General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1260 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
2. All the Respondents ' service and body departments employees , including
painters , trimmers , radiator repairmen , and parts department employees , exclud-
ing office , clerical , and supervisory employees , constitute a unit appropriate for
the purpose of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the
Act.
3. International Association of Machinists , District Lodge 86, was on Septem-
ber 7 , 1950, and at all times relevant thereafter has been , the exclusive represen-
tative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 ( a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on September 29, 1950, and thereafter , to bargain collectively
with International Association of Machinists , District Lodge 86, as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondents have
engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair . labor practices , within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the said refusal the Respondents interfered with , restrained , and coerced
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby engaged in , and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the ;
meaning of Section 8 (a ) (1) of the Act.
6. 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.]
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.
AND ITS LOCAL 743 and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS.,
Cases Nos. 21-CA=634 amd:r21--U - 59. Nome 18, 1951
Decision and Order
On March' 13; 1951, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
Respondents had engaged ,in and -wereengaging in certain unfair
labor .practices- and recommending that.they cease and desist-there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. ' Thereafter, the Respondent
Millwrights and the. Respondent Company. filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, and the Respondent Company filed a brief. The
Respondent Millwrights also requested oral argument. This request
is hereby denied because in our opinion the record, exceptions, and
brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings, Of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error. -was 'committed.. The
94 NLRB No. 193.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the_ Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and-brief, and the entire record in the
cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,. and,recommenda-
tions, of the Trial Examiner with the following additions'-and modi-
fications. _
1. The Respondents except to various. findings of the Trial Exam-
iner on the ground that he erred in crediting the testimony of cer-
tain 'witnesses and in refusing to credit the testimony of other wit-
nesses. As the Board said in Standard . Dry Wall Products, inc.,
91 NLRB 544, in restating its policy with regard to, the Trial Exam-
irer's'credibility findings, the Board attaches great weightto such find-
ings insofar as they are based on demeanor, and accordingly does not
overrule a Trial Examiner's resolution of credibility except.where the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces it :that his
resolution was incorrect. No such conclusion is warranted in this case.
The Board therefore, adopts the Trial Examiner's credibility. findings
and his findings of fact based thereon.
2. The Trial Examiner found, and.we agree; that Reginald N.'Cric4i-
ton, Stephen C. Chidester, Herman J.. Rose, Jack C. James, Thomas
H. Chandler,. and Willis Knight. were denied employment with the
Company because of the Company's. -policy under its agreement 1 with
the Millwrights of requiring that machinists be members ' of; or be
referred by, the Millwrights Union, and thereby violated Section 8
(a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) 'the Act.
It is evident from the record that an agreement (at least oral) re-
quiring membership in the Millwrights was made and that the Com-
pany followed a discriminatory practice under that agreement. Thus,
three of the applicants were told, not only by Sceales, business agent
of the Millwrights, but also by Jones, supervising engineer of the Com-
pany who was in charge of the project involved in this proceeding,
that such an agreement had been made. Under the agreement, as
related to these applicants by both Sceales and Jones, the Company
was permitted by the Millwrights to hire men of certain skills pro-
vided that the Company used as many of the Millwrights' members as
possible ; but, in any event, all persons hired as machinists would have
to become members of the Millwrights. In accordance with this agree-
ment the applicants were told by Jones and Sceales that they -would
have to join the Millwrights before they could be employed. Sceales
also told James, Rose, and Chandler that he would not give them clear-
ance.because members of Local 743, who were unemployed, would be
placed on the job before people from outside. According to Jones'
testimony "nearly every one" who worked on the installation handed
him a clearance slip from the Millwrights before being placed on the
' There is no evidence in the record that this agreement was ever reduced to writing.
