Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 320

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 118 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
We shall therefore direct that a self-determination election be held
in a voting group composed of the timekeeper in the Employer's
Freeport plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors .3 If
he votes for the Petitioner, he will be taken to have indicated his de-
sire to be included in the production and maintenance unit currently
represented by the Petitioner.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Cf. Southwestern Sales Corporation ( Radio Station KVOO ), 92 NLRB 936.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED
WITH INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS , BUILDING AND COMMON
LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, AND R. L. SLATER , ITS OFFICER
AND AGENT and JAMES FELLOWS and EDWARD F. WILSON. Cases
Nos. 36-CB-I4° and 36-CB-43. September 10, 1951
Decision and Order
On May 15, 1951, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. 'Thereafter
the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.2
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act by causing the Com-
''Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in respect to this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston , Reynolds, and
Styles];
2 The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's characterization of the Company as a
"multistate enterprise ," in connection with his jurisdictional findings. Whether or not the
Company is a multistate enterprise within the meaning of that term as used in prior Board
decisions , we find , in view of the fact that during 1949 the Company performed services
outside the State-of Oregon exceeding $25,000 in value, that it would effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case See Stanislaus Implement and Hardware
Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618; Starrett Bros. and Eken, Inc., 92 NLRB 1757.
96 NLRB No. 12.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION 119
pany to discharge Wilson and Fellows for reasons other than their
failure to tender periodic dues and initiation fees.
However, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner that it was nec-
essary for the-disposition of this case to ascertain the precise reason
for the Respondent's action in suspending Fellows and Wilson as
members in good standing. Under the Act such reasons would be
relevant only if there were in existence a valid union-security agree-
ment, and the discharges were alleged to have been made pursuant to
such agreement. Recognizing this, the Trial Examiner found, and
we agree, that there was in fact no such contract in existence at the
time of the discharges in this case, and that the discharges were there-
fore illegal regardless of the reasons for the Respondent's suspension
of the dischargees. However, he deemed himself precluded from dis-
posing of the case on this ground, because of the failure of the General
Counsel to allege the nonexistence of such a contract. We do not agree
with this view insofar as it implies that the burden is on the General
Counsel, in a case of this sort, to allege the nonexistence of a valid'
-union-shop contract. The burden is rather properly on the respond-
ent in such a case to plead the existence of such a contract and that the
discharges were made pursuant thereto.
Absent proof of the existence of such a contract in this case, we find
that, in any event, Respondent's violation of the Act is sufficiently es-
tablished by the evidence that the, discharges- were made at the Re-
spondent's request because of the dischargees' loss of membership in
good standing, and it was unnecessary for the Trial Examiner to in-
quire into the reasons for such loss of membership.
2. In connection with his finding that the Respondent caused the
Company to discharge Wilson and Fellows in violation of Section 8
(b) (2) and (1) (a) of the Act by demanding their discharge for not
being members in good standing; the Trial Examiner found that the
Company depended on the Respondent for its labor supply. The Re-
spondent asserts that there is no basis in the record for such a finding.
Assuming that to be the case, and that the Company did not depend on
the Respondent for its labor supply, that fact would not affect the
validity of the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent vio-
lated the Act, or our concurrence therein.
Order
Upon the entire record in the 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, Construction and
General Laborers Union, Local 320, affiliated with International Hod
Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL,
Portland, Oregon, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assigns, and the Respondent R. L. Slater, officer and agent of the Re-
spondent Union, jointly and severally, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Yonker & Pettijohn, its agents,
successors or assigns, to discharge, suspend or otherwise discriminate
against its employees because they are not members in good standing
of the Respondent Union, except in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
(b) In any other manner causing or attempting to cause Yonker &
Pettijohn, Portland, Oregon, or its agents, successors, and assigns, to
discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
(c) Restraining or coercing employees of Yonker & Pettijohn, its
successors, or assigns in the exercise of their right 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, and to refrain from any or all such activ-
ities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Immediately notify Yonker & Pettijohn and The-Pettijohn
Engineering Company, Portland, Oregon, that they have no objections
-to the immediate reinstatement or reemployment of James Fellows
and Edward F. Wilson in their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, if any.
