Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

KAISER ALUMINTJM",& CHI MWPAL CORPQRATION 75,3 KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION and LODGE No. 1366, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 720, A. F. L. and CHARLES J. BAKER. Cases Nos. 15-CA-281 and 15-CB--58. March 00, 1952 Decision and Order On October 16, 1951, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents, the Company and Local 720 had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent, Local 720, had not violated Section 8 (b) (5) as alleged in the amended com- plaint and recommended dismissal of this allegation.' Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondents filed exceptions to the In- termediate Report and supporting briefs. The Respondents also re- quested oral argument. This request is hereby denied, as the record, including the briefs and exceptions, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby rejects the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, except insofar as they are consistent with our findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth. 1. The complaint in this case alleged in substance, among other things, that the Respondent Company discriminated with respect to hire and tenure of employment, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, by discharging six employees, and that, by demanding their discharge, Respondent Local 720 attempted to cause and caused the Company to discriminate against the six em- ployees in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A). The Trial Examiner found that, in discharging the six employees be- cause they were not members of Local 720, the Company and Local 3 The Trial Examiner did not pass on an allegation of the complaint that the Respondent Company independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act in substance by making certain threats. No exception was filed to the Trial Examiner 's failure to make a finding with respect to this aspect of the case. In view thereof, and as the record does not establish that the Company made such threats, we shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint without further discussion. 98 NLRB No. 116. 754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 720, respectively, violated these sections of the statute because,Local,- 720 requested, and the Company made, the discharges, pursuant to the terms of a contract containing an invalid union-security provision. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the union- security clause in the contract was invalid. The portion of the union- security' provision directly pertinent to this question is as follows : All employees covered by this Agreement shall become members of the union on or after the thirtieth (30th) day following the beginning of their employment. (Emphasis supplied.) Read literally, this quoted provision might be taken to mean that an employee satisfied the requirement of the provision by joining the union at any time during the term of the agreement, even after a lapse, of 30 days or more following the date of employment, because it does not say how long "after" the thirtieth day the obligation attaches- On the other hand, the provision might be interpreted to mean that employees subjected themselves to discharge for nonmembership in the Union on or immediately after the thirtieth day following the date of their employment. In view thereof, we conclude that the contract is ambiguous. Recourse must be had therefore to the practice under the contract to determine the intent of the contracting parties as to the meaning of the union-security provision. In its letter of April 27, Local 720 gave the six employees, who were the only members of the unit who were not members of Local 720, at least 30 days from the union-shop authorization certificate in which to become members. Moreover, the union-security provision did not become effective until April 13, 1950, and the six employees were in fact not required to become members until the following May 14. Accordingly, we con- clude that the contract, reasonably construed in the light of surround- ing circumstances, required new employees to join Local 720 within 30 days from the date of their employment, but afforded those employees who were not union members at the time of the effective date of the union-security clause a 30-day grace period from the effec- tive date of the union-security clause within which to comply with its requirements. So viewed,' the union-security provision of the contract was valid from its inception.2 • However, the General Counsel 'contended that the Respondents violated the sections of the statute now in question because they required the six employees to pay Local 720, in addition to the dues and initiation fee, an ex-membership fee of $5 as a condition precedent to,-continued employment. At'the hearing there was a conflict in testimony, unresolved by the Trial -Examiner, as to whether Local 2 Charles A. Sraue Milling Co., 97 NLRB 586. - ' ' KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 755; 720 waived a ,previously imposed requirement as to payment of the $5 ex-membership fee before requesting the Company to discharge the six employees.3 This conflicting testimony may be summarized as; follows: (a) Business Agent Masling testified that, on May 12, 1950, after being informed by the Company that the employees could not be lawfully discharged for failuce to pay the requested ex-membership fee, he told the six dischargees that they were being asked to pay "only the required dues and initiation fees." (b) Masling's testimony in this respect is corroborated by the testimony of Union President Bishop and Nickens, a steward, both of whom were present at the time of the conversation. (c) Masling testified that thereafter he reported to Superintendent Brown that the six employees had been requested to pay only the initiation fees and dues. (d) Brown testified that he verified the correctness of the report by checking with Bishop and Nickens. (e) On May 15, the Union sent Brown a letter requesting the discharge of the employees and stating that, on May 12, each had been requested to pay the required initiation fees and dues. (f) Brown testified that in his conversation with the six employees on May 15 he told them that the Union is only asking for "the initiation fees and dues and that is the only requirement." On the other hand, the testimony pointing to a failure to waive the ex-membership fee is the following : (a) The six employees testified that, on May 12, 1950, they were asked by Masling to join Local 720 on the basis of the terms outlined in the April 27 letter, which included a request for the ex-membership fee.4 (b) The six employees denied that Brown told them that the only requirement was payment of initiation fees and dues. Although the Trial Examiner did not resolve this conflicting testi- mony, he stated in his Intermediate Report that he was impressed with Brown's "candor and sincerity" as a witness. The Trial Exam- iner also credited the undenied testimony of Bishop and Nickens. Moreover, it is clear to us that the real bone of contention between the six employees and Local 720 was the $75 initiation fee, which these employees erroneously regarded as discriminatory as to them. Under all the circumstances, we credit the testimony of Brown, Bishop, and Nickens, and find that Local 720 waived payment of the $5 ex-member- ship fee before requesting the Company to discharge the six employees. 8 The Trial Examiner found it unnecessary to resolve this conflicting testimony because he concluded, as indicated , that, in any event, the Respondents acted pursuant to the terms of an invalid contract in connection with the discharge of the six employees. However, we have found the contract to be valid. 4 Masling, Bishop, and Nickens denied that the April 27 letter was mentioned in tl is conversation . The Trial Examiner did not resolve this conflict. 756 DECISIONS"OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As the union-security clause of the contract was valid, and as pay- ment of the $5 ex-membership -fee was not required as a condition to acquiring membership or to continued employment of the six em- ployees, the contract served as a defense to their discharge for failure' to become members of Local 720 by refusing to tender the periodic dues and initiation fee uniformly required as a condition of acquiring • membership .5 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that the Respondent Company violated Section 8 (a) (3) and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by discharging the six employees and that Respond- ent Local 720 violated Section 8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A) by requesting their discharge. 2. The General Counsel contended that the Respondent Local 720 violated Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act by requiring the six employees involved herein, as a condition of acquiring membership in Local 720, to pay a discriminatory $5 ex-membership fee., The Trial Examiner found that Respondent Local 720 did not violate Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act on the ground that there can be no violation of that section of the statute where the contracting union requires payment of alleged illegal fees pursuant to the terms of a contract not in conformity with the requirements of the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and that here the contract did not meet such requirements in that it did not afford a 30-day grace period to employees who were not members of the contracting union at the time that the union-security clause became effective. However, as we have found above that Respondent Local 720 waived payment of the $5 ex-membership fee and thus did not require its payment as a condition precedent to membership, this issue is no longer present in the case. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the allegation that Respondent Local 720 violated Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act, without passing on the merits of the Trial Examiner's deter- mination as to the application of that section. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint as amended in its entirety. Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National,Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the amended complaint herein 5 In view of our decision , we find it unnecessary to determine , assuming that the require- ment as to payment of the $5 ex-membership fee was not waived, whether membership was available to the six employees on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other Imembers, within the meaning of proviso (A) to Section 8 (a) (3), and /or whether the Company had reasonable grounds for believing that membership was not available to the six employees at the time of their discharge on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members. xcept as to the $5 ex-membership fee, the General Counsel does not claim that Local 720 sought to extract an illegal initiation fee or any other illegal fee from . the six employees KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 757 against the Respondents, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 72O, A. F. L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon amended charges duly filed in Case No. 15-CA-281 by Lodge No. 1366, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,' herein called the IAM, and separate charges filed in Case No. 15-CB-58 by Charles J. Baker, an individual, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,2 by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), on September 18, 1950, issued an order consolidating the cases, a notice of hearing, and a consolidated complaint alleging that Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, herein called the Respondent Company, has engaged in and is engaging in acts in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, and that United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 720, AFL, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, herein called the Respondent Union, has engaged in, and is engaging in, acts in violation of Section S (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. Copies of the consolidated complaint, the various charges, the order of consolidation, and the notice bf hearing were duly served upon both Respondents and both charging parties. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the consolidated complaint allegl's in substance that on or about May 15, 1950, the Respondent Union requested the Respondent Company to terminate the employment of Charles J. Baker, Charles A. Achee, R. T. McGraw, E. L. Scott, D. L. Marchand, and B. J. Duhe,' and since that date has persisted in its request that the said employees not be employed by the Respondent Company ; that pursuant to this request, the Respondent Company discharged the named employees on or about May 16, 1950, and has thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them ; that the Respondent Union requested the discharge of these 'employees, and the Respondent Com- pany discharged them, because of their membership in and activities on behalf of he IAM, and because they engaged in concerted activities with other emp ogees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection and because they were not and did not become and remain members of the Respondent Union; that membership in the Respondent Union was denied the said employees or terminated on some ground other than their failure to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership; that the Respondent Company had reasonable grounds for believing that membership in the Respondent Union was not available to the said employees on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members and that membership was denied to them by the Respondent Union for reasons other than their failure to tender 'The name of the charging Union appears in the caption as amended at the remanded hearing. 2 The General-Counsel and his representative at the hearings are referred to herein as the General Counsel ; the National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board. ' This name appears as B. J Duke in the consolidated complaint but the spelling was amended at the original hearing. Accordingly, the name appears here as amended. 998666-vol . 98-53-49 1 - 758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership; that the Respondent Company, from on or about January 1, 1950, to date, acquiesced in threats to its employees that they would be discharged if they did not pay obligations imposed upon them by the Respond- ent Union and join and remain members of the Respondent Union ; and that the Respondent Union, from on or about January 1, 1950, threatened employees of the Respondent Company with discharge if they did not pay the obligations imposed upon them by the Respondent Union and join and remain members of the Respondent Union. The Respondent Company duly filed an answer, admitting that on or about May 15, 1950, the Respondent Union, acting pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union, demanded that the Respondent Company terminate the employment of the said employees because of their failure to tender to the Respondent Union the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring and retaining membership, and admitting that, on or about May 16, 1950, the Respondent Company discharged the said employees, but without reasonable ground for believing that membership in the Respondent Union was not available to them on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other mem- hers of the Respondent Union or that such membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the said employees to tender to the Respondent Union the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required ,is a condition of acquiring or retaining membership; and alleging that at all times on and after May 15, 1950, each of the said employees refused and has continued to refuse to tender to the Respondent Union the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership, and has refused to maintain membership in the Respondent Union, as required by the said collective bargaining agreement. The answer of the Respondent Company denied the commission of any unfair labor practices, and alleged as an affirmative defense that on August 15, 1919, the Board certified the Respondent Union as the bargaining representative of a unit which included the said employees, that the said certification is still in effect, that thereafter the Board certified that the Respondent Union was authorized by the said employees to make an agreement with the Respondent Company requiring membership in the Respondent Union as a condition of employment ; that on and after April 13, 1950, there was in effect a collective bargaining agreement between the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union appli- cable to the said employees, requiring as a condition of employment membership in the Respondent Union on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever was the later, which agreement is ' still in effect, and that the said discharges were effectuated pursuant thereto. The Respondent Union filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing was held at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, from October 30 to November 2, 1950, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the IAM, Baker, the Respondent Company, and the Respondent Union appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the begin- ning of the hearing, the Respondent Company moved to exclude all witnesses from the hearing room until after they had testified The motion was granted in part, but later withdrawn. The General Counsel moved to amend the com- plaint with respect to the spelling of the name of one of the employees involved. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 759 In the absence of objection, the motion was granted The Respondent Company moved that the Trial Examiner and the Board take judicial notice of certain representation proceedings previously concluded before the Board with respect to the Respondent Company.' Without objection, the motion was granted. The IAM moved to quash a subpena dotes tecwni issued against it at the request of the Respondent Union, and the General Counsel moved to quash a subpena duces tecum issued against him at the request of the Respondent Union. Both motions were granted. At the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the General Counsel moved to dismiss so much of the consolidated complaint as alleged that the Respondent Company acquiesced in threats to its employees that they would be discharged if they did not pay obligations imposed on them by the Respondent Union and join and remain members of the Respondent Union. There being no objection, the motion was granted. The Respondent Union moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety. After oral argument, the motion was granted by oral ruling from the bench. After the close of the hearing, certain employees of the Board's Fifteenth Regional Office filed a joint motion to quash subpenas ad testificandum issued against them at the request of the Respondent Company. The motion was taken under advisement. After the close of the hearing, the General Counsel and the IAM filed with the Board requests to review the Trial Examiner's action in dismissing the consolidated complaint. On March 28, 1951, the Board issued a Decision and Order Remanding Case in which it found that the Trial Examiner had erred in dismissing the consolidated complaint, and remanded the cases to the Trial Examiner :`for further proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order Remanding Case, including such additional hearing as may be necessary and the preparation and issuance of an Intermediate Report, setting forth his findings, of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations with respect to the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint." 6 Pursuant to the above-mentioned Order of the Board and pursuant to notice, a remanded hearing was held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, from May 29 to June 1, 1951, inclusive, before the Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the JAM, Baker, the Respondent Company, and the Respondent Union appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The motion of the Board employees, referred to above, to quash the subpenas ad testificandum issued against them was denied. The General Counsel moved to amend the complaint by adding allegations that the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union are parties to an agreement authorized under Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act which, since about May 13, 1950, required as a condition of continued employment that employees covered thereunder be members of the Respondent Union ; that the six employees named in the complaint were covered by the said agreement and required to become members of the Respondent Union pursuant to its terms ; that the Respondent Union required of the said employees, as a condition pre- cedent to becoming members, fees in excess of those required of other employees covered by the agreement, in violation of Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act. The motion was granted a The Regional Director for the Board's Fifteenth Region I * Case No. 15-RC-7. See 82 NLRB 692. At that time, the Respondent Company's operations at the plant here in question were conducted under the name of Permanente Metals Corporation. 5 93 NLRB 1203. 9 While neither Respondent has filed an amended answer, it will be deemed that both Respondents have denied the allegations added to the complaint by this amendment. 