Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 753 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

KAISER ALUMINTJM",& CHI MWPAL CORPQRATION 75,3
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION and LODGE No. 1366,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 720, A. F. L. and CHARLES J. BAKER. Cases Nos. 15-CA-281 and
15-CB--58. March 00, 1952
Decision and Order
On October 16, 1951, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents, the Company and Local 720 had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent, Local
720, had not violated Section 8 (b) (5) as alleged in the amended com-
plaint and recommended dismissal of this allegation.' Thereafter,
the General Counsel and the Respondents filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report and supporting briefs. The Respondents also re-
quested oral argument. This request is hereby denied, as the record,
including the briefs and exceptions, adequately presents the issues and
positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby rejects the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations, except insofar as they are consistent with our
findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth.
1. The complaint in this case alleged in substance, among other
things, that the Respondent Company discriminated with respect to
hire and tenure of employment, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, by discharging six employees, and that,
by demanding their discharge, Respondent Local 720 attempted to
cause and caused the Company to discriminate against the six em-
ployees in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A).
The Trial Examiner found that, in discharging the six employees be-
cause they were not members of Local 720, the Company and Local
3 The Trial Examiner did not pass on an allegation of the complaint that the Respondent
Company independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act in substance by making
certain threats . No exception was filed to the Trial Examiner 's failure to make a finding
with respect to this aspect of the case . In view thereof, and as the record does not
establish that the Company made such threats, we shall dismiss this allegation of the
complaint without further discussion.
98 NLRB No. 116.
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
720, respectively, violated these sections of the statute because,Local,-
720 requested, and the Company made, the discharges, pursuant to
the terms of a contract containing an invalid union-security provision.
We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the union-
security clause in the contract was invalid. The portion of the union-
security' provision directly pertinent to this question is as follows :
All employees covered by this Agreement shall become members
of the union on or after the thirtieth (30th) day following the
beginning of their employment. (Emphasis supplied.)
Read literally, this quoted provision might be taken to mean that
an employee satisfied the requirement of the provision by joining the
union at any time during the term of the agreement, even after a lapse,
of 30 days or more following the date of employment, because it does
not say how long "after" the thirtieth day the obligation attaches-
On the other hand, the provision might be interpreted to mean that
employees subjected themselves to discharge for nonmembership in the
Union on or immediately after the thirtieth day following the date
of their employment. In view thereof, we conclude that the contract
is ambiguous. Recourse must be had therefore to the practice under
the contract to determine the intent of the contracting parties as to
the meaning of the union-security provision. In its letter of April 27,
Local 720 gave the six employees, who were the only members of the
unit who were not members of Local 720, at least 30 days from the
union-shop authorization certificate in which to become members.
Moreover, the union-security provision did not become effective until
April 13, 1950, and the six employees were in fact not required to
become members until the following May 14. Accordingly, we con-
clude that the contract, reasonably construed in the light of surround-
ing circumstances, required new employees to join Local 720 within
30 days from the date of their employment, but afforded those
employees who were not union members at the time of the effective
date of the union-security clause a 30-day grace period from the effec-
tive date of the union-security clause within which to comply with
its requirements. So viewed,' the union-security provision of the
contract was valid from its inception.2
• However, the General Counsel 'contended that the Respondents
violated the sections of the statute now in question because they
required the six employees to pay Local 720, in addition to the dues
and initiation fee, an ex-membership fee of $5 as a condition precedent
to,-continued employment. At'the hearing there was a conflict in
testimony, unresolved by the Trial -Examiner, as to whether Local
2 Charles A. Sraue Milling Co., 97 NLRB 586. - ' '
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 755;
720 waived a ,previously imposed requirement as to payment of the
$5 ex-membership fee before requesting the Company to discharge the
six employees.3 This conflicting testimony may be summarized as;
follows:
(a) Business Agent Masling testified that, on May 12, 1950, after
being informed by the Company that the employees could not be
lawfully discharged for failuce to pay the requested ex-membership
fee, he told the six dischargees that they were being asked to pay "only
the required dues and initiation fees." (b) Masling's testimony in
this respect is corroborated by the testimony of Union President
Bishop and Nickens, a steward, both of whom were present at the time
of the conversation. (c) Masling testified that thereafter he reported
to Superintendent Brown that the six employees had been requested
to pay only the initiation fees and dues. (d) Brown testified that he
verified the correctness of the report by checking with Bishop and
Nickens. (e) On May 15, the Union sent Brown a letter requesting
the discharge of the employees and stating that, on May 12, each had
been requested to pay the required initiation fees and dues. (f)
Brown testified that in his conversation with the six employees on
May 15 he told them that the Union is only asking for "the initiation
fees and dues and that is the only requirement."
On the other hand, the testimony pointing to a failure to waive the
ex-membership fee is the following :
(a) The six employees testified that, on May 12, 1950, they were
asked by Masling to join Local 720 on the basis of the terms outlined
in the April 27 letter, which included a request for the ex-membership
fee.4
(b) The six employees denied that Brown told them that the only
requirement was payment of initiation fees and dues.
Although the Trial Examiner did not resolve this conflicting testi-
mony, he stated in his Intermediate Report that he was impressed
with Brown's "candor and sincerity" as a witness. The Trial Exam-
iner also credited the undenied testimony of Bishop and Nickens.
Moreover, it is clear to us that the real bone of contention between the
six employees and Local 720 was the $75 initiation fee, which these
employees erroneously regarded as discriminatory as to them. Under
all the circumstances, we credit the testimony of Brown, Bishop, and
Nickens, and find that Local 720 waived payment of the $5 ex-member-
ship fee before requesting the Company to discharge the six employees.
8 The Trial Examiner found it unnecessary to resolve this conflicting testimony because
he concluded, as indicated , that, in any event, the Respondents acted pursuant to the
terms of an invalid contract in connection with the discharge of the six employees.
However, we have found the contract to be valid.
4 Masling, Bishop , and Nickens denied that the April 27 letter was mentioned in tl is
conversation . The Trial Examiner did not resolve this conflict.
756 DECISIONS"OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the union-security clause of the contract was valid, and as pay-
ment of the $5 ex-membership -fee was not required as a condition to
acquiring membership or to continued employment of the six em-
ployees, the contract served as a defense to their discharge for failure'
to become members of Local 720 by refusing to tender the periodic
dues and initiation fee uniformly required as a condition of acquiring
•membership .5
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent Company violated Section 8 (a) (3) and Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act by discharging the six employees and that Respond-
ent Local 720 violated Section 8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A) by
requesting their discharge.
2. The General Counsel contended that the Respondent Local 720
violated Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act by requiring the six employees
involved herein, as a condition of acquiring membership in Local 720,
to pay a discriminatory $5 ex-membership fee., The Trial Examiner
found that Respondent Local 720 did not violate Section 8 (b) (5) of
the Act on the ground that there can be no violation of that section of
the statute where the contracting union requires payment of alleged
illegal fees pursuant to the terms of a contract not in conformity with
the requirements of the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and
that here the contract did not meet such requirements in that it did
not afford a 30-day grace period to employees who were not members
of the contracting union at the time that the union-security clause
became effective. However, as we have found above that Respondent
Local 720 waived payment of the $5 ex-membership fee and thus did
not require its payment as a condition precedent to membership, this
issue is no longer present in the case. Accordingly, we shall dismiss
the allegation that Respondent Local 720 violated Section 8 (b) (5) of
the Act, without passing on the merits of the Trial Examiner's deter-
mination as to the application of that section.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint as amended in its
entirety.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National,Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the amended complaint herein
5 In view of our decision , we find it unnecessary to determine , assuming that the require-
ment as to payment of the $5 ex -membership fee was not waived, whether membership was
available to the six employees on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to
other Imembers,within the meaning of proviso ( A) to Section 8 (a) (3), and /or whether
the Company had reasonable grounds for believing that membership was not available to
the six employees at the time of their discharge on the same terms and conditions generally
applicable to other members.
