Belle Steel Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 1083 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

BELLE STEEL COMPANY, INC. 1083
Belle Steel Company, Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and
Helpers and its Local 651, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-3317.
June 8, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On March- 6, 1961, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report.
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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
The Board 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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this 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, Belle Steel Com-
pany, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a.) Discouraging membership - in International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers
and its Local 651, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discriminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in re-
gard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees as to whether they had signed union
cards and their reasons for doing so, in a manner constituting inter-
1 We note and correct the following inadvertent inaccuracies in the Intermediate Report,
which 'do not , however , affect the validity of the Trial Examiner ' s ultimate findings,
The record shows that Miller 's load- ofsteel was on one occasion short 55 sheets, and
not 25 sheets , as found by the Trial Examiner
Klasky testified that on October 10 he learned from Levi merely that Miller had been
talking to other employees in the plant , and not, as the Trial Examiner found, that
Miller had been passing out union cards.
131 NLRB No. 129.
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ference', restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act:
(c) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs or with any other
economic reprisals in the event they selected a union as their collective-
bargaining representative or promoted a union among the employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which.the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Joseph F. Miller immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or to a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him, in the manner set forth-in the section of
the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant at East Boston, Massachusetts, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 2
Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
2 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order " In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
BELLE STEEL COMPANY, INC. 1085
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers and its Local 651, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued his corm;
plaint, dated November 14, 1960, against Belle Steel Company, Inc., herein called
the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges
that Respondent (1) discharged or laid off Joseph F. Miller on or about October 6,
1960, because of his union and concerted activities, (2) engaged in specified acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion, and (3) has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent admits the discharge or layoff of Miller and
denies, generally, the unfair labor practice allegations.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at
Boston, Massachusetts, on December 22, 1960. All parties appeared and were repre-
sented at the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to present oral argument, and 'to file briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Belle Steel Company, Inc , a Massachusetts corporation, maintains a plant in
East Boston, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in warehousing, fabrication, sale, and
distribution of steel and related products. During the past calendar year, Respondent
has purchased and received quantities of steel and related products, valued in excess
of $50,000, directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Upon the above-admitted facts, I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and I find, that International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers and its Local 651, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The issues litigated in this proceeding are (1) whether the discharge of Joseph
Miller was discriminatorily motivated in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act, and (2) whether the Respondent, through its president and vice president,
engaged in acts of interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act.
A. Sequence of eventsI
1. Commencement of employee self-organization and Miller's role therein
There were about eight men employed by Respondent during the times material
herein. For some time prior to October 5, 1960, Respondent's employees frequently
discussed the question of forming a union On one such occasion during the noon
period, one of the employees voiced the opinion that it was necessary to have at
least 3 men to form a union, while another employee stated that it was necessary to
have 15. At that point Miller spoke up and stated that he had a friend who was a
union delegate at Zurbach Steel Company and that he (Miller) could find out for
certain from his friend.
In October 1960, employees Greenough, Marks, and Flynn were riding with
Miller in his car to and from work. On October 5, Miller handed out union authori-
zation cards to these three employees while they were riding to work in Miller's car.
Greenough signed his card in the car and returned it immediately to Miller. The
other two employees returned their signed cards to Miller when they were riding
home with him after work. That same morning Miller also passed out union cards
outside the plant to employees Parker, Quinlan, and Siciliano, advising them to
1 Unless otherwise Indicated, the factual findings in this section are based on credited
testimony which Is either undenied or admitted.
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have them ready for Miller in the evening. The next morning, when employee
Mustone arrived for work in his car, Miller was waiting for him and handed him
a union card in Mustone's car.
2. The discharge of Miller
About noontime on Thursday, October 6, Miller asked Harold Levi, Respondent's
vice president and general manager, for a $10 advance. Levi replied that Miller
would have to wait until Levi's secretary returned.2
That evening in the locker room, Foreman Kasselle handed Miller his check for
the week. Miller stated that he had not wanted his check in full but that he had
merely asked for $10. The next day, Friday, was the regular payday.
When Miller came to work the next morning, Friday, October 7, Foreman
Kasselle told him outside the locker room that he was laid off. In response to
Miller's inquiry as to the -reason for this action, Kasselle stated that he did not know.
