Central Rigging and Contracting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 342 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that the Respondent, on September 15, 1959, discriminated in
regard to the tenure of employment of Sammie Lee Hardwick, Chester Bell, Harvey
Daniels, and Cleophus Burrough, it will be recommended that these employees be
made whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Inasmuch as the parties indicated some disagreement as to the exact date of recall
of these employees, a matter for compliance, it will be further recommended that
the Respondent, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents all payroll
and other records pertinent to the dates of recall and to the analysis of the amounts
of backpay due.
Since the violations of the Act which the Respondent has committed are related
to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their com-
mission in the future is reasonably to be anticipated from its past conduct, the pre-
ventive purpose of the Act may be thwarted unless the recommendations are co-
extensive with the threat. To effectuate the policies of the Act, therefore, it will be
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this case I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily laying off Sammie Lee Hardwick, Chester Bell, Harvey
Daniels, and Cleophus Burrough on September 15, 1959, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) by terminating the employment of Cleophus Burrough on
September 30,1959.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Central Rigging and Contracting Corporation and David Edwin
Beard, Robert Thomas Quinnelly, Wesley B. Lasseter, Robert
Bruce Beard, and George Lawrence Eunice
Lodge 554, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO,
and its Agent C. K. Curry and Robert Thomas Quinnelly,
Wesley B. Lasseter, Robert Bruce Beard, George Lawrence
Eunice, and David Edwin Beard. Cases Nos. 10-CA-4082,
10-CA-4083, 10-CA-4084, 10-CA-4085, 10-CA-4087, 10-CB-1086,
10-0B-1087, 10-CB-1088, 10-CB-1089, acid 10-CB-1090. October
11, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 21,1960, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
129 NLRB No. 37.
CENTRAL RIGGING AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION 343
labor practices and recommending that they 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 supporting briefs.'
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. The Respondent Company , Central Rigging and Contracting
Corporation , its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
'Respondent Union , Lodge 554, also requested oral argument . The request is hereby
denied as the record , exceptions , and briefs fully present the issues and positions of the
parties
2 We find , in agreement with the Trial Examiner , that the Respondents maintained an
oral agreement , arrangement , or understanding whereby only boilermaker employees who
were cleared or referred by Respondent Union , Boilermakers Lodge 554, were hired or
retained in the employ of Respondent Employer The safeguards required in Mountain
Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors , Inc, et al, 119 NLRB 883, 897,
must be observed even where the hiring agreement is not reduced to writing , and a failure
to observe these safeguards is, as here , a violation of Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3), and
Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, as amended Walter Rasmussen , dlb/a C Ras-
inussen & Sons , 122 NLRB 674, 679, see also Harbor Terminal Company, 126 NLRB
659, footnote 1
3 Chairman Leedom and Member Fanning, who constitute the majority of the panel,
find that the order , recommended by the Trial Examiner , against Respondent Company,
which directs it, inter alga, to cease from entering into , performing , or giving effect to
any oral agreement , arrangement , or understanding with Lodge 554, "or any other labor
organization," must be limited in scope to Lodge 554 only. Similarly , they find the order
against Respondent Union, which , as recommended , directs the Union to cease entering
into , performing , or giving effect to any oral arrangement or understanding with Re-
spondent Company , "or any other employer over whom the Board will assert jurisdiction,"
must be limited in scope to the Respondent Company , as must that part of the order
directing the Respondent Union to cease causing Respondent Company, "or any other
employer . ." to discriminate against employees Also, the provision ordering the Re-
spondent Company to cease encouraging union membership must likewise be limited to
membership in Lodge 554 . Chairman Leedom and Member Fanning find that the fore-
going modifications in the recommended order are required in that there is no substantial
evidence in the record showing that either Respondent has a proclivity for unlawful
conduct, that either customarily enters into the type of arrangements here proscribed, or
that the conduct found unlawful is the first step in a scheme to extend the improper
practices to other labor organizations or to other employers . See Communications
TVorkers of America, et al. v. NLR B. (Ohio Consolidated Tele Co ), 362 US. 479 ,
N.L.R B. v. Brandman Iron Company , 281 F. 2d 797 (C A. 6) ; N L R.B v. Bangor
Building Trades Council , 278 F. 2d 287 (C.A. 1)
In view of the circumstances of this case and the testimony of the Union 's business
agent, Member Rodgers would not narrow the scope of the order recommended by the
Trial Examiner
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Entering into, performing, or giving effect to any oral agree-
ment, arrangement, or understanding with Lodge 554, International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, which conditions the hiring of
applicants for employment or the retention of employees in their jobs
upon referral, clearance, or approval by or upon membership in such
labor organization.
(b) Encouraging membership in Lodge 554, International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, AFL-CIO, by granting preference in hiring to its members
or by discriminating in any other manner in respect to the hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(c) Discriminating against David Beard, Robert Beard, George
Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly, or any other appli-
cant for employment, by refusing to hire any of them without approval
of or referral by the above-named Union.
(d) Discriminating against Robert Quinnelly, or any other em-
ployee or applicant for employment, for the reason that he filed unfair
labor practice charges against it with the Board.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Jointly and severally with Boilermakers, Lodge 554, make
whole David Beard, Robert Beard, George Eunice, WWresley Lasseter,
and Robert Quinnelly for any loss of earnings each may have suffered
because of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in
the section entitled "The Remedy" in the Intermediate Report.
