Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council, 415 (1951)

Docket Number: 21-CD-00019

Linked as:

Extract

Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council, 415 (1951)

The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by the Respondent are of such character and scope that in order to insure to employees and prospective employees their full rights guaranteed them by the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees or prospective employees in their right to self-organization,' as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.

On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following :

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Lodge No. 1276 International Association of machinists is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.

2 By disci iminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of James Blair, Lampton Eugene Martin, and Lewis Even, thereby discouraging membership in Lodge No. 1276 International Association of machinists and encouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, AFL and/or its Local 1316, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.

3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.

4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.

[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this Volume.] T May Department Stores, 326 U. S 376.

Los ANGELES BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, A. F. L.,

AND LLOYD A. MASIIBURN, ITS AGENT; MILLWRIGHT AND MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 1607 OF THE UN LTED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., AND HERMAN F. BARBAGLIA, ITS AGENT and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACIIINISTS, FOR ITS LOCAL LODGE 1235. Case No. V1-CD-19. May 11, 1951

Decision and Order On August 31, 1949, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.

Thereafter, the Respondents. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On January 5, 1950, the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C.; the Respondents, the charging IAM, the General Counsel, Westinghouse, and Edison participated.

94 NLRL' No. 63

On March 14, 1950, the Board remanded the proceeding to the Trial Examiner,' in substance to permit the General Counsel to plead and prove the Respondents' noncompliance with the Board's earlier decision and determination of dispute under Section 10 (k) of the amended Act' On November 20, 1950, the Trial Examiner issued a Supplemental Intermediate Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, finding that the General Counsel had proved noncompliance by the Respondents with the terms of the determination, and recommending that the Board issue an order in conformity with the Intermediate Report.

Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Supplemental Intermediate Report and briefs, and Edison and Westinghouse filed a brief. The Respondents' request for further oral argument is denied, as the positions of the parties are adequately reflected in the record, the briefs, and the oral argument already held.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Supplemental Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby overrules the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.

The Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondents did not comply with the determination because they 'made no-effort whatsoever to comply ... at no time intended to comply . . ., and the General Counsel has by the introduction of competent and credible evidence sustained the burden of proof and by preponderance of the evidence has proved noncompliance by the Respondents.' He based these conclusions on the following findings: (1) A strike by the riggers on April 11, 1949, before the determination issued; (2) a refusal b...

See the full content of this document