Jay Kay Metal Specialties Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 342 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

342 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jay Kay Metal Specialties Corp . and Tool , Die and
Moldmakers Guild , Independent and United In-
dustrial Workers of North America of the Sea-
farers' International Union of North America,
Atlantic , Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District,
AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract.
United Industrial Workers of North America of the
Seafarers ' International Union of North America,
Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District,
AFL-CIO ( Jay Kay Metal Specialties Corp.) and
Tool, Die and Moldmakers Guild , Independent
and Jay Kay Metal Specialties Corp., Party to the
Contract . Cases 29-CA-1085, 29-CA-1161, and
29-CB-430
October 25, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On April 26, 1968, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, all parties filed ex-- )tions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and support_..g briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondents' and the Gen-
eral Counsel's exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
I We find merit in the General Counsel 's exceptions, and agree that the
cost of the tool and die employees' health benefits should not be deducted
from the refund to these employees of union dues withheld from their
wages In addition , we shall further amend the affirmative provisions of
the Order to reflect that it is the reimbursement of union dues and not "loss
of wages" which is being ordered . We further find that the Trial Examiner
173 NLRB No. 63
Relations Board hereby orders that-
I The Respondent Company, Jay Kay Metal
Specialties Corp , New York, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall-
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Guild
as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit found above.
(b) Discouraging membership in the Guild, or in
any other labor organization of its employees, by
discriminating against them in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(c) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving
effect to its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Respondent Union insofar as it applies to employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, or otherwise ren-
dering unlawful assistance and support to the Re-
spondent Union. However, nothing herein shall re-
quire the Respondent Company to vary or abandon
any wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive
features of its relationship with the tool and die
department employees which said Respondent has
established in the performance of the aforesaid
agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by said
employees of any rights they may have thereunder
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the Union or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
Guild as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the above-described appropriate unit with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent
Union refund to the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit all union dues withheld from their
erred by failing to include a provision that the Order does not require the
Respondents to vary or abandon any wages, hours , seniority , or other
substantive features which it has heretofore established or prejudice the
assertion by said employees of any rights which they may have acquired as
the result of the agreement between Respondents.
JAY KAY METAL SPECIALISTS
wages on and after June 28, 1967, together with
interest on such sums, computed as set forth in the
section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all records necessary for
the determination of the amount of dues reimburse-
ment due as provided for herein.
(d) Post at its plant in Queens, New York, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."2
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent or its authorized
representatives, be posted by Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of the receipt
of this Decision and Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.
II. The Respondent Union, United Industrial
Workers of North America of the Seafarers' Interna-
tional Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes
and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall.
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving
effect to its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Respondent Company insofar as it applies to em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause the Respond-
ent Company to discriminate against its employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with the Respondent
Company refund to the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit all union dues withheld from their
wages on and after June 28, 1967, together with
interest on such sums, computed as set forth in the
section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all records and documents necessary to analyze the
amounts of dues reimbursement due as provided for
herein.
(c) Post at its business office and hall in Brooklyn,
New York, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B.3 " Copies of said notice on forms
343
provided by the Regional Director for Region 29,
shall, upon being duly signed by the Respondent
Union's representative, be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to its members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 29,
signed copies of the attached notice marked Appen-
dix B for posting by the Respondent Employer, if
willing, at the office and places of business of
Respondent Employer where Appendix A is placed.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of the receipt
of this Decision and Order, what steps the Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
2 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 , "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order."
3 See fn 2, supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
Tool, Die and Moldmakers Guild, Independent, as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the
following unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement
The bargaining unit is:
All tool room employees employed by Jay Kay
Metal Specialties Corp. at its Queens plant,
including tool and die and moldmakers A, B, and
C and tool room machinists, exclusive of all
other employees, guards and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the above
union, or in any other labor organization of our
employees, by discriminating against them in re-
gard to their hire and tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or otherwise give
effect to our collective-bargaining agreement with
United Industrial Workers of North America of the
Seafarers' International Union of North America,
Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District,
AFL-CIO, insofar as said agreement applies to our
employees in the above-bargaining unit, or other-
wise render unlawful assistance and support to the
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Seafarers' union. However, nothing in the Board's
Order requires us to vary or abandon any wages,
hours, seniority, or other substantive features of
our relationship with the tool and die department
employees which we have established in the per-
formance of the aforesaid agreement, or to prej-
udice the assertion by said employees of any rights
they may have thereunder.
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 Guild, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL jointly and severally with the Seafarers
refund to our employees in the above-bargaining
unit all union dues withheld from their wages on
and after June 28, 1967, together with 6 percent
interest thereon.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of any
labor organization except to the extent that this right
may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
JAY KAY METAL
SPECIALTIES CORP
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative (Title)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 16 Court Street, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, New
York 11201, Telephone 212-596-3535.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED INDUSTRIAL
WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA OF THE SEA-
FARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, ATLANTIC, GULF, LAKES AND INLAND
WATERS DISTRICT, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or otherwise give
effect to our collective-bargaining agreement with
Jay Kay Metal Specialties Corp., insofar as it
applies to employees in the bargaining unit of all
toolroom employees found to be appropriate by
the Board.
