Elevator Constructors Local 10 (Thyssen General Elevator Co.), 701 (2002)

Extract

---

Elevator Constructors Local 10 (Thyssen General Elevator Co.), 701 (2002)

Local No. 10, International Union of Elevator Constructors, AFL-CIO (Thyssen General Elevator Company) and National Elevator Industry, Inc. Case 5-CB-8986

November 22, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, COWEN, AND BARTLETT

On November 20, 2000, Administrative Law Judge Richard A. Scully issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in opposition, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.

This case presents issues involving Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, which proscribes union coercion of an employer in the selection of its representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. The complaint alleges that the Respondent, International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC), Local No. 10, violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) by fining member Horace Stillman Jr., for characterizing another member as "nothing but trouble" and recommending that the member be removed from a jobsite supervised by Still-man.

The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified below in the "Amended Remedy" section.

The pertinent facts are not in dispute. Stillman has been a member of the Union for 30 years. For approximately 16 years, Thyssen Elevator (the Employer) employed Stillman as a mechanic-in-charge (MIC). From January 11 to July 30, 1999, Stillman worked as the MIC at a construction site in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, where Local 84 had jurisdiction. Stillman was the only daily supervisor at the jobsite, supervising four to eight employees.

The record shows-and, notably, our dissenting colleague agrees-that Stillman's daily responsibilities were such as to render him an 8(b)(1)(B) representative of the Employer. Specifically, Stillman's daily activities involved addressing and resolving numerous employee problems and complaints, including those pertaining to wage rates, expenses, work hours, length of breaks, poor work performance, and safety issues. Resolution of these issues necessarily involved interpretation of pertinent contract provisions. Stillman, as the Employer's only daily representative on the project, also resolved employee grievances, albeit at an informal level before such

complaints became subject to the formal grievance procedure.

This case arises from a wage dispute concerning employee Joe Gibson. Gibson, who previously worked for the Employer at a Connecticut jobsite, arrived at the Wilkes-Barre project in February or March 1999. A dispute arose between Gibson and Stillman regarding Gibson's wage rate. Gibson contended that he had been promised a higher rate than the regular Local 84 contractual rate. Stillman recommended to Ken Gough, the project's construction superintendent, that the Employer pay Gibson the latter rate, and his recommendation was followed.

Afte...

See the full content of this document

---