xcept as to the $5 ex-membership fee, the General Counsel does not claim that Local
720 sought to extract an illegal initiation fee or any other illegal fee from . the six employees
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 757
against the Respondents, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
No. 72O, A. F. L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed in Case No. 15-CA-281 by Lodge No. 1366,
International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor,' herein called the IAM, and separate charges filed in Case No. 15-CB-58
by Charles J. Baker, an individual, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board,2 by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New
Orleans, Louisiana), on September 18, 1950, issued an order consolidating the
cases, a notice of hearing, and a consolidated complaint alleging that Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, herein called the
Respondent Company, has engaged in and is engaging in acts in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61
Stat. 136, herein called the Act, and that United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Local No. 720, AFL, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, herein called the
Respondent Union, has engaged in, and is engaging in, acts in violation of Section
S (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. Copies of the consolidated complaint, the
various charges, the order of consolidation, and the notice bf hearing were duly
served upon both Respondents and both charging parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the consolidated complaint allegl's
in substance that on or about May 15, 1950, the Respondent Union requested
the Respondent Company to terminate the employment of Charles J. Baker,
Charles A. Achee, R. T. McGraw, E. L. Scott, D. L. Marchand, and B. J. Duhe,'
and since that date has persisted in its request that the said employees not
be employed by the Respondent Company ; that pursuant to this request, the
Respondent Company discharged the named employees on or about May 16,
1950, and has thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them ; that the Respondent
Union requested the discharge of these 'employees, and the Respondent Com-
pany discharged them, because of their membership in and activities on behalf
of he IAM, and because they engaged in concerted activities with other
emp ogees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
protection and because they were not and did not become and remain members
of the Respondent Union; that membership in the Respondent Union was denied
the said employees or terminated on some ground other than their failure to
tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition
of acquiring or retaining membership; that the Respondent Company had
reasonable grounds for believing that membership in the Respondent Union
was not available to the said employees on the same terms and conditions
generally applicable to other members and that membership was denied to
them by the Respondent Union for reasons other than their failure to tender
'The name of the charging Union appears in the caption as amended at the remanded
hearing.
2 The General-Counsel and his representative at the hearings are referred to herein as the
General Counsel ; the National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board.
' This name appears as B. J Duke in the consolidated complaint but the spelling was
amended at the original hearing. Accordingly, the name appears here as amended.
998666-vol . 98-53-49 1 -
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring
or retaining membership; that the Respondent Company, from on or about
January 1, 1950, to date, acquiesced in threats to its employees that they would
be discharged if they did not pay obligations imposed upon them by the Respond-
ent Union and join and remain members of the Respondent Union ; and that
the Respondent Union, from on or about January 1, 1950, threatened employees
of the Respondent Company with discharge if they did not pay the obligations
imposed upon them by the Respondent Union and join and remain members of
the Respondent Union.
The Respondent Company duly filed an answer, admitting that on or about
May 15, 1950, the Respondent Union, acting pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement between the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union,
demanded that the Respondent Company terminate the employment of the said
employees because of their failure to tender to the Respondent Union the
periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring
and retaining membership, and admitting that, on or about May 16, 1950, the
Respondent Company discharged the said employees, but without reasonable
ground for believing that membership in the Respondent Union was not available
to them on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other mem-
hers of the Respondent Union or that such membership was denied or terminated
for reasons other than the failure of the said employees to tender to the
Respondent Union the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required
,is a condition of acquiring or retaining membership; and alleging that at
all times on and after May 15, 1950, each of the said employees refused and
has continued to refuse to tender to the Respondent Union the periodic dues
and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining
membership, and has refused to maintain membership in the Respondent
Union, as required by the said collective bargaining agreement. The answer
of the Respondent Company denied the commission of any unfair labor practices,
and alleged as an affirmative defense that on August 15, 1919, the Board
certified the Respondent Union as the bargaining representative of a unit
which included the said employees, that the said certification is still in effect,
that thereafter the Board certified that the Respondent Union was authorized
by the said employees to make an agreement with the Respondent Company
requiring membership in the Respondent Union as a condition of employment ;
that on and after April 13, 1950, there was in effect a collective bargaining
agreement between the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union appli-
cable to the said employees, requiring as a condition of employment membership
in the Respondent Union on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning
of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever was
the later, which agreement is ' still in effect, and that the said discharges
were effectuated pursuant thereto. The Respondent Union filed an answer
denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing was held at Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
from October 30 to November 2, 1950, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial
Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel,
the IAM, Baker, the Respondent Company, and the Respondent Union appeared
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the begin-
ning of the hearing, the Respondent Company moved to exclude all witnesses
from the hearing room until after they had testified The motion was granted
in part, but later withdrawn. The General Counsel moved to amend the com-
plaint with respect to the spelling of the name of one of the employees involved.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 759
In the absence of objection, the motion was granted The Respondent Company
moved that the Trial Examiner and the Board take judicial notice of certain
representation proceedings previously concluded before the Board with respect
to the Respondent Company.' Without objection, the motion was granted.
The IAM moved to quash a subpena dotes tecwni issued against it at the request
of the Respondent Union, and the General Counsel moved to quash a subpena
duces tecum issued against him at the request of the Respondent Union. Both
motions were granted. At the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the
General Counsel moved to dismiss so much of the consolidated complaint as
alleged that the Respondent Company acquiesced in threats to its employees
that they would be discharged if they did not pay obligations imposed on them
by the Respondent Union and join and remain members of the Respondent
Union. There being no objection, the motion was granted. The Respondent
Union moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety. After oral
argument, the motion was granted by oral ruling from the bench.
After the close of the hearing, certain employees of the Board's Fifteenth
Regional Office filed a joint motion to quash subpenas ad testificandum issued
against them at the request of the Respondent Company. The motion was
taken under advisement.
After the close of the hearing, the General Counsel and the IAM filed with
the Board requests to review the Trial Examiner's action in dismissing the
consolidated complaint. On March 28, 1951, the Board issued a Decision and
Order Remanding Case in which it found that the Trial Examiner had erred
in dismissing the consolidated complaint, and remanded the cases to the Trial
Examiner :`for further proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order
Remanding Case, including such additional hearing as may be necessary and the
preparation and issuance of an Intermediate Report, setting forth his findings,
of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations with respect to the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint." 6
Pursuant to the above-mentioned Order of the Board and pursuant to notice,
a remanded hearing was held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, from May 29 to June 1,
1951, inclusive, before the Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the JAM,
Baker, the Respondent Company, and the Respondent Union appeared and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The motion of the Board
employees, referred to above, to quash the subpenas ad testificandum issued
against them was denied. The General Counsel moved to amend the complaint
by adding allegations that the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union
are parties to an agreement authorized under Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act which,
since about May 13, 1950, required as a condition of continued employment that
employees covered thereunder be members of the Respondent Union ; that the
six employees named in the complaint were covered by the said agreement and
required to become members of the Respondent Union pursuant to its terms ;
that the Respondent Union required of the said employees, as a condition pre-
cedent to becoming members, fees in excess of those required of other employees
covered by the agreement, in violation of Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act. The
motion was granted a The Regional Director for the Board's Fifteenth Region
I
* Case No. 15-RC-7. See 82 NLRB 692. At that time, the Respondent Company's
operations at the plant here in question were conducted under the name of Permanente
Metals Corporation.
5 93 NLRB 1203.
9 While neither Respondent has filed an amended answer, it will be deemed that both
Respondents have denied the allegations added to the complaint by this amendment.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
moved to quash a subpena duces teoum issued against him at the request of the
Respondent Union. The motion was granted? The Respondent Union moved to
dismiss that portion of the consolidated complaint which alleges that member-
ship in the Respondent Union was denied to the six named employees or termi-
nated on some ground other than their failure to tender the periodic dues and
initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining
membership.- Ruling on this motion was reserved. In view of my disposition of
these cases, as related below, I find it unnecessary to rule upon this motion.
The Respondent Union moved that the Trial Examiner and the Board take
judicial notice of the provisions of all. union constitutions and bylaws presently
in the Board's possession (by virtue of the provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) of the Act) with respect to the reinstatement fees, reimburseme4ts, and ex-
membership fees. Ruling on this motion was reserved. It is now denied, on
the ground that the said documents are immaterial to the issues herein. The
Respondent Union moved that the Trial Examiner recuse himself from these
cases because of personal bias and prejudice. Before it had been ruled upon,
the motion was withdrawn. Several motions to correct the transcript of record
of the original hearing were granted without objection. At the conclusion of
the remanded hearing, all parties were afforded an opportunity to argue the
issues orally before the Trial Examiner and to file briefs or recommended con-
clusions and findings with the Trial Examiner . Oral argument was presented
by both Respondents, and waived by the General Counsel, the IAM, and Baker.
Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and both Respondents. The
IAM and Baker filed a joint brief, including proposed findings and conclusions,
which are disposed of hereafter. All briefs have been duly considered. With
its brief, the Respondent Company filed a motion to dismiss the cases. This
motion is disposed of below.
After the close of the remanded hearing, the IAM moved to set aside the
union-authority election in Case No. 15-UA-518.8 The motion was denied. An
identical motion simultaneously filed with the Board was likewise denied.
Upon the entire record in the cases and from my observation of,the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINos of FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
The Respondent Company, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Oakland, California. It main-
tains a manufacturing plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where it is engaged
in the production, sale, and distribution of alumina. During the 12 months
preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint herein, the Respondent
Company, in the course and conduct of its business operations, caused mate-
rials valued at more than $100,000 to be purchased, transferred, and delivered
to its Baton'Rouge plant, of which approximately 80 percent was received from
outside the State of Louisiana. During the same period, the Respondent Com-
pany produced alumina valued at more than $100,000, all of which was trans-
ported from its Baton Rouge plant to States other than the State of Louisiana.
I find that the Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
'Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495, 507; and N. L. R. B. v. Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere
, Co, Inc., 185 F. 2d 285 (C. A. 2).
8 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, Baton Rouge Works, Employer, and United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , A. F. L., Petitioner. -
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 761
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of-Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 720,
AFL, herein called the Respondent Union, and Lodge No. 1366, International
Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called the IAM, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section,
2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
and (2)
1. Events up to August 15, 1949
Sometime in 1946, the Respondent Company, under the name Permanente
Metals Corporation,9 leased or purchased the alumina plant at Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, formerly operated by the Reynolds Metals Corporation. In 1947,
when production started, the Respondent Company entered into a joint con-
tract with 11 unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, covering
all production and maintenance employees of the alumina plant. This agree-
ment was to remain in effect until June 1949, and "contained a closed-shop
provision. One of the signatory unions was Local No. 1098 of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called Local 1098.
The IAM was not a party to this agreement.
The Respondent Company employed millwrights in its machine shop, herein
called the inside millwrights,10 and other millwrights as part of rotating main-
tenance crews, herein called the outside millwrights. The inside millwrights
desired separate representation. On October 21, 1947, the IAM filed a representa-
tion petition with the Board which, in effect, sought to sever a unit of inside
millwrights from the existing plant-wide unit. On April 1, 1949, the Board
dismissed this petition on the ground that "the proposed unit of inside mill-
wrights, failing to include the outside millwrights, is inappropriate as it,com-
prises only a segment of a craft group possessing similar skills and performing
comparable work." '1
On April 15, 1949, the IAM filed another petition with the Board in which it
sought to represent a unit of both inside and outside millwrights." While this
petition was pending, the Respondent Union was chartered on April 27, 1949.
The previous jurisdiction of Local 1098 had included millwrights and other
workmen in the trade, such as carpenters, welders, pile drivers, etc. When
the Respondent Union was formed, it took over from Local 1098 jurisdiction
over millwrights. At the time of its formation, the Respondent Union operated
under the international constitution of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, herein called the Carpenters, and under the bylaws of
Local 1098. At its organization meeting on April 27,1949, the Respondent Union
elected Walter J. Masling as its business agent and financial secretary. The
9 The Respondent Company Is one and the same corporation as the Permanente Metals
Corporation, the only difference being a change in name which took place about 1949.
10 The TAM and Baker apparently contend that the inside millwrights were in fact
machinists who were improperly classified by the Respondent Company as millwrights.
Regardless of this contention, they will be referred to herein as Inside millwrights, as that
is the designation given them by the Respondent Company.
"82 NLRB 692. In accordance aith a motion granted at the original hearing, I have
taken official notice of the Board's action In this case, and some of the findings of fact
recited in this Intermediate Report are based upon the Board's decision therein.
"Case No. 15-RC-255.
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
initiation fee was set at $75,' and dues at $3 a month's At its second meeting
on May 4, 1949, the Respondent Union set its initiation fee at $25 for a period
of 60 days only., Thereafter, on June 30, 1949, the Respondent Company entered
into a collective bargaining agreement with 11 unions affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, including the Respondent Union and Local 1098. This
agreement, which was to remain in effect until August 1, 1951, covered all pro-
duction and maintenance employees. It provided, among other things, that all
maintenance employees "shall become and remain members in good standing of
the appropriate Union." This closed-shop provision, however, was not enforced.
On July 18, 1949, the Respondent Company, the Respondent Union, and the
IAM entered into a consent election agreement with respect to the IAM's repre-
sentation petition regarding the inside and outside millwrights." After ap-
proval of this consent election agreement by the Regional Director, an election
was held, which was won by the Respondent Union. Thereafter, on August 15,
1949, the Regional Director certified the Respondent Union as the bargaining
representative of all inside and outside millwrights employed at the Respondent
Company's Baton Rouge alumina plant.
2. The six employees involved
In August 1949, the Respondent Company employed approximately 26 mill-
wrights at its' Baton Rouge plant, of which 8 were inside millwrights. Among
these 8 inside millwrights were the 6 employees involved herein. According to
a stipulation of the parties, these 6 employees had no desire to join the Respond-
ent Union and "didn't like" the Respondent Union's business agent.
Charles A. Achee was employed by the Respondent Company early in 1949.
He joined Local 1098 on July 12, 1949. On July 16, 1949, he was granted a clear-
ance card from Local 1098, but never deposited this card with any other local
of the Carpenters.' He last paid dues to Local 1098 in July 1949, and was sus-
pended by Local 1098 for nonpayment of dues on January 31, 1950." In May,
June, or July, 1949, he joined the IAM. Achee has never been a member of the
Respondent Union.
Charles J. Baker had formerly been a member of the International Association
of Machinists, but his membership had lapsed. He was employed by the Re-
spondent Company on January 10, 1949. , He Joined Local 1098 on April 27, 1949,
"Baker testified that he attended the meeting of April 27, and that the Respondent
Union voted to set its initiation fee at $25. It is found, however, that Baker was confusing
this meeting with a later meeting of the Respondent Union at which the Initiation fee was
reduced from $75 to $25. The finding that the Respondent Union set Its initiation fee
at $75 on April 27, 1949, is based upon the testimony of Masling and upon article VI,
section 1 of the bylaws of Local 1098, under which the Respondent Union was operating
at the time, which provided : "The, initiation fee for Journeymen Carpenters shall be
11seventy-five ($75.00). .. .
i9 The record indicates that at the meeting at which the consent election agreement
was entered into, the parties orally agreed that, after the election, all inside and outside
millwrights would join whichever union was victorious Baker testified, however, that
so far as the six inside millwrights here Involved were concerned, their acceptance of this
proposal was made contingent upon their being reclassified as machinists instead of mill-
wrights. I deem it unnecessary to make any findings with respect to any such agreement.
' A clearance card entitles the member to transfer from one local of the Carpenters to
another, without paying an additional initiation fee, If deposited with the second local
within 30 days. If, however, the clearance card is not deposited with another local within
30 days, the member remains a member of the local which issued the clearance card.
14 Section 45-B of the Carpenters' International constitution provides : "A member owing
a Local Union a sum equal to 6 months' dues shall have his name stricken from the list of
membership without a vote of the Local Union. .
KAISER ALUMINUM S, CHEMICAL CORPORATION 763
and paid dues to Local 1098. On the same day, he received a clearance card
from Local 1098 which he deposited in the Respondent Union, thus becoming a
member of the Respondent Union. He attended meetings of the Respondent
Union on April 27 and May 4, 1949, but paid no dues to the Respondent Union.
On September 28, 1949, on charges filed by Masling, Baker was fined $100 by the
Respondent Union, but this fine was withdrawn on October 12, 1949. Baker last
paid dues to Local 1098 in April 1949, and was suspended by Respondent Union
for nonpayment of dues on November 2, 1949. At that time, he owed the Re-
spondent Union 6 months' dues, 21/2 months' assessments, and 50 cents for a
work permit, or a total of $38.50. On May 26, 1949, Baker rejoined the JAM and
became its business agent and financial secretary on January 1, 1950.
B. J. Duhe" had formerly been a member of the IAM. He was employed by the
Respondent Company in November 1946 and joined Local 1098 on January 7,
1947. On May 7, 1949, he was granted a clearance card from Local 1098, which
he never deposited in any other local of the Carpenters. He last paid dues to
Local 1098 in May 1949, and was suspended by Local 1098 on November 30, 1949,
for nonpayment of dues. In May, June, or July, 1949, Duhe rejoined the IAM.
