IBEW, Local 134, 85 (1971)
IBEW, LOCAL.-134International Brotherhood . of -Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and, Local 134, International; Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Illinois Bell Telephone-Company) and ' Supervisors Protective Association (Not a Labor Organization). Case 13-CB-2890 July 14, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On June 29,1970, TrialExaminer Frederick U. Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the -Respondents have engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, both `Respondents (hereinafter referred to as Respondent International and Respondent Local) and the Charging. Party (herein referred to as the Association) filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. The General Counsel has filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision, cross-exceptions to the- Trial Examiner's Decision, and an answering brief to the Respondent International's exceptions. On September 2, 1970, the National Labor Rela tions Board, having determined that the instant case raised=issuesof'substantial importance in the administration of the National Labor Relations Act, _ as amended, ordered that this case be consolidated with one other 1, ,for the purpose of oral argument before the Board. On October -5, 1970, -these cases were argued orally before the Board. The Board 2 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,- the oral arguments, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recomi Local Union No. 2150, international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Wisconsin Electric Power Company), 192 NLRB No. 16, issued this day. 2 Member Ralph E. Kennedy, who succeeded to the Board after the oral argument presented by the parties, has reviewed the entire record in this case including the arguments advanced during oral argument and is participating is the disposition of this case. 9 Article IL, section l(a) and exhibit A of the 1968-71 and all prior collective-bargaining agreements since 1948 provide in pertinent part:, Article II, section 1 (a) This Agreement covers all those employees of the Company in the group represented by Local Union No. 134, whose titles are included in Exhibit 'W'' .. . s r â€¢ â€¢ s 8$ mendations of, the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent with our Decision and Order. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, hereinafter referred to as Illinois Bell, or -its- predecessors and Respondent Local have maintained a contractual relationship since 1909.Respondent Local represents Illinois Bell's Chicago -employees in the 'Plant Department,' including not only journeymen and apprentices employed as PBX-0 installers but also persons employed as 'P:B:X. Installation Foremen,', 'Building , Cable Foremen;' and, 'General Foremen.' 3 According, to the terms `of the collectivebargaining agreement all members of the bargaining`' unit, including the above-named a foremen, must become and remain members of Respondent Local.4 At one, time the collective-bargaining agreement between the parties prescribed the monthly wage rates, for the 'foremen' listed above. However, in recent agreements no wage, provisions have been included but , the agreement includes a section '° entitled 'Working Conditions for General Foremen- and Foremen' which concerns payment for overtime work and for certain, absences. Another contract clause provides that the appointment of general' foremen may not=be made fora period of less than 5S days. Further, other evidence-in the record shows that when Illinois -Belli , recently revised ,its .foremen overtime schedule it requested the concurrence of Respondent Local. Between May 8, 1968, and. September 203 1968, Respondent Local . engaged in an-economic strike, against Illinois Bell. At- the inception of the strike, Illinois Bell informed, the foremen that although it would like, to have them come- to work the decision whether to, work or to respect the strike was a matter of -personal discretion, and that-those.who chose not to work would not be penalized. On the other hand, at a Respondent Local union, meeting just prior to the strike a representative of Respondent Local, -in response to a question, warned that it would be the policy of the- Union- to discipline any, foremen who performed rank-and-file work during' the' strike:' It appears that a large, number of the foremen were present at this meeting- and heard the Union's warning. Thereafter, in^response to'the Respondent Exhibit A Wage Group Number I General Foremen Wage Group Number 2 PBX Installation Foremen Building Cable Foremen 4 Article a section 1 of the 1968-71 and all prior collective-bargaining agreements since 1948 provide in pertinent part: All employees with thirty days or more of employment with the Company, Who , are , represented by LocalUnion No. 134 shall become and remain members of, Local Union 'No. 1-14 in good standing as a condition of employment under this agreement' . 