W. D. Haden Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 581 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

W. D. HADEN COMPANY 581
W. D. Haden Company and Seafarers' International Union of
North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, Harbor and Inland
Waterways Division, AFL-CIO and Haden Employees' Associa-
tion . Case No. 39-CA-571. November 25, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 7, 1956, a charge was duly filed in this proceeding which
designated the Charging Union as "Seafarer's International Union,
Inland, Boatmen and Waterway Division." The complaint which
was issued by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region on July
25, 1956, designated the Charging Union as "Seafarers' International
Union, Inland, Boatmen & Waterway Division, AFL-CIO." At the
opening of the hearing, which was conducted before Trial Examiner
Earl S. Bellman from September 11 to 17, 1956, counsel for the Gen-
'eral Counsel moved to amend all the formal papers in the proceeding
to show the name of the Charging Union to be "Seafarers' Interna-
tional Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, Harbor
and Inland Waterways Division, AFL-CIO," herein referred to as
the Division. Upon agreement of all the parties, the motion was
granted.
The Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in this pro-
ceeding on March 19, 1957, designating the Division, in accord with
the agreement of the parties, as the Charging Party. Exceptions and
supporting briefs were filed by the Respondent on April 5 and by the
Haden Employees' Association on April 9, 1957. Thereafter, on
April 29, 1957, the Seafarers International Union of North America,
Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific, AFL-CIO, herein referred to
as the International, filed with the Board a document which is entitled
"Motion for Administrative Determination of Compliance Status of
Charging Party," and which bears the same caption as the Inter-
mediate Report except that the name of the International is sub-
stituted for that of the Division. On May 15, 1957, at the suggestion
of the Executive Secretary of the Board, the International served
copies of the Motion upon the other parties to this proceeding.
The Motion asserts that the union which authorized the filing of
the charge, and which should have been named on the charge and
throughout the proceeding as the Charging Union, was the Interna-
tional, and, further, that the various designations which appeared at
different stages of this proceeding were due to a series of inadvertences
by individuals representing the real Charging Union or divisions of
that union.' On the basis of these assertions, and of supporting afli-
I C. M. Tannehill, who signed the charge as "Agent," was at that time port agent for
Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, AFL-CIO.
According to his affidavit attached to the Motion, different branches of the International,
119 NLRB No. 78.
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
davits attached to its Motion, the International "moves that the Board,
as a matter of administrative determination, recognize it as the actual
Charging Party," and that the Board reopen the record, if necessary,
in order to effect this change in designation.
We are administratively advised that Board records show no labor
organization by the name set forth in either the charge or the com-
plaint, and, therefore, contain no compliance history as to any such
named labor organization; that the Division, which the parties agreed
at the hearing to substitute as the Charging Union, first came into
compliance with the filing provisions of Section 9 of the Act in De-
cember 1956; and that the International, whose name it is now moved
to substitute as the real Charging Party, has been in compliance with
these provisions of the Act at all relevant times.
The Motion, in its text, seeks an administrative change in the
name of the Charging Party. It appears, however, that the charge
and the complaint name orgqnizations which are either nonexistent
or not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act, and
that all the parties, including the representative of the Charging
Union, agreed at the hearing to substitute for the names in the charge
and complaint the name of an organization which does exist, but
which first came into compliance more than 4 months after the com-
plaint was issued, and more than 3 months after its name was sub-
stituted at the hearing. It is now proposed, nearly a year after
the charge was filed, and after the close of the hearing, the issuance
of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, and the filing of briefs
and exceptions by some of the parties, that the Board substitute the
name of an organization which was in compliance at the critical time.
for the naive of one which was not. It is true that the name now
sought to be substituted is the parent international of the organiza
tion named by stipulation at the hearing. The Act, however, forbids
the Board to issue a complaint "pursuant to a charge made by a labor
organization . . . unless such labor organization and any national
or international labor organization of which such labor organization
is an affiliate or constituent unit" are in compliance. Even assuming,,
as the Motion asserts, that the designation of any union other than
the International was inadvertent, the Board's standards for com
pliance with the filing requirements of the Act are applied strictly,
without exception being made for failure to meet those standards
through inadvertence or negligence.2 As the Charging Party did not
designate a complying union in the charge, and agreed at the hearing
to substitute the name of a noncomplying union, we find no merit in
its request, made 9 months after the complaint was issued and nearly
including the Division, had participated in organizing employees of the Respondent and
other tugboat employees in the Houston area.
2 See Southern Waste Material Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 1273; Monsanto Chemical Company,
115 NLRB 702 ; Weston Biscuit Company, Inc., 117 NLRB 1206.
LOCAL 169 583
a year after the charge was filed, that we now administratively change
the record to designate a complying union as the Charging Party. We
shall, therefore, deny the Motion.
Accordingly, as the record now shows that the union named in
this proceeding as the Charging Party was not in compliance when the
complaint was issued,3 we shall dismiss the complaint herein.4
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBERS MUIRDOCK and JENKINS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
8N. L. R. B. v. Thomas W. Den t, at at ., d/b/a Dant & Russell, Ltd., 344 U. S. 375.
4 Because we are dismissing the complaint upon compliance grounds, we do not pass upon
the merits of the unfair labor practice charges.
Local 169, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO and W. H. Condo , Brick Contractor and
Mason Contractors Association of East St. Louis . Case No.
14-CC-97. November 25,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 8, 1957, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in a copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter the General Counsel filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting brief.
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 Murdock, Bean, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was conunitted.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge, as amended , filed by W. H. Condo, Brick Contractor, herein
called Condo, against Local 169, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or the Union, the General
119 NLRB No. 81.