He has never been a member of the Respondent Union.
D. L. Marchand 16 joined Local 37 of the International Association of Machinists
in New Orleans in 1941, but later dropped his membership in that union. He
joined" Local 1098 on March 26, 1947, and obtained a clearance card from Local
1098 which he deposited in Local 1846 of the Carpenters in New Orleans on
April 26,1948. Marchand was employed by the Respondent Company in February
1949, and on February 2, 1949, paid 1 month's "foreign dues" to Local 1098.
He last paid dues to Local 1846 in December 1948, and was suspended by Local
1846 for nonpayment of dues on May 31, 1949. He rejoined the IAM early in
1949 Marchand was never a member of the Respondent Union.
R. T. McGraw 18 at one time had been a member of Local 261 of the International
Association of Machinists in Mobile, Alabama. He was employed by the Re-
spondent Company in March 1947. On June 24, 1947, McGraw joined Local 1098.
He became a shop steward of Local 1098, but never attended any meetings of
that union. McGraWd became delinquent in his dues, but on May 31, 1949, he
paid Local 1098 all his arrears. On that same day, he was granted a clearance
card from Local 1098, which he never deposited in any other local of the Car-
penters.. On September 28, 1949, on charges filed by Masling, McGraw was fined
$100 by the Respondent Union. McGraw last paid dues to Local 1098 on May 31,
1949, and was suspended by Local 1098 for nonpayment of dues on November 30,
1949. He rejoined the IAM in May, June, or July, 1949. He has never been a
member ,of the Respondent Union.
E. L. Scott 20 had previously been a member of the IAM. He was employed
by the Respondent Company in March 1947, and joined Local 1098 for nonpay-
ment of dues. He has never been a member of the Respondent Union. In May,
June, or July, 1949, Scott rejoined the IAM.
Thus, by August 1949, all of these six employees had previously been members
of locals of the Carpenters (Baker of the Respondent Union and the other five
of Local 1098) and had become delinquent in their dues. Moreover, by this
June, or July, 1949, Scott rejoined the IAM.
11 Also referred to in the record as Robert H. Duhe and Robert J. Duhe.
1! Also referred to in the record as Dudley L. Marchand and Dudley L. Marchand, Jr.
1U Also referred to in the , record as Richard T . McGraw.
20 Also referred to in the record as Eli L. Scott.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Events after August 15, 1949
About August 17, 1949, Charles Beddell, president of the Baton Rouge Building
Trades Council, contacted William Brown,21 industrial relations superintendent
of the Respondent Company's Baton Rouge plant, and asked if Brown would meet
with him and the six inside millwrights named above . Brown agreed to do so,
and the meeting was held at the plant on August 18. A second similar meeting
was held on the following day, also at the plant, with other people present,
including Masling.22 While there was considerable discussion during these
two meetings,23 the gist of the meetings was that Beddell sought to convince the
six insidd millwrights that they should join the Respondent Union, but they
refused to do so24
On January 9, 1950, the Respondent Company and the same 11 unions affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor entered into "Addendum Number One"
modifying and superseding the 1949 agreement in part, and extending its term
until January 15, 1952. Among other provisions, this addendum omitted the
former closed-shop provision, and substituted a form of union shop, subject to
Board authorization. The exact provisions of this portion of addendum number
one will be set forth hereafter.
On March 1, 1950, the Respondent Union filed with the Board a petition for
authority to make a union-shop agreement with the Respondent Company with
respect to inside and outside millwrights 26 On March 29, 1950, while this
,petition was pending, the Respondent Union raised its initiation fee from $75
to $250. However, a few days later, on April 5, the Respondent Union reduced
its initiation fee from $250 to $7520 On April 13, 1950. as the result of an election
held pursuant to a consent election agreement entered into between the Respond-
ent Company and the Respondent Union and approved by the Regional Director,
the Regional Director certified that the Respondent Union was authorized to
make an agreement with the Respondent Company requiring membership in the
21 Also referred to in the record as William T. Brown, W. T. Brown, and Billy Brown.
12 There is conflict in the record as to bow much of these two meetings was attended
by Brown I deem it unnecessary to make any finding with respect to this matter
23 There is conflict in the testimony as to what was said by Beddell . According to one
version, Beddell warned the six inside millwrights that the Respondent Union would seek
a union-security authorization election and, after winning a Board certification , all mill-
wrights would be required to join the Respondent Union within 30 days thereafter or be
discharged On the other hand , there is evidence tending to indicate that Beddell threat-
ened that if the inside millwrights did not join the Respondent Union, the Respondent
Union would substantially increase its initiati-n fee. I deem it unnecessary to make any
finding with respect to what was said by Beddell at this meeting. -
24 On September 23, 1949, the IAM filed with the Board charges that the Respondent
Company had violated Section 8 ( a) (1), (2), and ( 3) of the Act (Case No . 15-CA-214).
These charges were based , in part, on the conferences of August 18 and 19, 1949. On
December 29, 1949, the Respondent Company, a representative of the Board , and Beddell
entered into a settlement agreement with respect to these charges by virtue of which the
Respondent Company, while denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices,
agreed to cease giving effect to the union -security provisions of the 1949 agreement, not
to threaten any of its employees with discharge in order to encourage membership in the
Respondent Union, and to post notices . The signatory unions agreed to post similar
notices. This settlement agreement was approved by the Board's Regional Director but
was not joined in by the IAM On the following day, the Regional Director notified the
IAM of his refusal to issue a complaint . The TAM did not take any appeal from the
Regional Director 's refusal to issue a complaint.
26 Case No. 15-UA-518.
26 On March 6, 1950 , the IAM filed with the Board a representation petition seeking a
unit of inside millwrights ( Case No. 15-RC-358). This petition was dismissed byythe
Regional Director on March 21 , 1950. On April 14 , 1950, on appeal by the IAM, the
Board sustained the Regional Director ' s dismissal.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 765
Respondent Union as a condition of employment of inside and outside mill-
wrights, in conformity with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
At lunch time on April 19, 1949, the six employees involved herein gathered in
the plant . They decided that they would join the Respondent Union, provided
that the initiation fee did not exceed $25,27 the dues $3 per month , and the charge
for a working card 50 cents. They authorized Baker to contact Clarence A.
Moritz, a shop steward for the Respondent Union at the Respondent Company's
plant, to ascertain the actual charges which they would be required to pay in
order to join the Respondent Union. Baker was instructed to pay the necessary
dues and fees for all six employees if they did not exceed the figures agreed upon.
Accordingly, on April 20, Baker approached Moritz in the plant and requested
Moritz to obtain this information for the six employees involved . Moritz agreed
to do so.2' That night, Moritz contacted Masling. On April 21, Baker , accom-
panied by McGraw, asked Morite what he had found out. Moritz replied that
each man would be required to pay an initiation fee of $75, 1 month 's dues of $3,
an ex-membership fee of $5, and 50 cents for a work permit , and that in addi-
tion Baker and McGraw would have to pay a fine of $100 each . At Baker's re-
quest , Moritz wrote these figures on a piece of paper, which Baker then showed
to the other employees involved.
On about April 23, 1950, Howard Church , works manager of the plant , received
a telephone call from a person who did not reveal his name, but merely stated
that he was calling for the IAM. The caller asked Church for a meeting . Church
agreed to hold a meeting on the following day, and arranged for Brown to attend.
When the time for the meeting arrived , Baker, Marchand , Achee, Scott, and Dube
appeared . Baker acted as spokesman for the group . He stated that the six in-
side millwrights were under pressure to join the Respondent Union, and desired
to know the status of their jobs with the Respondent Company. He pointed out
that the Respondent Union was demanding that each of them pay an initiation
fee of $75, $3 per month dues, 50 cents for a working permit, and an ex-member-
ship fee of $5. In addition , there were fines of $100 each against Baker and Mc-
Graw . Baker maintained that the Respondent Union had deliberately increased
its initiation fee from $25 to $75 in order to discriminate against them . Church
assured Baker that he would investigate this charge . Baker further stated that
the men were members of the IAM and could not join the Respondent Union, and
asked if the Respondent Company could recognize the IAM as their represent-
ative. Brown , pointing out that the Respondent Union had been certified by, the
Board as their collective bargaining agent, replied that this could not be done.