(b) Jointly and severally with Boilermakers, Lodge 554, refund
to the boilermakers in its employ at the Bestwall job, all moneys
unlawfully exacted from them, including initiation fees and dues, as
a result of the illegal hiring arrangement with Boilermakers Lodge
554.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social secu-
rity payments records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay and
other moneys due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its offices and jobsites, within the terriorial jurisdiction
of Boilermakers, Lodge 554, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
4In 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 "
CENTRAL RIGGING AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION 345
the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after having been
duly signed by a representative of Respondent Central, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees or job applicants are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Post at the same place and under the same conditions as set
forth in (d), above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional
Director, copies of the Boilermakers, Lodge 554, notice herein marked
"Appendix B."
(f) Mail to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A" for posting
by Boilermakers, Lodge 554, at its offices, hiring halls, and meeting
halls, in places where notices to members and to other persons using
Boilermakers, Lodge 554's, hiring hall are customarily posted. Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after
being signed by a representative of Respondent Central, be forthwith
returned to the Regional Director for such posting.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it haG taken to
comply herewith.
B. The Respondent Union, Lodge 554, International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Help-
ers, AFL-CIO, and its Agent C. K. Curry, its officers, agents, repre-
sentatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Entering into, performing, or giving effect to any oral agree-
ment, arrangement, or understanding with Respondent Central
Rigging and Contracting Corporation which conditions the hiring
of applicants for employment or the retention of employees in their
jobs, with such employer upon clearance, referral, or approval by the
said Respondent Union, or which conditions employment upon mem-
bership in the Respondent Union.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent Central Rigging
and Contracting Corporation to discriminate against David Beard,
Robert Beard, George Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quin-
nelly, or any other employee or applicant for employment, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees
or prospective employees of Respondent Central Rigging and Con-
tracting Corporation in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Central Rigging and
Contracting Corporation make whole David Beard, Robert Beard,
George Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered because of the discrimination
against them in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy" in the Intermediate Report.
(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Central Rigging and
Contracting Corporation refund to all boilermakers employed by
Respondent Central at its Bestwall job, all moneys unlawfully ex-
acted from them, including initiation fees and dues, as a result of
the illegal hiring arrangement with Respondent Central.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agent, for examination and copying, all records, reports, and out-
of -work lists and other documents necessary to analyze the right to
employment and the amounts of moneys due under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Notify Central Rigging and Contracting Corporation and
David Beard, Robert Beard, George Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and
Robert Quinnelly, in writing, that it has no objection to their
employment.
(e) Post in Boilermakers, Lodge 554's, business offices, hiring hall,
and meeting halls, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Ap-
pendix B." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Boilermakers, Lodge 554, be posted by
the said Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members and to other
persons using Boilermakers, Lodge 554's, hiring hall are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to
insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(f) Post at the same place and under the same conditions as set
forth in (e), above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional
Director, copies of the Respondent Central's notice herein marked
"Appendix A."
(g) Mail to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B" for posting
by Respondent Central Rigging and Contracting Corporation, at its
offices and jobsites within the territorial jurisdiction of Boilermakers,
Lodge 554, including all places where notices to employees or job
5 See footnote 4, supra.
CENTRAL RIGGING AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION 347
applicants are customarily posted. Copies of said notices, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by a
representative of Respondent Union, be forthwith returned to the
Regional Director for such posting.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT
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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT enter into, perform, or otherwise give effect to
any oral agreement, arrangement, understanding, or practice
with Lodge 554, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-
CIO, which conditions the hire of applicants for employment
or the retention of employees in employment upon membership
in or approval, clearance, and referral by the aforementioned
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against David Beard, Robert Beard,
George Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly, or any
other applicant for employment, by refusing to hire him with-
out approval, clearance, and referral of the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or corece employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against Robert Quinnelly, or any
other applicant for employment, by refusing to hire him because
he has filed unfair labor practice charges against us with the
National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL make whole David Beard, Robert Beard, George
Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly for any loss of
pay suffered by them as a result of the discrimination against
them and offer them employment in the manner set forth in The
Remedy section of the Intermediate Report.
WE WILL refund to all boilermakers employed on our Bestwall
job from April 13, 1959, any initiation fees, dues or other moneys
they were illegally required to pay to Lodge 554, International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, in order to secure or retain
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment with us under the illegal hiring arrangement be-
tween our Company and the said Union.
CENTRAL RIGGING AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION,
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.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LODGE 554 , INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIP BUILDERS , BLACKSMITHS , FORGERS AND
HELPERS, AFL-CIO
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 members that :
AVE WILL NOT enter into, perform, or otherwise give effect to
any oral agreement, arrangement, understanding, or practice
with Central Rigging and Contracting Corporation which con-
ditions the hiring of applicants for employment or the retention
of employment in their jobs with such employer upon approval,
clearance, or referral by us, or which conditions employment
upon membership in our organization.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Central Rigging and
Contracting Corporation to discriminate against David Beard,
Robert Beard, George Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quin-
nelly, or any other employee or applicant for employment, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL make whole David Beard, Robert Beard, George
Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report en-
titled "The Remedy."
WE WILL refund to all boilermakers employed by Central Rig-
ging and Contracting Corporation on its Bestwall job from April
13, 1959, any initiation fees, dues, or other moneys they were
illegally required to pay in order to secure or retain employment
with the said Company under the illegal hiring arrangement
between our Union and the said Company.