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
job. For these and other reasons set forth in detail in the Interme-
diate Report, we are of the opinion that the record clearly evidences
the existence of a discriminatory agreement and practice under that
agreement which violated Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
The Company contends that at the times the applications for em-
ployment were made there were no jobs immediately available, and
that consequently there were no discriminatory refusals to hire. We
find, however, as did the Trial Examiner, that the discriminatory
agreement and practice did exist and that such agreement and practice
were communicated to the applicants at the times they applied for
employment. Under these circumstances the discrimination occurred
at the times when the applications were made and continued at the
times when the jobs did become available.2 The violations therefore
are established as of the dates the applicant first applied for employ-
ment, even though no machinists' jobs may have been available until
some time later. -
+' It is further contended by the Company that it had valid reasons,
quite apart from any union affiliation, to hire the men it did for the
machinist jobs-that the persons alleged to have been discriminated
against would not have been given the jobs regardless of their mem-
bership in the Union or their lack of membership in the Millwrights.
Jones' testimony in this regard is summarized in the Intermediate
Report; other officials of the Company also testified concerning the
Company's hiring practices. We do not find the Company's argu-
ment convincing. As stated in Swinerton and Walberg, 94 NLRB
1079, there is no way by which the validity of this contention may
be tested, for the applicants whom we have found to have been dis-
criminated against were excluded from consideration for the jobs
because of the Company's discriminatory agreement and practice.
It would be sheer speculation to assume that, if the illegal discrimina-
tion which prevented their being considered for the jobs had not
existed, the applicants would not have been employed. Moreover,
these machinists, according to. the record, had the machinist back-
ground and the specialized experience required for the work. In
fact, they had worked on similar projects for this very Company in
another area. On the other hand, as stated by the Trial Examiner,
of the 11 machinists hired after the 6 discriminatees had applied, 3
had not worked on generators before, 1 had experience with only
small generators, and 8 had never been previously employed by the
Company.
2 See Arthur G. McKee and Company, 94 NLRB 399, andDaniel Hamm. Drayage Company,
Inc., 84 NLRB 458, enfd. 185 F. 2d 1020 (C. A. 5).
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1263
3. The Trial Examiner has found that the'United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. L., as well as its Local 743,
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, by causing the Com-
pany to discriminate against the complainants. Although the record
clearly evidences the responsibility of Local 743 for the violations
of the Act found herein, it does not support a finding that the parent
organization was similarly responsible. There is no evidence that
the International Union or any of its agents had anything to do
with the conduct here found violative of the Act. We shall ac-
cordingly reverse' the Trial Examiner by dismissing the complaint
insofar as it alleges violations by United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, A. F. L.
Order
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that :
1. The Respondent, General Electric Company, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall :
A. Cease and desist from':
(1) Discouraging membership in International Association of
Machinists or any other labor organization, of its employees or appli-
cants for employment, or encouraging membership in Local 743,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organiza-
tion of employees or applicants for employment by refusing to hire
and employ properly qualified applicants or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment, except insofar 'as such activity
is affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
(2) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or as-
sist International Association of Machinists, or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in 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 a valid agreement requiring membership in
labor organization, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
'5264 DECISIONS: OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B.: Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(1) . Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board, or -its. agents; .for. examination and copying, all payroll rec-
ords, social security payment records,. time cards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts
of back pay due under the terms of this Order.
(2) Post at its San Francisco, California, office and at all its pres-
ently'.operating: projects in Kern County, California, copies. of. the
.notice attached' hereto and marked "Appendix A."' Copies of such
notice,l to be'furnished by"the_Regional Director for the Twenty-first
Region,shall, after.being duly, signed by the Company's representa-
tive, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days.thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees..and applicants for
employment are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall, be taken
by the :Company to. insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days fromthe date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent Company has taken to comply herewith.
II. The Respondent Local 743, United Brotherhood of -Carpenters
and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns
shall: '
A. Cease and desist from :
(1) Causing or attempting to cause General Electric Company to
discriminate against its employees or applicants for employment in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees or ap-
plicants for employment with General Electric Company in the exer-
cise of their rights. to refrain from any and all other concerted
activities guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to. the extent that,
such rights may be affected, by valid agreement requiring. member-
ship 'in a labor organization as a condition of employment as author-
ized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. .
B. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds nec-
essary. to effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Post in conspicuous places in its business office in Bakersfield,
California, where notices are customarily posted, copies of the notice
In the event 'that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall he inserted before . the words : "Decision and order," the words :
"Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY " 1265
attached hereto as "Appendix B."4 Copies of such notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall,
after being duly signed by a representative of Local 743, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to its members are. customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the said Union to insure that said. notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(2) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
III. General Electric Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns and Local 743, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners'
of America, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns,
jointly and severally, shall make whole Reginald N. Crichton,
Stephen C. Chidester, Herman J. Rose, Willis Knight, Jack C. James,
and Thomas H. Chandler, for loss of any pay they may have suffered
because of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of
them in a manner set forth in Section V of the Intermediate Report
entitled, The Remedy."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , insofar as it alleges that
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. L.,
has violated the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS or encourage membership in LOCAL 743,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
A. F. L., or in any other labor organization by refusing to employ
properly.qualified applicants, or in any other manner discriminat-
ing in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment, except insofar as such activity may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a. labor
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "Decision and Order " the words, "Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
953841-52-vol. 94-81
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization as a.condition of employment as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees or applicants for employment, in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to re-
..frain,from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that
:such right may be affected by a valid agreement requiring mem-
bership in a.labor organization as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
_;WE WILL MAKE whole Reginald N; Crichton, Stephen C. Chides-
ter, Herman J. Rose, Willis Knight, Jack C. James, and Thomas
H. Chandler for any loss of.pay suffered as a result of our, dis-
crimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named unions or any
other labor organization, except, to the extent that this' right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof;
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL-MEMBERS OF LOCAL No. 743, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. AND To ALL EM-
PLOYEES OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY :
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
-Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees or prospective em-
ployees of GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, its successors or assigns,
in the exercise of their right to refrain from any or all of the
concerted activities guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the -Act,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY . 1267
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner cause or attempt to cause GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to
discriminate against its employees, or prospective employees in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL MAKE whole Reginald N. Crichton, Stephen C. Chides-
ter, Herman J. Rose, Willis Knight, Jack C. James, and Thomas
H. Chandler for any loss of pay suffered because of the discrimi-
nation against them.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 743,
Labor Organization.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) . ( Title)
Dated------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by. any other
material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
Jerome Smith, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Messrs. Meserve, Mum per & Hughes, by Lewis T. Gardiner, Esq., for General
Electric Company.
James M. Nicoson, Esq., for Millwrights.
Messrs. Edward M. Skagen, A. C. McGraw, and Floyd E. Smith, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on November 18, 1949, by International Association
of Machinists, herein called the Union, against General Electric Company, herein
called GE (being Case No. 21-CA-634), and upon a charge duly filed on May
5, 1950, against United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and
its Local 743, each affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein
called Millwrights (being Case No. 21-CB-259), the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel
and the Board, by the Regional Director of the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles,
California), issued his complaint on June 9,1950,' alleging that GE has engaged
in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, and that
Millwrights has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
Copies of the complaint, charges, notice of hearing, and order of consolidation
were duly served upon each Respondent and upon the Union.
' On the same day, the aforesaid Regional Director, pursuant to Section 203: 33 (b) of
the Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 5, issued an order consolidating the above-
numbered cases.
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices of GE, the complaint alleged in sub-
stance that since on or about November 7, 1949, it has refused to employ six
named individuals because of their nonmembership in good standing in Mill-
wrights, thereby interfering with the rights guaranteed the said individuals in
Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) thereof.'
