Hod Carriers, Etc., Local No. 324

HOD CARRIERS, ETC., LOCAL NO. 324 661 Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local No. 324, AFL-CIO, and R. Wright, Business Agent, Local No. 324 [Roy Price Inc.] and Merle Estes, Cecil Hawkins, Jasper Hawkins, and Merlin L. Shamo. Cases Nos. 20-CB-507, 20-CB-508, 20-CB-509, and 20-CB-510. November 22, 1961 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND AMENDED ORDER On August 14, 1958, the Board issued a Decision and Order,' find- ing that the Respondent Union had violated Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act by making and enforcing a hiring hall arrange- ment with the Employer which failed to conform to the standards set forth by the Board in its Mountain Pacific case 2 Thereafter the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the Board for such further proceedings as it might deem proper.' On reconsidering the case, the Board is of the opinion that, absent the grounds on which its earlier decision was based, the complaint should be dismissed. The record does not show by any affirmative evidence that the Union made or enforced its hiring hall arrangement discriminatorily, or that its reason or motive for refusing to clear the complainants was related to their union activity or membership. Rather, the record affirmatively establishes a nondiscriminatory motive. The Employer, a California corporation, is engaged in gen- eral construction, especially in constructing pipelines in various locali- ties. It had an arrangement with the Union, whose jurisdiction covered Contra Costa County, to hire for work in that county only those laborers whom the Union cleared. In February 1957, the Union refused to clear the four complainants, who were already on the Employer's payroll, on the ground that they would have to register on the out-of-work list and wait their turn. Two of the four complainants were union members, and the other two belonged to a sister local. As a consequence of the Union's refusal of clearance, the Employer refused to continue the employment of the complainants. About a month later, however, the Union cleared the complainants and they were reemployed by the Employer. We are therefore of the opinion, contrary to our original Decision, that there is no evidence in this case that the Union acted unlawfully 1121 NLRB 508 2 Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors Inc, et al, 119 NLRB 883. The doctrine of the Mountain Pacific case was later rejected by the Supreme Court in Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeuse, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express ) v. N.L R B, 365 Q.S. 607. 3 46 LRRM 2069, cert denied 366 U.S 910 134 NLRB No. 72. 662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in making or enforcing the arrangement with the Employer. Accord- ingly, we shall dismiss the complaint. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] MEMBERS RODGERS and BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Amended Order. Paragon Products Corporation and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Petitioner . Case No. 22-RC-1199. No- vember 22, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leonard Bass, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.' 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: The Employer and Intervenor urge their contract entered into on May 13, 1959, effective from June 4, 1959, until June 3, 1962, and automatically renewable for 1-year periods thereafter, as a bar to this proceeding. They contend that the petition, filed on April 14, 1961- during the 60-day insulated period at the end of the first 2 years of their contract-was untimely and should be dismissed' Petitioner asserts that, because of the language used in the union- security provisions of the contract,' it cannot bar the petition under 'Local 1159 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, was allowed to intervene on the basis of a contract interest. 2 Deluge Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995 , 1000; Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 121 NLRB 990, 993. 3 Article II-section 3, of the current contract reads as follows: (a) All present employees of the Company ( exclusive of those eliminated by the Agreement ) shall be required by both parties to this Agreement to become and re- main members of the Union in good standing during the term of this contract, and conform to the Union's laws, rules and regulations , and they shall individually and collectively be bound by the terms of this Agreement. New employees shall, after a period of thirty ( 30) days after date of employment by the Company, make application for membership in the Union and remain a mem- ber [sic] in good standing during the term of this contract. (b) Any employee failing to be in compliance with the foregoing provision shall, within one ( 1) week from date of notice sent by the Union to the Company, be dis- charged from the employment of the Company. 134 NLRB No. 86.