CENTRAL RIGGING AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION 349
WE WILL notify , in writing, Central Rigging and Contracting
Corporation that we have no objection to the hiring or employ-
ment of David Beard , Robert Beard , George Eunice , Wesley
Lasseter , and Robert Quinnelly.
WE WILL notify, in writing, David Beard , Robert Beard, George
Eunice, Wesley Lasseter , and Robert Quinnelly that we have
withdrawn our objection to the hiring of them by Central Rigging
and Contracting Corporation or to their employment by any other
employer.
LODGE 554, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIP BUILDERS,
BLACKSMITHS , FORGERS AND HELPERS,
AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
C K CURRY, Business Agent
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136), was heard in Brunswick , Georgia, on December 8
and 9, 1959 , pursuant to due notice, with all parties represented by counsel and
participating in the hearing . An order consolidating cases, complaint , and notice
of hearing in Cases Nos. 10-CA-4082, 4083, 4084, 4085, and 4087 and Cases Nos.
10-CB-1086, 1087, 1088 , 1089, and 1090 , based on charges duly filed, was issued
by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on September 9,
1959, against Central Rigging and Contracting Corporation (herein called Re-
spondent Central) and Lodge 554, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO (herein called Re-
spondent Union and Boilermakers, Lodge 554), and its Agent C. K. Curry ( herein
called Curry). The complaint alleged in substance that Respondent Central has
engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (4) of
the Act and that Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed
by Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by reason of the following: (1) Since
on or about April 10, 1959, Respondent Central and Boilermakers, Lodge 554, have
maintained and given effect to an agreement , arrangement , practice , or understanding
under which Respondent Central hired and retained in its employ only employees
who have been referred to it by Boilermakers, Lodge 554, through its Agent Curry;
(2) the said agreement , arrangement, practice , or understanding failed to incorporate,
and Respondents failed to put into effect , standards or criteria for preference in
referral, and explicit provisions respecting the nondiscriminatory bases of selection
of applicants for referral , and Central 's right to reject applicants referred as pre-
viously described , and failed to post notices containing all provisions relating to the
function of the exclusive referral arrangement ; ( 3) on or about April 13, 1959, and
at all times thereafter, Respondent Central pursuant to the agreement , arrangement,
practice , or understanding refused to employ David Beard , Robert Beard , George
Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly at its Bestwall job because they had
not been referred to it by Curry and because they were not members of Boilermakers,
Lodge 554 ; (4) on or about April 10, 1959 , and at all times thereafter , Respondent
Central refused to hire Robert Quinnelly because he had previously filed unfair labor
practice charges against it with the Board ; and (5) since on or about April 10, 1959,
Respondents have required employees and job applicants of Central to pay Boiler-
makers, Lodge 554, union dues, fees, assessments , and fines while maintaining and
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
enforcing the agreement, arrangement, practice, or understanding heretofore
described.
By their answers Respondent Central and Respondent Union denied the allega-
tions of unfair labor practices.
Briefs were received on January 13, 1960, from counsel for the various parties
and have been duly considered. Counsel for Respondent Central also submitted
proposed findings and proposed conclusions.
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 CENTRAL RIGGING AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION
It was stipulated by and among counsel for the various parties that Central
Rigging and Contracting Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal
office located in New York City, New York. It is engaged in construction work in
various States of the United States and is domesticated to do business in the State
of Georgia. During the period February 10 through November 17, 1959, Respondent
Central purchased in Brunswick, Georgia, materials valued in excess of $50,000,
which materials originated outside the State of Georgia. During 1959 Respondent
Central performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for the Bestwall Gypsum
Company, a firm engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act,
at its Brunswick, Georgia, plant. I find that Central Rigging and Contracting
Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Lodge 554, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders , Black-
smiths, Forgers and Helpers , AFL-CIO , is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent Central had a prime contract with the Bestwall Gypsum Company
and the Port Authority of Brunswick, Georgia, to install all mechanical equipment
and piping in the newly constructed Bestwall plant at Brunswick, Georgia. Charles
Guck, Central's vice president in charge of engineering, testified that in order to
perform the work called for in its contract, which started about January 15, 1959,1
it was necessary to employ' millwrights, ironworkers, boilermakers, pipefitters,
operating engineers, carpenters, and laborers as the job progressed. Guck also
testified that since most of Respondent Central's contracts are performed outside
of its home office area (New York City), it is the general policy of the Company
to obtain qualified craftsmen from a union hiring hall which has jurisdiction of the
craft in the area. Guck stated that Respondent Central makes "arrangements" with
the union business agent to recommend qualified mechanics to it, who are subse-
quently hired at the gate as the need for them arises.
About the first part of February, Earl Stapleton, Respondent Central's general
superintendent on the Bestwall job, called a conference at his office of the business
agents of the various craft unions to review the job blueprints and ascertain the work
jurisdiction of each craft. Included among the others, were C. K. Curry, business
agent of Boilermakers, Lodge 554, Brunswick, Georgia, and W. E. Cowart, business
agent of Boilermakers, Lodge 26, Savannah, Georgia? Stapleton testified that just
I All dates herein are In 1959 unless otherwise specified.