760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD moved to quash a subpena duces teoum issued against him at the request of the Respondent Union. The motion was granted? The Respondent Union moved to dismiss that portion of the consolidated complaint which alleges that member- ship in the Respondent Union was denied to the six named employees or termi- nated on some ground other than their failure to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.- Ruling on this motion was reserved. In view of my disposition of these cases, as related below, I find it unnecessary to rule upon this motion. The Respondent Union moved that the Trial Examiner and the Board take judicial notice of the provisions of all. union constitutions and bylaws presently in the Board's possession (by virtue of the provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act) with respect to the reinstatement fees, reimburseme4ts, and ex- membership fees. Ruling on this motion was reserved. It is now denied, on the ground that the said documents are immaterial to the issues herein. The Respondent Union moved that the Trial Examiner recuse himself from these cases because of personal bias and prejudice. Before it had been ruled upon, the motion was withdrawn. Several motions to correct the transcript of record of the original hearing were granted without objection. At the conclusion of the remanded hearing, all parties were afforded an opportunity to argue the issues orally before the Trial Examiner and to file briefs or recommended con- clusions and findings with the Trial Examiner. Oral argument was presented by both Respondents, and waived by the General Counsel, the IAM, and Baker. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and both Respondents. The IAM and Baker filed a joint brief, including proposed findings and conclusions, which are disposed of hereafter. All briefs have been duly considered. With its brief, the Respondent Company filed a motion to dismiss the cases. This motion is disposed of below. After the close of the remanded hearing, the IAM moved to set aside the union-authority election in Case No. 15-UA-518.8 The motion was denied. An identical motion simultaneously filed with the Board was likewise denied. Upon the entire record in the cases and from my observation of,the witnesses, I make the following : FINDINos of FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY The Respondent Company, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Oakland, California. It main- tains a manufacturing plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where it is engaged in the production, sale, and distribution of alumina. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint herein, the Respondent Company, in the course and conduct of its business operations, caused mate- rials valued at more than $100,000 to be purchased, transferred, and delivered to its Baton'Rouge plant, of which approximately 80 percent was received from outside the State of Louisiana. During the same period, the Respondent Com- pany produced alumina valued at more than $100,000, all of which was trans- ported from its Baton Rouge plant to States other than the State of Louisiana. I find that the Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 'Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495, 507; and N. L. R. B. v. Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere ,Co, Inc., 185 F. 2d 285 (C. A. 2). 8 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, Baton Rouge Works, Employer, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. L., Petitioner. - KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 761 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Brotherhood of-Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 720, AFL, herein called the Respondent Union, and Lodge No. 1366, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the IAM, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section, 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) 1. Events up to August 15, 1949 Sometime in 1946, the Respondent Company, under the name Permanente Metals Corporation,9 leased or purchased the alumina plant at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, formerly operated by the Reynolds Metals Corporation. In 1947, when production started, the Respondent Company entered into a joint con- tract with 11 unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, covering all production and maintenance employees of the alumina plant. This agree- ment was to remain in effect until June 1949, and "contained a closed-shop provision. One of the signatory unions was Local No. 1098 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called Local 1098. The IAM was not a party to this agreement. The Respondent Company employed millwrights in its machine shop, herein called the inside millwrights,10 and other millwrights as part of rotating main- tenance crews, herein called the outside millwrights. The inside millwrights desired separate representation. On October 21, 1947, the IAM filed a representa- tion petition with the Board which, in effect, sought to sever a unit of inside millwrights from the existing plant-wide unit. On April 1, 1949, the Board dismissed this petition on the ground that "the proposed unit of inside mill- wrights, failing to include the outside millwrights, is inappropriate as it,com- prises only a segment of a craft group possessing similar skills and performing comparable work." '1 On April 15, 1949, the IAM filed another petition with the Board in which it sought to represent a unit of both inside and outside millwrights." While this petition was pending, the Respondent Union was chartered on April 27, 1949. The previous jurisdiction of Local 1098 had included millwrights and other workmen in the trade, such as carpenters, welders, pile drivers, etc. When the Respondent Union was formed, it took over from Local 1098 jurisdiction over millwrights. At the time of its formation, the Respondent Union operated under the international constitution of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called the Carpenters, and under the bylaws of Local 1098. At its organization meeting on April 27,1949, the Respondent Union elected Walter J. Masling as its business agent and financial secretary. The 9 The Respondent Company Is one and the same corporation as the Permanente Metals Corporation, the only difference being a change in name which took place about 1949. 10 The TAM and Baker apparently contend that the inside millwrights were in fact machinists who were improperly classified by the Respondent Company as millwrights. Regardless of this contention, they will be referred to herein as Inside millwrights, as that is the designation given them by the Respondent Company. "82 NLRB 692. In accordance aith a motion granted at the original hearing, I have taken official notice of the Board's action In this case, and some of the findings of fact recited in this Intermediate Report are based upon the Board's decision therein. "Case No. 15-RC-255. 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD initiation fee was set at $75,' and dues at $3 a month's At its second meeting on May 4, 1949, the Respondent Union set its initiation fee at $25 for a period of 60 days only., Thereafter, on June 30, 1949, the Respondent Company entered into a collective bargaining agreement with 11 unions affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, including the Respondent Union and Local 1098. This agreement, which was to remain in effect until August 1, 1951, covered all pro- duction and maintenance employees. It provided, among other things, that all maintenance employees "shall become and remain members in good standing of the appropriate Union." This closed-shop provision, however, was not enforced. On July 18, 1949, the Respondent Company, the Respondent Union, and the IAM entered into a consent election agreement with respect to the IAM's repre- sentation petition regarding the inside and outside millwrights." After ap- proval of this consent election agreement by the Regional Director, an election was held, which was won by the Respondent Union. Thereafter, on August 15, 1949, the Regional Director certified the Respondent Union as the bargaining representative of all inside and outside millwrights employed at the Respondent Company's Baton Rouge alumina plant. 2. The six employees involved In August 1949, the Respondent Company employed approximately 26 mill- wrights at its' Baton Rouge plant, of which 8 were inside millwrights. Among these 8 inside millwrights were the 6 employees involved herein. According to a stipulation of the parties, these 6 employees had no desire to join the Respond- ent Union and "didn't like" the Respondent Union's business agent. Charles A. Achee was employed by the Respondent Company early in 1949. He joined Local 1098 on July 12, 1949. On July 16, 1949, he was granted a clear- ance card from Local 1098, but never deposited this card with any other local of the Carpenters.' He last paid dues to Local 1098 in July 1949, and was sus- pended by Local 1098 for nonpayment of dues on January 31, 1950." In May, June, or July, 1949, he joined the IAM. Achee has never been a member of the Respondent Union. Charles J. Baker had formerly been a member of the International Association of Machinists, but his membership had lapsed. He was employed by the Re- spondent Company on January 10, 1949. , He Joined Local 1098 on April 27, 1949, "Baker testified that he attended the meeting of April 27, and that the Respondent Union voted to set its initiation fee at $25. It is found, however, that Baker was confusing this meeting with a later meeting of the Respondent Union at which the Initiation fee was reduced from $75 to $25. The finding that the Respondent Union set Its initiation fee at $75 on April 27, 1949, is based upon the testimony of Masling and upon article VI, section 1 of the bylaws of Local 1098, under which the Respondent Union was operating at the time, which provided : "The, initiation fee for Journeymen Carpenters shall be 11 seventy-five ($75.00). .. . i9 The record indicates that at the meeting at which the consent election agreement was entered into, the parties orally agreed that, after the election, all inside and outside millwrights would join whichever union was victorious Baker testified, however, that so far as the six inside millwrights here Involved were concerned, their acceptance of this proposal was made contingent upon their being reclassified as machinists instead of mill- wrights. I deem it unnecessary to make any findings with respect to any such agreement. ' A clearance card entitles the member to transfer from one local of the Carpenters to another, without paying an additional initiation fee, If deposited with the second local within 30 days. If, however, the clearance card is not deposited with another local within 30 days, the member remains a member of the local which issued the clearance card. 14 Section 45-B of the Carpenters' International constitution provides : "A member owing a Local Union a sum equal to 6 months' dues shall have his name stricken from the list of membership without a vote of the Local Union. . KAISER