Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local Union 214, etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 942 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
into my dog's mouth he announced his judgment : "I won 't shoot a dog for killing
sheep unless I find wool between his teeth."
Upon the record as made the Trial Examiner finds that the evidence does not
support the General Counsel 's contention that the Respondent Teamsters has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii ) (A) and ( B) of the Act,, which section proscribes so-called
secondary boycotts and other secondary pressure to require another employer to
cease dealing in the products of or to cease doing business with any other person.
The Trial Examiner therefore finds that the strike and picketing of Gallagher by
the Respondent Teamsters was entirely legal and in no way violative of the Act and
having so found further finds it entirely unnecessary to advert to any of the other
matters touched upon in the conduct of the hearing.
With respect to the various demands the complaint alleges to have been made by
the Respondent Teamsters in order to "achieve the purpose of forcing Gallagher" to
cease doing business with owner -operators as a class, the Trial Examiner, again
recalling his youth, points out that collective bargaining is akin to "horse trading" in
which every windbroken , spavined , short-toothed nag was touted as a child of Dan
Patch and "boot" consisting of the moon and sixpence was always asked as a matter
of course.
Final Conclusion
Upon a review of the entire record in the case , and upon all the evidence consid-
ered as a whole , the Trial Examiner is persuaded that the evidence adduced by the
General Counsel does not sustain the allegations of the complaint that the Respond-
ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. The Trial
Examiner will therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers , Local 107, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. E. A. Gallagher & Sons is engaged in activities affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The Respondent Teamsters have not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii) (A) and (B) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local Union 214 [D. L. Bradley Plumb-
ing and Heating Co.] and H . Maynard Hall . Case No. 13-CB-
863. June 2, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 25, 1960, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 brief, and the entire record in
131 NLRB No. 122.
PLUMBERS & PIPE FITTERS LOCAL UNION 214, ETC. 943
the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions :
1. The Respondent contends that the complaint in this proceeding
is barred-by the 6-month proviso to Section 10(b) of the Acts It
argues that no evidence has been produced which would establish
that it caused or attempted to cause the discharge of Hall, the Charg-
ing Party, within the 6-month period preceding the filing and service
of the charge herein.
The charge was filed November 23, 1959, and served upon the
Respondent the next day. The complaint must therefore be based on
an unfair labor practice occurring on or after May 24, 1959. Hall
was discharged by Bradley, his Employer, on May 25, 1959. The
circumstances leading to his discharge are these :
D. L. Bradley is a plumbing and heating contractor and a journey-
man pipefitter who is also a member in good standing of the Respond-
ent. In March 1959 he was awarded a contract in Newark, Wisconsin,
on a project where a nonunion contractor was also at work. The
Respondent and other labor organizations in the Building Trades
Council picketed the Newark project and refused to provide Bradley
with any workmen. Bradley thereupon hired Hall, a nonunion pipe-
fitter, to work behind the picket lines. Sometime in April, Bradley
moved Hall to another one of his jobs at Milton Junction where there
was no picket line. A few weeks later, Kraiss, the business agent of-
the Respondent, discovered that Hall was working at the Milton
Junction job and told Bradley that he would have to get rid of Hall
because he was a nonunion man and that unless he did so, the Union
would not refer any men to Bradley.3 Kraiss, in fact, did refuse to
refer men to Bradley because he had crossed the picket line at Newark
and because he was working with Hall, a nonunion man.
About May 15, Bradley received a letter from the Respondent direct--
ing him to appear before the local to answer the charge that he was-
working at the trade with nonunion men. The only nonunion man
with whom Bradley had worked was Hall. Bradley then told Hall
not to report back after that weekend or until the matter was resolved.
Ten days later, on May 25, within the 10(b) period, Bradley wrote
Hall that he could not use him any longer because he had received
a letter from the Union charging him with having worked with non-
1 We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Board 's jurisdictional standard for non-
retail establishments has been met and that the requisite statutory jurisdiction exists in-
this case. Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, 123 NLRB 543.
2 Section 10 (b) reads in relevant part •
Provided, That no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice
occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board-
and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is
made....
3 Pursuant to the union-security clause of the bargaining agreement executed by Bradley-
and the Respondent on May 9, 1959, Hall was not obligated to join the Respondent for a,
full 30 days , or until June 8, 1959.
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union men. A few days later, Bradley informed the new business
agent of the Respondent, Slightam, that Hall had been terminated
and again requested that men be referred to him from the Union.
Slightam replied that the Respondent could not furnish any men to
him while there was picketing at the Newark project, but added that
if Bradley would come to the union hall to answer the charges it would-
help.
Thereafter, on May 28, and again on June 15, Respondent formally
directed Bradley to appear before the local to answer the charge of
"working at the trade with non-members." Bradley did appear on
June 23 and was given a suspended fine of $50. Within a day or two,
the Respondent began to refer workmen to Bradley.