2 By letter dated January 8, 1959, re merger Lodge 554 with Lodge 26, William A.
Calvin, International president of the Boilermakers, advised all members "former sub-
ordinate Lodge 554" that under the authority of the International and subordinate lodge
constitutions, the International executive council at its meeting in September 1958
adopted, among others, the following action
s • t • ► s
Lodge #26, Savannah, Georgia, and Lodge #554, Brunswick, Georgia, their monies,
funds, property of all kinds and membership, to be merged into one Local Lodge,
which Local Lodge shall have jurisdiction over field construction in all the counties
in the State of Georgia now allocated to the two Lodges. (a) The headquarters
office of the merged Lodge shall be In Savannah, Georgia, with a branch office In
Atlanta, Georgia.
The letter also contained the following :
On October 15, 195'8, joint instructions were issued to Brother W. E. Cowart of
Lodge #26 and Brother C. K. Curry of Lodge #554 on effectuating the merger ol.
CENTRAL RIGGING AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION 351
as the conference started, a sheriff of the State of Georgia came into the office and
asked Cowart to step outside with him. Cowart returned in about 5 minutes and
told the others he "had just had a court order served" on him and "[I'm] restrained
from this territory, from doing any business here." 3 He was sorry but he had to
leave. Stapleton also testified that at the end of the conference he asked Curry if
he could recommend boilermakers to him when he called. Curry replied that he
could not.
Bill Drury and Robert Quinnelly, members of Boilermakers, Lodge 26, Savannah,
Georgia,4 testified they went to the Bestwall jobsite seeking employment as boiler-
makers every several days during January and February. Robert Beard first inquired
about work as a boilermaker from Stapleton in the latter part of January and about
an average of twice a week thereafter. They were all told by Stapleton he would
have work later.
Stapleton testified that sometime in the latter part of February several cars of
material had arrived at the jobsite which had to be unloaded. Buck Thrower and
Cliff Harper happened to apply for work as boilermaker-riggers at the gate. After
verifying their experiences, they were hired. Thrower was designated foreman.
They worked a short time in February and again on March 8 and 9, when they
were laid off because of lack of work.
On April 9, Drury was hired as boilermaker-foreman by Whitey Williamson,
Respondent Central's superintendent for the installation of mechanical equipment,
to start work on April 13. While Drury and Williamson were talking on the jobsite,
Guck walked up. Williamson introduced Drury to Guck and told the latter
that Drury was to bring the boilermakers into the job on Monday morning. Guck
said, "That's fine." Guck told Drury he did not want him to bring one certain
man down to the job because "He tried to enter a suit against us." 5 Guck also told
Drury to hire local men. Drury agreed, noting that many local men needed work.
Before Drury left the jobsite that day, he talked with one Reitz, assistant to Stapleton
in charge of the millwright work, who told him to come back the next morning at
which ,time he would have Drury signed up and get him ready for Monday morning.
Reitz also told Drury to "go ahead and get your men ready."
On the morning of April 10 Drury returned to the jobsite. He signed W-2 forms
in the office, preparatory to going to work on Monday. Reitz then instructed Drury
to get together with one Thomas regarding the length of boom on a crane and
the location the crane was to be spotted for Monday morning. Drury told Reitz
they would hire one rigger and two boilermaker-welders on Monday morning.
While Drury was talking with Reitz, word came to him to see Stapleton at the
office. Stapleton told Drury he decided that he had "better hire the boilermakers."
Drury remarked that Stapleton would have to call Curry and that the latter would
send boilermakers who would resent working for him (Drury). Stapleton replied
he would get the men and have them there Monday morning. Furthermore, if
they did not work for Drury, he was to bring them into the office where they would
the two Locals and on November 11, 1958, the two Business Managers were in-
structed to complete the merger, effective December 1, 1958
You are advised, therefore, that Lodge #554 ceased to exist as of December 1,
1958, and this letter is being sent to each member of former Lodge #554 in order
that your good standing in the International Brotherhood will not be jeopardized
and you are instructed as follows.
If your membership was originally in Lodge #554, your dues should be forwarded to :
W E. Cowart, Business Manager, Lodge #26
2201 Bay Street, Ext.
Savannah, Georgia
3 On February 6, 1959, Judge Douglas F Thomas, Superior Court, Glynn County,
Georgia, issued an order in Case No. 6710 in which Cowart was named a defendant,
providing among other things, "the defendants are restrained and enjoined from taking
any step toward abolishing or changing the status of Boilermaker Local 554, Brunswick,
Georgia, . . . from entering its territorial jurisdiction . . to obtain employment for
members of any other local, organization, or labor union in its craft . . .
4 Drury and Quinnelly who resided in Brunswick, Georgia, as did Robert Beard, David
Beard, and Wesley Lasseter, were formerly cardholders in Boilermakers, Lodge 554.
Brunswick, but transferred their memberships to Lodge 26 in December 1958 and January
and February 1959 In accordance with the instructions of International President Calvin
set forth in his "merger" letter, supra
8 Guck was referring to Quinnelly who had filed an unfair labor practice charge against
Respondent Central, which will be taken up in detail hereinafter.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be paid off. Drury left the jobsite. Upon his return home that afternoon, Drury
was told that Stapleton wanted to talk to him before 4:30 p.m. Drury returned to
the jobsite. Stapleton told Drury that he could not use him Monday morning;
that he called Curry who told him that Drury's union membership "is no good
here anymore"; that Stapleton could not use either Drury or any of the other men
who had transferred their memberships to Lodge 26, Savannah; and that Stapleton
would have to work the men who Curry sent down to the job. Stapleton told Drury
he wanted to pay him for the day. Drury indicated that Stapleton did not owe him
anything. After some discussion about this, Drury accepted a check for the
day's pay and remarked that he would be at the job Monday morning.