WE WILL NOT cause or or attempt to cause Jay
Kay Specialties Corp. to discriminate against its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Jay Kay Metal
Specialties Corp. refund to the employees in the
said unit all union dues withheld from their wages
on and after June 28, 1967, together with 6
percent interest thereon.
Dated
UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF
NORTH AMERICA OF THE SEA-
FARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC,
GULF, LAKES AND INLAND WATERS
DISTRICT, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
By
(Representative ) (Title)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this Notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communi-
cate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16
Court Street, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201,
Telephone 212-596-3535.
JAY KAY METAL SPECIALISTS 345
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN H. EADIE, Trial Examiner This proceeding was held
before me in New York, New York, on March 4 and 5, 1968,
on the consolidated amended complaint of the General
Counsel and the answers of Jay Kay Metal Specialties Corp ,
herein called the Respondent Company, and of United
Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers' Inter-
national Union of North America, Atlantic Gulf, Lakes and
Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, herein called the Seafarers
or the Respondent Union., With respect to the Respondent
Company, the complaint alleges that it engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. As to the
Respondent Union, the complaint alleges that it engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)
(A) and (2) of the Act Both Respondents in their answers
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
After the conclusion of the hearing, the General Counsel,
the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union filed
briefs with the Trial Examiner.
Based upon the record as a whole, and from his observation
of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Respondent Company is a New York corporation with
its principal office and place of business located at 3300
Northern Boulevard, in the Borough and County of Queens,
City and State of New York. It is engaged in the manufacture,
sale and distribution of electrical appliances and related
products.
During 1967 the Respondent Company manufactured, sold
and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000, of which
products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from its
Queens plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the
United States other than the State of New York.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Respondent Union and Tool, Die and Moldmakers
Guild, Independent, herein called the Guild, are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent Company had a collective -bargaining agree-
ment with the Seafarers which expired on or about July 27,
1966. This contract covered all production and maintenance
employees at its plant located at 3300 Northern Boulevard,
Queens. The Respondent Company and the Seafarers com-
menced negotiations for a new contract during about May,
1966.
On April 20 , 1966, the Guild filed a petition (Case
29-RC-451), seeking to represent the Respondent Com-
pany's tool and die department employees. Hearings in the
representation matter were held on May 5, 11 and 16, 1966
On May 23, 1966, a number of the employees in the tool and
die department withdrew their authorizations for checkoff of
union dues under the old contract between the Seafarers and
the Respondent Company. On June 10, 1966, Pete Goodman,
the Seafarers' shop steward for the fourth floor of the Queens
plant,2 during working time solicited these employees to sign
new authorizations for checkoff of dues He told them that if
they did not sign the authorizations they would lose their
benefits under the existing contract and would be discharged
from their jobs.
The Respondent and the Seafarers entered into a new
contract with a term from July 28, 1966, through July 27,
1969. This contract, like the previous contract, covered
employees in the tool and die department. It required
membership in the Seafarers as a condition and tenure of
employment. The contract's recognition clause provides in part
as follows-
The Employer recognizes the Union as the sole collective
bargaining agency for those employees of the employer,
covered by this agreement, in the bargaining unit heretofore
certified by the National Labor Relations Board There is
presently pending a representation proceeding for a unit of
Tool and Die Room Employees, Case 29-RC-451. In the
event the National Labor Relations Board should determine
that said proceeding is properly pending and the Unit
therein claimed appropriate, then the employees within the
said Tool and Die Room Unit shall be excluded from this
agreement.
On June 13, 1966, the Regional Director issued a decision
and direction of election in the representation matter. On June
16, 1966, the Seafarers filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's decision. By telegraphic order dated
August 4, 1966, the Board granted the request for review and
stayed the election pending its decision. The Board in its
decision on review, issued on March 31, 1967, agreed with the
Regional Director's findings concerning the appropriate unit
and remanded the case to him for the purpose of holding an
election. At the election, held on May 4, 1967, 11 ballots were
cast for the Guild and 6 were cast for the Seafarers. Six ballots
were challenged. In his report on challenges, dated June 28,
1967, the Regional Director found that the Guild had received
a majority of the valid votes and certified it as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the following appropriate
unit
Included
All tool room employees employed by the Employer at
its 3300 Northern Boulevard, Long Island City, New
York, location, including tool and die and mold makers,
A, B, and C and tool room machinists.
Excluded-
All other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
The Respondent Company made a request to the Board for
review of the Regional Director's report on challenges. The
Board denied the Respondent Company's request, stating that
the request "raises no substantial issue warranting review."
By letter dated June 30, 1967, the attorney for the Guild
requested the Respondent to bargain collectively. After a series
I The charges in Case 29-CA- 1085 and 29 -CA-1161 were filed on amended complaint issued on January 18, 1968.
