Donovan, James, Wismer, & Becker

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1562 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent violated the Act by questioning em-
ployees at its Worcester branch concerning their union affiliations and sym-
pathies and by promising those employees benefits if the Union was defeated
in its organizing campaign. The undersigned from his study of the evidence
is convinced that a broad cease and desist order is not necessary in this case,
but that it is necessary that the Respondent be ordered to refrain from vio-
lating the Act by any conduct like or related to that which has been found
violative of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Optical and Instrument Workers of America, Local No. 28, CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By questioning employees at its Worcester branch concerning their union
affiliation and sympathies and by promising those employees benefits if the
Union was defeated in its organizing campaign, the Respondent has interfered
with and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. It has not been established that the Respondent discharged William J.
Morin because of his union or concerted activities.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
DONOVAN, JAMES, WISMER, & BECKER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-1,705. April .18,
1051
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Daniel J. Harrington
and George H. O'Brien, hearing officers. The hearing officers' rul,
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.'
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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
i At the hearing the Petitioner was permitted to amend the unit description.
93 NLRB No. 255.
DONOVAN, JAMES, WISMER, & BECKER 1563
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer in this case is an unincorporated joint venture or-
ganized to assemble and install five hydroelectric generator-turbines
in the powerhouse at Davis Dam, Arizona, on the Arizona Bank of the
Colorado River. The Employer and the Intervenors 2 contend that
the Employer is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
The Employer contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation of the
United States Department of the Interior for the Davis Dam installa-
tion, for which the Employer is to receive $1,500,000. Power gen-
erated at Davis Dam will be consumed primarily in the States of
Arizona and California: Although there is no evidence in the record
as to what percentage of the Davis Dam power will go to industrial
consumers engaged in commerce, it is clear from the record that the
power to be generated is so identified with the Government's national
defense effort as to warrant the exercise of the Board's discretion to
assert the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Act.3 Moreover, the
fact that the Employer is rendering services valued in excess of
$50,000 which are necessary to the operation of a public utility affords
an additional ground for asserting jurisdiction.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit including all employees of the Employer
directly engaged in the assembly and installation of generators and
turbines at Davis Dam, Arizona, excluding riggers, pipe fitters, and
all other employees. The employees herein involved are skilled
workmen engaged in highly specialized work requiring, according to
the testimony in the record, skills peculiar to millwrights, machinists,
and electricians.
The Employer began work at the Davis Dam powerhouse about
November 1, 1949. At the hearing the Employer testified without
contradiction that at the very latest its operations at the Davis Dam
will be completed by June 1, 1951, but that the job will probably be
finished sometime in May 1951. The Employer, although temporary
low bidder for a powerhouse installation at Hungry Horse, Montana,
2 The motions of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL,
and its Local No. 445, hereinafter called the Carpenters ; International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL , and its Local No. 640, hereinafter called the Electricians ;
and Building and Construction Trades Council of Clark and Lincoln Counties , Nevada,
AFL, hereinafter called the Council, to intervene where granted at the hearing.
a Westport Moving and Storage Company, 91 NLRB 902.
* See Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; Jacksonville Processing Corporation,.
93 NLRB 943.
1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is not now in a position to offer employment beyond June 1, 1951, to
the employees sought to be represented by the Petitioner. The Em-
ployer testified that it would employ installation personnel only when
required for a specific job; in fact, as it completes the installation of
each generator-turbine at the Davis Dam, it is reducing its working
force accordingly. Thus it appears that employment of the workers
herein sought by the Petitioner has either already terminated or will
terminate shortly. Inasmuch as there does not appear to be a reason.
able prospect of employment of such, workers by the Employer after
June 1, 1951, we believe that no useful purpose would be accomplished
by proceeding to a determination of representatives at this time.5
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.6
6 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 88 NLRB 502.
6In the light of our dismissal of the petition herein, we find it unnecessary to discuss
other questions raised by the parties.
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT, INC. and LOCAL 251, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD or TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-IBC-1976. April 18, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert S. Fuchs, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
I Contrary to the contention of Lodge 1017 , District 64, International Association of
Machinists , the Intervenor herein, an agreement as to wages only, made supplementary
to a general bargaining contract which expired in December 1950, but deemed operative
pending negotiations for a new contract , may not operate as a bar to the instant petition
timely filed with respect to the major contract . A. 0. Smith Corporation, 78 NLRB 1050.
93 NLRB No. 256.