International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers

LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 823 Upon application of the, foregoing standards to the instant case, we do not find in this record sufficient evidence of the duties and skills of the electricians at this plant to warrant a conclusion that the requirements for craft status have been met.3 Because the Petitioner , IBEW, has failed to sustain the burden of proof with respect to the requirements for craft status, we shall dismiss the petition of the IBEW in Case No. 32-RC-712. In view of our determination that a craft unit of electricians is not warranted under the circumstances set forth above, we shall find a plantwide unit appropriate . Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All maintenance and production employees employed at the Employer's plant near Gum Springs , Arkansas , including all maintenance and repair electricians , apprentices and helpers, scale clerks and storeroom clerks,4 but excluding chemists, senior and junior analysts ,5 professional employees , office clerical employees , guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No . 32-RC-712.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3See Chicago Pheumatic Tube Co. et als., 108 NLRB 174. 4 The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner and Intervenor include the scale clerks and the storeroom clerks. As it is clear from the evidence that these clerks work in the pro- duction areas and are not office clericals, they are included as plant clericals. 5 The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner and Intervenor include the senior and junior analysts who, when hired , will be working in the laboratory and will be engaged in testing various kinds of materials . As it appears from the evidence that these employees are technical employees and objection is raised as to their inclusion in the production and maintenance unit, we exclude them in accordance with Board policy. LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, A.F.L., AND ITS BUSINESS AGENT, W. B. SANDERS and BECHTEL CORPORATION. Case No. 14 -CD-39. May 11, 1954 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which provides that "whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) of the Act , the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen . . . ." 108 NLRB No. 113. 8 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 6, 1953, Bechtel Corporation, herein called Bechtel, filed a charge with the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region against Local 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, herein called Local 595, and its business agent, W. B. Sanders, herein called Sanders. The charge alleged that Local 595 and Sanders had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections 102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the charge, and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all parties. A hearing was held before William E. Hartnett, hearing officer, on November 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1953. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.I The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free frorxi prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Local 595 and Sanders and Bechtel filed briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I, THE BUSINESS OF BECHTEL Bechtel is a Delaware corporation which is engaged in engineering and construction projects all over the United States and its territories. Bechtel's home office is in San Francisco, California, and it has branch offices in Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D, C. Bechtel' s engineering and construction work includes powerhouses, dams, oil refineries, chemical plants, buildings, and pipelines. The Joppa Steam Electric Generating Plant at Joppa, Illinois, which is involved herein, is being constructed by Bechtel for Electric Energy, Inc., to supply electric power to the Atomic Energy Commission's plant at Paducah, Kentucky. Joppa is located on the Illinois bank of the Ohio River and part of the work included in Bechtel's contract with Electric Energy requires the construction of a power transmission line across the Ohio River from Illinois to Kentucky. Bechtel's annual gross receipts in the years 1951, 1952, and 1953 were approximately $ 140,000,000. In those years the annual dollar volume of its purchases of materials, supplies, and equipment amounted to approximately $38,000,000 and these articles came from all over the United States. Local 595 and Sanders do not dispute, and we find, that Bechtel is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 1 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, herein called the International, was permitted to intervene at the hearing. LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 825 and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED We find that Local 595, the International , and Local 758 (for the reasons given infra ) are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The facts As previously indicated , the Joppa Steam Electric Generating Plant at Joppa, Illinois , is being constructed for Electric Energy, Inc ., to supply electric power to the Atomic Energy Commission' s plant at Paducah, Kentucky. Ebasco Services, Inc., began construction of this project in 1951 . Its activities continued until on or about July 31, 1953 , when Electric Energy, Inc., terminated the construction contract of Ebasco. All employees of Ebasco were then laid off, including approximately 100 ironworkers who were members of Local 595 . Thereafter, Electric Energy, Inc ., executed a contract with Bechtel for completion of the construction of the Joppa plant and Bechtel began its operations on September 1, 1953. It has been Bechtel's policy to hire men through the local building trade unions when it enters a new area . In accord with