In terms of the frame of reference supplied us by the Supreme
Court's Bryan 4 decision, we may look to events outside the limitation
period for the purpose of shedding light upon the true character of
occurrences within the period only when such occurrences , as a sub-
stantive matter, may constitute an unfair labor practice. Thus, within
the pertinent 6-month period preceding November 24, 1959, we have
the discharge of Hall by Bradley for What could be a discriminatory
reason, namely, that Hall had failed to join the Union at a time when
he was not obligated to do so. There is also the fact that Bradley
was faced with disciplinary action because he had been working with
Hall, and the fact that the Respondent refused to refer any union
members to Bradley until it had held a hearing on its charges. We
are satisfied that the above occurrences within the 6-month limitation
period tend to establish that the Respondent, at the time of the dis-
charge, was attempting to cause and did cause Hall's discharge for
discriminatory reasons. Therefore, Kraiss' earlier remarks, which
we now consider, to the effect that Hall should be discharged for his
nonmembership in Local 214, and that there would be no referrals
until Hall was discharged, merely serve to illuminate and explain
why Bradley discharged Halls
4Loeal Lodge No 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, et al.
(Bryan Manufacturing Co.) v. N L R.B ., 362 U.S 411. -
sour dissenting colleague contends that we are thereby relying on the "continuing
coercion" theory which was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Bryan case and by
the Board in the subsequent Hershey Chocolate case , 129 NLRB 1052 . In Bryan , coercion
within the 10(b) period was based solely on the alleged illegality of a union-security
agreement which had been entered into with a purported minority union prior to the
10(b) period . In Hershey, it was based on a union 's request before the 10(b) period
began, to discharge certain employees who had been delinquent in their dues payments but
who had then become fully paid up. In neither case were the unions exerting coercion
within the 10(b) period ; on the contrary , there could be no coercion in any real sense
since the objectives sought by the unions had already been attained before the limitation
period had even begun Here, however , within the 10(b) period , Bradley's letter of
May 25 to Hall reveals that Bradley was fearful of disciplinary action which the Union
might take against him if he retained Hall Bradley was also aware that Hall's con-
tinued employment with him meant that the Union would refuse to refer workmen, as
specifically evidenced by the fact that he coupled his request for such referrals with a
statement to the business agent that he had discharged Hall shortly after that fact.
Because of these threats and fears , Bradley was induced to discharge Hall . We consider
PLUMBERS & PIPE FITTERS LOCAL UNION 214, ETC. 945
Accordingly, we find in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by
causing Bradley to discharge Hall on May 25.
-2. The Respondent also excepted to the Trial Examiner's recom-
mendation that Hall be awarded backpay from May 25 until such
time as the Respondent notifies both Bradley and Hall that it has no
objections to the latter's employment. The Respondent correctly
points out that it had so notified Bradley before the hearing, and
specifically reiterated at the hearing that it had no objections to Hall's
employment by Bradley. It contends therefore that its backpay ob-
ligation should terminate no later than the date of the hearing, at
which time it withdrew all objections to Hall's employment.
An oral statement by a respondent union on the record at a Board
.proceeding that it does not object to a discriminatee's reemployment
is an adequate substitute for a written notice if such statement is made
in the presence of the employer and the alleged discriminatee.6 Al-
though Hall testified at the hearing immediately after the Respondent
stated that it had no objection to Hall's employment, we are unable
to tell from the record whether Hall was in fact present when the
statement was made. We shall therefore leave it to the Regional
Director to determine at the compliance stage what the terminal date
of Respondent's backpay obligation should be. '
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent Plumbers & Pipe Fitters
Local Union 214, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause D. L. Bradley Plumbing and
Heating Co., its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate
against its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
'(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the
,exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized iil.Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
It immaterial that Respondent 's attempts to cause Hall ' s discharge began before the
10(b) period and we rely here only on the fact that its coercion was clearly efficacious
within the 10(b) period, at the time of the discharge
° Local Union 595, International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL (R Clinton Construction Company ), 109 NLRB 73
599198-62-vol. 131-61
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Notify D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heating Co., Janesville,
Wisconsin, and send a copy to H. Maynard Hall, Pinconning, Michi-
gan, stating that it withdraws all objections to that company's em-
ployment of, and to the working of, H. Maynard Hall with the same
rights and privileges the Bradley Company grants to all its employees.
(b) Make whole H. Maynard Hall for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him in
the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy," and as qualified in our Decision herein.
(c) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent Local's office or union
hall in Janesville, Wisconsin, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by an official representative of the Respondent Local, be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members of Respondent Local are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent
Local to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting :
Despite the equities in this case, I would dismiss the complaint be-
cause , as a matter of law, it was improperly issued. Section 10(b)
of the Act, insofar as pertinent here, provides that no complaint shall
issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than 6
months prior to the filing of the charge and the service of a copy upon
the person against whom such charge is made. As the charge here
was served on November 24, 1959, the 6-month period began on May
24,1959.