Church remarked that he was only interested in living up to the law and the Re-
spondent Company 's contractual obligations . Following this meeting, under
instructions from Church, Brown investigated Baker's charge that the initiation
fee had been discriminatorily increased from $25 to $75, and ascertained that the
initiation fee had been $75 for some time past , and that other applicants for mem-
bership in the Respondent Union had , in fact, been required to pay an initiation
fee of $75. He reported his findings to Church.
27 The record indicates that Baker, the only one of the six employees who had ever
been a member of the Respondent Union, informed the others that the Respondent Union's
"normal" initiation fee was $25 However, I make no finding in this respect.
2s Baker testified that, during his c-nversation with Moritz on April 20, he informed
Moritz that the men had each agreed to pay $25 initiation fee, $3 per month dues, and
50 cents for a work card, and that he exhibited his wallet to Moritz, stating that he had
the money there ready to pay. Mortiz denied that Baker offered to pay any amount of
money to him during this conversation of April 20. I deem it unnecessary to resolve
this conflict in the testimony.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 27, 1950, the Respondent Union, through Masling. sent identical letters
by registered mail to each of the six employees involved. These letters read, in
part, as follows :
The recent Union Shop Election at the Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Cor-
poration, Baton Rouge Plant, Baton Rouge, Louisiana ; held on April 11,
1950, made membership in Millwrights Local Union 720 A. F. of L. a condition
of employment for all inside and outside Millwrights , employed at this
plant.
You are herewith asked to join Millwrights Local Union 720 A. F. ofi L.
before May 14, 1950.
The Initiation Fee in [sic] $75.00 plus the first months dues of $3.50. In-
asmuch that you are an Ex-Member, of the United'-Brotherhood, you are
required to pay an additional $5.00 ex-member fee which will be sent to the
Local Union where you were suspended for non-payment of dues.
Brown received a copy of one of these letters from Masling about May 1 or 2.
He telephoned to Masling, stating that he did not quite understand the require-
ment of an ex-membership fee of $5, and asked Masling to come to his office.
Accordingly, Masling visited Brown in his office, and brought with him a copy of
the Carpenters' international constitution. Masling pointed out to Brown the
applicable provisions of the constitution with regard to ex-membership fees."
After reading this, Brown told Masling that he would check further into the
legality of the ex-membership fee, which he considered "questionable." A few
days later, Brown telephoned to John F. LeBus, Regional Director for the Board's
Fifteenth Region. Brown read to LeBus Masling's letter and inquired as to the
legality of the Respondent Union's demand that the six employees pay an ex-
membership fee. LeBus replied that, under a union-shop contract, an employer
is only required to dismiss employees upon request of the union for nonpayment
of initiation fees and dues, but hesitated to commit himself with regard to the
legality of the ex-membership fee. After this conversation, Brown telephoned
to several officials of the Respondent Company's main office in Oakland, includ-
ing the Respondent Company's attorney. Brown was instructed that the Respond-
ent Company's only concern was that the six employees pay the initiation fees
and dues, and that he should so inform Masling. Brown then telephoned to the
attorney for the Respondent Union, advised him of the contents of Masling's
letter, and stated that the Respondent Company could only require the six
employees to pay initiation fees and dues, to which the Respondent- Union's
attorney agreed. Brown then telephoned to Masling, informed him of these
various telephone conversations, and told him that "the $5 ex-membership fee
is out as far as the company is concerned and that the company is only concerned
in the men paying initiation fees and dues." Later that day, Masling visited
29 Section 45-B of the international constitution of the Carpenters in effect at this
time provided : "A member owing a Local Union a sum equal to six months ' dues shall
have his name stricken from the list of membership . . . If desiring to rejoin the Brother-
hood he may be readmitted only as a new member , subject to such rea4mission fee as
provided for in the By-laws of the Local Union or District Council where he rejoins. The
Local Union re-admitting the ex-member shall ascertain the reasons for his having been
dripped from membership and if he was suspended for non-payment of dues shall collect
from him an additional sum of Five ($5 00) Dollars, to be forwarded to the Local Union
of which he was formerly a member. . . .
Article VI, section 1 of the constitution of Local 1098, under which the Respondent
Uni-n teas operating at this time, contains the following provision: "The initiation fee
for Journeymen Carpenters shall be seventy -five ($75 00) . . . ex-members shall pay an
additional fee of five dollars ($5 00)." It does not appear , however , that this provision
of the constitution of Local 1098 was called to Brown ' s attention by Masling.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 767
Brown and Brown again told Masling that "this $5 ex-membership fee is out as
far as the company is concerned." S0
On May 12, 1950, Masling came to Brown's office and requested permission
to hold a meeting with the inside millwrights, because he understood "that this
business of ex-membership fees is out." Brown granted permission for this
meeting, and suggested that Masling take some witness with him. Accordingly,
Masling asked William E. Bishop, an outside millwright who was president of
the Respondent Union, and Vennie J. Nickens, an ironworker welder who was
steward for the Building Trades Council at the plant, to accompany him.
Masling, Bishop, and Nickens went to the powerhouse, where they found Scott
at work. Masling asked Scott whether he intended to pay "the required dues
and initiation fee" to the Respondent Union. Scott suggested that Masling speak
to Baker and the other employees involved. Masling, Scott, Bishop, and Nickens
then proceeded to the machine shop, where they were joined by Baker, Achee,
McGraw, Marchand, and Dube. The session was a heated one, both Baker and
Masling becoming angry. Masling stated that the Respondent Union had won
the union-security election, and he was there to find out if the six inside mill-
wrights were going to join the Respondent Union.31 Baker replied as spokesman
for all six, but Masling interrupted him and stated that he would ask each man
individually. Accordingly, Masling asked each of the six men individually
whether he intended to join the Respondent Union and each man replied that he
did not ° Masling then announced that he would have to ask the Respondent
Company to discharge the six employees. Following this meeting, Masling re-
ported to Brown that he had informed the six men that they need only pay
initiation fees and dues. Upon questioning by Brown, Nickens and Bishop con-
firmed this report.
On May 15, 1950, Masling sent Brown a letter which read :
DEAR SIR :
In regards to the recent Union Shop Election, at this plant, which was
certified on April 13, 1950 in favor of Millwrights Local Union 720.
There are six employees employed in this plant as Millwrights who are not
members of Local Union 720 and were not members of Local 720 on April
13, 1950.
On April 27, 1950 I, representing Millwrights' Local Union 720, sent each
one of these employees a registered letter (returned receipt requested) and
have received the returned receipts as proof of delivery to their respective
domiciles. Each one of these letters stated, therein, to wit :
(1) An explanation of the Union Shop Election.
su Masling testified that, at Brawn's suggestion, he telephoned to Anthony J. Sabella,
chief field examiner of the Board's Fifteenth Region, and asked Sabella to advise him
with respect to the legality of the ex-membership fee, and that Sabella advised him to
"forget about" the ex-membership fee "because it is questionable." Sabella, however,
denied that he had ever spoken to Masling on the telephone, or that he had ever given
any advice to Masling with respect to the legality of the ex-membership fee I find it
unnecessary to resolve this conflict
11 There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether or not Masling opened the discussion
by asking if the men had all received his letter of April 27 There is also conflict in the
evidence as to whether or not Masling said "Now get this straight, y'u are only being
asked to pay the required initiation fees and dues " I find it unnecessary to resolve these
conflicts
11 There is evidence tending to indicate that while-Mashng was addressing this question
to the other men, Baker continued to talk Several of the witnesses testified that-Baker
announced that the men were willing to join the Respondent Union if they only had to pay
a $25 Initiation fee. instead of the $75 initiation fee demanded of them. I deem it
unnecessary to make any finding in this respect.
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) Asking that each one pay the required initiation fees and dues to
Millwrights Local Union 720 before May 15,1950.
(3) Stating the amount of the required initiation fees and dues of Local
Union 720.
I have not received an answer to any of the said letters as to these em-
ployees intentions.
On Friday, May 12, 1950, I approached the said six (6) employees
namely ; Charles Baker ; E. L. Scott ; Dudley Marchand ; Robert Duhe ;
R. T. McGraw ; Charles A. Achee ; with two (2) witnesses namely ; Mr. W. E.
Bishop; and Mr. Nickens, and asked them to pay the required initiation
fees and dues to the Millwrights Local Union by Monday, May 15, 1950. They
stated that they would not pay any amount to the Millwrights' Union and
never intended to do so. I then told them that in that case I, representing
Millwrights Local Union 720, would be forced to ask management to discharge
them on the grounds of refusing to pay the required initiation fees and
dues to the Millwrights Local Union 720 Monday morning May 15, 1950. I
was told by them to do what I wanted to do about the matter.