About a half hour later, Miller went into Vice President Levi's office and stated
that he understood he was laid off. Levi replied, "Yes, you were trying to organize
a union around here." Levi added that this was only a small plant and that he would
would try to keep the Union out .3
3. Levi's statements to employee Greenough on October 7
About 5 p.m. on Friday, October 7, employee Greenough was in Vice President
Levi's office. Levi's son-in-law and Foreman Kasselle were also present. Levi asked
Greenough if he had signed a union card. Greenough replied in the affirmative.
In response to Levi's further question as to his reason for signing, Greenough stated
it was to get better benefits such as Blue Cross, paid vacations, and paid laundry
Levi stated that there would not be any union in the shop, that the plant was too
small for a union, that Miller got through at Zurbach Steel because he tried to start
a union there, and that Miller was not here anymore "because he tried to get a
union in here," and that he would fire all the employees before he would let a union
come in the plant .4
4. President Klasky telephones to Miller on Sunday, October ,9
Maurice Klasky, Respondent's president, had left for New York on the morning
of October 5 and did not return until Saturday evening. On Sunday morning, he
went to the office to see if Levi had left any messages for him because Klasky was
to open up on Monday morning. Klasky found a note for him concerning Miller.
According to Klasky, the note merely stated that "we are going to be one man
short-Miller." According to Levi, the note stated that he had discharged Miller and
that Klasky should call and tell Miller not to come in.
Klasky telephoned to Miller that morning and told him not to come to the shop
until he heard from them. Klasky testified that when he spoke to Miller that
morning, he did not know that Miller had been discharged and that he first wanted
to talk to Levi to find out what it was all about.
5. Interrogation and statements by Klasky and Levi on Monday, October 10
About 8 a.m. on Monday, October 10, while employee Mustone was waiting
in the warehouse by his truck, President Klasky came over and asked Mustone if
3 Levi did not deny having had such a conversation. He merely testified that "I think
there was something about that that day, I don't iemember exactly "
3 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Miller Levi
testified that he told Miller he was discharged because he was "bothering my hell) about
union activity during working hours " He further testified that Miller denied the accusa-
tion and claimed to hate unions , and that Levi said he would investigate further and get
in touch with Miller . Levi did not impress me as a frank and candid witness He ad-
mittedly did not investigate any further He also did not deny having interrogated
employees as to their reason for signing a union card ; nor did he deny telling employee
Greenough about 5 p m on the day of Miller's discharge, as Greenough credibly testified,
that Miller was not here anymore because he tried to get a union in here, that the plant
was too small for a union , and that he would fire all the employees before lie would let a
union come in. Under all the circumstances , I do not credit Levi's version of the con-
versation to the extent that it conflicts with that of Miller.
4 Although Levi testified as a witness for Respondent, he did not deny having made the
statements set forth in the text Neither Levi' s son-in-law nor Foreman Kasselle was
called to testify.
BELLE STEEL COMPANY, INC. 1087
he had signed a union card. Mustone replied in the affirmative. Klasky then asked
why Mustone had signed the card because nobody else had. Mustone,stated that
somebody else had signed and that they wanted a union to get more benefits.
Klasky asked Mustone why he had not spoken to him about it, and stated'that he
and Levi would listen to his complaints and try to straighten them out. Mustone
then related an incident when the employees wanted a half hour instead of an hour
lunch period and the Company had refused to comply with the employees' request.
During the conversation, Klasky stated that there would be no union in this
shop and that Mustone should go some place else if he wanted to work in a shop
where there was a union.
About 4.30 p in. employee Flynn went into the office to turn in some slips from
the truck. Levi asked him if he had signed a union card. When Flynn replied in
the affirmative, Levi stated that "the other guys didn't."
B. The discriminatory discharge of Miller
Miller had. been employed as a truckdnver by Respondent for about 21/2 years
His last prior place of employment was with Zurbach Steel.
Vice President Levi testified that Miller had given the Company trouble off and
on during the past 21/2 years, that on Thursday morning, October 6, Foreman
Kasselle.came into the office and told Levi that Miller was bothering some of the
help about union activity, naming only employee Albert Quinlan, that that was the
straw that broke the camel's back and he decided to get rid of Miller, and that later
in the afternoon he gave Foretnan Kasselle a check for Miller for the full week,
with instructions to tell Miller that he was through.