(b) Make whole James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson, for any
,-loss of pay they may have suffered because of the Respondents' un-
fair labor practices, in the manner described in section of the Inter-
.mediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post copies of the notice attached as an Appendix to the Inter-
mediate Report 3 in conspicuous places at the Respondent Union's
business offices in Portland, Oregon, and all other places where no-
tices to members of the Respondent Union are customarily posted.
Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), shall be posted by the
Respondents immediately upon their receipt, after being duly signed
by a representative of each, and the said posting shall be maintained
by them for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Rea-
8 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof, the words "A Decision and Order." If this Order
is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further
amended by inserting before the words "A Decision and Order ," the words "A Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION 121
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that these
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
.
(d) File with the Regional Director of the Nineteenth Region,
within ten (10) days from the date,of this Order, a report in writing
setting forth the manner and form in which they have complied with
these recommendations.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT 29OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson, individuals, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively
the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region (Seattle, Washington), issued his complaint dated March 8, 1951, alleging,
that Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 320 of the International
Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, herein
called the Respondent Union, and R. L. Slater, as its agent, herein called Re-
spondent Slater, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subsection (b) (1) (A)
and (2) and Section 2, subsection (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, in that the Respondents
attempted to cause and caused Yonker & Pettijohn, herein called the Employer,
to discharge the aforesaid Fellows and Wilson, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of hearing thereon, were duly
served upon the parties. In their answer duly filed, the Respondents denied the
jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and that they had engaged in the
alleged unfair labor practices. '
Pursuant to notice,`a hearing was held at Portland, Oregon, on April 26, 1951,
before me, the undersigned duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were
represented at and participated in the hearing, where full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded them. On motion of the General Counsel and
without objection, the transcript of certain prior proceedings was made a part
of the record herein' After the evidence had been taken, the General Coun-
sel's unopposed motion to conform the pleadings to the proof was granted.
There was oral argument participated in by the General Counsel and counsel
for the Respondents. The Respondents filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses
who appeared before me, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYES
Yonker & Pettijobn, the Employer herein, was a partnership formed in or
about February 1948, engaged as general contractors in the construction business,
with its office at Portland, Oregon.
1 This transcript included an injunction proceeding in the District Court of the United
States for the District of Oregon and a proceeding before the Board in the matter of Con-
struction and General Laborers Union, Local No. 320 of the International Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, and Robert L. Slater, as its Agent,
and Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc., 93 NLRB 751.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
From April 1949 to October 1949, it was engaged as a subcontractor in the
construction of the foundation and footings for a power transmission line in
the city of Seattle, Washington, at a contract price of approximately $109,650,
which included services, materials, and labor. Starting in July 1949, it was en-
gaged as a subcontractor on a_power line or transmission line job in the State
of Washington at a contract price of approximately $107,722. This construc-
tion was performed for the Bonneville Power Administration, an agency of the
Federal Government.
In May 1950, the Employer became engaged in a construction job for a hous-
ing subdivision in or near the city of Portland, Oregon, known as the Vermont
Hills job, at a contract price of $33,000. It is the situs of the incidents giving
rise to the case at bar. This project was completed in the fall of 1950. Also
in the latter part of 1950, the Employer was engaged in laying sewer pipe on a
construction job at or near Portland, Oregon, at a contract price of approximately
$5,000.
It is clear from the foregoing, and is found, that Yonker & Pettijohn was a
multistate enterprise engaged in_construction projects of substantial value in
the States of Oregon and Washington. It was therefore engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the
Board to assert jurisdiction herein.
In view of these findings, it is unnecessary to consider the business: of Armco
Drainage and Metal Products, Inc., the employer with whom the Respondents
herein had their primary dispute,' out of which flowed the incidents giving rise
to the case at bar, in order to determine jurisdiction herein.