In consideration of the facts, herein, I herewith request this management
to terminate the said six (6) employees on the grounds of REFUSING TO PAY
THE REQUIRED INITIATION FEES AND DUES TO MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION 720 IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNION SHOP ELECTION.
Upon receipt of this letter, Brown telephoned to the Respondent Company's
officers in Oakland, including the attorney for the Respondent Company, and
reported that Masling had talked to the six employees involved and "had taken
care of" the ex-membership fee, and that he (Brown) had verified this fact by
questioning the witnesses who had accompanied Masling. He was instructed to
consult the Board's Regional Office. Accordingly, Brown telephoned to Andrew
Carter, an attorney in the employ of the Board's Fifteenth Region. He read
to Carter the letter which he had just received from Masling, explained that the
Board had recently conducted a union-security election among the inside and
outside millwrights , and that 30 days had elapsed since the Board had certified
the results of that election. He inquired whether the Respondent Company
could discharge the six employees. Carter replied : "So far as I can determine
everything is right ; everything is legal," but suggested that Masling's letter to
Brown be read to the six employees involved before they were terminated. Brown
again telephoned to the Respondent Company's Oakland office, reported his con-
versation with Carter, and was instructed to proceed as Carter had suggested.sa
Brown then informed Church of the receipt of the letter, and of the various
telephone conversations he had had with respect thereto. Later, Brown sum-
moned to his office B. V. Bannister, Jr., the Respondent Company's safety su-
pervisor , and the six employees involved . In Bannister 's presence , Brown re-
marked that they were good employees ; that the Respondent Company held no
prejudice against them, and that it was only fair that they know what had
happened. He then read to them the letter he had received from Masling. Baker
protested that they were all "united" for the IAM, and that the Respondent Union
was requiring them to pay "excessive fees." Brown replied that he did not care
as The findings with respect to Brown's telephone conversations with LeBus and Carter
are based upon the credited and undenied testimony of Brown, whose demeanor on the
stand while testifying impressed me with his candor and sincerity.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 769
to argue, but would suggest that they "try and get yourselves straight with the
Union."
On May 16, Brown telephoned to Masling and asked if any of the six employees
involved had paid the required initiation fee and dues. Masling replied that
they had not done so. Brown asked if Masling had made himself available so
that they could have made payment to him had they desired to do so. Masling
replied that he had been available. Brown reported this conversation to Churchl
and informed Church that he was going to suspend the six men for nonpayment.
of the initiation fee and dues. Brown then summoned McGraw, Marchand, and.
Achee to his office and asked each of them whether he had paid his initiation fee-
and dues to the Respondent Union. Each replied that he had not. Brown asked!
each whether he was a member of either the Respondent Union or Local 1098, td
which each answered "no." Next, Brown asked each man how long it had been
since he had been a member of either the Respondent Union or Local 1098, and
each replied that it had been approximately a year. Remarking that the Re-
spondent Company had no alternative but to terminate their employment, and
that they were being suspended for 3 days in accordance with the provisions of
the contract between the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union.
Brown then handed a termination slip to each man. Under the heading "Reason
for Termination," each slip contained the following statement :
Three-day suspension prior to discharge upon request of United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local #720, A. F. L., for refusal to
pay required initiation fee and dues to said union, as a condition of employ-
ment under union shop contract.
Finally, Brown suggested that, during the 3-day suspension, if any of the men
cared to discuss the matter with him he would be glad to do so, and he again
suggested that they "get yourself straight with the Union." Brown then sum-
moned Baker, Dube, and Scott to his office, and suspended them in a similar
manner.
None of the six employees involved paid any money to the Respondent Union
during the 3-day suspension, or since, and none has returned to work for the
Respondent Company.
Sometime later, McGraw telephoned to Brown and asked what he could do to
come back to work. Brown replied that he had been dismissed upon request of
the Respondent Union for nonpayment of dues and initiation fees, and added :
34 There was testimony that, during this meeting, McGraw asked Brown if he knew
that membership in the Respondent Union was not available to them because of excessive
fees, and that Brown replied that he was not interested. Brown denied that McGraw
asked such a question, and Bannister testified that he could not recall it. I deem it
unnecessary to resolve this conflict. There was also testimony that, during this meeting,
Marchand asked Brown if they were going to be fired, and that Brown replied : "Who says
anything about being fired?" I deem it unnecessary to make a finding with respect to
whether or not this conversation occurred.
There was also testimony that Brown told the six employees : "Now, get this straight.
He [Masling] is only asking for you to pay the initiation fees and dues and that is the
only requirement." I make no finding in this respect.
^ The 1949 agreement provided . ". . . in the case of discharge an employee shall be
suspended for a period of not more than three (3) days prior to such discharge. Should
it be determined that the employee has been discharged or suspended unjustly, the com-
pany shall reinstate the employee and pay full compensation at the employee's regular rate
of pay for the time lost." This provision was incorporated by reference in addendum
number one, and was in effect during May 1950.
F
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"If you want to get straight I suggest you see Walter Masling and discuss this
matter with him." Achee also visited Brown and asked if he could return to
work . After some discussion, Brown answered : "Well , I'm sorry, there is not
a thing in the world we can do about your coming back to work." as
4. Contention of the parties and issues
The General Counsel contends that the ex -membership fee is neither an initia-
tion fee nor periodic dues, and is a discriminatory imposition ; that this ex-
membership fee was not waived by the Respondent Union ; that even if Masling
had attempted to waive this fee, he was without authority to do so ; and that
the Respondent Company had reasonable grounds for believing that the Re-
spondent Union imposed upon the six employees involved herein a discriminatory
ex-membership fee as a condition of acquiring or obtaining membership. He
does not, however, contend that the Respondent Union's initiation fee was either
excessive or discriminatory , or that it was raised from $25 to $75 in order to
discriminate against the employees involved . The IAM and Baker , in addition
to the contentions advanced by the General Counsel, also contend that the
Respondent Union discriminatorily denied membership to the six employees in-
volved, by demanding that they pay an initiation fee of $75 when membership was
available to others for an initiation fee of only $25. The Respondent Union
contends that the imposition of the ex-membership fee was not discriminatory,
but the exercise of a reasonable classification ; that it applied generally and not
to particular individuals ; that Masling in fact waived the imposition of the
ex-membership fee on May 12 when he spoke to the six inside millwrights; and
that Masling had authority to do so. The Respondent Company, in addition to
the arguments advanced by the Respondent Union, also contends that the
Respondent Company reasonably believed that the ex-membership fee had been
waived by Masling on May 12 when he spoke to the six employees involved.
Is the validity of the union-security clause of addendum number one an issue
herein ? None of the briefs discussed this matter . In oral argument before
the Trial Examiner , the General Counsel indicated some doubt as to the clause's
validity, but refrained from making any contention with respect thereto .17 At
the remanded hearing, the General Counsel amended the consolidated complaint
to include an allegation that the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union
were parties "to an agreement authorized under Subsection ( a) (3) of Section 8
of the Act which . . . required membership in Respondent Carpenters . . . as
a condition [of] . . . employment" which I deem to constitute an allegation that
the agreement contained a valid union-security clause. Moreover, the Respond-
ent Company's answer contains an allegation that the contract "required as a
condition of employment . . . membership in Respondent Carpenters on or
36 On May 22 , 1950, the JAM filed a representation petition with the Board , seeking a
unit of the Respondent Company's inside millwrights ( Case No 15-RC-377). The Re-
gional Director dismissed this petition on September 13, 1950, and upon appeal by the IAM
the Board sustained the Regional Director ' s dismissal on Oct-ber 17, 1950
3 7 At the close of the remanded hearing, the General Counsel made the following
statement :
Mr. KEENAN : . . . Incidentally , although the General Counsel has not urged It, I
believe it is quite possible the Board will hold that the union security clause In this
contract is invalid
TRIAL EXAMINER AsHER : I didn't know that was In issue.
