Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.

12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD than Wynters. As to the matter of ability , the Trial Examiner is not of the opinion that General Counsel established that Rugoff 's decision to keep Wynters and let Lindsay go was so arbitrary and capricious as to warrant the inference that the real reason must have been his preference to keep a union member in employment. In summary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the preponderance of credible evidence does not sustain the allegations of the complaint as to the dis- charge of John W. Lindsay.' Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Harlem Labor Union , Inc., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Crawford Clothes, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Crawford Clothes, Inc., has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act. 4. Harlem Labor Union, Inc., has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2 ) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] i The Trial Examiner does not ignore certain statements in Ferman 's affidavit relative to his admission that he asked the Company to give Wynters "full time" work. But from this mere fact it does not without doubt follow that the Company yielded to the request by discharging Lindsay The affidavit fails to fix the time of such request with accuracy, and apparently places the first request as many months before Lindsay was laid off. From Wynters' testimony it appears that he had been working full time for a month or more before the discharge . In any event, even if it might be reasonably inferred that Wynters benefited because of Ferman's intercession for him, the Trial Examiner does not believe that this fact would support the claim that Lindsay was deprived of alt employment because he was not a union member and Wynters was. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., Walsh Construction Com- pany, and Perini-Quebec, Inc., d/b/a Robinson Bay Lock Constructors, A Joint Venture and Morrison-Knudsen Com- pany, Inc., B. Perini & Sons, Inc., Walsh Construction Com- pany and Utah Construction Company, A Joint Venture and Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. and Selby Drilling Corp. and Herald H. Blum. Cases Nos. 3-CA-972,3-CA-973, 3-CA-979, and 3-CA-994. March 4, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On March 6, 1957, Trial Examiner George Downing issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. He also found that Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint, recommended dismissal of those allegations, and further recom- 123 NLRB No. 12. ROBINSON BAY LOCK CONSTRUCTORS 13 mended that the complaint, insofar as it relates to one of the Re- spondents, be dismissed.' Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and support- ing briefs, and the Respondents requested oral argument. The request for oral argument is hereby denied as in our opinion the exceptions and briefs and the record adequately set forth the position of the parties. The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications noted hereafter. In agreement with the Trial Examiner we find that since March 1, 1956, the Respondents Joint Ventures have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by main- taining in effect an exclusive hiring hall arrangement and practice with Local 545 and International Union of Operating Engineers under which nonmembers of Local 545 were discriminated against by giving preference in referral for employment to members and then to mem- bers of other locals and by requiring of nonmembers the payment of weekly fees for work permits as evidence of the Local's consent to their employment, thereby encouraging membership in Local 545. In the recent Mountain Pacific case,' the Board held that an em- ployer may enter into an exclusive hiring arrangement with a union provided adequate safeguards against discrimination are prescribed. It is clear from the evidence that not only have Respondents not pro- vided for such safeguards but, as indicated above, have actually im- posed discriminatory conditions of referral. THE REMEDY Having found that certain of the Respondents have engaged in unlawful practices, Ave shall order that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the Respondents are parties to an illegal hiring arrangement whereby preference in employment is given to members of Local 545 and sister locals, and whereby employment is conditioned As no exceptions have been filed, we adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint as to Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., as an individual Re- spondent in Case No. 3-CA-979. 2 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 [ Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. $Mtountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors , Inc., et al., 119 NLRB 883 ; Opinion at 893. 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD upon the employees' payment of weekly permit fees to Local 545. In these circumstances, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to direct the Respondents to refrain from maintaining or giving effect to their unlawful hiring arrangement.' As indicated above, under the hiring hall arrangement involved herein, employees are, among other things, unlawfully required to pay Local 545 a weekly work permit fee as the price of securing and retaining employment. Moreover, because of the operation of the un- lawful hiring hall arrangement, employees were coerced to become and remain union members which required payment of initiation fees, dues, and other union obligations. Therefore, to expunge the effects of these unlawful exactions, we shall order the Respondents to refund to present and former employees, the work permit fees, initiation fees, dues, and other moneys the employees have thus been required to pay.' A Respondent's liability, however, shall be limited only to moneys paid by its employees to Local 545 so that one Respondent shall not be l i a.bl e for refund of moneys paid by the employees of another company. Furthermore, the period of liability for all the Respondents shall re- spectively begin 6 months before the date of the filing and service of the initial charge against each Respondent and shall extend to all moneys thereafter paid which have not heretofore been refunded. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we do not believe that the fact that some of the Respondents originally joined in this proceeding had obtained concessions in the course of settlement of charges against them is sufficient reason to omit the Board's established remedy for the unfair labor practices of those whose cases were litigated herein. ORDER Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that : The Respondents, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., Walsh Con- struction Company, and Perini-Quebec, Inc., d/b/a Robinson Bay Lock Constructors, a Joint Venture; Respondents Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., B. Perini & Sons, Inc., Walsh Construction Company, and Utah Construction Company, a Joint Venture; and Respondent Selby Drilling Corp., and their respective officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Performing, maintaining, or giving effect to any hiring system, 4 Galveston Mariti me Association., The., et al., 122 NLRB 692. 