IBEW, AFL-CIO, Local 22

IBEW, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 22 1047 Director for the Twenty-fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth Region in writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order what steps it has taken to comply herewith 22 22 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director in writing within 10 days from the date of the Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee because of activity in support of any labor organization, or in opposition to Local 307, International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization, or for soliciting or obtaining signatures to or filing with the National Labor Relations Board any petition for decertifica- tion of the above or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee in order to discourage membership in any labor organization, or encourage membership in Local 307, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT assist or support Local 307 by reprisal against any employee for activity in opposition to it, or in any other manner. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization, to join or assist or to support or oppose any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any such activity. WE WILL offer Wilbur Voght immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of his discharge. PRECISION FITTINGS, INC., 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 W. Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, Telephone No. Melrose 3-8921, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 22 and Federal Electric Corporation. Case No. 17-CD-47. April 1, 1963 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, following charges filed by Federal Electric Corporation, herein called FEC, 141 NLRB No. 91. 1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD alleging that Local 22, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 22 or Respondent, has threatened, coerced, and restrained the charging Employer and others working at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, on a Strategic Air Command elec- tronic communications system project, and has induced and encouraged employees so engaged to strike for the purpose of forcing or requiring Federal Electric Corporation to assign particular work to members of the Respondent rather than to its own employees. A hearing was held before Harry Irwig, hearing officer, on November 14,15, and 1.6, 1962. All parties who appeared at the hearing were afforded full op- portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are here- by affirmed. Briefs filed by the Charging Party and by Respondent have been duly considered. 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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. Upon. the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings : 1. Federal Electric Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is in the business of installing electronic communications systems and is a party to contracts or subcontracts involving work for either the United States Air Force or the United States Navy in excess of $50,000,000. During the last calendar year it purchased materials from outside the State of Nebraska and shipped them into the State of Nebraska of a value in excess of $50,000. We find that Federal Electric Corporation, the Employer and Charging Party herein, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. 2. The parties. stipulated, and we find, that IBEW Local 22 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The dispute : FACTS The work involved is that part of Strategic Air Command Control System Project 465L being installed at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, SAC headquarters. The system as a whole will involve numerous installations and link all bases in the zone of the interior and overseas with headquarters. The Offutt installation entails structural changes at the base, for which Sides Construction Company has the prime contract and Industrial Electrical Works, the electrical sub- contract. The latter employs members of the Respondent. Inter- national Electrical Corporation, herein referred to as IEC, holds the prime contract for installation of the communications system proper, part of which is subcontracted to FEC. FEC has approximately IBEW, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 22 1049 35 employees, recruited from all over the country, working on the project at Offutt. They are neither represented by a labor organization nor part of any unit certified by the Board. Some will remain at the base after the installation work on the 465L equipment is completed, to test and maintain it and to train Air Force personnel in its operation. Early in October 1962 FEC started work. On October 8 Charles Rice, an electrician employed by Sides' subcontractor, Industrial Elec- trical Works, and a steward of Local 22, spoke with Gardner, the fa- cility administrator of IEC, saying that his men were unhappy "about the work that was being performed by the FEC." On October 9 he spoke with Schnurr, a labor relations assistant of FEC, whom Gardner brought in for the purpose of talking with Rice, and told him that his men "would like to have that work," that they were unhappy and that he was having trouble keeping them on the job. At the hearing Rice testified that he did not ask for assignment of the work, but that he did want the work done by IBEW members and did explain the position of the men that they should do the work because they had done it in other instances. On October 11 a meeting was held, apparently called by Paul or Casey of the Corps of Engineers, neither of whom testified at the hear- ing. Testimony, however, indicates that Casey opened the meeting by stating that there was a threat of a walkout by the IBEW over work being done by certain contractors and he wished to explore the Union's claim, whereupon, according to job steward Rice's testimony, Rice said : "Our contention is that the placing of the equipment and the hooking up of the equipment and the installing of the cables is within the jurisdiction of the IBEW and we claim the work." According to the testimony of Maloney, manager of labor relations for the IEC, picket- ing was mentioned when Smith, business agent of Local 22, said, in response to Maloney's statement that the company would use every legal means to protect itself : "That still doesn't prevent us from put- ting up a picket." Both Maloney and Carey, a representative of Inter- national Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (the parent corpora- tion of IEC and FEC, and the material supplier) testified that Smith did not add to this statement the words: "to protect our wages and conditions." In addition Carey testified that wages and conditions were not mentioned at the meeting at all. The Union produced no testimony other than that of Smith to the effect that he spoke of a "picket to protect wages and conditions." The testimony is in agree- ment that Smith spoke of the Company's adamant position as not pre- venting the men from quitting, although they would not strike, and that if they refused to work he would not tell them they were wrong. On October 12 the Air Force directed FEC to stop "pulling cable." On October 15 and 16 additional meetings were called by the Air Force or by the Corps of Engineers to discuss the problem. 