Neither Foreman Kasselle nor employee Quinlan was called as a witness to cor-
roborate Levi's testimony. Nor did Levi tell Klasky that he had discharged Miller
for talking union in the shop. On the other hand, as previously found, when
Miller asked Kasselle why he was being discharged, Kasselle replied that he did not
know. Indeed, also as previously found, when Levi spoke to employee Greenough
on the very day of Miller's discharge, Levi attributed the discharge to Miller's con-
duct in trying to get a union in the plant and not because he allegedly engaged in
such activity during working time.
The undisputed testimony shows, and I find, that Miller did not engage in any union
activity during working time, that he was never informed by Foreman Kasselle or
any other representative of Respondent to stop engaging in conversation during work-
ing hours because it was interfering with the work, and that there was no published
or announced rule or instruction prohibiting union solicitation or activity during
working time. Levi admitted that the employees had never been informed not to talk
during working hours, that he had not investigated Kasselle's alleged report, that
Quinlan had made no complaint , that for all Levi knew Miller might have been talking
to Quinlan about a delivery, and that he did not talk to or question Miller before dis-
charging him, although Miller spoke to him about a $10 advance after Kasselle's
alleged report. He further admitted that the only time he had ever discharged an
employee was for being drunk on the job and that that was for a second offense after
warning the employee that he would be discharged if it happened again. When ques-
tioned by the General Counsel as to what he regarded so "reprehensible" and "terrible"
about talking about a union, Levi testified that "in the past Miller had been giving us
trouble off and on and I thought this was the end. I didn't want anything more to do
with Miller."
The "trouble" to which Levi had reference was alleged complaints from customers
that after delivering his load Miller would go into the customer's plant and talk to
the employees instead of leaving immediately President Klasky testified that he
warned Miller on these occasions that he was to leave the customer's premises immedi-
ately upon unloading his delivery. Both Klasky and Levi admitted that the last time
they had received such a complaint was about a month before Miller's discharge
Another instance of such "trouble" was an occasion , also about a month before his
discharge, when Miller had signed for a pickup of 300 sheets of steel without counting
them and the load was later found to be short about 25 sheets. Both Levi and Klasky
testified that although Miller was warned about these matters, they never threatened
to discharge him.
Klasky testified that on Monday, October 10, he first learned from Levi that Miller
h"d been passing out union cards and that Levi stated that "we should have gotten
rid of him-a long time ago" He further testified that Levi had no use for Miller ever
since one of the employees allegedly informed them in February 1960 that Miller
had been discharged from his former employment at Zurbach Steel for stealing,
that Klasky spoke to Miller about it at that time, and that: Klasky decided to "let it
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
go" but to discharge Miller when the right time came. Aside from the fact that Miller
denied having been discharged for that reason, it is significant that Levi told employee
Greenough on October 7 that Miller was terminated at Zurbach because he tried to
start a union there. In any event, Klasky admitted that the right time occurred on
the last occasion when he received a customer's complaint about a month before
Miller's discharge. Klasky testified that Miller was not discharged at that time
because they did not have a driver to replace him. Yet, he admitted that it took 2
to 3 weeks after Miller's discharge before they were able to get a replacement driver.
He further testified that he knew that Levi wanted to get rid of Miller at that time
but that he did not do so because they were too busy. However, he admitted that
when business became slow around Labor Day, Miller was not discharged because
of Respondent's policy not to let anyone go during slack periods
From the foregoing and the entire record, I am convinced and find that Miller was
not discharged because of any honest belief that he was engaging in union activity on
company time or because of his other alleged derelictions, and that these reasons were
advanced as mere pretexts to cloak a discriminatory motivation. Miller was the one
who was instrumental in obtaining the union authorization cards During the 2-day
period before his discharge, he distributed them to all the employees outside the plant
and solicited their signatures, as previously found. Levi was opposed to having a
union in the plant and so informed one of the employees in no uncertain terms, threat-
ening to discharge all the employees before he would permit a union in the plant.