The complaint alleged that an employer, Bradley," . . . discharged
. .. Hall . . . on or about May 26, 1959 . . . upon the demand of the
Respondent Union, such . . . demand being made for the reason that
... Hall was not a member of the . . . Union," and that such con-
duct by the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A).
The complaint did not join Bradley as a party respondent.
The facts are not in dispute. In the latter part of April or early in
May 1959 (but,before May 24, 1959), the Respondent's business agent,
finding Hall working for Bradley, directed Bradley to discharge Hall
because he was not a union member, and threatened not to furnish
1In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
PLUMBERS & PIPE FITTERS LOCAL UNION 214, ETC. 947
workers to Bradley unless he discharged Hall. Thereafter, about May
15,1959, Bradley, who was also a union member, received a letter from
the Respondent directing him to appear before the Union to answer a
charge that he "was working at the trade with nonmembers." On May
25, 1959, Bradley discharged Hall. On June 23, 1959, the Union con-
ducted a trial and imposed a suspended fine of $50 against Bradley.
Within a day or two thereafter, the Respondent began providing
Bradley with needed workmen.
The Trial Examiner concluded "that Hall was discharged on May
25, 1959, within the period of 6 months prior to the filing and service
of the charge upon Respondent," and that the Respondent violated
8(b) (2) and (1) (A) by "causing and attempting to cause" Hall's
discharge.
It is clear that the discharge occurred within the 10(b) period, so
that, if employer Bradley were charged as a respondent, Section 10(b)
would not preclude the issuance of a complaint against Bradley based
upon the discharge. However, the sole respondent here is the Union.
The issue is whether the Union engaged in any conduct within the
10(b) period which constitutes causing, or an attempt to cause, Hall's
discharge. The Union made its demand upon Bradley for Hall's
discharge and threatened not to furnish workers unless Bradley dis-
charged Hall in April or early in May 1959; and it sent Bradley a let-
ter which subjected him to pressure to discharge Hall on or about
May 15, 1959. The Union engaged in no other conduct relating to
Hall until after his discharge. Thus, all the Union's overt conduct
which led to Hall's discharge occurred before May 24, 1959.1 As all
such conduct occurred outside the 10(b) period, the Act precluded
issuance of a complaint based thereon. Without expressly saying so,
my colleagues appear to reason that the Union's conduct, antedating
the 10(b) period, generated a "continuing coercion" operative at the
time of the discharge. The Supreme Court, however, has rejected this
approach.' And, recently, the Board, in Hershey Chocolate Corpora-
tion, 129 NLRB 1052, relying on the Supreme Court's decision, re-
versed a Trial Examiner who had applied the "continuing coercion"'
theory in finding unlawful a union's unsuccessful attempt to cause the
discharge of certain employees. There, the Board stated :
Any asserted coercion of these employees took place prior to .. .
the Section 10 (b) cutoff date, and we cannot predicate the finding
a Contrary to what the majority decision may imply, there is no showing that thr
Union refused to refer workmen on May 24 or 25, 1959 And, the Union' s trial of
Bradley had no causal connection with Hall's discharge as the trial occurred after the
discharge . It is noted that the intraunion charges against Bradley had been filed before
the 10 ( b) period began and the hearing thereon did not take place until about a month
after Hall's discharge.
9 Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, et at.
( Bryan Manufacturing Co.) v. N.L.R.13 , 362 U.S. 411.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of a violation on such evidence. We reject the Trial Examiner's
continuing coercion theory.
If, in the instant case, Bradley had not discharged Hall, the
Hershey case makes clear that no 8 (b) violation could be found as the
only overt attempt to cause his discharge occurred outside the 10 (b)
period. As the Union's conduct is identical in both cases, I do not
see how an employer's yielding to the Union's demand or his state of
mind or preoccupation over the consequences of not yielding, renders
conduct, otherwise beyond the reach of the law, subject to its sanctions.
For the foregoing reasons, I believe that the complaint must be
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER BROWN took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our members that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause D. L. Bradley Plumbing
and Heating Co., to discriminate against employees or prospective
employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
or prospective employees of D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heating
Co., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
WE WILL notify, in writing, D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heat-
ing Co. (sending a copy to H. Maynard Hall), that we have no
objection to Hall's being hired or employed by that company.
WE WILL make whole H. Maynard Hall for any loss of pay he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced
against him.