August 28 and November 24, 1967, respectively. The charge in Case 2 The tool and die department was located on the fourth floor.
29-CB-430 was filed on November 24, 1967 The consolidated
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of letters between the attorneys for the Guild and the
Respondent Company, the attorney for the Respondent
Company sent the following letter, dated August 24, 1967, to
the attorney for the Guild.
I have discussed your letter of August 23, 1967 with Mr
Klinghoffer and have been instructed to seek a review of the
unit determination of the National Labor Relations Board
in the Courts
In order to do so it is, of course, necessary that the
Company refuse to bargain with the Union You may,
therefore, treat this letter as notice of such refusal to
bargain.
The parties herein stipulated that the 1966 contract "has
been in force and effect since the date it was executed", that
pursuant to the contract all employees, including those in the
tool and die department, received pay raises of 10 cents in July
of 1967, and that all employees of the Respondent Company
have been receiving group insurance identification cards from
the trustees of the welfare fund which is jointly administered
by the Respondent Company and the Seafarers.3
Monserate Caban, an employee in the mold department,
testified without contradiction, "the raises I got, most of the
time was from the boss. I had to go in and ask him for a raise.
That is the only way you get a raise there. That is the only way
I got my raises, only the last raise that we got from the union."
Charles Trimble, a polisher, testified that he received pay
increases, apart from the contract, from his foreman.4 Thomas
Martin, personnel director of the Respondent Company,
testified, in substance, that it is the policy and practice of the
Respondent Company to grant individual merit increases to
employees, including those in the tool and die department,
without consultation with the Seafarers.
The Respondent Company contends that its admitted
refusal to bargain was not violative of the Act since the Board
certified the Guild for an inappropriate unit, and since the
Regional Director failed "to conduct an election in compliance
with the Board's direction." These contentions are rejected. As
related above, the Board refused the Respondent Company's
request for review of the Regional Director's report on
challenges and certification of the Guild upon the grounds that
the request "raises no substantial issues warranting review."
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent Company's refusal
to bargain with the Guild on and after August 24, 1967, was
violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act I also find that
by continuing on and after June 28, 1967, to maintain and
enforce its 1966 agreement with the Seafarers, insofar as it
applied to the tool and die employees, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Acts Since the contract
contains a clause which requires union membership as a
condition of employment, I further find that the Respondent
Company by enforcement of the contract has discriminated in
regard to the hire, tenure and conditions of employment of the
tool and die employees, thereby encouraging membership in
the Seafarers and discouraging membership in the Guild, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
With respect to the Respondent Union, I find that since
June 28, 1967, it has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by
3 Walter Schilling , a tool and die maker, testified without contra-
diction that the employees received "one [identification card 1 a
month ." Ralph Quinnonez , regional director of the Seafarers , testified
to the effect that in order to be eligible for welfare benefits an
employee had to be a member of the Seafarers "because the fund
clearly specified -the trust agreement clearly specifies those people in
the unit for the 1967 contract ." Quinnonez further testified that
maintaining and enforcing the collective-bargaining agreement
with the Respondent Company. The Respondent Union's
conduct clearly restrained and coerced the tool and die
employees and caused the Respondent Company to discrimi-
nate against its employees within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent Company 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
Since it has been found that the Respondents have engaged
in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that each of
them desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
including the posting of appropriate notices, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent Company and the
Respondent Union in violation of the Act have maintained and
enforced their collective-bargaining agreement since June 28,
1967. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Respond-
ents, jointly and severally, be ordered to refund to the tool
and die employees all union dues withheld from their wages on
and after June 28, 1967, less the cost of their health insurance
benefits, together with interest on such sums, such interest to
be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed by the
Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union and the Guild are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3. All tool room employees employed by Respondent
Company at its Queens plant, including tool and die and
moldmakers A, B, and C and tool room machinists, exclusive
of all other employees, guards and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Guild has been at all times on and after May 4,
1967, the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing at all times on and after August 24, 1967, to
recognize and bargain collectively with the Guild as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the aforestated
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
employees in the tool and die department have been receiving welfare
benefits since the contract was executed.
4 The parties stipulated that the Respondent Company's work
history for Trimble showed that he received merit increases in January
and February 1967, and that in June 1967 , he received a pay increase of
35 cents, resulting from his promotion and reclassification "to Ma-
chinist A "
5 Sewanee Coal Operators Association , 167 NLRB No. 12.
JAY KAY METAL
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
6. Since June 28, 1967, by maintaining, enforcing and
applying to the employees of the Respondent Company in the
unit described above a collective bargaining agreement previ-
ously executed by them, the Respondent Company has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act and the Respondent Union has
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, the Respondent Company, has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. By rendering unlawful assistance and support to the
Respondent Union, the Respondent Company has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act.
SPECIALISTS 347
9. By discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure and other
terms and conditions of employment of its employees, the
Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
10. By attempting to cause and causing the Respondent
Company to discriminate against its employees, and thus to
commit an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of
the Act
11. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent
Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
12. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]