As heretofore noted Robert Quinnelly, Robert Beard, David Beard, and Wesley
Lasseter, boilermakers who had transferred their memberships from Lodge 554
to Lodge 26 but who resided in Brunswick, Georgia, made periodic visits to the
Bestwall jobsite commencing in January when work started in an effort to obtain
employment with Respondent Central. Uniformly they were told by either Stapleton
or Williamson that when Respondent Central was ready for boilermakers, they
would be hired at the gate. They left their names, addresses, and telephone num-
bers, where they could be reached, with the clerk. George Eunice, a boilermaker-
welder and burner, who resigned from Lodge 554 in 1947, and who was not a mem-
ber of any union during the times material herein, testified that when he asked
Stapleton for a job in March, he mentioned that he was not a member of either
Lodge 554 or Lodge 26. Stapleton said he did not care in what Lodge Eunice
held membership, in fact he did not care whether he was a union member, and that
as soon as the materials came to the project, boilermakers would be hired at the
gate. Eunice filled out a slip of paper with his name, address, telephone number,
and precise occupation, and left it with a clerk at the jobsite.
Over the April 11 weekend Drury advised Robert Beard, Wesley Lasseter, and
Robert Quinnelly that boilermakers were to be hired at the Bestwall job on April
13, and if they wanted jobs they had better go down and see about them. David
Beard testified that Drury previously told him he had been hired as foreman by
Respondent Central and David Beard was to go to work for him.
At 8 a.m. on April 13, Drury reported at the jobsite accompanied by David
Beard. Lasseter and Robert Beard had also come to the project to apply for work
and were in the office at the time, together with a number of other men. Drury
told Stapleton he was there ready for work. Stapleton inquired if Drury was a
welder. He answered, "No, sir. I was not hired as a welder. I am not looking
for a job as a welder." Stapleton thereupon pointed to Curry's name on the bottom
of a paper,6 which he displayed to Drury and David Beard, and said, "Now, that's
the man that says he can legally put the men on this job." Before leaving the office
Drury asked Stapleton if he did not say on Friday afternoon that he would not
hire any of the men who left Lodge 554 and transferred their memberships to
Lodge 26. Stapleton verified that he made such a statement. Drury's testimony
was corroborated by David Beard. Lasseter and Robert Beard testified they came to
the office that morning to talk with Stapleton about employment and after they
heard Stapleton's remarks to Drury they left the jobsite without talking to him.
Eunice testified that he talked with Stapleton on April 13 and inquired if he was
going to hire that morning. Stapleton replied, "I don't hire nobody that's not
recommended by Mr. Curry down here."
The record reveals that on April 13, Respondent Central hired Buck Thrower
as boilermaker-foreman, Harper as boilermaker-rigger, and two boilermaker-welders
who came to the project with introductions signed by Curry attesting to their
individual skills.
Stapleton testified he discharged Drury on April 10, because Respondent Central
had Buck Thrower, a foreman, already in its employ. When asked if he was not
aware on April 9 when he talked to Drury, after the latter was hired, that Thrower
was formerly the boilermaker-foreman, he answered "no" with the explanation that
because he had not seen Thrower on the job for a period of time, he took for
granted that he had been discharged. He admitted however that he talked with
Curry several hours before he discharged Drury and that it was Curry who called
his attention to the fact that Respondent Central still had a boilermaker-foreman on
the payroll. He alo admitted that but for his talk with Curry, it was his intention
to use Drury as foreman.
Guck testified that he was at the jobsite in Brunswick on April 9. As a matter
of fact, he came down from the New York office to check costs and as a result of
his investigation that day, he discharged Williamson, the superintendent who hired
Drury. Guck stated he did not object to Drury, if he was needed. Later that day
6 See General Counsel's Exhibit No. 5 In evidence.
CENTRAL RIGGING AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION 353
he recalled that Respondent Central previously had boilermakers on its payroll
and he questioned Stapleton as to what happened to them. Stapleton said they
were laid off because of lack of work. Guck wanted to know why the boilermaker-
foreman was not called back. Stapleton replied, "Just nobody thought of it."
Stapleton's explanation for Drury's discharge is in conflict with Guck's testimony.
I do not accept their testimony in this regard. I find, based on Drury's testimony
which I credit, that the real explanation for his discharge was that after talking
with Curry who said that Drury's union membership "is no good here any more"
and that Stapleton could not use either Drury or any of the other men who had
transferred their memberships to Lodge 26, Savannah, Stapleton reconsidered
Respondent Central's position, called Drury back to the jobsite, and discharged him.
Admittedly Stapleton called Curry on April 10 to advise that he needed two
boilermaker-welders for April 13 with the request that Curry recommend some men.
As noted previously the two boilermaker-welders who came to the jobsite with
introductions from Curry were hired. Indeed, Stapleton admitted that when
Respondent Central was in need of additional boilermakers after April 13 he called
Curry to send him men and Stapleton employed them based on Curry' s "recom-
mendations " The record reveals that each week from April 13 to September 30,7
Respondent Central had in its employ a minimum of one boilermaker-foreman and
one boilermaker and a maximum of one boilermaker-foreman and nine boiler-
makers, all of whom, with the exception of Thrower and Harper, were "recom-
mended" by Curry.