ALUMINUM S, CHEMICAL CORPORATION 763 and paid dues to Local 1098. On the same day, he received a clearance card from Local 1098 which he deposited in the Respondent Union, thus becoming a member of the Respondent Union. He attended meetings of the Respondent Union on April 27 and May 4, 1949, but paid no dues to the Respondent Union. On September 28, 1949, on charges filed by Masling, Baker was fined $100 by the Respondent Union, but this fine was withdrawn on October 12, 1949. Baker last paid dues to Local 1098 in April 1949, and was suspended by Respondent Union for nonpayment of dues on November 2, 1949. At that time, he owed the Re- spondent Union 6 months' dues, 21/2 months' assessments, and 50 cents for a work permit, or a total of $38.50. On May 26, 1949, Baker rejoined the JAM and became its business agent and financial secretary on January 1, 1950. B. J. Duhe" had formerly been a member of the IAM. He was employed by the Respondent Company in November 1946 and joined Local 1098 on January 7, 1947. On May 7, 1949, he was granted a clearance card from Local 1098, which he never deposited in any other local of the Carpenters. He last paid dues to Local 1098 in May 1949, and was suspended by Local 1098 on November 30, 1949, for nonpayment of dues. In May, June, or July, 1949, Duhe rejoined the IAM. He has never been a member of the Respondent Union. D. L. Marchand 16 joined Local 37 of the International Association of Machinists in New Orleans in 1941, but later dropped his membership in that union. He joined" Local 1098 on March 26, 1947, and obtained a clearance card from Local 1098 which he deposited in Local 1846 of the Carpenters in New Orleans on April 26,1948. Marchand was employed by the Respondent Company in February 1949, and on February 2, 1949, paid 1 month's "foreign dues" to Local 1098. He last paid dues to Local 1846 in December 1948, and was suspended by Local 1846 for nonpayment of dues on May 31, 1949. He rejoined the IAM early in 1949 Marchand was never a member of the Respondent Union. R. T. McGraw 18 at one time had been a member of Local 261 of the International Association of Machinists in Mobile, Alabama. He was employed by the Re- spondent Company in March 1947. On June 24, 1947, McGraw joined Local 1098. He became a shop steward of Local 1098, but never attended any meetings of that union. McGraWd became delinquent in his dues, but on May 31, 1949, he paid Local 1098 all his arrears. On that same day, he was granted a clearance card from Local 1098, which he never deposited in any other local of the Car- penters.. On September 28, 1949, on charges filed by Masling, McGraw was fined $100 by the Respondent Union. McGraw last paid dues to Local 1098 on May 31, 1949, and was suspended by Local 1098 for nonpayment of dues on November 30, 1949. He rejoined the IAM in May, June, or July, 1949. He has never been a member ,of the Respondent Union. E. L. Scott 20 had previously been a member of the IAM. He was employed by the Respondent Company in March 1947, and joined Local 1098 for nonpay- ment of dues. He has never been a member of the Respondent Union. In May, June, or July, 1949, Scott rejoined the IAM. Thus, by August 1949, all of these six employees had previously been members of locals of the Carpenters (Baker of the Respondent Union and the other five of Local 1098) and had become delinquent in their dues. Moreover, by this June, or July, 1949, Scott rejoined the IAM. 11 Also referred to in the record as Robert H. Duhe and Robert J. Duhe. 1! Also referred to in the record as Dudley L. Marchand and Dudley L. Marchand, Jr. 1U Also referred to in the ,record as Richard T . McGraw. 20 Also referred to in the record as Eli L. Scott. 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Events after August 15, 1949 About August 17, 1949, Charles Beddell, president of the Baton Rouge Building Trades Council, contacted William Brown,21 industrial relations superintendent of the Respondent Company's Baton Rouge plant, and asked if Brown would meet with him and the six inside millwrights named above . Brown agreed to do so, and the meeting was held at the plant on August 18. A second similar meeting was held on the following day, also at the plant, with other people present, including Masling.22 While there was considerable discussion during these two meetings,23 the gist of the meetings was that Beddell sought to convince the six insidd millwrights that they should join the Respondent Union, but they refused to do so24 On January 9, 1950, the Respondent Company and the same 11 unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor entered into "Addendum Number One" modifying and superseding the 1949 agreement in part, and extending its term until January 15, 1952. Among other provisions, this addendum omitted the former closed-shop provision, and substituted a form of union shop, subject to Board authorization. The exact provisions of this portion of addendum number one will be set forth hereafter. On March 1, 1950, the Respondent Union filed with the Board a petition for authority to make a union-shop agreement with the Respondent Company with respect to inside and outside millwrights 26 On March 29, 1950, while this ,petition was pending, the Respondent Union raised its initiation fee from $75 to $250. However, a few days later, on April 5, the Respondent Union reduced its initiation fee from $250 to $7520 On April 13, 1950. as the result of an election held pursuant to a consent election agreement entered into between the Respond- ent Company and the Respondent Union and approved by the Regional Director, the Regional Director certified that the Respondent Union was authorized to make an agreement with the Respondent Company requiring membership in the 21 Also referred to in the record as William T. Brown, W. T. Brown, and Billy Brown. 12 There is conflict in the record as to bow much of these two meetings was attended by Brown I deem it unnecessary to make any finding with respect to this matter 23 There is conflict in the testimony as to what was said by Beddell . According to one version, Beddell warned the six inside millwrights that the Respondent Union would seek a union-security authorization election and, after winning a Board certification , all mill- wrights would be required to join the Respondent Union within 30 days thereafter or be discharged On the other hand , there is evidence tending to indicate that Beddell threat- ened that if the inside millwrights did not join the Respondent Union, the Respondent Union would substantially increase its initiati-n fee. I deem it unnecessary to make any finding with respect to what was said by Beddell at this meeting. - 24 On September 23, 1949, the IAM filed with the Board charges that the Respondent Company had violated Section 8 ( a) (1), (2), and ( 3) of the Act (Case No . 15-CA-214). These charges were based , in part, on the conferences of August 18 and 19, 1949. On December 29, 1949, the Respondent Company, a representative of the Board , and Beddell entered into a settlement agreement with respect to these charges by virtue of which the Respondent Company, while denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices, agreed to cease giving effect to the union -security provisions of the 1949 agreement, not to threaten any of its employees with discharge in order to encourage membership in the Respondent Union, and to post notices . The signatory unions agreed to post similar notices. This settlement agreement was approved by the Board's Regional Director but was not joined in by the IAM On the following day, the Regional Director notified the IAM of his refusal to issue a complaint. The TAM did not take any appeal from the Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint. 26 Case No. 15-UA-518. 26 On March 6, 1950 , the IAM filed with the Board a representation petition seeking a unit of inside millwrights (Case No. 15-RC-358). This petition was dismissed byythe Regional Director on March 21 , 1950. On April 14 , 1950, on appeal by the IAM, the Board sustained the Regional Director 's dismissal. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 765 Respondent Union as a condition of employment of inside and outside mill- wrights, in conformity with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. At lunch time on April 19, 1949, the six employees involved herein gathered in the plant. They decided that they would join the Respondent Union, provided that the initiation fee did not exceed $25,27 the dues $3 per month , and the charge for a working card 50 cents. They authorized Baker to contact Clarence A. Moritz, a shop steward for the Respondent Union at the Respondent Company's plant, to ascertain the actual charges which they would be required to pay in order to join the Respondent Union. Baker was instructed to pay the necessary dues and fees for all six employees if they did not exceed the figures agreed upon. Accordingly, on April 20, Baker approached Moritz in the plant and requested Moritz to obtain this information for the six employees involved . Moritz agreed to do so.2' That night, Moritz contacted Masling. On April 21, Baker , accom- panied by McGraw, asked Morite what he had found out. Moritz replied that each man would be required to pay an initiation fee of $75, 1 month 's dues of $3, an ex-membership fee of $5, and 50 cents for a work permit , and that in addi- tion Baker and McGraw would have to pay a fine of $100 each . At Baker's re- quest, Moritz wrote these figures on a piece of paper, which Baker then showed to the other employees involved. On about April 23, 1950, Howard Church , works manager of the plant, received a telephone call from a person who did not reveal his name, but merely stated that he was calling for the IAM. The caller asked Church for a meeting . Church agreed to hold a meeting on the following day, and arranged for Brown to attend. When the time for the meeting arrived , Baker, Marchand , Achee, Scott, and Dube appeared. Baker acted as spokesman for the group . He stated that the six in- side millwrights were under pressure to join the Respondent Union, and desired to know the status of their jobs with the Respondent Company. He pointed out that the Respondent Union was demanding that each of them pay an initiation fee of $75, $3 per month dues, 50 cents for a working permit, and an ex-member- ship fee of $5. In addition , there were fines of $100 each against Baker and Mc- Graw. Baker maintained that the Respondent Union had deliberately increased its initiation fee from $25 to $75 in order to discriminate against them . Church assured Baker that he would investigate this charge . Baker further stated that the men were members of the IAM and could not join the Respondent Union, and asked if the Respondent Company could recognize the IAM as their represent- ative. Brown, pointing out that the Respondent Union had been certified by, the Board as their collective bargaining agent, replied that this could not be done. Church remarked that he was only interested in living up to the law and the Re- spondent Company's contractual obligations. Following this meeting, under instructions from Church, Brown investigated Baker's charge that the initiation fee had been discriminatorily increased from $25 to $75, and ascertained that the initiation fee had been $75 for some time past, and that other applicants for mem- bership in the Respondent Union had , in fact, been required to pay an initiation fee of $75. He reported his findings to Church. 