With respect to the unfair labor practices of Millwrights, the complaint alleged
in substance that it caused GE to refuse employment to the said six individuals
because they were not members in good standing in, and had not cleared with,
Millwrights, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
On June 30, 1950, each Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commis-
sion of the alleged unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Bakersfield, California, on November
20 and 21, 1950, and in San Francisco on February 5, 1951, before the under-
signed, Howard Myers, the duly designated Trial Examiner. Each Respondent
and the General Counsel were represented by counsel ; the Union by officials
thereof. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce.
evidence pertinent to the issues.
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief the Respondents' mo-
tions to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof were denied. At the conclusion
of the taking of the evidence counsel for each Respondent renewed his re-
spective motion to dismiss the complaint. Decisions thereon were reserved..
The motions are hereby denied.
At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument was had, in which all parties,
except the representatives of the Union, participated. The parties were then
informed that they might file briefs with the undersigned on or before February
20, 19513 A brief has been received from counsel for GE which has been care-
fully considered by the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
General Electric Company, a New York corporation, has its principal offices
and place of business in Schenectady, New York, where it is engaged, among
numerous other enterprises, in the manufacture, sale, distribution, and in the
installation of steam turbine generators in various States throughout the United
States. GE also operates a large number of plants, scattered throughout the
United States, which are engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
machinery, electrical equipment, and appliances and related products, and in the
repair and service thereof.
During the year 1949, GE, in the operation of the aforesaid plants, caused
to be purchased and delivered to each of the said plants, machinery, equipment,
parts, and other merchandise valued in excess of $500,000, of which more than
50 percent was transported to each of said plants from States other than the
States in which the said plants are located. . During the same period, GE manu-
factured, serviced, or repaired, at each of said plants, products valued in excess
2 At the opening of the hearing, the General Counsel moved to dismiss the 8 (a) (2)
allegations of the complaint. The motion was granted without objection.
3 At the request of counsel for Millwrights the time to file briefs was extended to
February 27, 1051:
GENERAL ELECTRIC 'COMPANY 1269
of $500,000 of which more than 50 percent was transported from each of the
said plants to States other than the States where the said plants are located.
. The Respondents' answers denied that GE is, or was at the time when the
alleged unfair labor practices occurred, engaged in interstate commerce. The
answer of GE, however, admits the commerce facts alleged in the complaint
concerning its extensive operations. The evidence, moreover, conclusively
shows that (1) the steam turbine generator that was installed by GE for
Pacific Gas and Electric Company' near Bakersfield, California, was valued
at upwards of several hundred thousand dollars and that the said generator,
was shipped. by GE to the job site from one of its plants located outside the State
of California, (2) the business and labor relations of GE are centrally controlled
by GE from its Schenectady, New York, headquarters, and (3) the installment
work in question was an, integral part of GE's multistate business structure. .
The undersigned accordingly finds that GE is, and at all times material herein
has been, engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, and the latter's Local 743, are labor organizations admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Respondent GE.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This case ini olves .the very narrow issue as to whether GE refused to employ
the six individuals named in the complaint because they were members of
the Union or because of their lack of membership in, clearance or referral from,
Millwrights, or both, and as to whether the refusals were caused by demands
made upon GE by Millwrights.
Between November 12, 1949, and about January 13, 1950, GE was engaged
in assembling and installing a steam turbine generator which it had sold to
the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. This generator was the last of a series
sold by GE to Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the plant which.the latter
then was constructing near Bakersfield, California, and which plant is referred
to herein as Kern No. 2. The general contractor on the job for Pacific Gas and
Electric Company was Stone and Webster' and that firm hired only certain
classified employees holding membership in, clearances or referral cards from,
Millwrights.
GE's normal complement for the installation of a generator of the size which
it was installing at the time of the alleged unfair labor practices is between 16
and 20. machinists. On this job, however, GE, employed only 15,6 4 of whom had
been working for GE at Kern No. 2 prior to the commencement of the installa-
tion of the aforesaid generator.
Floyd E. Smith, the Union's construction representative for certain portions
of California, Arizona, and Nevada, testified without contradiction, and the
undersigned finds, that in the latter part of August 1949, he inquired of Ralph
Weise, GE's field steam superintendent for Southern California, the date when-
' This company is engaged in interstate commerce, and the Board on numerous occasions
asserted jurisdiction over it.