this policy , as one of the sources of employment for the Joppa job, Bechtel dealt with the local unions designated by their internationals as having jurisdiction over the particular terri- tory, which for the ironworkers was Local 595. An official of Bechtel stated at the hearing that it recognized Local 595 as bargaining agent for ironworkers to this extent , although Local 595 has not been certified by the Board and does not have a contract with Bechtel . In the period from September 1 to 11, 1953, Bechtel employed approximately 33 ironworkers, all of whom had been cleared and referred by Local 595. On September 11, 1953, Bechtel sent a telegram to Sanders requesting that six additional ironworkers whom it designated by name be referred for work on the Joppa job. These men came from other areas and States and were not members of Local 595 , but were members of the International . Moreover, they had been referred in the past by Local 595 to other jobs within its jurisdictional area . At the hearing Bechtel gave as reason for requesting specific ironworkers the fact that its supervisors knew these men to be competent and qualified as some of them had worked for Bechtel previously. The 6 men named in the wire had been advised by Bechtel that they would be hired and 4 of them went to Sanders' home on the evening of September 11, 1953, to obtain referrals to the Joppa job . These men were not sent outby Sanders , but instead 8 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on September 14, 1953, he referred 4 ironworkers who were members of Local 595 and former employees of Ebasco. Bechtel's labor relations manager, Williams, refused to hire them because they were not the men named in the telegram of September 11. The men then went to see Harry L, Joyner, steward for Local 595 on the Joppa job, and told him that they had work orders, but Bechtel would not hire them. It appears that about this time all the ironworkers on the job began to congregate in the yard and subsequently all the ironworkers, except one, walked off the job. Bechtel's witnesses testified that thereafter construction operations were completely shut down atthe Joppa plant because of a picket line established the next morning at the intersection of the plant access road and the county road leading to the main gate . The shutdown lasted from September 15 to October 13, 1953, at which time a temporary restraining order was entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois. On September 15, 1953, Sanders met with officials of Bechtel and representatives of the International. At this meeting, among other things, Sanders was directed by the general secre- tary of the International to furnish the six men named by Bechtel and replace all the ironworkers who had walked off the job. On September 16, 1953, Bechtel sent Sanders a telegram requesting 39 men without specifying any names. Sanders referred 39 men to Bechtel on September 17, 1953. The group consisted of the 33 who had left the job on September 14, the 4 Bechtel had refused to hire on that date, and 2 additional iron- workers. Bechtel refused to employ the 33 men, but hired the 6. The latter were given a half-day's pay and told they would be advised when the plant was reopened and they should report to work. Also on September 17, the general president and secretary of the International sent a telegram to Sanders and other officers of Local 595 notifying them that, unless they complied imme- diately with the instructions given to Sanders atthe meeting on September 15, the International would take appropriate action. On September 21, 1953, the general executive board of the International established new Local 758 with jurisdiction over the Joppa project. Sanders, the president of Local 595, and Bechtel were advised of this action by a telegram from the general president of the International. Despite this telegram, according to Sanders, Local 595 still claims jurisdiction over ironworkers on the Bechtel job at Joppa and had done so at all times in the year 1953 up to the date of the hearing. B. Contentions of the parties Bechtel contends that Local 595 and Sanders were responsible for the work stoppage of September 14, 1953, and the subsequent picketing of its project, and that they violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) by inducing and encouraging Bechtel's employees to engage LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 827 in such activities with the object of forcing Bechtel ( 1) to assign the work of the ironworkers' trade to employees in a particular class consisting of the former ironworker employees of Ebasco, rather than to employees in another class, consisting of all other ironworkers , and (2 ) to assign the work of the iron- workers ' trade to employees in a particular labor organization, to wit, Local 595, rather than to employees in another labor organization, to wit, Local 758, of the International. Local 595 and Sanders contend thattheywerenot responsible for the work stoppage and picketing and that there was no "jurisdictional dispute" within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D), C. Applicability of the Statute Before we may proceed with a determination of a dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, we must be satisfied that reasonable cause exists to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.t For the foregoing section to be applicable , two elements are essential: (1) the responsibility of Local 595 and Sanders for the work stoppage and subsequent picketing of the Joppaproject and (2) the existence of the proscribed object behind such stoppage and picketing . These elements will be discussed seriatim. Responsibility (a) The work stoppage When 4 of the 6 men named by Bechtel in its telegram of September 11 appeared at Sanders' home and asked for referrals to the Joppa job, according to the testimony of 1 of them, "Sanders said that there were 120 men employed by Ebasco when it shut down and until those 120 men went back on the job 2Local 58, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL, et al. (Taylor Electric, Inc.), 107 NLRB 1002; Local 562, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL, et al. (Charles E. Myles), 107 NLRB 542, and cases cited therein. The relevant portions of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) are as follows: 8 (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-- (4) to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is: ... (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining repre- sentative for employees performing such work:.. . 