27 The record indicates that Baker, the only one of the six employees who had ever been a member of the Respondent Union, informed the others that the Respondent Union's "normal" initiation fee was $25 However, I make no finding in this respect. 2s Baker testified that, during his c-nversation with Moritz on April 20, he informed Moritz that the men had each agreed to pay $25 initiation fee, $3 per month dues, and 50 cents for a work card, and that he exhibited his wallet to Moritz, stating that he had the money there ready to pay. Mortiz denied that Baker offered to pay any amount of money to him during this conversation of April 20. I deem it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the testimony. 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On April 27, 1950, the Respondent Union, through Masling. sent identical letters by registered mail to each of the six employees involved. These letters read, in part, as follows : The recent Union Shop Election at the Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Cor- poration, Baton Rouge Plant, Baton Rouge, Louisiana ; held on April 11, 1950, made membership in Millwrights Local Union 720 A. F. of L. a condition of employment for all inside and outside Millwrights, employed at this plant. You are herewith asked to join Millwrights Local Union 720 A. F. ofi L. before May 14, 1950. The Initiation Fee in [sic] $75.00 plus the first months dues of $3.50. In- asmuch that you are an Ex-Member, of the United'-Brotherhood, you are required to pay an additional $5.00 ex-member fee which will be sent to the Local Union where you were suspended for non-payment of dues. Brown received a copy of one of these letters from Masling about May 1 or 2. He telephoned to Masling, stating that he did not quite understand the require- ment of an ex-membership fee of $5, and asked Masling to come to his office. Accordingly, Masling visited Brown in his office, and brought with him a copy of the Carpenters' international constitution. Masling pointed out to Brown the applicable provisions of the constitution with regard to ex-membership fees." After reading this, Brown told Masling that he would check further into the legality of the ex-membership fee, which he considered "questionable." A few days later, Brown telephoned to John F. LeBus, Regional Director for the Board's Fifteenth Region. Brown read to LeBus Masling's letter and inquired as to the legality of the Respondent Union's demand that the six employees pay an ex- membership fee. LeBus replied that, under a union-shop contract, an employer is only required to dismiss employees upon request of the union for nonpayment of initiation fees and dues, but hesitated to commit himself with regard to the legality of the ex-membership fee. After this conversation, Brown telephoned to several officials of the Respondent Company's main office in Oakland, includ- ing the Respondent Company's attorney. Brown was instructed that the Respond- ent Company's only concern was that the six employees pay the initiation fees and dues, and that he should so inform Masling. Brown then telephoned to the attorney for the Respondent Union, advised him of the contents of Masling's letter, and stated that the Respondent Company could only require the six employees to pay initiation fees and dues, to which the Respondent- Union's attorney agreed. Brown then telephoned to Masling, informed him of these various telephone conversations, and told him that "the $5 ex-membership fee is out as far as the company is concerned and that the company is only concerned in the men paying initiation fees and dues." Later that day, Masling visited 29 Section 45-B of the international constitution of the Carpenters in effect at this time provided : "A member owing a Local Union a sum equal to six months ' dues shall have his name stricken from the list of membership . . . If desiring to rejoin the Brother- hood he may be readmitted only as a new member , subject to such rea4mission fee as provided for in the By-laws of the Local Union or District Council where he rejoins. The Local Union re-admitting the ex-member shall ascertain the reasons for his having been dripped from membership and if he was suspended for non-payment of dues shall collect from him an additional sum of Five ($5 00) Dollars, to be forwarded to the Local Union of which he was formerly a member. . . . Article VI, section 1 of the constitution of Local 1098, under which the Respondent Uni-n teas operating at this time, contains the following provision: "The initiation fee for Journeymen Carpenters shall be seventy -five ($75 00) . . . ex-members shall pay an additional fee of five dollars ($5 00)." It does not appear, however, that this provision of the constitution of Local 1098 was called to Brown 's attention by Masling. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 767 Brown and Brown again told Masling that "this $5 ex-membership fee is out as far as the company is concerned." S0 On May 12, 1950, Masling came to Brown's office and requested permission to hold a meeting with the inside millwrights, because he understood "that this business of ex-membership fees is out." Brown granted permission for this meeting, and suggested that Masling take some witness with him. Accordingly, Masling asked William E. Bishop, an outside millwright who was president of the Respondent Union, and Vennie J. Nickens, an ironworker welder who was steward for the Building Trades Council at the plant, to accompany him. Masling, Bishop, and Nickens went to the powerhouse, where they found Scott at work. Masling asked Scott whether he intended to pay "the required dues and initiation fee" to the Respondent Union. Scott suggested that Masling speak to Baker and the other employees involved. Masling, Scott, Bishop, and Nickens then proceeded to the machine shop, where they were joined by Baker, Achee, McGraw, Marchand, and Dube. The session was a heated one, both Baker and Masling becoming angry. Masling stated that the Respondent Union had won the union-security election, and he was there to find out if the six inside mill- wrights were going to join the Respondent Union.31 Baker replied as spokesman for all six, but Masling interrupted him and stated that he would ask each man individually. Accordingly, Masling asked each of the six men individually whether he intended to join the Respondent Union and each man replied that he did not ° Masling then announced that he would have to ask the Respondent Company to discharge the six employees. Following this meeting, Masling re- ported to Brown that he had informed the six men that they need only pay initiation fees and dues. Upon questioning by Brown, Nickens and Bishop con- firmed this report. On May 15, 1950, Masling sent Brown a letter which read : DEAR SIR : In regards to the recent Union Shop Election, at this plant, which was certified on April 13, 1950 in favor of Millwrights Local Union 720. There are six employees employed in this plant as Millwrights who are not members of Local Union 720 and were not members of Local 720 on April 13, 1950. On April 27, 1950 I, representing Millwrights' Local Union 720, sent each one of these employees a registered letter (returned receipt requested) and have received the returned receipts as proof of delivery to their respective domiciles. Each one of these letters stated, therein, to wit : (1) An explanation of the Union Shop Election. su Masling testified that, at Brawn's suggestion, he telephoned to Anthony J. Sabella, chief field examiner of the Board's Fifteenth Region, and asked Sabella to advise him with respect to the legality of the ex-membership fee, and that Sabella advised him to "forget about" the ex-membership fee "because it is questionable." Sabella, however, denied that he had ever spoken to Masling on the telephone, or that he had ever given any advice to Masling with respect to the legality of the ex-membership fee I find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict 11 There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether or not Masling opened the discussion by asking if the men had all received his letter of April 27 There is also conflict in the evidence as to whether or not Masling said "Now get this straight, y'u are only being asked to pay the required initiation fees and dues " I find it unnecessary to resolve these conflicts 11 There is evidence tending to indicate that while-Mashng was addressing this question to the other men, Baker continued to talk Several of the witnesses testified that-Baker announced that the men were willing to join the Respondent Union if they only had to pay a $25 Initiation fee. instead of the $75 initiation fee demanded of them. I deem it unnecessary to make any finding in this respect. 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (2) Asking that each one pay the required initiation fees and dues to Millwrights Local Union 720 before May 15,1950. (3) Stating the amount of the required initiation fees and dues of Local Union 720. I have not received an answer to any of the said letters as to these em- ployees intentions. On Friday, May 12, 1950, I approached the said six (6) employees namely ; Charles Baker ; E. L. Scott ; Dudley Marchand ; Robert Duhe ; R. T. McGraw ; Charles A. Achee ; with two (2) witnesses namely ; Mr. W. E. Bishop; and Mr. Nickens, and asked them to pay the required initiation fees and dues to the Millwrights Local Union by Monday, May 15, 1950. They stated that they would not pay any amount to the Millwrights' Union and never intended to do so. I then told them that in that case I, representing Millwrights Local Union 720, would be forced to ask management to discharge them on the grounds of refusing to pay the required initiation fees and dues to the Millwrights Local Union 720 Monday morning May 15, 1950. I was told by them to do what I wanted to do about the matter. In consideration of the facts, herein, I herewith request this management to terminate the said six (6) employees on the grounds of REFUSING TO PAY THE REQUIRED INITIATION FEES AND DUES TO MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION 720 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNION SHOP ELECTION. Upon receipt of this letter, Brown telephoned to the Respondent Company's officers in Oakland, including the attorney for the Respondent Company, and reported that Masling had talked to the six employees involved and "had taken care of" the ex-membership fee, and that he (Brown) had verified this fact by questioning the witnesses who had