Thomas Powell, a boilermaker-welder, was a member of Lodge 554 until he
transferred to Lodge 26 in June 1959. Powell testified that in or about April or
May, Curry sent him to the Bestwall job with an introduction, which contained
the language "T. 0. Powell to replace E. 0. Goodyear." Powell gave the referral
to Thrower who in turn took him to Stapleton. He was not questioned regarding
his qualifications to handle the job or as to whether he was a certified welder.
Stapleton signed him up on the required forms and Powell went to work and
continued on the job for about 7 weeks. Powell had not previously applied for
a job at Bestwall. Powell also testified that during the period he was a member
of Lodge 554, a job referral system was operated by Curry but there were no
rules regarding the same posted in the union hall.8
C. K. Curry has been the business agent of Boilermakers Lodge 554 for 18
years. He was also a member and secretary-treasurer of the Port Authority of
Brunswick. In his latter capacity he visited the site of the Bestwall plant on num-
erous occasions to disburse funds, the proceeds of a bond issue used to construct
the building. Curry testified that as business agent of Lodge 554 he visited the site
once or twice. Curry denied that Lodge 554 or he as its agent had any under-
standing, agreement, or arrangement with Respondent Central whereby the Com-
pany was to hire boilermakers only from Lodge 554. He also denied that he made
any demand upon Respondent Central to discharge Drury or that he had anything
to do with the fact that the Charging Parties herein were not hired. In explanation
of the language, "T. 0. Powell to replace E. 0. Goodyear," on Powell's referral, he
stated that no particular significance should be attached to his language, he merely
wanted Stapleton to know that the Union was attempting to comply with his request
for a repacement of a man who had quit. Curry testified that neither Drury nor
any of the Charging Parties in this proceeding, who had transferred their union
membership cards from Lodge 554, thereafter came to him or the Union for assist-
ance in any manner in securing employment. He explained that when Lodge 554
was requested by an employer to furnish a man, it did so by sending him to the
job with an introductory notice which "outlines the qualifications of the member
of the local union." He testified that he keeps a record of employment and lay-
offs, and the man whose name is at the top of the list is notified that work is avail-
able. Curry also testified, "We operate a union hall or union for members of the
organization who pay dues, and they pay my salary; and (I haven't been asked by any
non-members for an introductory card or referral card, as such, in the 18 years
that I have served this local union." With regard to the posting of rules and regu-
lations concerning referrals to jobs, Curry stoutly maintained that there is posted
in the Union's outer office a copy of the Southeastern Agreement. Prior to January
1957, the Union signed the Southeastern Agreement with employers who used
boilermakers. Since that date the agreement has not been used. These are the
only rules and regulations posted.
7 During the week of August 19 no boilermakers worked,
8 This testimony was corroborated by Drury and Quinnelly
586439-61-vol 129 24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusions
I do not infer a discriminatory hiring arrangement either from Respondent Cen-
tral's asserted policy of using the Union as the primary source of qualified mechanics,
or from its unilateral action on and after April 10 in calling upon Boilermakers,
Lodge 554, to furnish it men. See N.L.R.B. v. Thomas Rigging Co., 211 F. 2d 153
(C.A. 9), cert. denied 348 U.S. 871. Certainly, it should not be, where, as in the
present situation , the employer 's action has been plausibly accounted for on some
other basis. See Maxon Construction Company, Inc., 112 NLRB 444; Del E. Webb
Construction Company v. N.L.R.B., 196 F. 2d 841 (C.A. 8). Nor does it matter that
the Union made it its invariable practice to furnish the employer with men, whenever
it was requested to do so. The offense that makes a hiring hall arrangement unlaw-
fully discriminatory is an agreement or understanding, expressed or implied, to hire
only those who are union members, or-without satisfying the Mountain Pacific 9
safeguards-to hire only those who have been referred by the Union; in short, the
conditioning of employment upon union membership, referral, or clearance.
What does the evidence reveal in this regard in the instant situation? First-
Stapleton did not deny that he told Drury and several of the Charging Parties that
he could not use them because their memberships were in Lodge 26, Savannah.
Second-Stapleton admitted that on'April 10 he requested Curry to send him boiler-
makers to start work on April 13, and from that date on only hired men who were
"recommended" by Curry. Third-even though the men were allegedly "recom-
mended" by Curry to Respondent Central, it is clear from the message on Powell's
slip that this was a referral or clearance by the Union. Fourth-on and after April
13, all men referred by Curry to Respondent Central were members of Boiler-
makers, Lodge 554, Brunswick. And finally-Curry's testimony that "the men who
pay dues want work opportunities," followed by "[we] operate a Union Hall or
Union for members of the organization who pay dues, and they pay my salary."
True, this practice was not invariably applied, as for example when Thrower and
Harper were hired for the first time, and as a matter of fact may not have been the
original intention of Respondent Central when Stapleton hired "at the gate," before
he was told by Curry that he would have to work the men who Curry referred to the
job. This, however, does not cure it of its illegal taint nor disprove the existence
of an illegal hiring hall. The mere fact that there were exceptions made the illegal
impact of that practice no less so upon those who were or might be subjected to it.
See Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers AFL-CIO, et al (Nassau
and Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc.), 123 NLRB 1393; Local 369, Interna-
tional Hod Carriers' Building & Common Laborers' Union of America, A.F.L.
(Frommeyer & Company), 114 NLRB 872, enfd. in part 240 F. 2d 539 (C.A. 3).
I conclude from the above and the entire record that from on or about April 10,
1959, Respondent Central and Boilermakers, Lodge 554, and its Agent Curry main-
tained, enforced, and gave effect to an oral agreement, arrangement, or practice
under which Respondent Central hired and retained in its employ only employees
who were referred to it by Boilermakers, Lodge 554, through its Agent Curry with-
out providing the safeguards deemed necessary by the Board as set forth in its
Mountain Pacific decision, supra: (1) Selection of applicants on a nondiscrimina-
tory basis in no way affected by union membership, rules, obligations, and the like;
(2) the right of rejection by the employer of referred applicants; and (3) the parties
post provisions relating to the hiring arrangement together with adopted safeguards,
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), respectively.
Such an unlawful hiring arrangement encourages union membership for the purpose
of obtaining or retaining employment, thereby coercing employees hired pursuant
to the said arrangement to pay union initiation fees, dues, and other moneys
I have found above that on various dates from the time the Bestwall job opened
in January 1959 up to and including April 13, 1959, David Edwin Beard, Robert
Beard, George Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly 10 sought employ-
e Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, Inc., et at., 119
NLRB 883. I am aware that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in N.L R B. v. Mountain
Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors , Inc., et at., 270 F. 2d 425, re-
manded this matter to the Board for further consideration. With due respect for the
opinion of the court, as a Trial Examiner I must apply controlling Board precedents even
though they may be at variance with the opinion of the court of appeals.
10 Quinnelly was unable to find Stapleton at the jobsite on April 13 to ask for work.
He returned to his home. In view of the illegal hiring arrangement between Respondent
Central and Boilermakers, Lodge 554, an application for employment by Quinnelly, I find,
would have been futile. Indeed, the Board and the courts have held that neither un-
CENTRAL RIGGING AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION 355
ment from Stapleton or Williamson at the jobsite but were denied equal access to
the available jobs on April 13 and were thereafter refused employment pursuant to
the unlawful hiring arrangements between Respondents. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent Central violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Boilermakers, Lodge 554,
and its Agent Curry violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) and (2).
It is normally not enough to show that a discriminatory policy or condition of
hire existed in order to prove specific discrimination against an individual with regard
to hire, sufficient to support a "make whole" order running in his favor. It must also
be proved by direct evidence or reasonable inference (1) that there was available at
the time an existing vacancy for which the applicant had applied and for which he
was qualified ii and (2) that the application for employment was denied on an
unlawful basis. That is not to say, however, that the General Counsel is obliged in
all cases to establish, as a prerequisite for a finding of individual discrimination, the
specific job or jobs that the complaining individual would have obtained were it not
for the discrimination. There may be circumstances under which job availability
may be inferred without marking out any particular job. Thus, the Board at times
has inferred from the existence of a discriminatory hiring arrangement, coupled with
a showing of the recurrent nature of job openings of the kind applied for, that, but
for the discriminatory practices and in the normal course of events, the complaining
individual would have gained employment in some one or more unspecified jobs
that became available after his job application was made. And on the basis of such
an inference, the Board has found specific discrimination against that individual
sufficient to sustain a remedial order in his favor.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent Central refused to hire Quinnelly on
or about April 10, 1959, because he had previously filed charges against it with the
Board. Drury's testimony that Guck told him on April 9, "There's one man
[Quinnelly] I don't want you to bring down here. He tried to enter a suit against
us," stands undenied in the record. Indeed, Stapleton admitted that because Quin-
nelly filed an unfair labor practice charge against Respondent Central with the
Board, "that would be a bad man to have on the job because he might do something
else. He might file any kind of a charge against you; you never know." Although
I have previously found that Respondent Central violated Section 8(a)(3) in dis-
criminating against Quinnelly as a result of its unlawful hiring arrangements, and
the remedies for violations of Section 8(a)(4) and (3) are substantially the same,
this does not preclude a finding that both sections were violated. See Underwood
Machinery Company, 79 NLRB 1287, enfd. 179 F. 2d 118 (C.A. 1); Southern
Bleachery and Print Works, Inc., 118 NLRB 299. Under the circumstances I find
Respondent Central has violated Section 8(a)(4)
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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.
availability of work or lack of application for a particular job serves as a defense to a
discriminatory hiring policy when it Is clear that no job would be proffered In any event.
See Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors , Inc, et al, supra;
Daniel Hamm Drayage Company , Inc, 84 NLRB 458, enfd. 185 F. 2d 1020 (C.A. 5) ;
Seabright Construction Company , 108 NLRB 8 ; J. R. Cantrall, et al., 96 NLRB 786, enfd.
201 F. 2d 853 ( C.A. 9), cert. denied 345 U S. 996 ; N.L.R.B. v. Swinerton and Walberg
Company, 202 F 2d 511 (C A. 9).
11 Respondent Central through Guck adduced testimony that it was "a good practice"
to hire boilermaker-welders , as distinguished from riggers , burners , or fitters , for the
reason that a boilermaker who can weld , generally can do any other part of the craft.