On or about September 1950 Yonker & Pettijohn dissolved their partnership or
joint venture and the Pettijohn Engineering Company, Portland, Oregon, ac-
quired the good will of the partnership, some of its properties, and the right to
use the name of Yonker & Pettijohn for its own future operations.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 320, affiliated with Interna-
tional Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL,
and R. L. Slater, its officer and agent, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The case at bar in which it is alleged that the Respondent Union and its
agent, Respondent Robert L. Slater, caused Yonker & Pettijohn discrimina-
torily to discharge its employees, James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson, de-
rives from a situation in which the same respondents were found by the Board
to have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the
Act. The following facts are recited from the Board's `decision; of which I
take official notice :
For several years before 1948, the Respondent Union was the bargaining
representative of the employees in Armco's [Armco Drainage and Metal
Products, Inc.] concrete products plant. In 1948, in answer to a petition
for decertification of the Union as bargaining representative of these em-
ployees, the Union acknowledged that it no longer represented them. The
petition was thereupon dismissed. In April 1950, the Union commenced
See footnote 1, supra.
s Construction and General Laborers Union, Local No. 320 of the International Hod
Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, et at., 93 NLRB 751.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION 123
• picketing Armco's place of business for the purpose of forcing Armco to
bargain for employees whom it had disclaimed representing in 1948. No
intervening certification of the Union had occurred.
In June 1950, Respondent Slater, the Respondent Union's secretary and
business manager, went to the job site of one of Armco's customers (Yonker
& Pettijohn) and told this customer's employees, who were also members
of the Union, that he wished to have the delivery of Armco material stopped.
Slater also asked the customer.to stop handling the Armco material. De-
spite Slater's statement to them, the employees of Yonker & Pettijohn con-
tinued to handle the Armco material on an interim basis. Slater observed
and expressed displeasure at this action. Two days later, without adequate
explanation, the Union suspended them from membership and refused
to permit them to return to work for Yonker & Pettijohn.
It is against this background that we approach the gravamen of the present
complaint. Fellows and Wilson were two of those employees whom the Union
suspended from membership and refused to permit to return to work for Yonker
& Pettijohn. It is alleged that by that action and course of conduct the Respond-
ents attempted to cause and caused Yonker & Pettijohn, the employer herein,
to discriminate against Fellows and Wilson. It does not appear to be dis-
puted that Yonker & Pettijohn terminated the employment of Fellows and
Wilson, on or about June 26, 1950. In any event, this is established by Wilson's
credited and corroborated testimony that on June 25, he called E. I. Pettijohn,
one of the partners of Yonker & Pettijohn, who informed him that it was "im-
possible" for him and the other men who had been suspended from membership
in the Union, to return to work.4
Neither does it appear to be disputed that the Union and its agent, Slater,
"attempted to cause and caused" the Employer to discharge Fellows and Wilson.
It was Pettijohn's credited testimony that Slater informed him that these and
other employees engaged on the job had been "suspended from the job, and they
could not return under any circumstances." Pettijohn further testified, "I
objected to his removing all the men from the job because I felt it was not
fair to them and, from my standpoint, it also jeopardized the normal operation.
Bringing in a new crew would necessitate the reorganizing of our method of
procedure." Nevertheless Pettijohn acquiesced in the Respondents' request that
the men be removed from the job.
It may be argued that the Union's request for the discharge of Fellows,
Wilson, and others was not accompanied by such pressures as to constitute
an "attempt to cause" or the "causing" of the discharges, within the meaning
of the Act. A similar argument was rejected by the Board in a recent decision
in which the Board stated: ". . . in the instant case, the Respondent Union's,
International and its locals were the source of the Company's labor supply not
only for the job involved here but for other operations in various parts of
the country. In view of the Respondent Union's potential economic power to
deprive the Employer of its labor market, the request of the Respondent Union's
job steward, later reiterated by the business agent, that members of the subordi-
nate local be laid off out of turn, exerted sufficient pressure to accomplish the
ends desired by the Respondent Union. It is unrealistic to contend that such
request was not in fact the `cause' of the discharges." ` Similarly, it would
Wilson testified : ". . . he [Pettijohn] told me that the executive board [of the Union]
had informed him that we were suspended and that we could not come back on the job.
That was all he could say He said he pleaded with them to let us stay on the job, that he
wanted us back and was satisfied with our work, but be said it was impossible for us to
come back because we were suspended."
6 Sub Grade Engineering Company et al., 93 NLRB 406.
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be unrealistic to make such a contention here where the Employer argued against
the discharges and, obviously, would riot have effectuated them except for
economic pressures implicit in the Respondents' demand.