:Air KEENAN : I have never urged it I will cite the case cf Blue Ribbon Creamery
Mr. Barker knows about the case . . . I hereby warn the company to seek good
advice and to determine whether the union security clause presently in force [addendum
number one ] is valid under the most recent Board decisions.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 771
after the,thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the
effe ltive date of such agreement whichever was the later"-also an allegation
of a valid union-security agreement.
Notwithstanding the General Counsel's apparent concession that the union-
security clause in addendum number one is valid, the validity of that clause
was put in issue by both Respondents, by virtue of the fact that they interposed
Was a defense to the alleged discriminatory discharges. It is therefore incum-
bent upon me to examine that clause in order to determine whether or not it
constitutes a valid defense to the discharges' I turn now to consideration of
that problem.
5. The invalidity of addendum number one
Under certain conditions, Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act permits an employer
and a union to enter into a contract "to require as a condition of employment
membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such
employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later"
(emphasis supplied). The Respondent Company's answer alleges that, on and
after April 13, 1950, there was in effect a contract between the Respondent
Company and the Respondent Union "which required as a condition of em-
ployment . . . membership in Respondent Carpenters on or after the thirtieth
day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such
agreement whichever was the later" (emphasis supplied). The actual wording
of the clause in question is :
All employees covered by this Agreement shall become members of the
Union on or after the thirtieth (30th) day following the beginning of their
employment. All employees who are now or hereafter may become mem-
bers of the Union, shall maintain their membership in good standing as a
condition of employment.
The above provision shall have no effect until such time as a union author-
ization election has been conducted by the National Labor Relations Board
for purposes of complying with the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.
Thus, as alleged by the Respondent Company, addendum number one required
all employees to join the Respondent Union 30 days after being hired. However,
contrary to the allegations of the answer, the contract did not require employees
to become members of the Respondent Union 30 days after their hire or 30 days
after the effective date of the agreement, whichever was the later. There is
nothing in the contract permitting old employees who had been hired more than
30 days before the effective date of the contract a period of 30 days after the
effective date of the agreement in which to join the Respondent Union. For ex-
ample, although the union-security clause of the contract took effect on April
13, 1950, an employee who was hired on April 10, 1950, would be required under
its terms to join the Respondent Union on or before March 10, 1950-a period
of less than 30 days after the effective date of the union-security clause. In
this respect, therefore, the clause quoted above exceeds the narrow type of union
security permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, even though a union-
security agreement had been authorized by the certificate of the Regional
88 Green Bay Drop Forge Co., 95 NLRB 399, especially f-otnote 3. See also Construction
and General Laborers Union, Local 320, affiliated with International Hod Carriers, Building
and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, et al, 96 NLRB 118, holding that the
burden is not on the General Counsel to allege the nonexistence of a valid union-shop
contract, but rather rests upon the Respondent to plead the existence of such a contract
and that the discharges were made pursuant thereto.
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director."B I am aware that the six employees involved herein were not actually
discharged until more than 30 days after the effective date of the provisions
quoted above. Nonetheless, that fact cannot validate the otherwise invalid
provisions of the contract.
The record establishes conclusively that the Respondent Company suspended
the six employees here involved as a result of the Respondent Union's request
made pursuant to the above-quoted contract provisions, because they failed to
join the Respondent Union. As the contract provisions were invalid, they fur-
nish no defense. It is therefore found that by suspending Achee, Baker, Dube,
Marchand, McGraw, and Scott on May 16, 1950, and thereafter refusing to rein-
state them, thus discouraging membership in the IAM and encouraging member-
ship in the Respondent Union, the Respondent Company has violated and is violat-
ing Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. It is further found that by causing
the Respondent Company to discriminate against these employees in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and persisting in its request that they not be
reinstated, thereby restraining and coercing employees of the Respondent Com-
pany, the Respondent Union has violated and is violating Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
and (2) of the Act 40
6. The Respondent Company's reliance upon advice from Board agents
The Respondent Company contends that it should not be found guilty of
violating the Act because, in suspending the six employees, it relied in good faith
upon advice received from Board agents. It is true that the effective adminis-
,tration of the Act requires that the Board's agents have the respect and con-
fidence of labor organizations and, employers with whom their work brings them
in contact, and to that end the Board has sometimes excused conduct, otherwise
violative of the Act, which flowed from good faith reliance upon agreements
approved by Board personnel." On the other hand, one who commits an unlaw-
ful act because of an honest but mistaken understanding of the law is not
absolved from responsibility for his unlawful conduct.42 The instant case falls
within the latter principle. The facts show that, prior to the suspensions, Brown
spoke to LeBus, the Board's Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, and
later to Carter, an attorney on the Board's staff. When Brown asked Carter if
the employees could be legally suspended, Carter replied that "everything was
legal." It appears, however, that both of, these conversations dealt primarily
with the legality of the ex-membership fee, and in neither instance did Brown
read the union-security provisions of the contract to the Board agent. Thus,
the Board agents voiced their opinions without realizing that they had not
been given the complete facts. It follows, therefore, that if Brown was misled
in any respect, this was the fault of his own omission rather than any erroneous
" Blue Ribbon Creamery , 94 NLRB 201 , Continental Carbon, Inc, 94 NLRB 1026; and
Anaconda Wire and Cable Company, 94 NLRB 1557 See also Trial Examiner's Inter-
mediate Report in United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America , Local 622
(U,E), 98 NLRB 664
40 In view of my conclusion that the union -security clause in addendum number one
is Invalid , I do not feel called upon to decide whether or not the suspension of these six
employees would have violated the Act had there been a valid union-security clause in
effect Accordingly , I deem it unnecessary t:) pass upon the other contentions of the
parties with respect to whether or not the ex -membership fee was a discriminatory
imposition , and whether or not it was waived
91 Shenandoah -Dives Mining Company , 11 NLRB 885 ; and Armour Fertilizer Works, Inc.,
et al., 46 NLRB 629. 1
42 See West Texas Utilities Company, Inc, 85 NLRB 1396, enforced 184 F. 2d 233
(C A D. C ) cert den . 341 U. S. 939 , where the Board held that the respondent had
violated the Act, despite its good faith reliance upon the General Counsel 's mistaken
interpretation of the Act.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 773
advice given him' Under these circumstances , I find no merit in the contention
of the Respondent Company that Brown's telephone conversations with Board
agents constitute a defense herein.
B. The alleged violation of Section 8 (b) (5)
The consolidated complaint , as amended at the remanded hearing , alleges, and
the General Counsel contends , that the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b)
(5) of the Act by requiring that the six employees involved herein , as a condition
precedent to becoming members of the Respondent Union, pay an excessive and
discriminatory ex-membership fee. There is no contention, however, that the
initiation fee required of the employees by the Respondent Union was either
excessive or discriminatory. Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act provides that it is
an unfair labor practice for a union "to require of employees covered by an agree-
ment authorized under subsection ( a) (3) the payment , as a condition precedent
to becoming a member of such organization, of a fee in an amount which the
Board finds excessive or discriminatory under all the circumstances." Since Con-
gress used the words "an agreement authorized under subsection ( a) (3)," it
is clear that Section 8 (b) (5) was intended to apply only in those cases where
the employees were covered by a valid union-security agreement" In addition,
it should also be noted that there is some legislative history tending to indicate
that'Section 8 (b) (5) was intended to be limited solely to initiation fees," and
it is somewhat questionable whether or not the ex-membership fee here involved
can be considered as an initiation fee. I do not, however, deem it necessary to
decide this issue. I find that the Respondent Union has not violated Section 8
(b) (5) of the Act, and my finding in this respect is predicated solely upon the
fact that there was no valid union-security agreement in existence between the
Respondent Union and the Respondent Company.48
"This statement should not be taken as a reflection upon Brown's conduct . It is not
intended to imply either that Brown acted other than in complete good faith , or that he
purposely withheld any facts in his conversations with the Board agents
44 The wording of the Act seems to be clear However , I note in passing that the legis-
lative history of the Act supports the conclusion reached above. House Conference Report
No 510, on H. R. 3020, at page 45 contains the following observation :
Two additional unfair labor practices are added which were not contained in the
Senate amendment but contained in the House bill. The first would make it an
unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents having in effect a per-
mitted union shop or maintenance of membership agreement to require the payment
of an initiation fee in an amount which the Board finds excessive or discriminatory
under all the circumstances . ( Emphasis supplied.)