6 United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices .-of the Plumbing & Pipefitting In- dustry' etc. V. S. Brown-2E. F. Olds Plumbing & Heating Corporation ), 115 NLRB 594. ROBINSON BAY LOCK CONSTRUCTORS 15 practice, or arrangement with Local 545, International Union of Oper- ating Engineers, AFL-CIO, and International Union of Operating Engineers, AFIr-CIO, which grants preference in employment to members of said Unions, or any other labor organization, or which requires employees and applicants for employment, as a condition of employment, to agree to pay, or to pay, to said Local 545, or any other labor organization, any work permit fee or percentage of their earnings derived from such employment. (b) Performing, maintaining, or giving effect to the provisions of any agreement, understanding, or arrangement with said Local 545, or any other labor organization of its employees, which unlawfully condition the employment of job applicants, or the retention of em- ployees in employment, with the said Respondent Companies upon clearance or approval by said Local 545 except as authorized in Sec- tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (c) Encouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers, or any other labor organi- zation, by giving preference in employment to members of such organizations, or in any other manner discriminating against em- ployees or applicants for employment in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, except as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the 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 in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Reimburse all present and former employees who have unlaw- fully been required to pay a work permit fee, initiation fees, dues, and other moneys to Local 545, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section of the Board's Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Post at their respective job offices at Massena, New York, and at all their projects within the territorial jurisdiction of Local 545 copies of the notices attached hereto, marked, respectively, "Appendix A" for Joint Venture Respondents in Case No. 3-CA-972, "Appendix B" for Joint Venture Respondents in Case No. 3-CA-973, and "Appendix C" for Respondent Selby Drilling Corp. in Case No. 3-CA-994. Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD authorized representatives of the respective Respondents, be posted by each Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main- tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to all employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) The Joint Venture Respondents in Case No. 3-CA-973 shall cause a copy of the notice (Appendix B) to be published at their expense in a newspaper of general circulation in Massena , New York. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing, within 10 clays of the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply therewith. (e) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents upon request, for examination and copying, all records, reports, out-of- work lists, and other documents necessary to analyze the amounts of moneys due under the terms of the Order. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act as to Morrison- Knudsen Company, Inc., as an individual Respondent. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 maintain or give effect to any hiring system, practice, or arrangement with International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, or its Local 545, which grants preference in employment to members of said Unions or any other labor organizations, or which requires clearance or approval of em- ployees or applicants for employment by said Unions as a condi- tion of employment, or which requires employees or applicants for employment, as a condition of employment, to agree to pay, or to pay, to said Local 545, or any other labor organization, any work permit fee or percentage of their earnings derived from such employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. ROBINSON BAY LOCK CONSTRUCTORS 17 WE WILL reimburse all present and former employees who have unlawfully been required to pay work permit fees, initiation fees, dues, or other moneys to International Union of Operating Engi- neers, AFL-CIO, and its Local 545. MORRISON -ICNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., WVALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND PERINI -QUEBEC, INC., D/B/A ROBINSON BAY LOCK CONSTRUCTORS, A JOINT VENTURE, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 maintain or give effect to any hiring system, practice, or arrangement with International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, or its Local 545, which grants preference in employment to members of said Unions or any other labor or- ganizations, or which requires clearance or approval of employees or applicants for employment by said Unions as a condition of employment, or which requires employees or applicants for em- ployment, as a condition of employment, to agree to pay; or to pay, to said Local 545, or any other labor organization, any work permit fee or percentage of their earnings derived from such employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees or applicants for employment in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement as author- ized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL reimburse all.present and former employees who have unlawfully been required to pay work permit fees, initiation fees, dues, or other moneys to International Union of Operating Engi- neers, AFL-CIO, and its Local 545. 508880-60-vol. 123-3 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL cause a copy of this notice to be published at our ex- pense in a newspaper of general circulation in Massena, New York. MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., B . PERINI & SONS, INC., WALSH CONSTRUCTION COM- PANY, AND UTAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A JOINT VENTURE, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. APPENDIX C NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we 'here'by notify our employees that : EVE WILL NOT maintain or give effect to any hiring system, prac- tice, or arrangement with International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, or its Local 545, which grants preference in employment to members of said Unions or any other labor organi- zations, or which requires clearance or approval of employees or applicants for employment by said Unions as a condition 'of em- ployment, or which requires employees or applicants for employ- ment, as a condition of employment, to agree to pay, or to pay, to said Local 545, or any other labor organization, any work permit fee or percentage of their earnings derived from such employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of rights guaranteed 'by Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL reimburse all present and former employees who have unlawfully been required to pay work permit fees, initiation fees, dues, or other moneys -to International Union of