It remains to consider whether the Respondents' request for the discharges
was permissible, or violative of the Act as alleged in the complaint. It seems
clear that the Employer in discharging Fellows, Wilson, and others at the re-
quest of the Respondents, encouraged membership in_ the Union within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. The decision by the Board in a
recent case is applicable to the case at bar: ". . . by the act of yielding to
the Local's demand that Watson be removed, the Employer perforce strength-
ened the position of the Local and forcibly demonstrated to the employees that
membership in, as well as adherence to the rules of, that organization was
extremely desirable. Such encouragement of union membership was particu-
larly effective when, as in the present case, the Employer deferred to the de-
mand of the Local that employees be cleared through its hall, and membership
appears to have been a condition precedent to obtaining the necessary clear-
ance." 6 Here, also, the Employer depended on the Respondents for its labor
supply ; otherwise, it would not have yielded to the Respondents' request for
the discharges. It follows that the discharges were discriminatory and there-
fore violative of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act unless they fall within the
proviso of that Section which makes discrimination permissible under a valid
union-shop contract where membership in a labor organization is denied or
terminated because of "the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues
2nd the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retain-
ing membership."
We turn now to a somewhat more detailed survey of the situation which
gave rise to the Respondents' request for the discharge of Fellows, Wilson,
and others.
In May and June 1950, the Employer was engaged in the construction of a
trunk sewer system for a housing subdivision in the city of Portland In June
23, 1950, several truck loads of materials purchased from Armco Drainage and
Metal Products, Inc., hereinafter called Armco, were delivered to the site of
the Employer's operations. At this time, as previously indicated, a labor dis-
pute existed between the Respondent Union and Armco. On the morning of
June 23, Respondent Slater, having been informed of the delivery of Armco ma-
terial on the Employer's job, visited the job site and spoke to a number of the
employees. In the course of this conversation, he informed them that material
being used on the job was being supplied from the picketed Armco plant, and
he wished to get the delivery of this material stopped. While disclaiming any
intention of advising the employees what they should do under the circum-
stances, he suggested that they wait until he left and then decide among them-
selves what action to take. Later that same morning, Respondent Slater spoke
to Pettijohn and obtained from the latter the promise to purchase material for
the completion of the job from a ,supplier other than Armco. Following his
conversation with Pettijohn, Slater returned to the job site and told some of
the laborers, including Wilson, that he had noticed one of the employees un-
loading Armco pipe after he (Slater) had instructed the employees to stop
further deliveries
Later that same day, Pettijohn informed the employees that he had stopped
further deliveries of Armco materials and in the ensuing discussion, it was
6 American Pipe and Steel Corporation at al., 93 NLRB 54.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION 125
agreed that the employees would continue to work on the Armco material which
had already been delivered. The employees, including Fellows and Wilson,
continued to work for the rest of that day.
On June 25, a meeting of the- Union's executive board was held and 5 of the
10 laborers employed on the Employer's job, including Fellows and Wilson, ap-
peared before the executive board where they were asked to relate what had
occurred on the job in connection with the Armco materials. Following this
meeting, they were informed that all of the laborers on the Employer's job were
suspended from the Union and that two of them, including Wilson, were fined
$50. They were also advised that, being suspended from the Union, they could
not return to work on the Employer's job.
It was Pettijohn's credited testimony that Respondent Slater informed him
that the employees were suspended from the Union for laying "unfair" pipe.
The employees themselves were given no explicit factual reasons by the Union
for their suspension . It was Respondent Slater's testimony that the employees
were suspended, and certain of them fined, for having insisted that the Union
picket the Employer's job. I am unable to credit this testimony. It is in-
consistent with Slater's statement to Pettijohn that the aforesaid disciplinary
action was taken because the employees had laid "unfair" pipe, and all reasonable
inferences arising from the situation just described. The real reason for the
employees' suspension was that they had continued to work with Armco ma-
terials after Respondent Slater had visited them on the job site on the morning
of June 23 and suggested that they do something to stop the delivery of Armco
materials. In short, they had not participated as fully as the Respondents ex-
pected them to, in furtherance of the Union's labor dispute with Armco and
boycott of its products?