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the way they came off no one would go on the job, no other men." Sanders' version of the conversation was that he told them that he preferred to send the men who had been laid off by Ebasco before referring any other men. On September 14, 1953, after the four men referred by Sanders to Bechtel had advised steward Joyner that Bechtel would not hire them and the other ironworkers began to gather in the yard, the versions of Joyner and Harry E. Brown, an ironworker foreman and member of Local 595, differ substan- tially as to the events which then occurred and which led up to the walkout. According to Brown, when he joined the group he overheard Joyner say to Bechtel's superintendent and general foreman of ironworkers, "you will hire those men that were sent out here this morning or we will all leave the job," and ask whether they had any personal objection to the men. They replied that they had no personal objection and if the Company desired to employ the men, they would "work them." Brown testified further that Joyner said, "Well, then will you go down to the office and tell them so"; that they said they would; that the supervisors, Joyner, and the 4 men referred by Local 595 then went to the company office; that Joyner and the 4 men returned in about 10 minutes and he heard Joyner say to the assembled iron- workers, "We'll all quit and turn in our badges"; that Joyner asked him if he wanted to quit and he indicated that he did not; that Joyner accused Bechtel of running men in from everywhere and when he suggested that Joyner was wrong and should look at the International ' s working rules with respectto employment of members of out-of-area locals, Joyner replied: "To hell with the International. Bill Sanders makes the rules on this job"; that Joyner swore at him and threatened him with bodily harm; that all the ironworkers on the job then proceeded to the company office; that Joyner went in and on returning stated that the people in the office had been told to write out everyone's check in full and pay everyone off and Joyner again said, "we'll all quit"; and that all the ironworkers then left the job, except Brown. According to Joyner, he went with the 4 men to the Company's labor relations office and asked Williams why the Company would not hire the men and Williams replied that the company did not want these men. Joyner further testified that he said to Williams, "You hire these men Bill Sanders sent and if they don't do the work they're supposed to do, all you have to do is fire them"; that he told Williams as steward it was his job to see that Bechtel took any men sent out by Local 595; that Williams telephoned the superintendent and asked if the super- intendent would take these men instead of the 6 named men; that Williams told him that the superintendent would not change his work order and wanted the 6 men that had been named; that he went out and talked with the ironworkers who were out- side the gate in the yard; that the men did not like the attitude LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , ETC. 829 the Company was taking , but he did not make any statements to them about striking or going home ; that the men said they were going home and he said he was going with them; that everybody asked for their money and left the job ; and that they did not leave Bechtel as a result of any instructions from Local 595 or Sanders, but because they felt the Company was treating them unfairly . Joyner admitted that he asked Brown if he wanted to quit with the rest of the men and that he called Brown a "scabby no-good son-of-a-bitch " when Brown refused to quit . Three of the thirty - three ironworkers who left the job testified that they all quit voluntarily without orders from Local 595 or Sanders. Bechtel contends that the foregoing evidence shows that when it refused to hire the 4 men referred by Local 595 on September 14, 1953, the steward of Local 595 instructed all the iron- workers to quit and draw their pay , which instruction was followed by all iron workers, except 1. In Bechtel ' s view the work stoppage was clearly the action of Local 595 and Sanders. On the other hand , Local 595 and Sanders contend that the evidence shows that no demand was made on Bechtel that it hire the 4 men and that they did not authorize or cause the work stoppage . In their view what occurred was the result of the individual action and decision of the ironworkers who were incensed at Bechtel ' s refusal to employ the Local 595 men sent to the job who were residents of the area and Bechtel's insistence on hiring the men it had named who had come from outside the Joppa area. In our opinion , an examination of the evidence presented with respect to this issue makes the merit of Bechtel ' s contentions patently clear . For, regardless of whether Sanders told the men specifically requested by Bechtel that he preferred to send the ironworkers laid off by Ebasco or expressed himself in more emphatic terms, it is apparent that his failure to send the men designated and his referral of four others was tantamount to a demand that Bechtel hire the latter . Moreover , consideration of the testimony of Brown and Joyner satisfies us that the purpose of the work stoppage was to enforce this demand and that Local 595 and Sanders were responsible for the work stoppage. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that during the period involved Joyner was acting as, and considered himself, the agent of Local 595 and Sanders.9 Indeed , according to his own testimony , Joyner told Williams it was his function to see to it that Bechtel hired any men sent out by Local 595 . Furthermore , although the testimony of Brown and Joyner is contradictory in many respects with regard to what occurred on September 14, 1953, there are points of agreement and these points, which amount to admissions by Joyner, afford abundant support for our conclusion that he caused the work stoppage . Joyner conceded that it was he who 3 Local #1150, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, et al. (Cory Corporation), 84 NLRB 972; International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union, et al (Purnell and Crum, et al.), 98 NLRB 284. 830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spoke to officials of Bechtel regarding the failure to hire the four men sent out by Local 595 and Sanders, that it was he who advised the ironworkers congregated in the yard regarding the results of this discussion, and that it was he who asked Brown if he wanted to quit with the rest of the men and swore at Brown when Brown refused. Yet, despite the fact that Joyner was admittedly the sole union representative on the job at the time and obviously the most active union participant in the events of September 14, his testimony is that, with respect to the ultimate decision to quit, he did not suggest that the men strike or go home, but that they determined to do so on an individual basis and he merely indicated a similar disposition. We are unable to square the doffing by Joyner of the role of leader, which he had maintained throughout the morning of September 14 until this rather psychological moment, and his sudden assumption of the part of follower with his subsequent questioning of Brown as to whether Brown was going to quit also and his severe castigation of Brown for his refusal to go along with the other ironworkers. This is not the sort of conduct which is reasonably to be expected from one who main- tains that he passively concurred in the decision of others. In view of the foregoing, even if our determin£tion as to whether the men left the job on September 14 voluntarily or upon Joyner's instructions was limited to the portions of the testi- mony of Brown and Joyner wherein they agree, the evidence is extremely persuasive that the men quit in response to Joyner's order that they do so . However, when the testimony of each of these witnesses is considered in its entirety this conclusion becomes inescapable because we believe that, to the extent that their versions differ as to what occurred, Brown 's testimony must be credited. We find, therefore, that Local 595 and Sanders were responsible for the work stoppage of September 14 which was caused by Joyner as their agent. (b) The picket line Bechtel contends that the following evidence shows that the picket line was established and maintained by Local 595 and Sanders: (1) The testimony of its witnesses that the entrance to the plant was blocked and groups of men consisting princi- pally of ironworkers in numbers as high as 300 were present at the intersection during the period from September 15 to October 13, 1953; (2) a tent ownedby Local 595 was in the area of the road intersection during this period and it could have been there only for the convenience of members of Local 595 on the picket line; (3) 12 canceled checks of Local 595 payable to various restaurants in Joppa and vicinity and 1 payable to a member of Local 595 on another job were produced. All these checks were drawn during the period from September 28 to October 20, 1953. All, except 3 dated October 13, 1953, when the temporary restraining order was issued, bore notations LOCAL 595 , INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 831 indicating that they covered disbursements for food or expenses in connection with a picket line or strike , despite denials by officials of Local 595 that Local 595 had any strike or picket line within its territorial jurisdiction during this period; (4) on September 22 and 23, 1953, on 9 different occasions "spot" announcements were broadcast from a local radio station stating: "To all iron workers employed or unemployed in the jurisdiction of Iron Workers Local 595 -- Be at Joppa Plant at 6:30 a. m. Wednesday , September 23, as usual , repeat - signed W. B. Sanders , Iron Workers Local 595." These announcements were given to the station by Sanders andpaid for by Local 595. According to Bechtel , as Sanders had been advised of the establishment of Local 758 on September 21, 1953, the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that Sanders believed that the membership of Local 595 might recognize the authority of the International and those members who had been reporting to the Joppa picket line "as usual " might discontinue doing so and the broadcasts were intended as an order to them to dis- regard the action and instructions of the International and to continue the picket line "as usual "; ( 5) the office secretary of Local 595 resigned on October 14, 1953, and the next day appeared as a picket at the intersection carrying a sign reading that Bechtel' s office employees were not members of an office employee's union -- the inference which Bechtel suggests should be drawn is that the former office secretary was acting under instructions of Local 595 , but in a manner which would enable Local 595 to disavow responsibility for her conduct ; (6) Sanders' admission at the hearing that at the meeting of September 15, 1953, with officials of Bechtel and representatives of the Inter- national he did not deny the statement of a Bechtel official that on September # 15 Local 595 had established