accompanied Masling. He was instructed to consult the Board's Regional Office. Accordingly, Brown telephoned to Andrew Carter, an attorney in the employ of the Board's Fifteenth Region. He read to Carter the letter which he had just received from Masling, explained that the Board had recently conducted a union-security election among the inside and outside millwrights , and that 30 days had elapsed since the Board had certified the results of that election. He inquired whether the Respondent Company could discharge the six employees. Carter replied : "So far as I can determine everything is right ; everything is legal," but suggested that Masling's letter to Brown be read to the six employees involved before they were terminated. Brown again telephoned to the Respondent Company's Oakland office, reported his con- versation with Carter, and was instructed to proceed as Carter had suggested.sa Brown then informed Church of the receipt of the letter, and of the various telephone conversations he had had with respect thereto. Later, Brown sum- moned to his office B. V. Bannister, Jr., the Respondent Company's safety su- pervisor, and the six employees involved . In Bannister's presence, Brown re- marked that they were good employees ; that the Respondent Company held no prejudice against them, and that it was only fair that they know what had happened. He then read to them the letter he had received from Masling. Baker protested that they were all "united" for the IAM, and that the Respondent Union was requiring them to pay "excessive fees." Brown replied that he did not care as The findings with respect to Brown's telephone conversations with LeBus and Carter are based upon the credited and undenied testimony of Brown, whose demeanor on the stand while testifying impressed me with his candor and sincerity. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 769 to argue, but would suggest that they "try and get yourselves straight with the Union." On May 16, Brown telephoned to Masling and asked if any of the six employees involved had paid the required initiation fee and dues. Masling replied that they had not done so. Brown asked if Masling had made himself available so that they could have made payment to him had they desired to do so. Masling replied that he had been available. Brown reported this conversation to Churchl and informed Church that he was going to suspend the six men for nonpayment. of the initiation fee and dues. Brown then summoned McGraw, Marchand, and. Achee to his office and asked each of them whether he had paid his initiation fee- and dues to the Respondent Union. Each replied that he had not. Brown asked! each whether he was a member of either the Respondent Union or Local 1098, td which each answered "no." Next, Brown asked each man how long it had been since he had been a member of either the Respondent Union or Local 1098, and each replied that it had been approximately a year. Remarking that the Re- spondent Company had no alternative but to terminate their employment, and that they were being suspended for 3 days in accordance with the provisions of the contract between the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union. Brown then handed a termination slip to each man. Under the heading "Reason for Termination," each slip contained the following statement : Three-day suspension prior to discharge upon request of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local #720, A. F. L., for refusal to pay required initiation fee and dues to said union, as a condition of employ- ment under union shop contract. Finally, Brown suggested that, during the 3-day suspension, if any of the men cared to discuss the matter with him he would be glad to do so, and he again suggested that they "get yourself straight with the Union." Brown then sum- moned Baker, Dube, and Scott to his office, and suspended them in a similar manner. None of the six employees involved paid any money to the Respondent Union during the 3-day suspension, or since, and none has returned to work for the Respondent Company. Sometime later, McGraw telephoned to Brown and asked what he could do to come back to work. Brown replied that he had been dismissed upon request of the Respondent Union for nonpayment of dues and initiation fees, and added : 34 There was testimony that, during this meeting, McGraw asked Brown if he knew that membership in the Respondent Union was not available to them because of excessive fees, and that Brown replied that he was not interested. Brown denied that McGraw asked such a question, and Bannister testified that he could not recall it. I deem it unnecessary to resolve this conflict. There was also testimony that, during this meeting, Marchand asked Brown if they were going to be fired, and that Brown replied : "Who says anything about being fired?" I deem it unnecessary to make a finding with respect to whether or not this conversation occurred. There was also testimony that Brown told the six employees : "Now, get this straight. He [Masling] is only asking for you to pay the initiation fees and dues and that is the only requirement." I make no finding in this respect. ^ The 1949 agreement provided . ". . . in the case of discharge an employee shall be suspended for a period of not more than three (3) days prior to such discharge. Should it be determined that the employee has been discharged or suspended unjustly, the com- pany shall reinstate the employee and pay full compensation at the employee's regular rate of pay for the time lost." This provision was incorporated by reference in addendum number one, and was in effect during May 1950. F 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "If you want to get straight I suggest you see Walter Masling and discuss this matter with him." Achee also visited Brown and asked if he could return to work. After some discussion, Brown answered : "Well, I'm sorry, there is not a thing in the world we can do about your coming back to work." as 4. Contention of the parties and issues The General Counsel contends that the ex -membership fee is neither an initia- tion fee nor periodic dues, and is a discriminatory imposition ; that this ex- membership fee was not waived by the Respondent Union ; that even if Masling had attempted to waive this fee, he was without authority to do so ; and that the Respondent Company had reasonable grounds for believing that the Re- spondent Union imposed upon the six employees involved herein a discriminatory ex-membership fee as a condition of acquiring or obtaining membership. He does not, however, contend that the Respondent Union's initiation fee was either excessive or discriminatory , or that it was raised from $25 to $75 in order to discriminate against the employees involved . The IAM and Baker , in addition to the contentions advanced by the General Counsel, also contend that the Respondent Union discriminatorily denied membership to the six employees in- volved, by demanding that they pay an initiation fee of $75 when membership was available to others for an initiation fee of only $25. The Respondent Union contends that the imposition of the ex-membership fee was not discriminatory, but the exercise of a reasonable classification ; that it applied generally and not to particular individuals ; that Masling in fact waived the imposition of the ex-membership fee on May 12 when he spoke to the six inside millwrights; and that Masling had authority to do so. The Respondent Company, in addition to the arguments advanced by the Respondent Union, also contends that the Respondent Company reasonably believed that the ex-membership fee had been waived by Masling on May 12 when he spoke to the six employees involved. Is the validity of the union-security clause of addendum number one an issue herein ? None of the briefs discussed this matter. In oral argument before the Trial Examiner , the General Counsel indicated some doubt as to the clause's validity, but refrained from making any contention with respect thereto .17 At the remanded hearing, the General Counsel amended the consolidated complaint to include an allegation that the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union were parties "to an agreement authorized under Subsection ( a) (3) of Section 8 of the Act which . . . required membership in Respondent Carpenters . . . as a condition [of] . . . employment" which I deem to constitute an allegation that the agreement contained a valid union-security clause. Moreover, the Respond- ent Company's answer contains an allegation that the contract "required as a condition of employment . . . membership in Respondent Carpenters on or 36 On May 22 , 1950, the JAM filed a representation petition with the Board , seeking a unit of the Respondent Company's inside millwrights ( Case No 15-RC-377). The Re- gional Director dismissed this petition on September 13, 1950, and upon appeal by the IAM the Board sustained the Regional Director's dismissal on Oct-ber 17, 1950 37 At the close of the remanded hearing, the General Counsel made the following statement : Mr. KEENAN : . . . Incidentally, although the General Counsel has not urged It, I believe it is quite possible the Board will hold that the union security clause In this contract is invalid TRIAL EXAMINER AsHER : I didn't know that was In issue. :Air KEENAN : I have never urged it I will cite the case cf Blue Ribbon Creamery Mr. Barker knows about the case . . . I hereby warn the company to seek good advice and to determine whether the union security clause presently in force [addendum number one ] is valid under the most recent Board decisions. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 771 after the,thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effe ltive date of such agreement whichever was the later"-also an allegation of a valid union-security agreement. Notwithstanding the General Counsel's apparent concession that the union- security clause in addendum number one is valid, the validity of that clause was put in issue by both Respondents, by virtue of the fact that they interposed Was a defense to the alleged discriminatory discharges. It is therefore incum- bent upon me to examine that clause in order to determine whether or not it constitutes a valid defense to the discharges' I turn now to consideration of that problem. 