It is clear from the foregoing and it is found that the Respondents' request
for the discharge of Fellows and Wilson, among others, was not based on their
failure "to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required
as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership . . ." Accordingly, it is
found that the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (l:) (2) of
the Act, by attempting to cause and causing Yonker & Pettijohn to discharge
Fellows and Wilson in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.8 ,
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents, set forth in Section III, above, which oc-
curred in connection with the operations of the Employer set forth in Section
I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
7 These findings , arrived at by the undersigned independently of the Board 's decision in
the prior case, are based on the credited testimony of Fellows, Wilson, and Pettijohn, duly
corroborated , in some or all particulars , by the testimony of other employees testifying for
the General Counsel. Respondent Slater's testimony , where it is in conflict with these
findings, although considered in its entirety , is rejected.
8It further appears that at the time Fellows and Wilson were discharged, there was no
existing valid union-shop contract between the Employer and the Union. In the absence
of such a contract, regardless of the reasons which caused the Respondents to suspend these
employees, they had no license to demand the discharges and their attempt to cause and
the causing of the discharges was patently illegal . The discussion herein has been focused
on the actual reasons for the action taken by the Respondents in suspending these
employees from membership in the Union, because the complaint does not specifically
allege the nonexistence of a valid union-shop contract as the basis of the alleged unlawful
acts.
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, including posting of appropriate notices, designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondents caused the Employer to discriminate
against James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the statute. It is recommended that the Respondents notify the Employer,
Yonker & Pettijohn, and Pettijohn Engineering Company ° in writing, that they
have withdrawn their objections to the employment of Fellows and Wilson.
The Respondents having committed an unfair labor practice which resulted in
the termination of Fellows' and Wilson's employment, it will be recommended
that the Respondents, jointly and severally, make them whole for losses suf-
fered by reason of the Respondents' unlawful conduct, by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the amount each normally would have earned
as wages from June 26, 1950, the date of the discharge, to the date on which
his employment would normally have been terminated except for the Respond-
ents' unlawful acts," less his net earnings, if any," during this period, computed
upon a quarterly basis, in the manner established by the Board in the recent
Woolworth case."
CONorusIONs OF LAW
Upon these findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following conclusions of law :
1. Yonker & Pettijohn is, and at all times material herein was, an employer
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union, Construction and General Laborers Union, Local
320, affiliated with International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act, and Respondent R. L. Slater is its officer and agent.
3. By causing Yonker & Pettijohn to discriminate against James Fellows and
Edward F. Wilson in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and by their
restraint and coercion of Fellows and Wilson and other employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
and (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
9 At the time of the hearing , Yonker had withdrawn from the partnership . Upon disso-
lution of the partnership , Pettijohn acquired the good will and some of the assets of the
partnership and the right to use Yonker & Pettijohn as a trade name for future operations.
m The Yonker & Pettijohn project on which Fellows and Wilson were engaged at the
time of their employment was completed in or about September 1950. There is no evidence
from which it may reasonably be inferred that they normally would have remained in the
employ of Yonker & Pettijohn after the completion of this project, or that they thereafter
suffered losses attributable to the Respondents ' unlawful labor practices.
n Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440 ; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
311 U. S. 7.
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION
Appendix
127
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION,
LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', BUILDING AND
COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, AFL
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause or cause YONKER & PETTIJOHN, or its agents,
successors , or assigns , to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of
its employees because they are not members in good standing of CONSTRUC-
TION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNA-
TIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA,
AFL, except in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of YONKER & PETTIJOHN or its
agents, successors , or assigns in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own free choice and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson whole for any loss
of pay which they may have suffered because of the unfair labor practices
which caused the termination of their employment.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS
UNION, LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED WITH
INTERNATIONAL HOD C A R R I E RS,
BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS
UNION OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated -------------------- By -----------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
R. L. SLATER
By -----------------------------------------
(Agent or Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days after its date, and must not be al-
tered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
STANDARD & POOR'S CORPORATION and NEWSPAPER GUILD OF NEW YORK,
FOCAL 3, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO. Case No.. -RC-92751.
September 11, 1951
Order Amending Decision and Order
On July 17, 1951, the Board issued a Decision and Order I in the
above-entitled matter, dismissing the petition upon the ground that
the Petitioner had failed to make a showing of interest adequate to
1 95 NLRB 248.
96 NLRB No. 20.