a picket line at Bechtel's project, and that he was ordered by the International to remove the picket line; and (7 ) the testimony of the Inter- national ' s vicepresident that Sanders was brought up on charges before the International on October 24, 1953, that a portion of the first specification of the charges read that Sanders refused to carry out an order that all pickets and barricades set up by members of Local 595 be removed from the Joppa project, and that Sanders plead guilty to this specification. Local 595 and Sanders contend that the following evidence shows that the picket line was not established and maintained by them : ( 1) The testimony of its witnesses that the groups present near the intersection were very small in size, that the men engaged in various sports and games, and that no one was prevented from entering or leaving the project ; (2) testimony of 10 members of other building trade locals that they and their fellow craftsmen , as well as farmers and local merchants, were in the area during the period from September 15 to October 13, 1953, on various occasions on their own time and initiative to protest Bechtel's efforts to import outside labor ; (3) the absence of and proof that any individual present in the area during the 83 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD period from September 15 to October 13, 1953, carried a banner or picket sign ; (4) Sanders' testimony that the notations on the canceled checks were not made by him or any official of Local 595, but must have been made without instructions by steno- graphic help in the office because he signed blank checks after approving the bills and the checks were completed by the office secretary; (5) testimony of the mayor of Joppa, who was also the proprietor of one of the restaurants which received some of the checks in payment for serving food, that he was told by Sanders to feed anyone who was hungry and unemployed re- gardless of whether the person was an ironworker, and he did so; (6) testimony of Sanders that he ordered the "spot" announcements on September 22 and 23, 1953, because he had received the telegram from the International on September 21 announcing the establishment of Local 758, that he wanted to advise members of Local 595 personally about the telegram, and that he went to the road intersection on September 23 for that purpose; (7) Sanders' denial thathe or Local 595 had any control over, or 'gave any instructions to, the office secretary when she resigned her job withthe Local; and (8) Sanders' testimony that, with respect to the charges placed against him by the Inter- national, he was not given the opportunity to plead separately to parts of the specifications and was therefore unable to deny responsibility on his part and the part of Local 595 for any picketing at the Joppa plant. In our opinion, the mere recital of the conflicting evidence with regard to this issue establishes the responsibility of Local 595 and Sanders for the picketing. Such a finding would be warranted if based solely upon the inherent improbability that the notations on the canceled checks were made without the knowledge and consent of Sanders or any other local official and that the funds of Local 595 were disbursed to Joppa restaurants not for the purpose of maintaining the *picket line, but as general charity. No plausible explanation was given by Sanders as to why the notations were made if, as he contended, Local 595 did not have a strike or picket line within its territorial jurisdiction at the time, and his suggestion that they were made by some unknown person in his office without authorization is, to say the least, very unpersuasive. More- over, we cannot overlook the remarkable "coincidence" that, at the very time Local 595 and Sanders assert that they were engaged in this charitable endeavor, the Joppa job was shut down completely and this resulted in the unemployment of a con- siderable number of ironworkers many of whom appeared during this period near the entrance to the project with unusual regularity consistency. Nor can we accept the view of Local 595 and Sanders that these ironworkers were present solely out of curiosity and for the purpose of engaging in various sports and games. However, if this were not enough, our credulity is strained when we consider the foregoing in light of such of er evidence LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 833 as Sanders ' admission that at the September 15 meeting between Bechtel and union officials he failed to controvert or deny the accusation of Bechtel ' s representative that Local 595 had estab- lished a picket line at Bechtel ' s project and the unlikelihood that Sanders would order "spot" announcements only to advise members of Local 595 personally about the International's telegram of September 21 when to do so would require the ap- proximately 1,100 members of the Local, many of whom were employed at other jobs , to leave their work . We find, therefore, upon the entire record , and particularly for the reasons here- tofore given , that Local 595 and Sanders were responsible for the picketing at the Joppa Job. The Proscribed Object As previously indicated , Bechtel contends that ( 1) with respect to the period beginning with the work stoppage until Sep- tember 21, 1953 , when Local 758 was established , Local 595 and Sanders sought to force Bechtel to assign work of the iron- workers ' trade to ironworkers formerly employed by Ebasco rather than to all other ironworkers , thatis, to one "class" as against another " class " in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D); and (2) after the creation of Local 758 , Local 595 and Sanders sought to compel Bechtel to assign the work of the ironworkers' trade to employees in a particular labor organization--Local 595-- rather than to employees in another labor organization - - Local 758. Local 595 and Sanders contend that there was no "juris- dictional " dispute within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D). We find merit in both of Bechtel ' s contentions . However, with respect to (1), above , we believe that it is more accurate to qualify the view expressed by Bechtel and to say that the object of Local 595 and Sanders was to force Bechtel to assign the work to members of Local 595 rather than to nonmembers--to one "class " as against another . We have held that such an object would be proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D ). 