I am satisfied from the testimony of Robert Beard , David Beard , Eunice, and Quinnelly
that , although they were not certified welders , their experience would have enabled them
to do the necessary welding called for in this job. Moreover , I credit the testimony of
Powell that Respondent Central had only four welding machines on the job at a time
when it had in its employ as many as nine boilermakers I also credit Powell's testimony
that Respondent Central hired Beckham, who was referred by Curry, even though he had
very little welding experience , certainly not as much as four of the Charging Parties
Furthermore , even though Lasseter did not weld , It is clear from the entire record and
I find that he was qualified to perform other boilermaker work which was performed on
the Bestwall job.
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have violated the Act, I shall recommend that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend among other things that Re-
spondents jointly and severally make whole David Beard, Robert Beard, George
Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly for any loss of pay suffered by reason
of the discrimination against each. Since I cannot precisely determine from the
record herein made the dates when the discriminatees would have gained employment
and for how long they would have remained on the job absent the discriminatory
hiring practices, it is recommended that the determination of the extent to which
Robert Beard, David Beard, George Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly
should be made whole be deferred for the compliance stage of this proceeding.
Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula promulgated in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.12
I have also found that Respondents were parties to an illegal hiring arrangement
Established Board law requires under such circumstances that the Brown-Olds
remedy (115 NLRB 594) be invoked.13 Accordingly, it will be recommended that
the Respondents, jointly and severally, reimburse all boilermakers in Respondent
Central's employ subsequent to April 13, 1959, for all dues, fees, assessments, or
other moneys that were unlawfully exacted from them as a condition of obtaining
or retaining employment with Respondent Central during the aforesaid period. I
shall also recommend that Respondents cease and desist from maintaining and
giving effect to the illegal hiring arrangement found herein. It shall also be recom-
mended that Respondent Central cease and desist from discriminating against any of
its employees or applicants for employment for filing unfair labor practice charges
with the Board or giving testimony under the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 14
1. Central Rigging and Contracting Corporation is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. Lodge 554, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire of employment of David Beard, Robert
Beard, George Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly, by refusing to hire
them without approval, clearance, and referral by Boilermakers Lodge 554, Respond-
ent Central has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
4. By causing and attempting to cause Central to refuse to hire David Beard,
Robert Beard, George Eunice, Wesley Lasseter, and Robert Quinnelly because they
had not obtained approval, clearance, and referrals, Boilermakers, Lodge 554, and its
Agent Curry have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
12 The record shows that Respondent Central did not use boilermakers on the Bestwall
job after September 30 It is therefore unnecessary to recommend that Respondent
Central offer the discriminatees jobs However, since Respondent Central may, in the
future, obtain contracts In the jurisdictional area of Boilermakers, Lodge 554, I shall
recommend that Lodge 554 notify Central and the discriminatees in writing that it has
no objection to their employment. See International Union of Operating Engineers,
Little Rock Local 382-382A, AFL-CIO (Armco Drainage & Metal Products, Inc ), 123
NLRB 1'833.
13 See Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association Inc., et al., 123 NLRB 1393, where
the Board stated :
. . , the existence of an unlawful contract Is sufficient in and of itself to establish
the element of coercion in the payment of monies pursuant to the requirement of such
a contract. Accordingly, the above remedy is applicable to all closed-shop and
exclusive-hiring agreements, which do not provide the safeguards set forth in the
Mountain Pacific decision, 119 NLRB 883, whether or not proof of the actual payment
is established.
34 Those proposed findings and proposed conclusions submitted by counsel for Respond-
ent Central which are consistent with the findings and conclusions made In this report
are accepted, the remainder are rejected.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, ETC. 357
5. By entering into, maintaining , and giving effect to, an oral agreement or under-
standing whereby employment at the Bestwall job was conditioned on membership in
and clearance and referral by Boilermakers , Lodge 554, Respondent Central has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act, and Boilermakers , Lodge 554, has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act.
6. By discriminating against Robert Quinnelly because he filed unfair labor prac-
tice charges with the Board against it , Respondent Central has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (4) of the Act.
7. 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.]
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, and Local Union
2140, United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO and Inter-
national Molders and Foundry Workers of North America,
AFL-CIO and Local Union 256, International Molders and
Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL -CIO and
United States Pipe and Foundry Company. Cases Nos. 10-CB-
1205 and 10-CB-1206. October 11, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 26,1960, Trial Examiner Thomas F. Maher issued his order
on motions to dismiss in the above-entitled proceedings, granting the
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the General Coun-
sel had failed to established a prima facie case, and dismissing the
consolidated complaint in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the
Order attached hereto. Thereafter, the Charging Company filed ex-
ceptions to the Order and a supporting brief, in effect appealing the
Trial Examiner's Order and requesting that the hearing be reopened
for the presentation of the Respondent's defense.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered and reviewed
the Trial Examiner's order, considered the exceptions and the brief,
and the entire record in these cases. The Board finds no merit in the
exceptions and the request to reopen the hearing, and hereby denies
the Charging Company's appeal of the Trial Examiner's order.'
'The consolidated complaint alleges that the Respondent Unions violated Section
8(b) (3) of the At by failing to bargain in good faith . The complaint 's gravamen is the
insistence of Respondent Unions for a common expiration date of their contracts covering
the employees in two of the Charging Company's plants represented by them and in a
129 NLRB No. 42.