When Levi became aware that Miller was the one who solicited employees to sign
union cards, he "didn't want anything more to do with Miller" and had him sum-
manly'discharged. Foreman Kasselle was unable to give Miller any reason for his
discharge. Later that same day when Levi was questioning employee Greenough as
to his reasons for signing a union card, Levi revealed that Miller "wasn't here anymore
because he tried to get a union in here." It is thus clear that Miller's discharge was
truly dictated by antiunion considertions. I find that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Miller because of his protected union activities, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the Union in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.5
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges that Respondent, through the conduct of Vice President Levi
and President Klasky in interrogating employees and threatening them with discharge,
independently violated Section 8(a),(1) of the Act. I agree
As previously found, on Friday, October 7, the day of Miller's discharge, Levi
interrogated employee Greenoueh as to whether he had signed a union card and his
reasons for doing so During the interview, also as previously found, Levi stated in
no uncertain terms that there would not be a union in the shop, that Miller had
been discharged because he tried to get a union in the shop, and that he would
discharge all the employees before he would let a union come in. On the following
Monday morning, Klasky interrogated employee Mustone as to whether he had
signed a union card and his reasons for doing so. During the course of this inter-
view, as previously found, Klasky stated that there would be no union in this shop
and suggested that Mustone go elsewhere if he wanted to work in a shop where
there was a union.
Later that day, Levi also interrogated employee Flynn as to whether he had signed
a union card.
It is clear, and I find, that Levi's and Klasky's statements constituted threats of
economic reprisals in the form of loss of employment in the event the employees
selected a union as their bargaining representative. Levi's statements also constituted
a threat to discharge anyone who promoted a union among the employees. In the
setting of this conduct and of the discriminatory discharge of Miller, the interroga-
tion of employees by Klasky and Levi, Respondent's highest officials, was equally
coercive and unlawful.
I find that by the foregoing conduct of Levi and Klasky Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their self-organizational
rights, in violation of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act. - -
5 Even assuming that Miller was discharged because of Levi's honest, although mis-
taken, belief that Miller had engaged in the union activity during working hours and that
such conduct would have justified his discharge, it would not be a valid defense in view
of my previous finding that Miller did not in fact engage in union activity during working
time See, e g, Hill & Hall Truck Line, Inc, 120 NLRB 101, 102 , Troy C Friend, d/b/a
Friend Lumber Co, 121 NLRB 62; Cusano, d/b/a American Shuffleboard Co. v N L R B,
190 F. 2d 898, 902 (C.A. 3).
BELLE STEEL COMPANY, INC. 1089
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operation of Respondent described 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 Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Joseph F. Miller was discriminated against with respect to his
hire and tenure of employment, I will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to
offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because of the discrimina-
tion against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of
Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period, with
backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. I will also recommend that
Respondent make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records
to facilitate the determination of the amounts due under this recommended remedy.
In view of the nature of Respondent's unfair labor practices and because a dis-
criminatory discharge for union activities goes to "the very heart of the Act," 6 I am
convinced and find that there exists the danger of the commission of similar and
other unfair labor practices. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent be or-
dered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed
to its employees by Section 7 of the Act.7
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers and its Local 651, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Joseph F.
Miller because of his union activities, thereby discouraging membership in the above-
named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
3. By the foregoing and by the conduct set forth in section C, supra, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
6 N L R B v Entwistle Mfg Co , 120 F. 2d 532 , 536 (C A. 4)
' See, e g, Caroline H Layton White, d/b/a Layton Oil Company, 128 NLRB 252
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 Rela-
tions Act, you are notified that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers and its Local
651, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging
or refusing to reinstate any of our employees or by discriminating in any other
manner in reeard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
599198-62-vol. 131-70 •
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interrogate any employees as to whether they have signed
union cards and their reasons for doing so, in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of their jobs or with any other
economic reprisals in the event they select a union as their collective-bargaining
representative or promote a union among the employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, 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.
WE WILL offer to Joseph F. Miller immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings
he may have suffered a,s 'a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
BELLE STEEL COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Tacoma Printing Pressmen 's Union No. 44 and Valley Publish-
ing Company . Case No. 19-CD-49. June 8, 1961
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D)
of section 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and
determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall
have arisen...."
On June 27, 1960, Valley Publishing Company, herein called
Valley, filed with the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region
a charge alleging that Tacoma Printing Pressmen's Union No. 44,
herein called the Pressmen, had induced and encouraged employees
to refuse to work in Valley's place of business for the purpose of
forcing and requiring Valley to assign its offset preparatory work,
which had previously been assigned to members of the Tacoma Typo-
graphical Union, Local No. 170, herein called the ITU, to members
of the Pressmen in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections
102.89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, the
Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an ap-
propriate hearing upon due notice to all the parties. The hearing was
held before Charles M. Henderson, hearing officer, on August 15 and
16, 1960. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full
131 NLRB No. 133.