" This company is engaged in interstate commerce , and the Board on several occasions
asserted jurisdiction over it.
6 The other men employed on the job , although not classified as machinists , received
machinists' wages.
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GE would proceed with the installation of the steam turbine generator at Kern
No. 2; that Weise replied that, while he knew about the job, he did not know
the starting date because it was not in his territory but was in the territory
of Roy M. Jones, a supervising consulting engineer of GE and the person in
charge of the Kern No. 2 job for GE; that Weise also stated that either Jones
or Alf Hansen, the head of the turbine engineering section of the San Francisco
'territory of GE, had requested that Weise interview the machinists ° located in
Los Angeles who were applying for work at Kern No. 2; that on or about Sep-
tember 28, 1949, he went to Bakersfield for the purpose of ascertaining whether
Jones needed any machinists ; and that Jones informed him, to quote Smith,
as follows :
. . . they (GE) were using millwrights and had used millwrights on the
prior job [Kern No. 1] and that if he would use machinists or hired machin-
ists there would be trouble with the building trades, and he wound up by
stating that if I could talk Mr. McGrew, who was superintendent for Stone
and Webster, and get Mr. McGrew to make the policy, then he could go
along, but that it would have to be done through Stone and Webster.
Smith further testified, and the undersigned finds, that in mid-October, he
requested two union members to apply to Jones for work. Pursuant thereto,
Reginald E. Crichton and Stephen C. Chidester went to the job site on October
Y3, and saw Jones.
Regarding his and Chidester's interview with Jones, Crichton testified as
follows :
Mr. Jones asked me who I had worked for in General Electric, and I told
him that I had worked for Mr. Ralph Weise under the direction of Mr.
Pinkerton, and that I also knew Mr. Biddle, who was an old friend of Mr..
Jones, and we went into quite a long conversation about Mr. Biddle's and
Mr. Jones' past relations.
I then got back to the reason we came, and there again told Mr. Jones
that I was interested in going to work for him as a machinist and that I
was a member of the International Association of Machinists out of Long
Beach.
Mr. Jones told me that if I went to work for him I would have to clear
through the Millwrights Union ; that he could not put any man on a job that
was not a member of the Millwrights Union for the simple fact that the
Building Trades would just get on his neck.
I told Mr. Jones I was willing to join the Millwrights Union providing
he could assure me that he could get me on the job.
I again asked Mr. Jones if we did join would he assure us that we would
be on the job: He said that the Millwrights Union would take care to see
,that we could join and that we definitely would be put on the job.
Mr. Jones then asked me to leave my name and address so that he could
wire me when to report for work, which he said would be approximately
November 15, 1949. I thanked Mr. Jones and left his office.
R # S O 4 i *
Q. (By Mr. Smith) Did you receive any wire or word from Mr. Jones-
Trial Examiner MYERS. Did Jones say anything to Chidester?
The WITNESS. He told Mr. Chidester the same thing he told me.
Trial Examiner MYERS. What?
7 "Machinists" and "millwrights" are used interchangeably in the record.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY - 1271
The WITNESS. That he would wire when he wanted to put us to work.
I told Mr. Jones that if he wanted to wire either Chidester or myself, either
one of us would contact the other man and we could both come up together.
Mr. Jones stated he had about eight men that had worked for him previ-
ously out of San Francisco, which he was going to bring down here, but
that he would need more men and that is why he wanted our names. He
said that first he would place those eight men and then we would be used.
Chidester's version of what transpired at the above-mentioned meeting with
Jones is in substantial accord with Crichton's.