5. The invalidity of addendum number one Under certain conditions, Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act permits an employer and a union to enter into a contract "to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later" (emphasis supplied). The Respondent Company's answer alleges that, on and after April 13, 1950, there was in effect a contract between the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union "which required as a condition of em- ployment . . . membership in Respondent Carpenters on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement whichever was the later" (emphasis supplied). The actual wording of the clause in question is : All employees covered by this Agreement shall become members of the Union on or after the thirtieth (30th) day following the beginning of their employment. All employees who are now or hereafter may become mem- bers of the Union, shall maintain their membership in good standing as a condition of employment. The above provision shall have no effect until such time as a union author- ization election has been conducted by the National Labor Relations Board for purposes of complying with the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Thus, as alleged by the Respondent Company, addendum number one required all employees to join the Respondent Union 30 days after being hired. However, contrary to the allegations of the answer, the contract did not require employees to become members of the Respondent Union 30 days after their hire or 30 days after the effective date of the agreement, whichever was the later. There is nothing in the contract permitting old employees who had been hired more than 30 days before the effective date of the contract a period of 30 days after the effective date of the agreement in which to join the Respondent Union. For ex- ample, although the union-security clause of the contract took effect on April 13, 1950, an employee who was hired on April 10, 1950, would be required under its terms to join the Respondent Union on or before March 10, 1950-a period of less than 30 days after the effective date of the union-security clause. In this respect, therefore, the clause quoted above exceeds the narrow type of union security permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, even though a union- security agreement had been authorized by the certificate of the Regional 88 Green Bay Drop Forge Co., 95 NLRB 399, especially f-otnote 3. See also Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 320, affiliated with International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, et al, 96 NLRB 118, holding that the burden is not on the General Counsel to allege the nonexistence of a valid union-shop contract, but rather rests upon the Respondent to plead the existence of such a contract and that the discharges were made pursuant thereto. 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director."B I am aware that the six employees involved herein were not actually discharged until more than 30 days after the effective date of the provisions quoted above. Nonetheless, that fact cannot validate the otherwise invalid provisions of the contract. The record establishes conclusively that the Respondent Company suspended the six employees here involved as a result of the Respondent Union's request made pursuant to the above-quoted contract provisions, because they failed to join the Respondent Union. As the contract provisions were invalid, they fur- nish no defense. It is therefore found that by suspending Achee, Baker, Dube, Marchand, McGraw, and Scott on May 16, 1950, and thereafter refusing to rein- state them, thus discouraging membership in the IAM and encouraging member- ship in the Respondent Union, the Respondent Company has violated and is violat- ing Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. It is further found that by causing the Respondent Company to discriminate against these employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and persisting in its request that they not be reinstated, thereby restraining and coercing employees of the Respondent Com- pany, the Respondent Union has violated and is violating Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act 40 6. The Respondent Company's reliance upon advice from Board agents The Respondent Company contends that it should not be found guilty of violating the Act because, in suspending the six employees, it relied in good faith upon advice received from Board agents. It is true that the effective adminis- ,tration of the Act requires that the Board's agents have the respect and con- fidence of labor organizations and, employers with whom their work brings them in contact, and to that end the Board has sometimes excused conduct, otherwise violative of the Act, which flowed from good faith reliance upon agreements approved by Board personnel." On the other hand, one who commits an unlaw- ful act because of an honest but mistaken understanding of the law is not absolved from responsibility for his unlawful conduct.42 The instant case falls within the latter principle. The facts show that, prior to the suspensions, Brown spoke to LeBus, the Board's Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, and later to Carter, an attorney on the Board's staff. When Brown asked Carter if the employees could be legally suspended, Carter replied that "everything was legal." It appears, however, that both of, these conversations dealt primarily with the legality of the ex-membership fee, and in neither instance did Brown read the union-security provisions of the contract to the Board agent. Thus, the Board agents voiced their opinions without realizing that they had not been given the complete facts. It follows, therefore, that if Brown was misled in any respect, this was the fault of his own omission rather than any erroneous " Blue Ribbon Creamery, 94 NLRB 201 , Continental Carbon, Inc, 94 NLRB 1026; and Anaconda Wire and Cable Company, 94 NLRB 1557 See also Trial Examiner's Inter- mediate Report in United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America , Local 622 (U,E), 98 NLRB 664 40 In view of my conclusion that the union -security clause in addendum number one is Invalid , I do not feel called upon to decide whether or not the suspension of these six employees would have violated the Act had there been a valid union-security clause in effect Accordingly , I deem it unnecessary t:) pass upon the other contentions of the parties with respect to whether or not the ex-membership fee was a discriminatory imposition, and whether or not it was waived 91 Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company, 11 NLRB 885 ; and Armour Fertilizer Works, Inc., et al., 46 NLRB 629. 1 42 See West Texas Utilities Company, Inc, 85 NLRB 1396, enforced 184 F. 2d 233 (C A D. C ) cert den . 341 U. S. 939, where the Board held that the respondent had violated the Act, despite its good faith reliance upon the General Counsel's mistaken interpretation of the Act. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 773 advice given him' Under these circumstances , I find no merit in the contention of the Respondent Company that Brown's telephone conversations with Board agents constitute a defense herein. B. The alleged violation of Section 8 (b) (5) The consolidated complaint, as amended at the remanded hearing, alleges, and the General Counsel contends, that the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act by requiring that the six employees involved herein , as a condition precedent to becoming members of the Respondent Union, pay an excessive and discriminatory ex-membership fee. There is no contention, however, that the initiation fee required of the employees by the Respondent Union was either excessive or discriminatory. Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a union "to require of employees covered by an agree- ment authorized under subsection ( a) (3) the payment, as a condition precedent to becoming a member of such organization, of a fee in an amount which the Board finds excessive or discriminatory under all the circumstances." Since Con- gress used the words "an agreement authorized under subsection ( a) (3)," it is clear that Section 8 (b) (5) was intended to apply only in those cases where the employees were covered by a valid union-security agreement" In addition, it should also be noted that there is some legislative history tending to indicate that'Section 8 (b) (5) was intended to be limited solely to initiation fees," and it is somewhat questionable whether or not the ex-membership fee here involved can be considered as an initiation fee. I do not, however, deem it necessary to decide this issue. I find that the Respondent Union has not violated Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act, and my finding in this respect is predicated solely upon the fact that there was no valid union-security agreement in existence between the Respondent Union and the Respondent Company.48 "This statement should not be taken as a reflection upon Brown's conduct . It is not intended to imply either that Brown acted other than in complete good faith , or that he purposely withheld any facts in his conversations with the Board agents 44 The wording of the Act seems to be clear However , I note in passing that the legis- lative history of the Act supports the conclusion reached above. House Conference Report No 510, on H. R. 3020, at page 45 contains the following observation : Two additional unfair labor practices are added which were not contained in the Senate amendment but contained in the House bill. The first would make it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents having in effect a per- mitted union shop or maintenance of membership agreement to require the payment of an initiation fee in an amount which the Board finds excessive or discriminatory under all the circumstances . ( Emphasis supplied.) Page 46 of the same document contains the following additional reference to Section 8 (b) (5) : One of the more important provisions of this section-that limiting the initiation fees which a labor organization may impose where a permitted union shop or main- tenance of membership agreement is in effect-is included in the conference agreement (Sec. 8 (b) (5)) and has already been discussed. (Emphasis supplied ) 45 See the analysis of the Act introduced by Senator Taft, 93 Cong Rec. 7001, in which the following statement is made : "It has been argued that the effect of this Section [Section 8 (b) (5) ] is to give the Board vast discretion in regulating the dues and initiation fees of all labor organizations . . . The express language of this subsection shows how unfounded such an argument is, for it . . . is lamited to initiation fees and does not cover dues " (Emphasis supplied ) See also the passages referred to in footnote 44, above, in which reference is made only to initiation fees. 44 In contending that the Respondent Union violated Section 8 ( b) (5) of the Act, the General Counsel relies upon Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co, 93 NLRB 1459. How- ever, there was a valid union -security contract in the Ferro case, which is not true in the instant case. Indeed, the Trial Examiner in the Ferro case stated ( Intermediate Report, page 1475 ) • "If, as claimed by the General Counsel, the clause is illegal and void per se, a serious question would be raised as to whether the alleged violation by the Union of Section 8 (b) (.i) need be considered at all, for that section by its terms is 998666-vol 98-53-40 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Disposition of motions and proposed findings and conci'usions 1. The Respondent Company's motion to dismiss Simultaneously with the filing of its brief before the Trial Examiner, the Respondent Company filed a motion to dismiss the cases. In accordance with the conclusions reached above, this motion is granted only with respect to the allegation that the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act, and is denied in all other respects. 