Operating Engi- neers, AFL-CIO, and its Local 545. SELBY DRILLING CORP., Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ROBINSON BAY LOCK CONSTRICTORS 19 INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This consolidated proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), was heard in Massena, New York, on January 7-8, 1958, pursuant to due notice and with all parties represented by counsel and participating in the hearing. The consolidated complaint, issued on October 3 , 1957, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' and based on charges duly filed and served, alleged in substance (as amended at the hearing ) that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act since March 1956, by maintaining in effect an agreement , arrangement, or practice with Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, and its Local 545, which provided (a) that employees and applicants for employment be members of Local 545 and/or be cleared, approved , or referred by Local 545 as a condition of employment ; (b) that members of Local 545 be given preference in regard to hire or tenure of employment;: and (c) that employees and applicants who were not members of Local 545 pay weekly fees to Local 545 for a work permit as a condition of employment. By their joint answer, filed October 11 , 1957, Respondents denied all allegations of unfair labor practices. Both General Counsel and Respondents made oral argument at the close of the hearing and have also filed briefs. Respondents moved to dismiss all of the cases at the conclusion of the General Counsel's evidence and again at the end of the hearing. The motions were denied as to the Joint Ventures (Cases Nos. 972 and 973), and ruling was reserved on Nos. 979 and 994. The motion is now granted as to Case No. 979 and is denied as to Case No. 994, for reasons hereinafter stated. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondents were all engaged in various phases of construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Projects on the St. Lawrence River, under contract either with the United States Government (Corps of Army Engineers ) or the Power Authority of the State of New York. The operations of each as alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer substantially exceeded the Board's jurisdictional require- ments. It is concluded and found that each of the Respondents was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, and its Local 545 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Project, the contractors, and the general setting of the cases All the Respondents herein have been engaged in various phases of construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project in the vicinity of Massena , New York. Respondent Robinson Bay has been engaged since about February 1956 in the con- struction of the Robinson Bay Lock. Respondent Massena Intake has been engaged 1 The General Counsel and his representatives at the hearing are referred to herein as the General Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board . Morrison- Knudsen Company, Inc ., is referred to as M-Ii ; and Selby Drilling Corp . as Selby: The Joint Venture in Case No . 972 is referred to as Robinson Bay, and that in Case No. 973 as Massena Intake. This proceeding originally included the following additional cases : Nos. 3=CA-970, 971, 974 , 975, 976, 977 , 978, 987, 988 , 990, and 991 , and Case No. 3-CB-274. At the outset of the bearing the General Counsel announced that settlement stipulations had been reached in those cases , and his motion to sever them from the proceeding was granted. 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD since about August 1955 in the construction of the Massena Intake , now virtually completed. Respondent Selby has been engaged since about July 1955 in drilling operations . Respondent M-K has been engaged since about June 1955 in channel improvement work at Ogdensburg , some 40 miles up the river from the site of the other projects. None of the Respondents maintained an employment office of its own, and each of them (except M-K, as to whom the record is silent ) relied largely upon Local 545 to supply its operating engineers through the Local's hiring hall at Massena. At times there was a critical labor shortage in the area, and at other times there was a surplus. At peak periods during summer months, some 2,500 engineers were employed on the project within the jurisdiction of Local 545 , of whom more than 10 percent and less than 50 percent were members of the Local . Most of the remainder were members of other locals of Operating Engineers , and a few were not members of any local. Respondents Robinson Bay and Massena Intake , as members of the St. Lawrence's Contractors' Association, were subject to and bound by the terms of a contract between the New York State Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America (herein called AGC) and International Union of Operating Engineers and five of its locals, including Local 545 within whose territorial jurisdiction the Seaway Project fell. The contract contained a union-security clause which required union member- ship as a condition of employment after 30 days of employment ; and it also provided that: Where six ( 6) or more engineers are employed on any one shift or one project, a Master Mechanic shall be employed ; he shall be under the direction of the employer and shall be responsible for the hiring and firing of and the perform- ance of their duties by the Engineers, Maintenance Engineers, Fireman and Oilers. The Contractor shall have the right to select his own Master Mechanic who may be employed on a weekly basis at a rate to be agreed upon, provided he is selected from one of the five ( 5) participating locals. In the event a satisfactory Master Mechanic is not available an outside Master Mechanic may be brought in with the mutual consent of both parties. Pertinent provisions of the International Union's constitution are set out in Ap- pendix A hereof. Briefly summarized, they provide that Union members shall con- form to and abide by the constitution , laws, rules, obligation , and ritual of the Union and shall hire none but those in good standing with a union having jurisdiction over the work to be done ; that members of one local shall not seek, obtain , or remain at work within the territorial jurisdiction of another local without the. consent of such other local, as evidenced by a clearance card (on transfer) or by the issuance of a temporary permit, subject to successive renewals on a weekly basis in the case of hoisting and portable engineers and on a monthly basis in the case of stationary engineers. Though the minimum weekly permit dues as fixed by the constitution were $2, Local 545 collected $2.50, of which 50 cents went to the International. The cases against the Joint Ventures will be considered together inasmuch as the evidence is parallel and of common application , as Respondents concede. The cases against the individual Respondents will be considered separately, with the case against M-K being first disposed of. B. Case No. 3-CA-979-Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. There was no evidence and no claim that M-K, as an individual Respondent, was a party to or was bound