Jack C. James testified that on October 21, he, Herman Rose, and Thomas
Chandler, all members of the Union, saw Jones at the construction site ; that he,
Rose, and Chandler applied for work ; that each of them outlined to Jones his
past experience on installation and repair work for GE and Westinghouse on
generators similar to the one that Jones was about to install ; and that the follow-
ing, among other things, then transpired :
Mr. Jones said that he had four men working on the job which he had
brought down with him from San Francisco and they had done that work
and that they were millwrights. He then asked if we were millwrights and
we said that we weren't, that we were machinists.
* * * * s * •
... he [Jones] said that we would have to clear through the Millwrights
here in Bakersfield in order to go to work on the job, . .
Jones suggested that we go see Mr. Scaeles [business agent] of the Car-
penters Union, as long as we were [in Bakersfield], and make arrangements
with him to either join the Carpenters Union or get a permit from him so
we could go to work on the job.
I asked Mr. Jones if we should happen to join the Millwrights or the
Carpenters Union when we went to see Mr. Scaeles if we could be assured
of a job.... He said that we could be assured of it. In fact, prior
to that conversation he said that he expected to get the job started on
November 21, and that he would send us a wire telling us to come to work.
* * * * * s *
Mr. Herman ' Rose asked Mr. Jones if there was any way possible that
we could work on the job without belonging to the Millwrights Union, and
Jones said that there wasn't. He said that we would have to definitely
clear through the Millwrights Union.
James further testified that after he, Rose, and Chandler had entered in Jones'
notebook their respective names and home addresses they left Jones and then
saw Scaeles at the Millwrights' Hall.
Regarding the interview he, Rose, and Chandler had with Scaeles, James
credibly testified without contradiction as follows : After the three had intro-
duced themselves to Scaeles, they informed Scaeles that they had been offered
jobs by Jones, with the understanding that Millwrights would give them the
necessary clearances or referral cards ; that. Scaeles then stated, to quote James,
"we were not going to work on the job because he had men in his Local who
had been paying dues for quite some time and were out of work.and that they
were certainly going to be placed on the job before outsiders"; that he then
told Scaeles that Jones had informed him, Rose, and Chandler that Jones and
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Scaeles had an agreement whereby Jones could hire certain men provided he
"used as many men out of the Carpenters Union as he could" ; that Scaeles con-
firmed this arrangement, adding, however, that under the agreement Jones was
permitted to hire 50 percent of the men and the other half would have to be,
secured through Millwrights, "but," in any event, "all of the men would have
to belong to the Millwrights Local regardless of whether they came out of Jones'
quota" or not ; that Scaeles informed him that the Millwrights' initiation fee
was $85 and the dues were $3 per month ; and that Rose then asked Scaeles if
he would be permitted to work for Jones without joining Scaeles' Local, to
which Scaeles replied, "absolutely not."
The versions of Rose and Chandler with respect to the above respective meet-
ings with Jones and Scaeles are in substantial accord with that of James.
Willis Knight,' another union member, testified that on November 7, 1949, he
went to Bakersfield to apply for a job as a machinist ; that when he got to the
job site, he was informed that Jones had gone for the day; that he then tele-
phoned to Jones at the place Jones was then living and informed Jones that
he was a machinist, had previously worked installing turbines for GE, and would
like to obtain work on the Kern No. 2 installation job, that on most of his GE
jobs he was a foreman ; that Jones replied that, to quote Knight, "he couldn't
hire me now . . . because he had some men coming in he had hired who
were coming in next week"; and that Jones also stated that he could not be
employed because "the Millwrights had the job, the general job" and if Jones
hired him, "the Millwrights would probably try to tie up the job. . . .
On November 17, Crichton, Chidester, Rose, and Knight appeared at the job
site and again asked Jones for employment. This time Jones told them that
he had hired sufficient machinists and therefore Jones could not use their
services.
Scaeles, although present throughout the entire hearing, was not called as a
witness.
Jones denied that he had any agreement with Scaeles under which he would
hire only men holding membership in Millwrights or who had secured clear-
ances or referral cards from that organization. He also denied that he made
any statement to any applicant, including the six here involved, that he would
have to be a member of, or be obliged to obtain a clearance from, Millwrights
before securing work at Kern No. 2.
