Extract
Clement Brothers Co., Inc., 698 (1967)
Clement Brothers Company, Inc., and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 926 and International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Party to the Contract.
International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America (Clement Brothers Company, Inc.) and International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 926.Cases 10-CA-6248, 10-CA-6342, and 10-CB1552.June 21,1967 DECISION AND ORDEROn September 29, 1966, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Company,Clement Brothers Company, Inc., and the Respondent Union, International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent Company had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the Respondent Company, the Respondent Union, the Charging Party, International Union of Operating Engineers,Local 926, and the General Counsel, filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified below.As set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent Company, in March 1965,1 began construction of a dam at Carters, Georgia. On March 18, the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union, District 50, entered into a prehire contract covering employees to be hired on the project. Thereafter, District 50 solicited employees to sign authorization cards, which constituted both membership applications and checkoff authorizations. After coercing some employees to join District 50, as detailed below, the parties executed a collective-bargaining agreement on May 24, effective for 3 years, under the terms of which District 50 was granted recognition as exclusive bargaining representative of the employees. In June, the Charging Party began to 1 All dates refer to 1965, unless otherwise indicated solicit employees on the project to sign membership cards, while District 50 continued its membership campaign. The unfair labor practices, as found herein, occurred both before and after the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union executed the contract of May 24.1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent Company committed independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct of its officials in unlawfully interrogating employees on the project about their activity on behalf of the Operating Engineers, and in threatening employees with discharge or other economic reprisals for supporting the Operating Engineers.2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Company rendered unlawful assistance and support to District 50 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, and that District 50 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, in the numerous instances summarized in the Trial Examiner's Decision. As described more fully in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent Company threatened employees with economic reprisals in the form of discharge, layoffs, and reduction in work hours, if they did not join District 50, or if they supported the membership campaign of the Operating Engineers; also, District 50 threatened employees with loss of employment if they did not sign District 50 cards.3. We agree with the Trial Examiner, for the reasons stated in his Decision, that the Respondent Company, during the period August 1 to 13, discharged employees Ira Alred, Sherman Silvers, and Arnold Sanford because of their activities on behalf of the Operating Engineers, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.4. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent Company did not violate the Act by recognizing and entering into a collective-bargaining agreement with District 50 on May 24, 1965, and thereafter maintaining such agreement. The Trial Examiner found that District 50 had in its possession 129 signed authorization cards (in a unit of approximately the same number of employees); he reasoned that since the record showed that before the agreement was signed, only 7 of these authorization cards had been obtained through coercion, 1 by Respondent Company, and 6 by District 50, the coercion was not 'so pervasive' as to require the conclusion that District 50's majority status was 'wholly tainted.' We disagree.We have already found that in the weeks preceding the execution of the contract, both Respondent Company and District 50 coerced employees into joining D...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