1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD What occurred at these meetings is based upon the typewritten version of a tape recording made at the meetings with the consent of all present, and checked by the parties at the hearing before submission in evidence. On October 15 Ketchersid, director of industrial relations for the FEC, asked Smith to define the work he thought the unionmen were entitled to and Smith specified all cable work, signal as well as power, and including cable terminations. When Ketchersid said that the FEC had taken the position that it would not change the work assignment, Smith said : "We're taking the position that we're not go- ing to work on the job either. . . . The men can refuse." Smith also spoke of his people not being satisfied with "running in the trays and conduit" and then "standing still" for FEC employees pulling the wire. On October 16 an international representative of the IBEW, Garrity, attended and spoke of the work in question traditionally and historically being for "our" craftsmen in the area, and said : "We're not going to stand idly by while your Company or any other Company takes an entirely different position...." On October 17, during the afternoon, the pulling cable by FEC em- ployees was resumed, and later-about 4 p.m., and shortly before quitting time at 4:25-a group of six individuals said to be Industrial Electrical Works employees came into the FEC work area, observed what was going on, and left work a few minutes early. Rice, the job steward, also came into the FEC work area a few minutes later and then also left without saying anything. The next day, October 18, Rice was the only Industrial Electrical Works employee who reported for work. When it was clear that the others were not coming to work, Rice called Smith, and together they phoned 22 men, 18 or 19 of whom attended a Local 22 membership meet- ing that afternoon. At this meeting Smith specifically requested that all employees of Industrial Electrical Works return to work the next day or be replaced. Smith also advised Industrial Electrical Works of this by telegram and stated that the employee action had not been sanctioned by the Respondent. The employees in question returned to work on October 19. No picketing occurred. ' CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES The Respondent contends that the record does not reveal a juris- dictional dispute cognizable under Section 10(k) of the statute, and that therefore the notice of hearing should be quashed, inasmuch as it had no object to force or require FEC to assign the work under its subcontract to Local 22 members but was merely protecting its own work jurisdiction. FEC argues that the evidence supports and requires a finding that the Respondent was at all times attempting to have its members em- IBEW, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 22 1051 ployed in place of the existing complement of workers and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Sec- tion 10 (k). APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated. There can be little question on the record that the object of Respondent's claims was to have the work being done by FEC employees assigned to Local 22 members, the question being whether or not the Respond- ent resorted to threats, coercion, or restraint to achieve this object. However, on the basis of the statements by Smith and by Garrity made at the October 15 and 16 meetings and quoted above, and on the basis of Smith's statement on October 11 which we interpret as a threat to picket to force the desired result, we are satisfied that there is reason- able cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) has occurred and we find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. It is therefore unnecessary that we reach the question whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (i) (D) has occurred by reason of the alleged inducement and encouragement of employees to strike, and we do not reach it. MERITS OF THE DISPUTE FEC assigned the disputed work to its own specially trained em- ployees, all of whom have had technical training in the Armed Forces in addition to training by FEC, and who must be willing to accept assignment overseas as well as to move from location to location in this country. In addition all have received security clearance because of the secret nature of the work, and several weeks' time is the mini- mum for such clearance even in those cases when the individual has been cleared before. Some of the men have participated in the assem- bly and disassembly of the 465L equipment at the plant before it was shipped to Offut, thus expediting their handling of the installation of the job. There is no dispute about the competence of the FEC employees to perform the work. The Respondent's claim to the disputed work is based on its members having done what it considers similar work at SAC underground headquarters and in connection with missile sites in the area, and in having terminated "cables and amphenol plugs." No testimony was offered concerning the comparative complexity of such work and work on the 465L equipment project. In all the circumstances, we shall award the disputed work to the employees of FEC who are now engaged in doing it. t052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we find that IBEW Local 22 is not and was not en- titled by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (D) to force or require FEC to assign the disputed work to Local 22 members. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act: 1. Employees engaged as engineers and technicians by Federal Electric Corporation in the installation, testing, and maintenance of Project 465L equipment at Offut Air Force Base, Nebraska, are en- titled to the assignment of such work. Accordingly, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 22, is not en- titled, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (D) of the Act, to force or require Federal. Electric Corporation to assign the above- mentioned disputed work to its members. 2. Within 10 days from the date of the Board's Decision and Deter- mination, the Union shall notify the Regional Director for the Seven- teenth Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Federal Electric Corporation, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D), to assign the work in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. Remington Rand Corporation and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Ca..e No. 26-CA-1271. April 2, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On October 31, 1962, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report with supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- 141 NLRB No. 90.