Jones also testified that the reason that none of the aforesaid applicants
was hired was because he was endeavoring to secure a crew of trained men
so that when one installation job was completed he would have the necessary
men to work on the next such job; that the persons here involved resided in
Los Angeles area and therefore, they were not considered for employment
because one of the prime prerequisites, in order to become a member of the
crew to be formed, was that the man must reside in the San Francisco B'ay
area ; that to that end, he gave preference to men residing in the Bay area ;
that in order to obtain work at Kern No. 2 former employment with GE was
not considered a determining factor ; that he told the first four applicants °
that he could not assure them jobs because he expected to secure eight men
from the Bay area, but if he could not get the entire eight he would keep the .
said four applicants "in mind" ; that he never promised any of the six applicants
jobs ; that he told Knight when the latter called him on the telephone,1° "I don't
8 Erroneously referred to in the complaint and certain other formal papers as William
Knight.
0 Namely, Crichton, Chidester, Rose, and James. The record shows that Chandler
also was present with Rose and James.
10 Jones places the date of this conversation in December 1949. Knight testified, and
the undersigned finds, that the conversation took place on November 7.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1273
need any men. I am going to lay off men. The job is through" ; and that when
he saw Knight, Crichton, Chidester, and Rose on November 17," he told them,
"instead of hiring men I was going to be firing men."
Jones admitted that of the 11 machinists hired after the 6 complainants here
involved had applied for work, 3 of them 12 had never worked on generators
before working at Kern No. 2, 1" had previous experience with only "real small"
generators," and that 8 had never been previously in the employ of GE.
Jones also admitted that he was able to secure only six of the eight persons
who resided in the Bay area and whom he had in mind when he first spoke to
Crichton and Chidester ; that he told each. of the six complainants herein if
he could not secure the said eight Bay area machinists, he would bear him "in
mind"; that he informed the complainants that the Millwrights claimed the
job; 13 and that "nearly every one" who worked on the installation of the Kern
No. 2 generator handed him a clearance slip of the Millwrights prior to his
being placed on the job.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned is convinced, and finds,
that the testimony of the six complainants herein to be substantially in accord
with the facts. The undersigned also finds that Jones and Scaeles made the
statements attributed to each of them by the said complainants. It is thus
conclusively clear that the said complainants were not employed by GE on the
Kern No. 2 installation job solely because they were not members of, or had
not received clearances from, Millwrights.15 Since there existed no valid union-
shop agreement between GE and Millwrights, GE's insistence that the applicants
for employment be referred to it by Millwrights, or to receive clearances from
it, was for all practical purposes tantamount to a refusal to employ them
unless they became members of that union. Such a requirement clearly abro-
gated the employees' right, guaranteed by the Act, of freedom in their choice
of representatives. It is, of course, well recognized that an employer who con-
ditions the right of employees to work upon their surrender of such a right
discriminates against such employees within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3)
and (1) of the Act" Since the necessary effect of the conduct of GE was to
refuse employment altogether to the six applicants, here involved because they
were not members of Millwrights, the undersigned finds that GE discriminated
against them within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
The undersigned further finds that the -refusal by GE to employ the six
persons named in the complaint was due solely to Millwrights' insistence
11 Jones places this incident as occurring the day following the aforesaid telephone
conversation with Knight. The record, on the other hand, conclusively indicates that
this conversation took place on November 17.
12 Namely, Nicholas, Hamilton, and Skovold (a machine shop operator).
13 Namely, Frampton.
14 The generator in question is one of the largest manufactured by GE.
15 Regarding this admission, Jones testified on direct examination as follows :
Q. At these conferences with the applicants as the Charging Parties, did you indicate
to any of them that employment of machinists on the job might have a disruptive
influence upon the project itself?
A. It was nothing said. It was only cases where they asked what the craft was
on the job. That is the only time that labor was mentioned.