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION 214,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
PLUMBERS & PIPE FITTERS LOCAL UNION 214, ETC . 949
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Alba B. Martin,
the duly designated Trial Examiner, in Janesville, Wisconsin, on April 21, 1960, on
complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local
Union 214, the Respondent, referred to herein as Respondent, Respondent Local,
the Local, the Union, and Respondent Union. The issues litigated were whether
Respondent caused or attempted to cause the employer of H. Maynard Hall to dis-
criminate against Hall in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and whether Respondent re-
strained and coerced in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. By agreement, after the con-
clusion of the hearing Respondent submitted an affidavit and the General Counsel
submitted a reply affidavit setting forth certain additional facts not readily available
at the time of the hearing. Respondent's affidavit, a two-page statement signed by
Stanley Slightam attached to which was a four-page exhibit A and a one-page "Adden-
dum to Exhibit A," has been placed in the exhibit file as Respondent's Exhibit No.
13. The General Counsel's affidavit, a two-page affidavit signed by Delbert Bradley,
has been placed in the exhibit file as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 11. The General
Counsel and Respondent each filed briefs, which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BOARD 'S JURISDICTION HEREIN
Respondent challenges the Board's jurisdiction in this matter. The General
Counsel predicated jurisdiction principally upon the theory that the employer in-
volved, the D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heating Co., was a member of an employ-
er's association which bargained collectively with the Respondent Union; and that
for jurisdictional purposes as well as bargaining purposes the employers in the
association were in effect a single employer.
Upon the expiration of contracts in the spring of 1959, the new contract between
Respondent Local and employers in Beloit, Wisconsin, South Beloit, Illinois, Janes-
ville, Wisconsin, and some other nearby communities in Wisconsin, was negotiated
for the employers by a committee consisting of R. T. Morrill of R. T. Mornll Com-
pany, Inc., Beloit, Wisconsin; Francis Schiferl of Witte-Barker, Inc., South Beloit,
Illinois; E. A. McGavock of Central Piping, Janesville, Wisconsin; and Delbert L.
Bradley of D. L. Bradley Plumbing & Heating Co., Janesville, Wisconsin. The con-
tractors of Beloit, South Beloit, and Janesville bargained jointly because of the
recent consolidation of the Beloit and Janesville locals of the Union. After several
bargaining meetings with representatives of Respondent Local and when the con-
tract was in final shape, the contractors' negotiators presented the contract to a
meeting of the contractors, and thereafter told the Respondent Union that "as far as
we are concerned, why we were satisfied with the contract." The contract was then
executed on May 9, 1959, by representatives of the Respondent Local and of the
contractors' committee. Other contractors signed the contract shortly thereafter.
In all some several more than 20 employers signed a single copy of the agreement,
including Witte-Barker, Inc., the D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heating Co., referred
to hereinafter as the Bradley Company, and including, as credibly testified by Francis
Schiferl, all those who made contributions toward the expense of the negotiations.
During the period of the bargaining the contractors' committee addressed a letter
"to all contractors signing employment agreement with" the Local and sent it to'
some 25 employers in the area who employed union employees. The letter read as
follows :
As you know we as employers are beginning labor negotiations with the
union . We have a committee to work on this problem; however we must ask
that all contractors share the burden of any cost to this committee.
The members are serving without pay, but we believe it proper to reimburse
any expenses, possible legal fees etc.
We ask that each contractor pay $10 00 toward such expense with a rebate
or assessment for the difference in actual cost upon completion of negotiations.
May we have your check by return mail?
PIPING CONTRACTORS COMMITTEE.
Some 20 of the contractors responded with a contribution, including the Bradley
Company. From the fact of these contributions I conclude that the contributing
contractors approved of having the committee negotiate for them with the Union.
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The contractors of Beloit, South Beloit, and Janesville had begun to get together
after the Union sent out letters reading as follows:
Re: Signatory Contractors Rock, Green and Jefferson Counties.
This is to notify you as contractors that the present agreements expire on
March 31, 1959. The Union has selected a bargaining unit to meet with the
contractors. The first meeting is scheduled 7:00 P.M., January 8, 1959, at the
Labor Temple in Janesville. Because of the volume of work to do it is hoped
that this date will be satisfactory and that we can get started at that time.
Contact Roland Kraiss at 15 South Franklin Street, Janesville, Wisconsin, in
regards to the meeting.
Attached is a list of the contractors.
From the fact that the Union had invited the contractors to meet with it at the same
negotiating meeting I conclude that the Umon invited the joint bargaining by the
contractors.
The negotiated contract stated at the beginning that it was "made and entered
into, by and between the Plumbing, Heating & Refrigeration Contractors of Rock,
Green and Jefferson Counties, . . . hereinafter referred to as the `Employer' " and
the Union. An introductory whereas clause stated:
WHEREAS, the Employer is engaged in the plumbing and pipe fitting industry
throughout the area of Rock, Green and Jefferson Counties, and is known as
a Contractor in the industry and in the performance of such work requires the
services of competent, skilled and qualified journeyman, and . .. .
During the calendar year 1959, a representative period, Witte-Barker, Inc., of
South Beloit, Illinois, performed services valued at $541,000, of which some 80 per-
cent, or $432,800 was received for services performed on jobs located outside of the
State of Illinois, in the State of Wisconsin.
