Lithographers Local 1 (Metropolitan Lithographers Assn.), 801 (2001)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Lithographers Local 1 (Metropolitan Lithographers Assn.), 801 (2001)
Local One, Amalgamated Lithographers of America (Metropolitan Lithographers Assn.) and Richard D'Amico. Case 22-CB-8101
October 1, 2001DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, TRUESDALE, AND WALSH On November 18, 1999, Administrative Law Judge Nancy M. Sherman issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to af-firm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recommended Order, as modified.1 1. Contrary to the judge, we find that the contractual language itself created an exclusive hiring hall. The bargaining agreements which the Respondent-Union had with the members of the Metropolitan Lithographers Association, Inc., state in relevant part: 5(a) Vacancies-Each Employer shall advise the Union office and the Shop Delegate [shop steward] when in need of employees. . . . Any person sent by the Union office for a job shall present his work card to the Shop Delegate after being interviewed by the Employer and before starting work. The language states that an employer "shall" notify the Union of job vacancies, which, absent any mention of another means for filling jobs, indicates that employers are required to use the hiring hall to obtain employees. The language also states that anyone sent by the union office shall present his work card to the shop delegate after being interviewed, which indicates that employers are required to hire the referrals unless the referrals are for some reason unacceptable. Thus, when reasonably read, the language means that employers must go to the Respondent-Union for referrals, the Union will make referrals, and the employers will hire the referred persons if they are acceptable. Although not every aspect of an exclusive hiring hall is spelled out by the contractual language, the key elements are. Accordingly, we find that the contractual language is sufficient to establish an exclusive hiring hall. In addition, the Union's internal rules state: 1 We will modify the judge's recommended Order in accordance with Ferguson Electric Co., 335 NLRB 142 (2001). No member shall . . . solicit employment for himself . . . in any shop within the jurisdiction of this Local . . . nor obtain employment himself without the consent of the proper Local officer. Prohibiting members from seeking employment other than through the Union supports our conclusion that the agreements create an exclusive hiring hall. Although we agree with the judge's finding that the parties' practice would establish an exclusive hiring hall, we need not rely on the parties' practice because we are finding that the bargaining agreements establish an exclusive hiring hall. Nonetheless, we find that the parties' practice confirms our decision to find an exclusive hiring hall. 2. Because the parties have an exclusive hiring hall, it is unnecessary to consider the consequences of a non-exclusive hiring hall. Thus, the judge's discussion of Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 6, 493 U.S. 67 (1989), her finding that a duty of fair representation attaches to a nonexclusive hiring hall, and her discussion about the effects of a nonexclusive hiring hall within the context of specific incidents are unnecessary to resolution of this case. Accordingly, we do not rely on her discussion of these matters. 3. The judge found specific violations of the Act in 22 numbered incidents and in the unnumbered MacNaughton Incident. The judge's findings of these violations are, with two exceptions, supported by the facts and the judge's analyses.2 First, in incident 49, the judge found that requests for help from employer Atwater on May 30 and June 2, 1995, involved the same job. A review of the request-for-help exhibits reveals, however, that the May 30 re-quest involved a 40-inch Miehle press and the June 2 request involved a 60-inch Miehle press. Thus, the requests are for different presses and apparently for different jobs. The record further shows that the June 2 request had a starting date of June 5, and that James Vacca, with a later out-of-work date than D'Amico, started working for Atwater on that date. We find that Vacca was referred to and hired for the second job-the June 2 request for a second pressman on a 60-inch Miehle press.3 Although we do not agree with the judge's finding that the two Atwater requests for hire were for the same job, we agree with the judge's analysis of this incident, as modified above, and find that the Respondent-Union violated the Act in incident 49 by referring Vacca to the second job ahead of D'Amico. 2 No exce...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