by the contract between AGC and the Union. The General Counsel offered no evidence that M-K employed master mechanics at Ogdensburg, none that the Union referred a single employee to that project , and none as to the circumstances under which M-K employed or refused employment to any employee. The only testimony by any employee witness employed on the project related not only to an earlier period than that covered by the complaint , but was devoid of detail concerning the circumstances of his employment. Indeed, the General Counsel conceded, during oral argument of Respondent's mo- tion to dismiss when made at the conclusion of his case , that he had presented no evidence concerning the actual existence of objectionable practices on the Ogdensburg project, but argued .that because the alleged practices existed on the joint ventures, on which M-K was the sponsor, it could be assumed or inferred that such practices also existed at Ogdensburg, where M-K was operating on an individual basis. However, such an inference cannot be indulged to serve as the sole foundation for an unfair labor practice finding, particularly since no reason or excuse was advanced for the failure to adduce as to Ogdensburg the same types of evidence as was submitted in the other cases. ROBINSON BAY LOCK CONSTRUCTORS 21 As previously stated, ruling was reserved on Respondents' motion to dismiss, which was made in the foregoing posture of the case. Thereafter, during the course of Respondents' case, certain questioning of James Coville, business representative of Local 545, occurred on cross-examination, both by the General Counsel and the Trial Examiner, outside the scope of the direct examination (though 'without objec- tion from Respondents at the time), from which it appeared that the Union may have collected permit fees from nonmembers of Local 545 who were sent out to Ogdens- burg, though such collections were made off the job site. By subsequent oral argu- ment and by brief, Respondents objected strenuously to the foregoing testimony. Though they did not move specifically to strike the .testimony, they argued that their motion to dismiss as made at the conclusion of the General Counsel's case should have been, and should now be, granted. The Trial Examiner is convinced that Respondents' position is correct, and hereby strikes the testimony to which Respondents object, and now grants Respondents' motion to dismiss Case No. 3-CA-979, involving M-K as an individual respondent. It is to be noted, however, that even were the stricken testimony considered, it would not establish the existence at Ogdensburg of the same practices or conditions as on the joint ventures because of the circumstances that M-K was not shown to be a party to the contract, was not shown to have employed master mechanics as required there- by, and was not shown to have maintained with the Union a referral arrangement and practice such as was found on the joint ventures. See section C, infra. C. Cases Nos. 3-CA-972 and 973-the Joint Ventures 1. The arrangement and practice There was no substantial conflict in the testimony concerning the manner in which applicants were hired on both the joint ventures. Generally the requests for men originated with the superintendents and would eventuate into signed requisitions which required the approval of John Armitage, who was project manager of both joint ventures. Upon approval by Armitage, Local 545 was notified of the number of men needed in each classification, and the applicants would thereafter report with referral slips supplied by the Union. The Local sometimes found it necessary to recruit men from other locals to meet Respondents' needs, and when it was unable, at times, to fill all requests for men, it would readily agree that Respondents could bring in their own men. In all cases, however, the practice was nevertheless for Respondents to send such men to the Union for referral and clearance. In some cases, also, where direct applications were made to Respondents at times when they needed men, Respondents would similarly request clearance of the applicants from the union hall. In cases of this sort, if the union hall was closed at the time, as on Saturday afternoons, Respondents would get permission from the Union's steward to sign the men up. Similar clearance with the Union was made whenever Respondents found it neces- sary, in filling their requirements, to upgrade or promote employees to a higher classification within the Union's jurisdiction. Though Ray Bishop, a business representative of Local 545, testified at one point that the contractors agreed to send to the union hall employees whom they had brought in, he later denied that there was actually any agreement, stating: No, a lot of stuff was taken for granted and worked that way. So far as an agreement on any of the stuff, there never has been an agreement. There was also no dispute under the testimony concerning the following facts, on which Respondents rely: There was no agreement by Respondents to hire only union members or to hire all the men whom the Union referred, and Armitage had on some occasions refused to hire some such men. The Union never refused clearance to any of the men whom Respondents brought in, nor did it refuse Respondents' requests for permission to upgrade or promote employees. The Union never requested Respondents to give preference in hiring or retention of employment to its members or to members of Operating Engineers. Despite the union-security clause of the contract, Local 545 at no time requested nonmembers to join the Union or requested Respondents to release an employee for failure to pay either membership dues or work permit fees. Respondents had no knowledge of the union membership, or lack of it, of any of their engineers and no knowledge as to the payment of membership dues to Local 545.2 2 Members of the Local 545 paid dues to the Local's headquarters in Syracuse. Members of other locals remitted to their home locals. No membership dues were collected in Massena or on the project. 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Witnesses for the Respondents testified that the requisition and referral system was necessary for the following reasons: (1) For identification of the men referred from the union hall and to avoid confusion at the job offices at the signing-up stage; (2) to supply the Union, as the recognized bargaining agent, with data necessary for administration of the health and welfare fund, which was applicable to, all operating engineers, whether members of the Union or not; and (3) to enable the Union to keep track of the labor market and to be better prepared to anticipate and to fulfill Respondents' demands for engineers. Armitage, for example, testified that, despite the fact that the identities of applicants were known in cases of direct application and in cases where Respondents brought in their own men, he never- theless required clearance from the Union in all such cases, because: Well, for the same reason that we do it every place else, and if they are willing to get my men for me and hustle all my men, I am willing for them to keep track of the people I have on my job because they would like to know who they were. 2. The operation of the hiring hall; preferment of union