From the above it is clearly established that although the employers did not bind
themselves together in a formal organization or association, they nevertheless un-
equivocally bound themselves in collective bargaining by group rather than indi-
vidual action. Thus during the bargaining by a contractors' committee 20 con-
tractors contributed to the expenses of the committee and these 20 contractors and
others later ratified the work of the committee by executing and adopting the contract
as their own and by signing a single copy of the contract.
It is the Board's practice to assert jurisdiction over such an employer association
if the Board's jurisdictional standards are met by the operations of any group of or
any one of the employers. Electrical Contractors of Troy and Vicinity, 116 NLRB
354, 358-359; Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (California As-
sociation of Employers), 123 NLRB 922; Local 363, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers
of America, AFL-CIO; et al. (Anchor Welding & Manufacturing Company et al.),
123 NLRB 1877, 1897-1898; Panaderia La Reguladora and Panaderia La Francesa;
et al., 118 NLRB 1010; American Linen Supply Co., et al., 128 NLRB 639; Cottage
Bakers, 120 NLRB 841, 842. As here the operations of Witte-Barker involved the
direct outflow of services from Illinois to Wisconsin valued in excess of $50,000, I
find that the Board's jurisdictional standards have been met and that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
Respondent contended the contractors' committee did not have authority to bind
the contractors to specific contractual terms. As has been found above, the con-
tractors contributed to the expense of the negotiations while they were proceeding
and ratified the final product of the negotiations. It follows and I find that the
committee had authority to negotiate for the contractors and that the negotiations con-
duced by the committee were jointly conducted by all the employers who signed the
contract.
Most of the signatory Wisconsin employers were from Rock County. Five of the
signatory Wisconsin employers from Jefferson County later executed with the Union
an "amendment" to the "Master Agreement" establishing a "house" wage rate as
distinguished from the "industrial" wage rate in the "Master Agreement." This does
not alter the considerations and the conclusions as to the Board's jurisdiction set
forth above.
Sometime after the signing of the contract a dispute arose between the Union and
some of the contractors over the interpretation of the apprentice wage rate clause in
the contract. This does not alter the considerations and conclusions as to the
Board's jurisdiction set forth above.
At the hearing the General Counsel proposed an alternative theory for the Board's
taking of jurisdiction based upon what the Bradley Company's volume of inflow
PLUMBERS & PIPE FITTERS LOCAL UNION 214, ETC. 951
would have been but for the trouble he was having with Respondent Local in the
spring of 1959. In his brief the General Counsel did not develop this theory or
urge its adoption. Under all the circumstances it is not necessary here to consider
this theory or set forth the evidence relating to it.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local Union 214, the Respondent herein, affiliated with
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada (AFL-CIO),' is a labor organization as
defined in Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The hiring and discharge of H. Maynard Hall
H. Maynard Hall worked for D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heating Co., referred
to herein as the Bradley Company, from April 20 to May 15, 1959. He was a non-
union plumber from the State of Michigan whom Bradley brought into Wisconsin
to help him when he was unable to get men from Respondent Local to work behind
a picket line at a job in a community named Newark. Delbert L. Bradley, herein
called Bradley, owner of the Bradley Company, worked behind the picket line at the
Newark job with Hall for about 2 weeks, and then transferred Hall to another
Bradley job at Milton Junction. Bradley worked with his tools at the Newark job,
a fact which became known to Respondent Local's business agent, Roland Kraiss.
On Friday, May 15, 1959, for personal reasons Hall was planning to fly back to
Michigan for the weekend and to return Sunday night or Monday and continue
working with Bradley. Just before Bradley was going to put Hall on his airplane
at the airport, Bradley received from Respondent Local, signed by Kraiss, a letter
reading as follows:
You are hereby directed to appear before the Executive Board of Local Union
#214 on Wednesday May 27, 1959 to answer to the following charges: "working
at the trade with non-members." Time 8:00 p.m. ,
Insofar as the record showed, Hall was the only nonmember with whom Bradley
had worked. Bradley quickly informed Hall about the contents of this letter and
advised him to take all of his belongings "in case I couldn't use him." Hall testified
that Bradley told him Bradley would have to get matters straightened up with the
Union before Hall could come back to work and that Bradley would notify him.
Bradley testified that he told Hall that he would write him and let him know what
his decision was. Asked if Hall was discharged on that occasion, Bradley replied
"he was and he wasn't. I wanted him, but I didn't want any trouble."
On May 25, 1959, Bradley wrote Hall at the latter's home-in Michigan as follows:
I hope you enjoyed your flight home, but I have some bad news for you. Do
not plan on coming back on the day you had scheduled because I have received
a letter from the Union asking me to appear before the Executive Board for
working with non-union members, referring to you indirectly.
I appreciate the work you have done for me very much and hope this matter
can be taken care of so that you may return back on my payroll.
If I can be of any assistance to you, do not hesitate to let me know.
Hoping to hear from you.
