101 N.L.R.B. 194 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 4, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 194 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION AND LOCAL 19, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION and CLARENCE PURNELL and ALBERT G. CRUM WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS OF WASHINGTON, AND ITS EMPLOYER MEMBERS and ALBERT G. CRUM and CLARENCE PURNELL LUOKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC. and CLARENCE PURNELL ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY and CLARENCE PURNELL ROTHSCHILD-INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING COMPANY and CLARESK7H PURNELL ALASKA TERMINAL AND STEVEDORING Co. and CLARENCE PURNELL TAIT STEVEDORING Co., INC., and CLARENCE PURNELL . Canes Nos. 19-CB-,38,19-CB-62,19-CA-220,19-CA-:e29,19-CA-227,19-CA- 028, 19-CA--230, 19-CA-256, and 19-CA257. November 4, 1952 Notice to Show Cause Why a Supplemental Decision and Order Amending and Clarifying Certain Findings in the Decision and Order of February 26,1952 , Should Not Issue On February 26, 1952, the Board issued its Decision and Order in this case in which it considered the Respondent WEW's contention, among others, that there was a procedural bar to consideration of so much of the complaint as was based upon its participation in the execution and effectuation of the unlawful preferential dispatch clauses of the Coast agreement. This contention was predicated upon an argument that the act of "executing" the portion of the agreement attacked by the complaint was consummated either on or about No- vember 25, 1948, when the parties thereto orally affirmed it, or on December 6, 1948, when it was made effective; that hence, as no charge was filed and served within 6 months of either of these dates, the pertinent complaint allegations were barred under the provisions of Section 10 (b) of the Act. In finding no merit to the Respondent's position in this respect, the Board relied, in part, upon a finding that the complete Coast agreement was formally signed and executed in February 1949-a date well within the 6-month period preceding the filing and service of the charge made by complainant Crum on June 14, 1949. The record establishes, however, that the complete Coast agreement was not formally signed and executed until February 1950. While this error now removes one of the grounds on which the Board relied in resolving the Section 10 (b) issue raised by WEW, it does not affect. 101 NLRB No. 53. LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 195 the Board's ultimate finding on that point. The Board deems it neces- sary, however, in order to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to the basis of its decision, to clarify and amend its findings in this respect. The Board therefore notifies the parties that it proposes to issue the following Supplemental Decision and Order Amending and Clarify- ing Certain Findings in the Decision and Order of February 26, 1952, unless within 20 days from the issuance of this notification, any of the parties to this proceeding shows good cause why such Supple- mental Decision and Order should not issue. Supplemental Decision and Order Amending and Clarifying Cer- tain Findings in the Decision and Order of February 26, 1952 IT Is HERESY ORDERED that the Decision and Order in the above- entitled case, which issued February 26, 1952, be, and the same hereby is, amended by deleting the fourth paragraph under section "A" of the said Decision and Order, and substituting therefor the following : More specifically, as to the Coast agreement, the Respondent WEW urges that its unfair labor practice, if any, of "executing" the unlawful preferential hiring contract was committed on or about November 25, 1948, when the parties thereto orally affirmed it or, at the latest, on December 6, 1948, when it became effective, and that hence the charge filed by Crum on June 14, 1949, was clearly "untimely." The Trial Examiner rejected this contention upon findings, inter alia, that "execution" of the provisions of the Coast agreement here under attack took place on December 17, 1948. For, on that date (which preceded the filing and service of the June 14, 1949, Crum charges by less than 6 months) a written memorandum of so much of the agreement as included the provisions in question was initialled for and on behalf of the parties, of which Respondent WEW was one. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Crum's June 14, 1949, charges permit consideration of so much of the complaint as is predicated upon Respondent WEW's execution or making of the portions of the Coast agreement. For we are satisfied that the initialing of the written memorandum of the agreement on December 17, 1948, was a formal act of execution which give rise to a cause of action based upon the making or execution of the provisions of the contract alleged to be unlaw- ful'" We hold, therefore, as did the Trial Examiner, that there is no procedural bar to our finding that WEW committed an unfair 4' This is so irrespective of whether any earlier or later act of further affirmation or ratification of the contract by or on behalf of WEW may also have given rise to a cause of action against it for its participation in the making or execution of this contract. 242305-53-14 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practice by its execution and effectuation of the unlawful preference clauses of the Coast Agreement .4b MEMBERS MulmocK and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Notice to Show Cause Why a Supplemental Decision and Order Amending and Clarifying Certain Findings in the Decision and Order of February 26,1952, Should Not Issue. 4b We note that , in any event, the continued existence of the unlawful preferential hiring contract and its enforcement at all times here material is in itself sufficient to support an order prohibiting WEW from giving the unlawful portions of the contract any further effect, and from renewing, extending , or entering into any like or related agreement. See e. g. N. L. R. B. v. Gaynor News Co., 147 F. 2d 719 ( C. A. 2) ; Federal Stores, Inc., 91 NLRB 647, 657. RENO OIL COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 16-RC-1073. November 4,1952 Supplemental Decision and Order Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued by the Board on August 7, 1952, an election by mail ballot was conducted beginning August 25 and ending September 8, 1952, under the direc- tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region. Upon completion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, showing that of approximately 76 eligible voters, 66 cast ballots, of which 28 were for and 29 against the Peti- tioner, 7 were challenged by the Petitioner, and 2 were void. On September 15, 1952, the Employer filed objections to the Board agent's action in voiding one ballot and not counting that ballot. On September 16, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affect- ing the results of the election. On September 29, 1952, the Regional Director, after investigation, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on challenged ballots and objections to election in which he recommended that the Petitioner's challenges to all seven ballots be sustained, that the Employer's objections to the voiding of one ballot and the Petitioner's objections to the results of the election be over- ruled, and that the Board dismiss the petition. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report, alleging that the Employer had continued to electioneer by letter during the period of the mail balloting, and that the letter identified the Regional Director as being in opposition to the Peti- tioner. The Employer filed answers to the Petitioner's objections to the election. The Regional Director stated in his report that the Employer mailed a letter to its employees dated August 23, 1952, to which was attached 3 Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 101 NLRB No. 57.