Page 46 of the same document contains the following additional reference to Section 8
(b) (5) :
One of the more important provisions of this section-that limiting the initiation
fees which a labor organization may impose where a permitted union shop or main-
tenance of membership agreement is in effect-is included in the conference agreement
(Sec. 8 ( b) (5)) and has already been discussed . ( Emphasis supplied )
45 See the analysis of the Act introduced by Senator Taft, 93 Cong Rec. 7001, in which
the following statement is made : "It has been argued that the effect of this Section [Section
8 (b) (5) ] is to give the Board vast discretion in regulating the dues and initiation fees
of all labor organizations . . . The express language of this subsection shows how
unfounded such an argument is, for it . . . is lamited to initiation fees and does not
cover dues " (Emphasis supplied ) See also the passages referred to in footnote 44, above,
in which reference is made only to initiation fees.
44 In contending that the Respondent Union violated Section 8 ( b) (5) of the Act, the
General Counsel relies upon Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co, 93 NLRB 1459. How-
ever, there was a valid union -security contract in the Ferro case, which is not true in the
instant case. Indeed, the Trial Examiner in the Ferro case stated ( Intermediate Report,
page 1475 ) • "If, as claimed by the General Counsel, the clause is illegal and void per se,
a serious question would be raised as to whether the alleged violation by the
Union of Section 8 (b) (.i) need be considered at all, for that section by its terms is
998666-vol 98-53-40
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Disposition of motions and proposed findings and conci'usions
1. The Respondent Company's motion to dismiss
Simultaneously with the filing of its brief before the Trial Examiner, the
Respondent Company filed a motion to dismiss the cases. In accordance with
the conclusions reached above, this motion is granted only with respect to the
allegation that the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act,
and is denied in all other respects.
2. The IAM's and Baker's proposed findings and conclusions
In their joint brief, the IAM and Baker request various findings and conclu-
sions, which will be treated seriatim.
(a) For reasons stated above, the request that a finding be made that the
Respondents violated the Act as set forth in the consolidated complaint, as
amended, is denied only insofar as it refers to any violation of Section 8 (b) (5)
of the Act by the Respondent Union, and is granted in all other respects.
(b) The request that the six employees here involved be reinstated to their
former jobs with the Respondent Company is granted.
(c) The request that these six employees be reimbursed for time lost by reason
of their discriminatory terminations, plus all expenses incurred in seeking,
obtaining, and moving to the location of other employment,-and of moving back
to their reemployment with the Respondent Company, is granted only insofar
as set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" hereafter, and is specifically
denied insofar as it requests reimbursement for expenses incurred in seeking,
obtaining, and moving to the location of other employment, and of moving back to
their reemployment with the Respondent Company.
(d) The request that the union-authority certification of the Respondent
Union (Case No. 15-UA-518) be declared null and void and the union-shop
agreement be declared illegal, is granted only insofar as it requests a finding
that the union-shop agreement presently in effect does not comply with the provi-
sions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and is denied in all other respects, for
reasons stated in my order dated July 12, 1951, and in the order of the Board
dated July 17, 1951.
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
Having found that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent Company offer Achee, Baker,
Dube, Marchand, McGraw, and Scott immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions," without prejudice to their
applicable only where employees are 'covered by an agreement authorized under subsection
(a) (3).' " I therefore conclude that the Ferro case does not support the position of the
General Counsel herein.
44 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch. R5
NLRB 827.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 775
seniority or other rights and privileges . I shall also recommend that the Re-
spondent Union notify the Respondent Company in writing that it has with-
drawn objection to the reinstatement of the above-named employees without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and furnish copies
thereof to each of the six employees.
As it has been found that both the Respondent Company and the Respondent
Union are responsible for the discrimination suffered by these six employees,
I shall recommend that they jointly and severally make these employees whole
for any loss each may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him," by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount that he
normally would have earned as wages from May 16, 1950, the date of his sus-
pension , to November 2, 1950, the date of my oral dismissal of the complaint,
and from March 28, 1951, the date of the Board' s Decision and Order Remand-
ing Case , to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings during
such periods48 However , the Respondent Union may terminate its liability
for further accrual of back pay by giving the Respondent Company the notice
of withdrawal of objection to the reinstatement-of these six employees , as pro
vided above. The Respondent Union shall not be liable for any back pay ac-
cruing 5 days after such notice.' The loss of pay provided for herein shall be
computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof.6°
The quarterly periods, herein called "quarters," shall begin with the first day
of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by de-
ducting from a sum equal to that which each of the six suspended employees
would normally have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, his net earn-
ings,` if any, in other employment during that period. Earnings in one par-
ticular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other
quarter.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent Company make available
to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking
of the amounts of back pay due S8
The record indicates that both Respondents took the illegal action because
they, in good faith, believed they were parties to a valid union-security agreement.
Brown and Church particularly made honest and sincere efforts to comply with
the Act as they interpreted it, after Brown had twice sought the advice of Board
agents. I am therefore convinced that there is no danger that the Respondents
will, in the future, commit other and unrelated unfair labor practices." Accord-
ingly, the issuance of a broad cease and desist order against either of the Re-
spondents is unwarranted, and it will be recommended only that the Respondents
cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and any like or related
conduct"
11 Union Starch and Refining Co. v. N. L. R. B., 186 F . 2d 1008 (C. A. 7).
49 Green Bay Drop Forge Co., supra.
60 Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc., 90 NLRB 205.
6' F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
61 Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440 ; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.
311 U S 7.
68 F. IV . Woolworth Company, supra.
u I am aware that previous charges were filed against the Respondent Company by the
IAM (Case No. 15-CA-214). However, as described above, the Respondent Company
entered into a settlement agreement with respect thereto ( in which it specifically denied
the commission of unfair labor practices) and the Regional Director then refused to issue
a complaint. Thereafter , the Respondents abandoned the illegal union-security provisions
of the 1949 contract and substituted therefor the provisions of addendum number one
dealt with herein.
51 Carlyle .Rubber Co ., Inc., 92 NLRB 385.
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As it has been found that the Respondent Union has not violated Section 8:
(b) (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that the consolidated complaint be^
dismissed in this regard.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record im
the cases, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local No. 720, AFL, and Lodge No. 1366, International Association of Machinists,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles
A. Achee, Charles J. Baker, B. J. Dube, D. L. Marchand, R. T. McGraw, and E.
L. Scott, thereby discouraging membership in Lodge No. 1366, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and
encouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 720, AFL, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
- 3. By the said conduct, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Re-
spondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
. 4. By causing Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation to discriminate in
regard to the hire and tenure of-employment of the said employees in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of
the Act.
5. By the said conduct, thereby restraining and coercing the employees of
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, the Respondent Union has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondent Union has not violated Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in LODGE No. 1366, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR, or any other labor organization of our employees, or encourage
membership in UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL No. 720, AFL, or any other labor organization of our employees, by
suspending or discharging any of our employees or by discriminating against
them in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent permitted
by Section 8 (a)_ (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
KAISER ALUMINUM & 'CHEMICAL CORPORATION 777
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, 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 by Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer each of the employees listed below immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him :
Charles A. Achee D. L. Marchand
Charles J. Baker R. T. McGraw
B. J. Duhe E. L. Scott
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining , members of the above- named unions or any other labor organization,
except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement authorized
by Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
Employer.
By --------------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix B
NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 720, AFL, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL COR-
PORATION
Pursuant to,the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL
CORPORATION, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to suspend , discharge,
or otherwise discriminate against its employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage
membership in our labor organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, its successors or assigns, in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, 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 by Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL make each of the employees listed below whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered because of the discrimination against him :
Charles A. Achee D. L. Marchand
Charles J. Baker R. T. McGraw
B. J. Duhe E. L. Scott
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL notify KAISER ALUMINUM & CIIEMICAL CORPORATION in writing,
that we have no objection to the reinstatement of the above -named employees,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and will
furnish copies thereof to each of the said employees.
UNITED CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL No. 720, AFL,
Labor Organization.
By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated--------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
GOLDEN STATE AGENCY, INC., STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
AND STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and INSURANCE AND
ALLIED WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 20-RC-1622. March 20, 1950
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Nathan R. Berke, hearing.
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Companies are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Companies.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Companies within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, far the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all life, fire, casualty, and automobile
insurance agents appointed by and acting for the Companies in the
State of California. The Companies contend that the agents sought
are independent contractors rather than employees.
'As the record and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the
Employer' s request for oral argument is hereby denied.
98 NLRB No. 119.