Since this letter Bradley has never called Hall back and Hall has never worked for
the Bradley Company.
B. Background
As the charge herein was filed November 23, 1959, and served upon Respondent
Local November 24, 1959, under the proviso to Section 10(b) of the Act the 6-month
period prior to the filing and service of the charge upon Respondent began on
May 24, 1959. The following evidence concerning events leading up to the be-
ginning of the 6-month period is now set forth and considered for the purpose of
casting light upon, clarifying the reason for, imparting meaning to, and assisting in
the evaluation of,' the treatment of Hall during the period after May 24, 1959.
3 N.L R B. v. Luzerne Hide & Tallow, 1188 F. 2d 439 (C.A: 3), enfg. 89 NLRB 989;
Textile Machine Works, Inc, 98 NLRB 1333, 1349-1350, enfd. 214 F. 2d 929 (C.A. 3) ;
Senorita Hosiery Mills, Inc, 115 NLRB 1304, 1305, footnote 3; Brady Aviation Corpora-
tion, 110 NLRB 25, 27, enfd. 224 F. 2d 23 (C.A. 5).
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Delbert L . Bradley started doing business in Janesville in January 1958 , under the
name of D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heating Co. In March 1958 Business Agent
Roland Kraiss of Respondent demanded that Bradley have his union membership
transferred from Bradley's local in Minnesota to Respondent Local, if Bradley was
going to work with his tools within the jurisdiction of Respondent Local. Bradley
had his "card" transferred to Respondent Local. In substance, Bradley testified
that normally when he needed to hire men within the jurisdictional area of Re-
spondent Union, he hired them through that Union.
In March 1959, the Bradley Company was awarded the plumbing and heating
contract on a job in Newark, on which job the contractor was a "nonunion" con-
tractor. The Building Trades Council of Rock County, of which Respondent Local
was a member, placed a picket line at this job. Bradley testified without contra-
diction, and I find, that when he tried to get men to work on this job, Business
Agent Kraiss replied that Respondent Local would not supply him with men for this
job as long as there was a picket line at the job. In fact, the Local did not supply
him with men for this job during the existence of the picket line.
Prior to Bradley's bringing Hall into the area from Michigan, he discussed his
thought of doing so with Business Agent Kraiss. They discussed the fact that Hall
had previously been a member of a local in Michigan, that he no longer was and
was on a "withdrawal card," and whether he could join Respondent Local. Kraiss
told Bradley that Hall could not be reinstated in the parent organization through
Respondent Local, and that Hall should seek his reinstatement through the local
he had withdrawn from and then get a "travel card" and come into the jurisdiction
of Respondent Local with the travel card. Kraiss testified that he understood from
Bradley that Hall would come in on a "travel card like most all members do."
When Bradley brought Hall into the area he did not tell Kraiss he had done so.
At a date in dispute, in either late April before the contract was signed on May 9,
or in the middle of May after the contract had been executed by the Local and the
Bradley Company, Kraiss discovered Hall at the Milton Junction job. Although
Kraiss testified that he did not talk with Hall about Hall's work and simply passed
the time of day with him at the noon hour, on the entire record I credit Hall's
testimony that Kraiss asked him what he was doing on the job; Kraiss learned that
Hall was doing plumbing work; Kraiss represented himself as a business agent for
a local plumbing union; and Kraiss "got a little nasty about it and a little bit on the
muscle side . about me working there, that I wasn't a union man and I wasn't
entitled to work." Hall's recollection was that Kraiss asked him if he was a union
man and if Hall had any work card or union card and in each case Hall replied
in the negative. Hall told Kraiss that years before he had belonged to a local in
Michigan.
At this point in the conversation Bradley came up to the other two and, accord-
ing to the credited version of Bradley, Kraiss told Bradley to "get rid of the man
(referring to Hall) . . . because he was a non-union member," that "if I didn't
get rid of him that he was going to withdraw my contract from the Local and then
I wouldn't ever get no men." Bradley told Kraiss in substance that he could take
the contract and do as he pleased with it. Bradley asked Kraiss if, if Bradley
terminated Hall, Kraiss would then give him men, and Kraiss replied in the nega-
tive. Kraiss "told me that I would never get a man or be able to sign the contract
as long as I had Hall in my employ . . I distinctly remember him telling me that
he was going to tear up my contract and that I would not be able to sign it again
while I had Hall in my employ." Later Bradley testified that the reasons Kraiss
gave him for refusing to give him men, during this Milton Junction conversation,
were "for me crossing the picket line at Newark and for working with Hall who
was a non-union member."