192 NLRB No. 17 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR'RELATIONS BOARD Local's warning,' several foremen formed the` Bell Supervisors Protective Association. 'and through. it retained counsel to -protect the rights,of those foremen who chose to work during the strike. .buring the course of the, strike some of the foremen continued to,report'for work,and performed, rankand-file work, and otheri foremen stayed away from work. '° After -the strike _ ,-Illinois, Bell in no Waydiscriminated against The latter,groups; and ,,indeed promoted some of them; to' higher positions. .The ,record .reveals that' Respondent Local thereafter 'carried ,,out its earlier; ,announcement and commenced -,union proceedings against a number,of foremen, and-imposed,fines of $500 on foremen who performed, struck-,, work and $=1,000 fines against each, of, five foremen-who were instrumental. in forming the Association.Most:.of the fined foremen appealed to the International, which, ,.except where there was procedural irregularity, ,sustained the fines. Both at the proceedings-before the Local andon the appeal to the International' it: was urged by the foremen that the union-security clause , which- compelled them -to remain, members of Respondent, Local was illegal. Illinois'Bell has reimbursed these foremen for the full amount of the levied fines Which theypaid., , ,The Trial'EExaminer concluded that the Respondent Local, by imposing on foremen5 possessing the'power to, adjust? grievances fines for crossing the-Respondent Local's picket line and performing struck work; violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of ;the Act. He, reasoned that-the, Respondent Local's action, impinged on the Loyalty:, which -Illinois Bell- should be able to expect, from its 'supervisors who are, the, 'Employer's repr_esentatives' for the -adjustment , of -grievances and therefore, restrained.: and= -coerced Illinois, Bell' in violation, of, Section 8(b)(1)(B) of, the Act.'-T.he Trial Examiner, also-'found that the Respondent Local violated Section 8(b)(l)(B) by fining the supervisors The Respondents have excepted to the Trial Examiner's finding that foremen and'general` foremen were 'Employer representatives.' The record clearly 'shows thatthe^foremen and general foremen-do actually participate in Abe adjustment of grievances and therefore are, for the .purposes of. Sec. 8(bxlXB), ''Employer representatives.' The Trial Examiner has, however, refused to rind' that persons occupying the -positions of assistant staff supervisor and;engineer are'Employer representatives' for the purposes of Sec. 8(b )(1)(B). We,agree ,with the Trial Examiner..The three assistant staff supervisors occupy nonsupervisory`positions and do not have any contact with the grievance adjustment procedure . It is true that these persons were formerly foremen and expect to be returned to the supervisory hierarchy in a year or two. However, it is clear that the Company has no immediate expectation of having these persons represent it in collective-bargaining and grievance adjustment. Further, the record, although sparse, clearly shows that the two engineers occupy nonsupervisory staff -positions with duties which do not include participation in the collective bargaining and the adjustment of grievances. See Toledo , locals Nos. ,15 P and 272 of the Lithographers, and kPnotoengravers International, Union, AFL CIO (The Toledo-Blade Cjompany', Inc.), NLRB No. 173, enfdty437 F.2d 55 (C.A. 6).The `^tione fntgrnationa[ has excepted to the Trial Examiner's finding that it violated See. I:8(b)(1)(11) by ,affirming Local 134's fining of the union member `supervisors for doing struck work. It argues that it should not be held liable for its purely appellate review of the locals fines. The organizers of the 'Association since; although ,not sponsored' by, the Company, it was part^and parcel of the, overall 'attempt, by `'the Respondent., Local to restrain and coerce Illinois Belt in the:-selection of its representatives' for the â€¢ adjustment ,,of,,,'grievances. Finally, the Trial Examiner concluded that Respondent International also, violated Section8(b)(1)(B) by affirming, on appeal,'the imposition of those fines by the Respondent Locals- . We agree with these findings of the Trial Examiner. The Union in this case,-,as the union in Local Union No. 2150. -International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL-CIO (Wisconsin Electric Power Company), 192 NLRB. No. 16 issued this day, fined union member supervisors for doing the work, of the rankand-file union members during the course of a strike against-Illinois Bell. We find n'© discernible difference between the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP