arrived at with an employer must be approved by Respondent International: (14) Olerio admitted that it was not, pure coincidence that the picketing at the reserved gate started on the same day as the strike against all the -affected General Motors plants. - (11) Indeed, Olerio admitted that the strike at Framing. ham was part of a strike for a national agreement 'on an economic level and it did not commence as a strike on local issues. (12) A representative of the General Counsel contacted President Peter Lynch - of Respondent Local in connection with an investigation of the charges herein filed against Respondent Local. Olerio- admitted that Lynch duly referred the investigator to himself and to International Representative Barrett for answers to his questions and these were duly provided. (13), Personnel Director Robert Courtney of General Motors, uncontrovertedly , testified, and I find , that in connetion with grievances he met with International Representative Barrett together with the shop committee of Respondent Local. (14) In bargaining , over local issues, according to the uncontroverted testimony of Courtney which I credit, he met frequently with International Representative Barrett over a period of months. (15) Chairman Augustini of the shop committee admit- ted that in his official capacity he policed the agreement on "the national and local basis." (16) International Representative Barrett who is paid solely by Respondent International processed local grieve ances. - (17) When emergency roofing repair on the original plant was required during the strike, management consulted with International, Representative Barrett . He agreed to-inter- cede with,the chairman, of the shop committee and did not state :that,, he lacked ostensible authority., in this;' area. (18) Consistent with its Constitution, the Respondent International did pay strike benefits to these strikers. (19), A brief, consideration of, the Constitution, of Respondent International is of interest. It commences with language attributed to the International president that it is "the living law, of our International Union " (20) Article 6, sections 5, 6, - and others , control conditions for 'application for membership and initiation-- by a-local.,- , (21) As urged by the General Counsel, article 6, section 14, provides that all members , of the Local are also members of, Respondent International and subject to its "orders, rulings , and decisions." (22) Article 6, section 15, provides that Respondent International and the Local to which 'a member belongs are his exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. (23) 'Article 6, section 16; provides that- Respondent international and the respective locals are irrevocably designated and empowered to represent the member in any court or tribunal in connection with his employment or as a member of Respondent International or the Local. (24) Article 6, section 17, of the constitution of Respondent International decrees how a member of a local may resign therefrom. (25) Article 13, section 9, grants the president of Respondent International authority to call meetings of local unions "whenever he deems such meetings necessary to protect the interests of its membership." (26) As pointed out by, the General Counsel, article 16, section 14,,providesthat Respondent International-shall set aside in a special strike insurance fund sums remitted by its locals who engage in ,strikes "authorized" by Respondent International. (27) In article 16, section 17,. the constitution of Respondent International provides that the monthly per capita tax levied upon each member is to be' transmitted to the secretary-treasurer of Respondent, Intternational, is "strictly the property of the International Union," and is in no way to be used by a local without permission of Respondent International. (28) Article 1-9, section 3, provides, that any local contract "shall be referred to " the Regional Directors for his recommendation to the International Executive Board for its approvalor rejection ..: ' (29) Article 37, section 3, states , that it is mandatory 'for all locals to establish bylaws and obtain ratification of them from the International Executive Board. (30) In article 48, section 2, locals are required to have semiannual audits of their books on forms provided by Respondent, International and to submit a copy of this to the latter's secretary-treasurer. (31) If inaccuracies appear in the audits, the Internation- 9 Elected by delegates of the respective locals. 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD al, Secretary Treasurer may assign a representative to "take charge of such audit , all financial books , records, and accounts" of the Local.' `(32)° Finally, ' article 50, section 7, provides that the International president , with approval of the International Executives Board, is empowered to,revoke -the, charter .of any local engaging - in 'a' strike without approval- ,of Respondent=International., In,view of - all the foregoing considerations , Ifind, on:a strong preponderance of- the evidence in the record, that the Local. --is, , -an 'agent or administrative arm of the International and that Respondent -, International and. Respondent Local are jointly, responsible for,"the unfair` labor practices , treated and found herein . See Office Employees International, Union, Local No. 11, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B. (Oregon Teamsters), 353 U.S. 313; International Union of District 50, Allied and Technical Workers and its Local 15440 (Dow Chemical), 187 NLRB No. 130; eSMW, Local 26 (Reno Employers Council), 168 NLRB 893; and IBEW, Local 437 (N.E. C.A.)„ 180 NLRB 420. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged.in unfair labor , practices, I shall recommend that they cease, and desist therefrom and take certain . affirmative , action designed to effectuate- ,,.,the policies , of the, Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. ° W. L. Crow Construction Company and General Motors Corporation are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. - " '2. United Automobile, Aerospace and , Agricultural Implement Workers and its Local"'No. 422Fare labor organizations within the meaning of ,Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing =the 'reserved construction gate at ,the Framingham, Massachusetts, plant of General Motors Corporation where W.' L."Crow Construction^Company and "other contractors were ' engaged, in the construction of a plant addition, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8((i)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the Act. 4.' By physically obstructing the reserved construction gate and by policing access through it system of passes,' Respondents have engageddin unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the' `Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within 'the", of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ' . `' Upon `the basis of the 'foregoing findings of fact,' conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pur`suant to11 Section 10(c) of the' Act,"'I hereby issue the following recommended: l° ORDER Respondents, United, Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-, cultural Implement Workers, and its 'Local No. 422, their officers, • agents, representatives, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: - (a) Picketing the reserved construction gate at the, Framingham, Massachusetts, plant of - General - Motors Corporation where: an object is,-to force(or_-require W. L. Crow Construction Company_ or,any other person to cease doing business with-, •_ General --Motors Corporation. (b) Physically obstructing the above,reserved construc- tion gate or policing access through a- system of passes. (c) In any like, or related manner (1) engaging _ in, inducing, or encouraging. any individual employed by W. L. Crow Construction Company, its subcontractors and suppliers, or any individual, employed by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting, commerce to engage in strikes or refusals in , the course , of their employment to use, manufacture, process; transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles;. materials; or commodities or to perform any services, or (2) threatening,, coercing, or restraining. W.-J. Crow Construc- tion Company,- its contractors and suppliers, or any other person where an object is to force or require W.L. Crow Construction Company or any other person to cease doing business with General Motors Corporation. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post'at their respective offices copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said, notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for.-Regibn 1, after being duly signedby Respondents, shall be`'posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for, a perio&of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to members' are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered; defaced, or-covered by any other material. (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 1 signed copies ^ of said.- notice for posting' by - W. L. Crow Construction Company, General Motors Corporation, and the other affected employers, if they are willing,t'in'all locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. `(c) Notify the RegionatDirector for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision what steps they have taken to comply herewith.12 to In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 "of the, Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,,-conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section, 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed 'waived for all purposes., ' - 11 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by, a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall, be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court` of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor' Relations Board"x - 12 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by,the-Board after exceptions have been filed, this provisions shall be modified toread: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 daysfrom the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." UAW LOCAL 422 APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency, of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket the reserved construction gate at the Framingham, Massachusetts, plant of General Motors Corporation where an, object is to force or require W. L. Crow Construction Company or any other person to cease doing ` business with 'General Motors Corporation or engage in any dike or related unlawful conduct. WE WILL NOT physically, obstruct-the above reserved construction gate or police access through a system of passes. UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS (Labor Organization) Dated By 815 (Representative), (Title) UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS, LOCAL No. 422 (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone This notice must remain posted,for, 60 consecutive days from the date, of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, Bulfinch Building;` 15 New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts` 02114, Telephone 223-3300.