All testimony was that the conversation between Bradley and Kraiss at Milton
Junction was a heated one. In substance Kraiss testified that he was angry because
of Bradley's deception in bringing in Hall without telling Kraiss after they had
earlier discussed that possibility and Bradley had indicated he would bring Hall in
on a "travel card." Kraiss testified that Bradley said he intended to keep Hall on
the job and that he would employ and work whom he pleased. Kraiss admitted that
during the conversation they discussed the contract. Placing the event in late
April when there was no contract and "we were working without an agreement,"
Kraiss said "the question arose . . . as to whether I would recommend him
(Bradley) . . . to even, for signing a new agreement, if he was going to live in
defiance of an agreement, there would be no object in recommending him to sign
a new one." Kraiss denied that he demanded of Bradley that ". . . Hall be kicked
off. the job." As Kraiss did not specifically deny Hall's testimony that Kraiss told
Hall that as the latter was not a unionman he was not entitled to work, as Kraiss
PLUMBERS & PIPE FITTERS LOCAL UNION 214, ETC . 953
did not deny most of Bradley 's testimony concerning this conversation , and as the
Local through Kraiss ( and later through Kraiss' successor as business agent) soon
charged Bradley with and found him guilty of working with nonmembers , I credit
Bradley's testimony that at Milton Junction Kraiss told Bradley to get rid of Hall
and that if he did not Bradley would not be permitted to sign the contract and would
not get any men.
As has been seen above shortly after this Milton Junction conversation Bradley
was formally directed to appear before the Local to answer to the charge that he
was "working at the trade with non-members." Twice later , on May 28 and on June
15, 1959 ( within the 6-month period prior to the filing and service of the charge),
Bradley was again formally directed to appear before the Local to answer to the
charge that he was "working at the trade with non-members ," both of the latter
two letters being signed by Stanley Slightam , the business representative who
succeeded Kraiss on that job on May 30 (he signed the May 28 letter when Kraiss
was breaking him in on the new job ). Bradley did not appear before the Local
until the third notice and not until he had had a friendly conversation with
Slightam concerning it. After Hall had left , Slightam came up to Bradley one
day as the latter was working at the Milton Junction job and was friendly . Accord-
ing to the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Bradley, when Slightam asked
him how everything was going, Bradley replied that he sure wished he could get
some men and he asked Slightam if Slightam could furnish some. Slightam replied
that he could not furnish any men as long as there was a picket line at the Newark
job. He added that they were doing their best to get the picket line removed and
that if Bradley would come to the union hall and answer the charges, that that
would help. Bradley told Slightam during this conversation that Hall was no longer
with him.
Pursuant to the third notification Bradley appeared before the Local's executive
board on June 23, 1959. Bradley admitted that he had been working with non-
union employees but claimed that he had no choice because the Union would not
give him any union members . The members of the executive board told him that
he knew the rules and regulations and he knew that he was not allowed to work with
nonunion employees or cross a picket line . Bradley pleaded that he knew that but
that he had $20,000 at stake and that he would have had to forfeit his bond, which
the bonding company had threatened , if he did not get on with his jobs. After
further discussion Bradley was excused for a few moments and then called back
in and told that he had been found guilty of crossing a picket line and working
with nonunion employees , that he was fined $ 50, but that the fine would be suspended
if "it would never happen again ." Then that night or the next day, Bradley asked
Slightam if, now that everything had been squared away, Bradley could have a
workman , Slightam replying that he could-and Slightam supplied him with a man
shortly thereafter.
Under the proviso to Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act and the union-security clause of
the contract , Hall had 30 days from May 9 , 1959, to decide whether to join the
Union. There was no evidence that during this 30 -day period the Union made any
effort whatsoever to ask Hall or to persuade Hall to join it. The union -security
clause required membership in the Local "on the earliest date provided by applicable
Federal Law after their employment , or the date of the contract , whichever is
later...."
C. Conclusions
That Hall was discharged and that the Union caused the discharge is not open
to question on this record . Hall was a satisfactory worker and Bradley wanted to
keep him, but Bradley discharged him because of the Local's charges that Bradley
was working with "nonmembers" (Hall being the only one ) and in order to avoid
any further "trouble" with the Union . As Bradley testified , "I wanted him (Hall)
but I didn't want any trouble ." The "trouble" referred to was his earlier conversa-
tion with Kraiss about Hall and his receipt of the Union 's charges on May 15.
When Business Agent Kraiss first discovered Hall in the area and realized he was
the nonmember concerning whom he had earlier spoken with Bradley , he told Hall
he could not work because he was not a union man, and he told Bradley to get
rid of Hall because he was not a member . Kraiss backed up his demand upon
Bradley with a threat to the effect that the Local would have no further contractual
relationship with Bradley and that Bradley would get no more men from the Local.
That the Local caused the discharge was further indicated by the events of May
15 and Bradley's subsequent letter of May 25. On May 15 because of his receipt of
the union charges that he was "working at the trade with non -members ," Bradley
had Hall take his belongings with him on his "weekend " trip home, , lest Bradley not
be able to "use him" any more. The only reason he would not be able to use him
954 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
further was the Union's insistence that Bradley employ only union help. Ten days
later Bradley wrote Hall a friendly, regretful letter, telling him in the same sentence
not to come back and that Bradley had been accused of working with "nonunion
members." In fact the two thoughts were not only in one sentence but they were
connected by the words "because"; Hall was not to come back "because" of Bradley's
having been accused of working with nonmembers-Hall being the only nonmember
with whom Bradley had recently worked.