2. The IAM's and Baker's proposed findings and conclusions In their joint brief, the IAM and Baker request various findings and conclu- sions, which will be treated seriatim. (a) For reasons stated above, the request that a finding be made that the Respondents violated the Act as set forth in the consolidated complaint, as amended, is denied only insofar as it refers to any violation of Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act by the Respondent Union, and is granted in all other respects. (b) The request that the six employees here involved be reinstated to their former jobs with the Respondent Company is granted. (c) The request that these six employees be reimbursed for time lost by reason of their discriminatory terminations, plus all expenses incurred in seeking, obtaining, and moving to the location of other employment,-and of moving back to their reemployment with the Respondent Company, is granted only insofar as set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" hereafter, and is specifically denied insofar as it requests reimbursement for expenses incurred in seeking, obtaining, and moving to the location of other employment, and of moving back to their reemployment with the Respondent Company. (d) The request that the union-authority certification of the Respondent Union (Case No. 15-UA-518) be declared null and void and the union-shop agreement be declared illegal, is granted only insofar as it requests a finding that the union-shop agreement presently in effect does not comply with the provi- sions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and is denied in all other respects, for reasons stated in my order dated July 12, 1951, and in the order of the Board dated July 17, 1951. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent Company, described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that the Respondent Company offer Achee, Baker, Dube, Marchand, McGraw, and Scott immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions," without prejudice to their applicable only where employees are 'covered by an agreement authorized under subsection (a) (3).' " I therefore conclude that the Ferro case does not support the position of the General Counsel herein. 44 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch. R5 NLRB 827. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 775 seniority or other rights and privileges . I shall also recommend that the Re- spondent Union notify the Respondent Company in writing that it has with- drawn objection to the reinstatement of the above-named employees without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and furnish copies thereof to each of the six employees. As it has been found that both the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union are responsible for the discrimination suffered by these six employees, I shall recommend that they jointly and severally make these employees whole for any loss each may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him," by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount that he normally would have earned as wages from May 16, 1950, the date of his sus- pension, to November 2, 1950, the date of my oral dismissal of the complaint, and from March 28, 1951, the date of the Board' s Decision and Order Remand- ing Case, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such periods48 However, the Respondent Union may terminate its liability for further accrual of back pay by giving the Respondent Company the notice of withdrawal of objection to the reinstatement-of these six employees, as pro vided above. The Respondent Union shall not be liable for any back pay ac- cruing 5 days after such notice.' The loss of pay provided for herein shall be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof.6° The quarterly periods, herein called "quarters," shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by de- ducting from a sum equal to that which each of the six suspended employees would normally have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, his net earn- ings,` if any, in other employment during that period. Earnings in one par- ticular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter. It will also be recommended that the Respondent Company make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amounts of back pay due S8 The record indicates that both Respondents took the illegal action because they, in good faith, believed they were parties to a valid union-security agreement. Brown and Church particularly made honest and sincere efforts to comply with the Act as they interpreted it, after Brown had twice sought the advice of Board agents. I am therefore convinced that there is no danger that the Respondents will, in the future, commit other and unrelated unfair labor practices." Accord- ingly, the issuance of a broad cease and desist order against either of the Re- spondents is unwarranted, and it will be recommended only that the Respondents cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and any like or related conduct" 11 Union Starch and Refining Co. v. N. L. R. B., 186 F. 2d 1008 (C. A. 7). 49 Green Bay Drop Forge Co., supra. 60 Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc., 90 NLRB 205. 6' F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. 61 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440 ; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B. 311 U S 7. 68 F. IV. Woolworth Company, supra. u I am aware that previous charges were filed against the Respondent Company by the IAM (Case No. 15-CA-214). However, as described above, the Respondent Company entered into a settlement agreement with respect thereto ( in which it specifically denied the commission of unfair labor practices) and the Regional Director then refused to issue a complaint. Thereafter , the Respondents abandoned the illegal union-security provisions of the 1949 contract and substituted therefor the provisions of addendum number one dealt with herein. 51 Carlyle .Rubber Co., Inc., 92 NLRB 385. 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As it has been found that the Respondent Union has not violated Section 8: (b) (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that the consolidated complaint be^ dismissed in this regard. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record im the cases, I make the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 720, AFL, and Lodge No. 1366, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles A. Achee, Charles J. Baker, B. J. Dube, D. L. Marchand, R. T. McGraw, and E. L. Scott, thereby discouraging membership in Lodge No. 1366, International Asso- ciation of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and encouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 720, AFL, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. - 3. By the said conduct, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Re- spondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. . 4. By causing Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation to discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of-employment of the said employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 5. By the said conduct, thereby restraining and coercing the employees of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 7. The Respondent Union has not violated Section 8 (b) (5) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discourage membership in LODGE No. 1366, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, or any other labor organization of our employees, or encourage membership in UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 720, AFL, or any other labor organization of our employees, by suspending or discharging any of our employees or by discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a)_ (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. KAISER ALUMINUM & 'CHEMICAL CORPORATION 777 WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer each of the employees listed below immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him : Charles A. Achee D. L. Marchand Charles J. Baker R. T. McGraw B. J. Duhe E. L. Scott All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named unions or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Employer. By -------------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) Dated -------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Appendix B NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 720, AFL, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL COR- PORATION Pursuant to,the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to suspend, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against its employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage membership in our labor organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, its successors or assigns, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL make each of the employees listed below whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered because of the discrimination against him : Charles A. Achee D. L. Marchand Charles J. Baker R. T. McGraw B. J. Duhe E. L. Scott 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL notify KAISER ALUMINUM & CIIEMICAL CORPORATION in writing, that we have no objection to the reinstatement of the above -named employees, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and will furnish copies thereof to each of the said employees. UNITED CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 720, AFL, Labor Organization. By --------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated-------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. GOLDEN STATE AGENCY, INC., STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and INSURANCE AND ALLIED WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 20-RC-1622. March 20, 1950 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Nathan R. Berke, hearing. officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Companies are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Companies. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Companies within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, far the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of all life, fire, casualty, and automobile insurance agents appointed by and acting for the Companies in the State of California. The Companies contend that the agents sought are independent contractors rather than employees. 'As the record and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the Employer' s request for oral argument is hereby denied. 98 NLRB No. 119.