Q. And what was your reply to such a question?
A. As I said before, the Millwrights claimed that job.
16 According to their undisputed credible testimony all of the complainants were qualified
machinists with years of experience installing steam turbine generators such as the one
installed at Kern No. 2. Moreover, contrary to the Respondents' contentions, the under-
signed finds that the said complainants applied in good faith for employment at Kern No. 2.
17 Phelps Dodge Corporation v. N. L. if. B., 313 U. S. 177; N. L. R. B. v. National
Maritime Union, 175 F. 2d 686 (C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. V. Port Gibson Veneer and Boa Co.,
167 F. 2d 144 (C. A. 5).
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that only members of, or persons holding clearances from, Millwrights be
employed as machinists on the Kern No. 2 job. That an understanding existed
between Jones and Scaeles that only members of, or persons holding Millwrights
clearances, would be employed by Jones as machinists on the Kern No. 2 job
is conclusively proven by the credited testimony. The insistence of a labor
organization that an employer enforce such an understanding,. absent an elec-
tion as required by the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, is clearly
violative of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.'8 Millwrights not only attempted to
cause, but was wholly successful in causing, GE to refuse employment to the
complainants solely because they were not members of Millwrights, and thereby
violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent General Electric Company, 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 burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that each of the Respondents has engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that each cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to
.effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the Respondents, and each of them, dis-
criminated against Reginald N. Crichton, Stephen C. Chidester, Herman J. Rose,
Willis Knight, Jack C. James, and Thomas H. Chandler in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment, thereby encouraging membership in United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, and in its Local 743, and discouraging membership in International
Association of Machinists. Since the installation of the steam turbine generator
at.Kern No. 2 has been completed, the undersigned will not recommend that
GE offer employment to the aforesaid six persons. The undersigned will recom-
mend, however, that GE and Millwrights, jointly and severally , make Reginald
N. Crichton, Stephen C. Chidester, Herman J. Rose, Willis Knight, Jack C. James,
and Thomas H. Chandler whole for any loss of earnings suffered by them by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them by payment to them
of a sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned as
wages from the date of refusal of employment to the date upon which their
employment normally would have terminated, absent the discrimination, less
their net earnings during said period.19 The back pay shall be computed in a
manner established by the Board in the F. W. Woolworth Company case,20 and
GE shall make available to the Board, or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records, time cards, personnel reports
and records, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay
due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by the Respondents
are of such character and scope that in order to insure the employees and
18 N. L. R. B. v. National Maritime Union, supra ; International Union, United Mine
Workers of America v. N . L. R. B., 184 F: 2d 392 (C . A. D. C.).
1B Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
21 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
STANDARD FEED MILLING COMPANY 1275
prospective employees of GE their full rights guaranteed by the Act, it will be
recommended that the Respondents, and each of them, cease and desist from
in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing such persons in their
right to self-organization.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire recbrd in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
and the latter's Local 743 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. Respondent General Electric Company is engaged in activities affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment, and
the terms and conditions of employment, of Reginald N. Crichton, Stephen C.
Chidester, Herman J. Rose, Willis Knight, Jack C. James, and Thomas H.
Chandler, thereby discouraging membership in International Association of
Machinists and encouraging United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and in its Local
743, the Respondent GE has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing the aforesaid six named
individuals in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
Respondent General Electric Company has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. By causing the Respondent General Electric Company to discriminate
against the aforesaid six individuals in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, Respondent Millwrights has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
6. By restraining and coercing applicants for employment with General
Electric, the Respondent Millwrights has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
T. B. MARTIN, JR., J. K. MARTIN, ET AL., D/B/A STANDARD FEED MILLING
COMPANY and FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH DPOWA, PETITIONER. CaSe
No. 9-RC-914. June 18, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Order
On December 21, 1950, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Board 1 herein on November 14, 1950,2 as
'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 [Chairman Herzog and
Members Mttrdock and Styles].
2 Unpublished.
94 NLRB No. 191.