4 Regarding (2), above, the general vice president of the International testified at the hearing that on September 21, 1953, a charter was duly issued to Local 758 andthatthe functions of Local 758 are to represent its members , to bargain collectively for them with respect to wages, hours , and working conditions, and to process grievances and complaints , which functions Local 758 4 Local Union No. 5-265, International Woodworkers of America , CIO (Willamette National Lumber Company, et al.), 107 NLRB 1141 ; Teamsters Local 175, international Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL (Biagi Fruit & Produce Company), 107 NLRB 223; International Longshoremen's Association, District Council of Ports of Puerto Rico, AFL, et al. (Central Roig Refining Company , Inc.) 101 NLRB 77; Truck Drivers and Chauffeurs Union, Oil Drivers and Filling Station Employees , Local Union No. 705, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Haulers of North America, AFL (Direct Transit Lines , Inc.), 92 NLRB 1715; William Fargo, business agent, Local 30, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, et al. (New London Mills, Incorporated). 91 NLRB 1003. 339676 0 - 55 - 54 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is carrying on in southern Illinois . The only question is whether under Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) local unions of the same international are separate labor organizations . Based upon the definition of a labor organization in Section 2 (5) of the Act - - that it "means any organization of any kind or agency or employee representa- tion committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part , of dealing with employers concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or conditions of work"--the answer to this question must be definitely in the affirmative, and we so find. Having rejected the contention made by Local 595 and Sanders, we conclude that the record before us establishes that there is reasonable cause to believe that Local 595 and Sanders in- duced and encouraged the employees of Bechtel to engage in a concerted refusal to perform services in order to force or require Bechtel to assign work of the ironworkers ' trade to (a) members of Local 595 rather than to nonmembers and (b) members of Local 595 rather than to members of Local 758. Such factual circumstances are sufficient to invoke the Board's jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute within the meaning of Sections 10 (k) and 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. We find that this is a dispute within the meaning of Sections 10 (k) and 8 (b) (4) (d) of the Act and that it is properly before us for determination. D. Merits of the dispute It is clear from the record that Local 595 and Sanders have no immediate or derivative rights under any existing contract upon which they could predicate any lawful claim to the work in dispute . Nor does it appear that Bechtel is failing to conform to any order or certification of the Board determining the bar- gaining representative for the employees performing the work in dispute . Furthermore , there is no question that Bechtel desired to assign the work at first to a group of specifically named ironworkers who were not members of Local 595 and later to members of one labor organization rather than to members of another labor organization. The Board has held that Sections 8 (b) (4) (D ) and 10 (k) "do not deprive an employer of the right to assign work to his own employees , nor were they intended to interfere with an em- ployer's freedom to hire , subject only to requirement against discrimination as contained in Section 8 (a) (3)." a We find, accordingly , that Local 595 and Sanders were not lawfully entitled to induce and encourage employees of Bechtel as proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) for the object of forcing or requiring Bechtel to assign the disputed work to members of 5Umted Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , et al. (Stroh Brewery Co.) 88 NLRB 844; International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 16, C. I. 0 (Juneau Spruce Corporation); 82 NLRB 650. LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 835 Local 595 rather than to a group of specifically designated ironworkers or to members of Local 758. However, we are not, by this action, to be regarded as "assigning " the work in question to Local 758.6 Our dissenting colleague asserts that the facts of the instant case involve an illegal hiring arrangement and that we are approving it. We fail to see how it can be said that we are sanctioning such an arrangement when the matter is not before us, neither having been presented in the form of a charge nor framed by the pleadings. We wish to make it clear that we are not to be taken here as, in any manner, passing upon the precise relationship between Bechtel and the Inter- national or its locals. DETERNUNATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act: 1. Local 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, and its business agent, W. B. Sanders, are not and have not been lawfully entitled to force or require Bechtel Corporation to assign the work of the ironworkers' trade in connection with the Joppa Steam Electric Generating Plant project to members of Local 595 rather than to nonmembers of Local 595 or to members of Local 758, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL. 2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, the Respondents (Local 595 and Sanders) shall notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing as to what steps the Respondents have taken to comply with the terms of this Decision and Determination of Dispute. Member Murdock, dissenting: I am compelled to disagree with my colleagues in their dis- position of this proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act. In a series of cases I have previously set forth my position as to the criteria which, in my opinion, should be met before the Board attempts to arbitrate a dispute under Section 10 (k). These standards are summarized in the Biagi Fruit & Produce case , 107 NLRB 223. Accordingly, Iwouldnot find that the facts of this case constitute a "jurisdictional dispute." Even assuming, as found by the majority, that the evidence conclusively proves the necessary responsibility, proscribed objective, and the existence of a "jurisdictional dispute," I find that the facts of this case present additional obstacles to the issuance by the Board of a "determination." 6 See footnote 2, supra 836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The facts of this case, as found by my colleagues, indicate that the Employer had an illegal hiring arrangement with Local 595, under which the Employer hired only those ironworkers who were cleared by Local 595. Thus, initially the dispute began when Local 595 refused to clear the six ironworkers, whom the employer wished to hire, and attempted to force it to hire other men who were cleared by Local 595. The Employer then, being dissatisfied with the results of its illegal arrange- ment with Local 595, instigated, and accomplished, the estab- lishment of another local, Local 758, for the purpose of entering into the same type of illegal hiring arrangement which the Employer had with Local 595. Under these circumstances it appears to me thatthe "deter- mination" of the majority of my colleagues must be viewed in the light of an approval of this illegal arrangement by the Employer with the International Union which resulted in the establishment of a new local, Local 758, under which the same illegal operation which the Employer had participated in with Local 595 would be continued. In the light of this, it seems to me that, by making the "determination" which my colleagues have made, they are putting the stamp of approval upon such an illegal arrangement and that the "determination" may well be viewed as a license to continue such unlawful activity, despite the statement that they "are not, by this action, to be regarded as 'assigning ' the work in question to Local 758." The Employer has gone from one illegal hiring arrangement with Local 595 to another unlawful arrangement with Local 758, it now comes to the Board seeking an award relieving it from the first arrangement , so that it may be free to continue and to effectuate the second agreement . I donotbelieve that the Board should permit its processes to be utilized for such purposes. This constitutes, in my opinion, "a palpable abuse of the Board's machinery." (See Hollywood Ranch Market, etal., 93 NLRB 1147 at 1154.) As the Board stated in Hollywood Ranch Market, it "may, of course, refuse to allow such advantage to be taken of it," for, as the Supreme Court stated in N. L. R. B. v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, et al., 318 U. S. 9 at 18, the Board "may decline to be imposed upon or to submit its process to abuse." It is true, as stated by the majority, that in this proceeding Bechtel and the International or its locals are not charged with being parties to an illegal hiring arrangement; Bechtel is the charging party, and it is, as explanied above, seeking Board assistance to relieve it from the consequences of an illegal hiring arrangement with one local, so that it may embark on another unlawful agreement with another local which was set up by the International for that purpose. Neither were the charging parties (individuals) in Holloywood Ranch Market charged with violations. It is equally clear that Bechtel's illegal arrange- ments with, first, Local 595, and, second, with Local 758 were fully litigated and the facts clearly ascertained- -that is un- mistakably evidenced by the majority's own findings of fact. NASHUA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF TEXAS 837 For the reasons appearing above, I would quash the notice of hearing in this case. Member Beeson took no partintheconsiderationof the above Decision and Determination of Dispute. NASHUA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF TEXAS and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-635. May 11, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER On January 12, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find- ing that the Respondent, Nashua Manufacturing Corporation of Texas, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desisttherefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engagedin certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.t ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby nrders that the Re- spondent, Nashua Manufacturing Corporation of Texas, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating applicants for employment concerning their union affiliation, and employees concerning their union or other concerted activities; creating or fostering the impression among its employees that it is engaged in surveillance of union activities and other employee concerted activities; 'In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that the union organizational campaign was in operation during February, March, and April, 1953, and that the Respondent had knowledge of that activity, the Board does not adopt and does not rely, however, upon any inference based upon the size of the Employer's plant and the small number of employees. 108 NLRB No. 117.