members To establish that Local 545 operated its hiring hall on a discriminatory basis, the General Counsel offered the testimony of Edward Morrison and Herald Blum. Morrison was not a member of Local 545 or of any other local; he was a college student who was seeking employment during the summer months. He testified that he applied to the union hall in June for a job as an oiler, his only previous experience having been at service stations where he had greased automobiles. Morrison talked with Ray Bishop and James Coville, business representatives of the Local, who asked him no questions concerning his qualifications. Coville told him that there were no jobs open, that there were "all kinds of book men" who were looking for work and who "had to come first," but that Morrison should put his name on the list, and that the would be notified when work was available. . After 3 days, Morrison went to the union hall for 5 consecutive days and waited while the Union called for men to fill jobs. On one occasion Bishop called for an oiler, and Morrison stepped forward. Bishop asked if he was a "book man,' and when Morrison replied he was not, Bishop stated that he was looking for bookmen. Later when Bishop again called for an oiler, a "book man" (who had come in after Morrison) produced his book on Bishop's inquiry, and was given a referral slip.3 Coville did not testify in refutation of Morrison's testimony. Bishop testified that he refused to entertain Morrison's application because he was without expe- rience as an oiler and because there were experienced oilers who were out of work at the time. Morrison's testimony is credited and it is found that he was denied a referral under the circumstances he testified to. Blum, who was a member in good standing of Local 66 of Operating Engineers, testified that he came to Massena around March 20, 1956, and spoke with Al Miller, business agent of Local 545, at the union hall. Miller said that there was no work at the time, and when Blum asked Miller to put his name on the list, Miller said he would not do so until the first of April. A day or so later, Blum went back to the hall and spoke with Coville, telling Coville he was broke and needed to go to work. Coville replied that there were members of Local 545 who would have to go to work first, and that Blum should come back the first of April and they would take care of him. Blum did later obtain referrals by the Union after April 1 to one or more jobs on the Seaway Project, but was not employed by any of the Respondents in the present cases. On the first occa- sion Coville asked him if he had a book and if he could run a bulldozer. Blum produced his book, Coville wrote out a work slip, and told Blum to give him $2.50 (the weekly permit fee), and to go out and get signed on. Neither Miller nor Coville denied the foregoing testimony. Bishop testified that men were referred from the union hall solely on the basis of their skill and qualifications and without regard to whether they were or were not union mem- bers. However, the credited testimony of Morrison and Blum established that the referral system was actually operated on a basis which gave preference, first, to members of Local 545, and second, to members of other locals, i.e., to "book men." It is so found. 8 Sometime later Morrison obtained a referral from the Union after intercession in his behalf by some outside personage, whose identity was not divulged of record but who was stipulated to be not a representative of any of the Respondents nor of the Union. ROBINSON BAY LOCK CONSTRUCTORS 23 3. The working permits; the "dobie" The International constitution required (so far as here relevant) that the consent of a local union to employment within its territorial jurisdiction of members of other locals be evidenced by successive working permits and required the pay- ment of weekly permit fees (or "dobie"), a portion of which was remitted to the International. The record established that Local 545 operated under supervision of the Inter- national and that it sought to abide by the constitution, including the provision for working permits. The evidence showed that the Local's practice was to issue permits to, and collect dobie from, nonmembers of Operating Engineers as well as from members of other locals. Though Respondents point to evidence that some employees may never have paid dobie, or may have become delinquent without affecting their employment, the evidence also showed that applicants were informed that there was a permit fee and that they could pay it to the steward or whenever it was convenient. Edwin Foster, the Local's steward on Massena Intake, testified that all nonmembers of Local 545 paid dobie, including the master mechanics, and Business Agent Bishop testified that though some employees never paid dobie, it was "because we never caught up with them." Hervey Bunker, a master mechanic on Robinson Bay, also testified that he paid dobie to the steward, who also collected from the engineers employed on the project. The evidence also established that the collection of the permit fees had no relation to the operation of,the hiring hall. The constitution failed to show any connection, and Coville testified that even if there had been no hiring hall, dobie would still have been collected from nonmembers of Local 545, under the practice which had "come down through the years." Neither was there any showing that the permit fees were related to the cost of operating the hall. Thus, at peak periods some 2,500 engineers were employed, of whom from 50 percent to 90 percent were nonmembers of Local 545. Assuming a weekly average of 1,300 working permits, the weekly fees would have aggregated some $3,250, and the monthly fees some $13,000.4 4. Concluding findings The foregoing evidence established that though there was no agreement as such, Respondents maintained with Local 545 an arrangement and practice under which all employees were referred or cleared by the Union before they were put to work. Though the General Counsel argues that an exclusive referral arrangement is per se illegal, even absent evidence of discrimination, the finding of an unfair labor practice cannot be rested here on that broad ground. The per se holding would condemn, of course, any exclusive referral arrangement, regardless of all circumstances and in the face of evidence of its operation on a purely nondiscriminatory basis. But in the present case, absent the evidence of the preferment of union members as herein found, the mere existence of the referral arrangement under the other circum- stances shown by the record could not be found to be violative of the Act. The contract provision concerning master mechanics does not advance the Gen- eral Counsel's position because, although they were simultaneously supervisors 5 and union members, they were not, under the arrangement which is found to exist, respon- sible for the hiring of engineers. Thus, though, as the General Counsel argues, a modus operandi may have been provided for, it was not followed any more than was the union-security clause. What rendered the present arrangement bad was, first, the fact that the Union so operated the arrangement as to prefer, when occasion arose (i.e., in times of an excess labor supply), its own members. Though Respondents advanced reasons which may have afforded legitimate explanation for the existence of a nondiscrimi- 4Cf. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 12, AFL (Associated Gen- eral Contractors), 113 NLRB 655, 662. Though the court of appeals, 237 Ti'. 2d 670, 674 (C.A. 9), reversed the Board's holding that the permit fees were discriminatory, the reversal was on the ground that it was not established, first, that the local was requiring such fees, and, second, that such fees were not a reasonable charge for operating the dispatch system. 6 Respondents' contrary contentions at the hearing are rejected, because without regard to other facets of their authority, the evidence plainly showed that master mechanics have the authority to discharge employees under their supervision. See Section 2(11). Actually the point became ultimately of slight importance under the issues in the case. 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD natory referral system , such explanation constituted , of course, no legal defense to one which was operated so as to give preference in referral to members of Local 545, and next to bookmen of other locals. Nor is the fact material whether Respondents were shown to have knowledge of the discriminatory basis of the Union's referrals, since by establishing the arrange- ment, they had placed in the Union's hands the power of effecting discrimination among their employees and applicants . Having in effect licensed the Union to operate their employment office for them , their responsibility continued to assure themselves that the Union did not maintain it on a discriminatory basis. Cf. Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 12 , AFL (Associated General Contractors), 113 NLRB 655 , 661, footnote 5. An employer may not, of course, himself avoid an unfair labor practice by the expedient of licensing another to engage in conduct which the Act proscribes. Respondents rely in part on such cases as Hunkin-Conkey Construction Company, 95 NLRB 433, 435, and N.L.R.B. v. A. B. Swinerton et al., 202 F. 2d 511, 514 (C.A. 9). But the Hunkin-Conkey rule (which the court expressly adopted in Stivinerton as the "proper" one) was that an agreement that hiring of employees be done only through a particular union's offices does not violate the Act "absent evi- dence that the union unlawfully discriminated in supplying the company with per- sonnel" Here that rule was met by the finding that the Union did make referrals on a discriminatory basis. That and the other findings herein render inapposite other cases on which Respondents rely, such as Del E. Webb Construction Company v. N.L.R .B., 196 F. 2d 841 (C.A. 8). The second respect in which the referral arrangement was operated discriminatorily was in the requirement in the International constitution , followed by Local 545, of a working permit to evidence the Local 's consent to the employment of nonmembers and the collection of the weekly permit fees from such nonmembers . A union may of course use whatever criteria it desires, geographic or otherwise , in fixing the juris- diction of its locals , and it may prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership within them . See Section 8(b)(1) (A ). What it may not lawfully do, however, is to "extend the effective scope of those rules so that they determine the right of a member to the acquisition or retention of a job" N.L.R.B. v. Philadelphia Iron Works, Inc., et al., 211 F. 2d 937, 941 (C.A. 3). Or as otherwise stated by Circuit Judge Lumbard in his concurring opinon in N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc., District No. 2, 232 F. 2d 393, 396 (C.A. 2), enforcing 110 NLRB 2116, cert . denied 352 U.S. 909: Of course no provision of the constitution or rules of the International which chartered both District 2 and Lodge 23 could validly determine where and under what circumstances the members of a particular local could apply for and be given jobs by an employer. The Act is paramount and its provisions may not be whittled away or circumvented by any action of the International any more than by the agreement between the company and District 2 which we here strike down. See also Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL (Koppers Company, Inc., et al. ), 117 NLRB 1863, 1869, where the Board rejected the Union's argument that because the International constitution required the local's consent be- fore a nonmember could work within its jurisdiction, a discrimination in employ- ment based on union membership or lack thereof becomes lawful. The Board continued: Nor do we accept the contention that all that was involved in some of these incidents was a matter of geography , an objective criterion unrelated to union membership. In the latter case the local union had refused approval of nonmembers for em- ployment within its jurisdiction , whereas here Local 545 gave its consent, as evi- denced by working permits, and collected weekly fees for so doing, as provided in the constitution. That brings us to Respondent's argument that as concerned payment of the permit fees, no encouragement of union membership was shown ; that the Act can have no possible application to any engineer who was already a member of any local of Operating Engineers ; and that the fact that one union member is required under the constitution to pay more to work in a particular area than another member is purely a matter of internal union policy and is of no moment under the Act. But that argument simply dresses in different language familiar contentions concerning discrimination and jurisdictional area which have been considered and rejected in the above and in many other cases. ROBINSON BAY LOCK CONSTRUCTORS 25 The law is well settled, of course, that encouragement of union membership results from an employer's participation in arrangements affecting hire or tenure of employment in jobs on which a union enforces alleged obligations of member- ship against its own members. American Pipe and Steel Corporation, 93 NLRB 54, 56; Radio Officers' Union etc. v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 51-52. Although typically union membership is encouraged where jobs are conditioned on such membership, it makes no difference in such a situation that the employee discriminated against is a member of a labor organization other than the one causing the discrimination, such as a different local of the same international body (Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, supra; N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, District No. 2, supra), or a subdivision within the same union (N.L.R.B. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 216 F. 2d 161, 164-165 (C.A. 8)). Respondents also stress the point that the payment of the permit fees was voluntary on the part of the employees , that it was not insisted upon or made a condition of employment, and that, despite delinquencies and failures to pay, the Union made no request to discharge any single employee. However, it is clear that aside from members of Local 545, the bulk of the engineers who were supplied to the project consisted of members of other locals , all of whom were necessarily aware of the constitution's requirement that they obtain successive weekly permits and pay the prescribed fees. Bunker, for example, who had never worked within the territorial jurisdiction of his home local, had paid dobie wherever he worked since 1939. Nonmembers of Operating Engineers also knew or were informed of the dobie system. Morrison had learned of it before he received his referral. When he received his referral he was directed to report to the steward on the job, who informed him that he would have to pay a $2.50 permit fee. Indeed as Bishop's testimony indicated , the failures to pay seem explainable in most cases by the fact that the Union "never caught up with them." I n any case, it is plain that as a practical matter the job applicants were aware that their only chance of procuring successive renewals of their work permits was by payment of the prescribed fees. Cf. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 12, AFL (Associated General Contractors), supra, at pp. 661-662; Local 420, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry etc. (J. J. White, Inc.), 111 NLRB 1126, 1140, enfd. 239 F. 2d 327, 331 (C.A. 3). It is therefore concluded and found that since March 1, 1956 , the Respondent Joint Ventures have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1 ) of the Act, by maintaining in effect an arrangement and practice with Local 545 and International Union of Operating Engineers under which nonmembers of Local 545 were discriminated against by giving preference in referral for employ- ment to members and by requiring of nonmembers the payment of weekly fees for work permits as evidence of the Local's consent to their employment , thereby encouraging membership in Local 545. D. Case No. 3-CA-994-Selby Drilling Corp. Selby was not a member of AGC or of the St. Lawrence Contractors' Association and was not a party to the contract with Operating Engineers . Selby at no time employed a master mechanic , though it employed at times as many as 20 to 25 men who fell within the jurisdiction of the Union. To establish the present case, the General Counsel relied on the testimony of Richard T. Kangas, who was Selby's drilling superintendent . Kangas testified that it was his practice to call Local 545 for drillers when he needed them, because he "thought that was where the drillers were," and that the men so supplied reported to the job with referral slips from the Union . Kangas testified further, however, that he sometimes brought in men from Selby's other jobs and from areas outside the jurisdiction of Local 545 , under the following circumstances: Examination by Mr. Ness: Q. . Now you say you did bring people in from the outside? A. Yes. Q. From areas outside the jurisdiction of 545; is that right? A. Yes. Q. They were not members of Local 545, were they? A. Well, I wouldn't know for certain, but I don't think they were, because I don't- Q. Well, when they came here, didn't you or someone under your direction call the Union to advise them who you had brought in? A. Why, I would do that after the men would arrive here . I would send them to the Union for referral and clearance. 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Well when they came back did they have the referral slips? A. Yes they did. TRIAL EXAMINER DOWNING: So as I understand it, then , you didn't put anyone on the job until they had furnished a referral slip from the Union? The WITNESS : Well, on rare occasions , if I needed a man very badly , I would go to the prime contractor 's steward and they would get him a clearance or ap- prove it, but not necessarily the Business Agent. TRIAL EXAMINER DOWNING: Well, is the prime contractor [ s] steward a member of Local 545? A. Well, that I wouldn't know, because I don't look into that. TRIAL EXAMINER DOWNING: Why did you go to the prime contractor['s] steward? The WITNESS : Well, because I have been on construction a number of years, and if you are running a Union job , you clear them through the Union before you put them on the payroll. TRIAL EXAMINER DOWNING: You were running a Union job? The WITNESS: Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER DOWNING: You said a while ago you were running a Union job. With what Union are you running it? The WITNESS : Well, Operating Engineers. TRIAL EXAMINER DOWNING: Local 545? The WITNESS: Yes. On cross-examination Kangas testified that he had no knowledge as to the union membership of any of the engineers working on his job and no knowledge whether they were paying either dues or permit fees to Local 545; that Selby maintained no record as to whether the men it employed were members of any union ; and that it was not concerned with the question whether they were members of Local 545, or any other local, but only with their productive output. He testified further that: In no instance where he sent a man to the Union for clearance did the Union refuse clearance ; it at no time requested him to give preference either in hiring or in con- tinuing employment to its members ; it never requested him to discharge an employee because of nonmembership , nor did it ever indicate that any employee was not paying permit fees and should be fired for that reason; and it never denied him permission to upgrade employees from another job classification . His practice in the latter case was to promote helpers to drillers when needed drillers were not available , though as in other cases the employees were either sent to the union hall for a referral slip or (in some cases ) were given verbal clearance by the steward. The findings concerning the manner in which :the Union operated its hiring hall, as set forth under section C, 2, supra, are applicable here. The evidence also estab- lished that the Union followed the same practice of issuing and collecting for working permits as it did on the joint ventures. Kangas' testimony plainly established the existence on Selby's job of the same type of referral arrangement as existed on the joint ventures , and the other evidence established the discriminatory operation of that arrangement . The conclusions reached in section C, 4 are accordingly applicable here; they are not affected by the fact that Selby was not subject to the contract with the Union. It is, therefore , concluded and found that since March 1, 1956, Respondent Selby engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act by maintaining in effect an arrangement and practice with Local 545 and Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers under which nonmembers of Local 545 were discriminated against by giving preference in referral for employment to members and by requiring of nonmembers the payment of weekly fees for work permits as evidence of the Local's consent to their employment , thereby encouraging member- ship in Local 545. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, and its Local 545 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 2. By maintaining in effect an arrangement and practice with Local 545 and the International Union under which nonmembers of Local 545 were discriminated against by giving preference in referral for employment to members and by requiring of nonmembers payment of fees for work permits as evidence of the Local 's consent to their employment , thereby encouraging membership in Local 545, the Joint ROBINSON BAY LOCK CONSTRUCTORS 27 Venture Respondents in Cases Nos. 3-CA-972 and 973 , respectively, and Respondent Selby Drilling Corp . in Case No. 3-CA-994 have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair .labor practices having occurred in connection with the operation of Respondents' businesses, as set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent Morrison-Knudsen Company , Inc., the individual Respondent in Case No. 979, has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents in Cases Nos. 3-CA-972 , 973, and 994 engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action which I find necessary to remedy and remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because of the General Counsel's suggestion that the remedy should include an order requiring Respondents to make reimbursement of all permit fees during a period back to 6 months prior to the filing of the charges, it is necessary to con- sider the posture of this proceeding as originally brought and as it stood after the settlement and severance of the other cases. The complaints in the CA cases alleged as to all Respondents the maintenance by each of the same unlawful referral arrangement and practice as was alleged as to the present Respondents . A separate complaint in Case No . 3-CB-274 against the International Union and Local 545 was also based in part on the same arrangement. As a result of the settlement, all of the cases were severed except the four which are listed in the caption (see footnote 1), and those settlements have now been approved by Board orders which have been noted officially by the Trial Examiner. In none of the settlements were any of the Respondents ( including the Union) re- quired to make reimbursement of the permit fees. Inasmuch as the General Counsel, by accepting such a settlement with the Union , has permitted the release of a joint tort feasor, without providing for satisfaction by it of any portion of its joint and several liability ( cf. H. M. Newman , 85 NLRB 725, 732 , and footnote 22), it would be manifestly unjust and inequitable-particularly since the Union alone collected and received the unlawful benefits in their entirety-now to hold only those Re- spondents who chose not to capitulate wholly liable and legally responsible for remedying wrongs in which the Union participated , which it was equally respon- sible for remedying, but for which the settlement releases it from liability. The recommended order will therefore omit any requirement that Respondents make reimbursement of the permit fees. The evidence established that the Massena Intake project is virtually completed. Under the circumstances it is recommended that the Respondent Joint Venture in Case No. 3-CA-973, in addition to posting notices on the project , be ordered to cause a copy of the notice to be published at their expense in a newspaper of general circulation in Massena , New York. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A Art. XV. Sec. 2(d) No member desiring to transfer into another Local Union shall negotiate for, accept or commence work until his clearance card has been accepted or a Journeyman Engineer's Temporary Permit shall have been issued to him as hereinafter provided. If and when his clearance card is accepted , he shall be governed by the wage scale rules and by-laws of said Local Union and if the Local Union into which such member enters has a higher initiation fee and the by-laws of such Local Union require it, he may be required to pay the amount of the difference to the receiving ;Local Union, in which event, the initiation fee tax on such difference shall be charged and collected by the General Secretary-Treasurer. . . . Art. XV. Sec. 3(a) Members of one Local Union shall not seek employment , be employed , or remain at work at the craft within the territorial jurisdiction of another Local Union without the consent of such other Local Union , which consent may be evidenced by its 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD acceptance of the clearance card presented to it by the member involved , as provided in the constitution or by the issuance of the temporary permit hereinafter described. If the member involved does not present a clearance card to such other Local Union, or the Local Union to which the clearance card is presented fails to act thereon, or the Local Union to which the clearance card is presented acts thereon and refuses to affiliate such member, and the Business Representative of such other Local Union, in such cases , shall thereupon consent to the issuance of the temporary permit (described herein ) then the member involved shall be entitled to receive and required to secure successively, during the period within which said consent be granted and his work continue, such number of weekly journeymen engineers' temporary permits if he is a hoisting and portable engineer , or monthly journeymen engineers' tempo- rary permits if he is a stationary engineer , as shall be issued to him by the said Business Representative under the regulations established by the General Executive Board. Such permits shall, for the period issued, allow the holder thereof to seek, accept, and hold employment within the territorial jurisdiction of such other Local Union out of which said temporary permits shall be issued, but subject always to such regulations as shall be imposed thereon by the General Executive Board. Art. XV. Sec. 3(c) No member of this organization shall be permitted to remain at work at the craft in the territorial jurisdiction of any other Local Union than the one to which he shall belong for a longer period of time than that covered by the temporary permit issued to him, nor shall any such member working under the authority conferred by a temporary permit be removed from said work or replaced by a member of the Local Union issuing the said temporary permit until the expiration of the period for which the said temporary permit was issued, unless such removal be for a good and sufficient cause. Art. XV. Sec. 3 (d) Each Local Union issuing or required to issue the temporary permits described in this Article shall charge to and collect from all those Engineers , Apprentices and Junior Engineers within its territorial jurisdiction to whom this article shall apply, minimum weekly permit dues of $2 each, and shall thereupon issue to each such member the temporary permit involved. Art. XXIII Subdiv. 3 Section (a) Members of Local Unions shall conform to and abide by the Constitution, Laws, Rules, Obligation and Ritual , and the decisions , rulings, orders and directions of any authority of the International Union empowered by this Constitution to make them. . . Each member shall hire none but those in good standing with a Union having jurisdiction over the work to be done nor purchase commodities without the union label thereon when otherwise possible... . Jasper Wood Products Co., Inc. and Furniture and Veneer Workers Local Union #331, Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC- 1490. Marc) 4, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election, issued by the National Labor Relations Board on November 14,1957,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on December 6, 1957, among certain em- 1 Unpublished. 123 NLRB No. 9.