The next question is when was Hall discharged? Upon all the evidence I conclude
that he was discharged on May 25 by Bradley's letter of that date. When Bradley
put Hall on the plane May 15, their understanding was that Hall was not to come
back after the weekend, that Bradley would get himself "straightened up" with the
Local and would then write Hall. In his promised letter on May 25, Bradley told
Hall in effect-although gently-that Hall was off the payroll but that Bradley
hoped to get him "back on my payroll" after Bradley had his trouble with the Local
"taken care of." A few days later Bradley told Business Agent Slightam that Hall no
longer worked for him. On .the entire record I conclude that Hall was discharged on
May 25, 1959, within the period of 6 months prior to the filing and service of the
charge upon Respondent.
In substance Respondent contended through the testimony of Kraiss that Kraiss'
purpose in charging Bradley with working with nonmembers was to discover in a
hearing before the executive board of the Local whether Bradley was going to live up
to the union-security clause of the contract and require Hall to join the Local.
Regardless of Kraiss' purpose, his pressure on Bradley at Milton Junction and in his
May 14 letter containing the charges, was the direct cause of Bradley's discharge of
Hall. As the discharge was made prior to the expiration of 30 days after the execu-
tion of the contract on May 9, the union-security clause was no defense to the
discharge.
Respondent severely attacked the credibility of Bradley. As has been seen above
my findings as to the important Milton Junction conversation were based upon Hall's
testimony as well as Bradley's, upon the fact that most of the testimony of Hall and
Bradley concerning it was not denied, and upon the fact that the Local soon thereafter
processed a charge against Bradley for working with "non-members"-Hall being
the only nonmember. Supported by these additional factors Bradley's testimony
was credible and I credit it to the extent set forth herein. Bradley's testimony con-
cerning his conversations with Slightam and his appearance before the executive board
wasuncontradicted. Although some of Bradley's testimony was somewhat confused,
and his memory was not the best, upon careful consideration of his entire testimony
and the entire record I find that he was a credible enough witness for his uncontra-
dicted testimony to be credited.
The events prior to May 25 having cast light upon, clarified the reason for, and
imparted meaning to the discharge of Hall on May 25, 1959, I find and hold that the
evidence of events on and after May 25 proved that Hall was discriminatorily dis-
charged on May 25 because of the Union's pressure upon Bradley and to encourage
membership in the Local. By causing and attempting to cause the discharge the
Respondent Local violated Section 8(b) (2) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Witte-Barker, Inc., and other employers who bound
themselves in collective bargaining by group action as described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth
above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having caused and attempted to cause the discharge of H. Maynard
Hall by D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heating Co.,2 it is recommended that Respond-
ent Local notify the Bradley Company and Hall in writing that it has no objection
to the future employment of Hall by the Bradley Company in a position substan-
tially equivalent to the one he held with that Company, without prejudice to his
2 There being no evidence of union pressure upon any other employer , I recommend a
narrow order.
GIBBS CORPORATION 955
seniority or other rights and privileges. It is further recommended that Respondent
Local make Hail whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of its
discrimination against him, by paying to him an amount equal to that which he
would have earned, but for the discrimination against him, from May 25, 1959, the
date of the discrimination against him, until a date 5 days after Respondent Local
has notified both the Bradley Company 3 and Hall as recommended above, less Hall'5
net earnings during said period (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-498) ,
said backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heating Co., Witte-Barker, Inc., and other employ-
ers who bound themselves in collective bargaining by group action, are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local Union 214 is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and by causing D. L. Bradley Plumbing and Heating
Co. to discriminate against H. Maynard Hall in the hire and tenure of his employ-
ment, Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act , Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
8 Respondent 's written advice to the Bradley Company on April 18, 1960, that It had
no objection to the reemployment of Hall did not toll the backpay due Hall because,
insofar as the record shows, Respondent has never Informed Hall that it no longer objects
to his reinstatement.
Gibbs Corporation and Joseph Abrunedo , William Dean Beason,
Neven E. Bennett , Willard M. Buie, Dennis C. Burch , Hubert
C. Dubberly , Sherman L. Hudson , Laverne R . Jenkins, Johnnie
G. Jewell , Wilford J . Lloyd , Edison McDonald , Rudolph Nudo,
Carol G. Nugent , Murphy D. Price, Jr., Cecil D. Rogers, Oscar
Harold Ryals , Henry R. Tillman , Edward D. Turner, George
E. Tuten, and Joseph O. Witcher . Case No. 12-CA-1502. Jwne
0,1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 1, 1960, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action , as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
131 NLRB No. 118.