Local 423, Laborers

LOCAL 423, LABORERS Local 423, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-.CIO (Mansfield Flooring Co., Inc., d/b/a Columbus Cement Floors) and John Schu- natz. Case 9-CB-1985 January 31, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On October 4, 1971, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party and the General Coun- sel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The Re- spondent filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's . Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm only the Trial Ex- aminer's rulings, findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations consistent with this Decision and Order. The complaint alleged that Respondent Union Re- strained and coerced an employer in the selection of his representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. The Trial Examiner found no violation and recommended dismissal of the complaint. We find merit in the exceptions. The Employer, Columbus Cement Floor (Colum- bus), is engaged in concrete contracting in Ohio. It is a member of a local chapter of Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) which has a collective- bargaining contract with Respondent Union. The con- ,tract provides for the appointment of a foreman for each seven or more laborers on a particular job, but is silent about a foreman engaging in manual work. Columbus, whose headquarters are in Mansfield, Ohio, entered into a subcontract to perform concrete work at a project in Dublin, Ohio. It designated the Charging Party, John Schunatz, to supervise the laborers at this project. Schunatz was a member of the Union. On April 9, 1970, Columbus scheduled a pour of several thousand feet of concrete at the project. Fearing that the winds prevailing on that day might cause "the boom on the crane to blow," Schunatz decided to switch the method of pouring from direct crane to crane and buggy. As Schunatz was unloading the bug- gies and plywood from a truck preparatory to switch- ing, Respondent Union's steward on the job said to him, "I want you to get that f-ass in that car" and return to Mansfield "or there would be no concrete 195 NLRB No. 35 241 poured here." The steward similarly threatened Com- pany Manager Moore that, unless Schunatz left the jobsite, the job would be shut down. Anxious to com- plete the job, Moore asked Schunatz to leave. Several days later, representatives of the Respondent Union and the AGC met to discuss Schunatz' right as a fore- man to perform manual work at the jobsite. The Union and AGC representatives agreed in interpreting the contract so as to bar Schunatz from doing any work whatever the circumstances. Thereafter, Columbus dis- patched Schunatz to the Dublin project only when seven or more laborers were on the job, i.e., when under the contract a foreman was required to be employed. The Trial Examiner found that Schunatz, a super- visor, was a "representative" of his Employer, Colum- bus, for purposes of "adjustment of grievances" within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. No excep- tion has been made to this finding and, as it is supported by the record, we adopt it. The Trial Examiner further found, however, that the steward's conduct did not constitute "restraint" and "coercion" of Columbus in the selection of an employer "representative" for the "adjustment of grievances." In so finding, he appar- ently relied on the fact that the Union's sole interest was in the preservation of unit work, and on the theory that the Union was correct, as subsequently determined in the grievance meeting, in its interpretation of the contract as barring a foreman from performing manual work. The Trial Examiner further distinguished the present case from such cases as Sheet Metal Workers' Intl. Assn., Local 49 (General Metal Products), 178 NLRB 139, and San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Un- ion No. 18, ITU (Northwest Publications), 172 NLRB No. 252, relied on by the General Counsel and the Charging Party, where the Board found 8(b)(1)(B) vio- lations, on the ground that in those cases the union resorted to internal disciplinary proceedings to compel a supervisor-member to interpret an agreement in a particular manner, whereas here Respondent Union did not resort to any disciplinary action against Schu- natz to foist its interpretation of the contract on Colum- bus. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's reason- ing. Section 8(b)(1)(B) enjoins a labor organization from restraining or coercing an employer in the selec- tion of his representatives. The section does not limit restraint or coercion to indirect means such as internal union disciplinary procedures. A threat directed to an employer to shut down a job unless the employer com- plies with a union demand to remove a supervisor and its "representative" from the job is the most obvious kind of statutory coercion. This is particularly true in this case since, unless the concrete was poured within a limited period of time, it would be a total economic loss. It is immaterial that the grievance committee de- cided subsequent to the threat and the Company's deci- 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sion to remove Schunatz from the job that the contract forbade a foreman from performing manual labor.' Schunatz was engaging in a supervisory act when he assigned to himself the job of unloading buggies and plywood from the truck.' Section 8(b)(1)(B) bars the Union from using coercive tactics to secure a super- visor's removal from the job for such conduct. That does not mean that the Union was powerless to prevent Schunatz from performing work in violation of the collective-bargaining contract. It could file a grievance, as it did; it could sue for breach of contract; it might also strike in protest against the foreman's performing manual labor unless striking was prohibited by the con- tract; but it could not insist by coercive means that the Company remove him entirely from the job as its repre- sentative.' By demanding Schunatz' removal from the project, Respondent clearly exceeded any legitimate course of action and denied the Employer its choice of a supervisory representative on the project. Section 8(b)(1)(B) clearly proscribes the use of coercive tactics for such an objective. Although subsequent to the grievance award, in compliance therewith, Columbus may have refrained from sending Schunatz to the Dub- lin job except when there were more than seven labor- ers employed, this would not excuse Respondent Un- ion's conduct on April 9. Accordingly, we find that, by demanding on April 9, 1970, that Columbus remove Foreman Schunatz from the Dublin job or face a job shutdown because he had assigned to himself certain manual labor, Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Columbus Cement is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. 2. John Schunatz, the Charging Party, was at all material times a supervisor and "representative" of Columbus Cement within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 3. By demanding that Columbus Cement remove Schunatz from the Dublin, Ohio, job because he had done certain laborer work or face a job shutdown, Re- spondent Union restrained or coerced an employer in the selection of his "representative[s] for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances," in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. As it ap- pears that the Charging Party may have suffered loss of earnings as a result of Respondent Union's unlawful conduct, we shall order Respondent Union to make him whole therefor, with interest at 6 percent per an- num. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Local 423, La- borers' International Union of North America, AFL- CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth herein: 1. Cease and desist from restraining and coercing Mansfield Flooring Co., Inc., d/b/a Columbus Cement Floors, in the selection of its representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify the representatives of Mansfield Flooring Co., Inc., d/b/a Columbus Cement Floors, that the Respondent Union has no objection to John Schunatz being employed as laborer foreman on any of the Em- ployer's projects in Ohio. (b) Make whole, in the manner set forth in the sec- tion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," John Schunatz for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct which caused the Employer to rescind its decision to employ him on its project in Dublin, Ohio. (c) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. 114 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent Union's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent Union for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED BY ORDER Carpenters District Council of Sabine Area (Ralph M Parsons Com- OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall be changed pany), 193 NLRB No. 63 to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED Sheet Metal Workers, Local 49, supra at 141. STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE Carpenters District Council of Sabine Area, supra. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD " LOCAL 423, LABORERS 243 (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has or- dered us to post this notice and abide by its terms. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Mansfield Flooring Co., Inc., d/b/a Columbus Cement Floors, in the selection of representatives chosen, or likely to be chosen, for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. WE WILL notify Columbus Cement Floors that we have no objection to that Company employing John Schunatz as labor foreman on its projects in Ohio. WE WILL make whole John Schunatz for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of our unlawful conduct which caused Columbus Ce- ment Floors to rescind its decision to employ him on its Dublin, Ohio, project. LOCAL 423 , LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room 2407, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684- 3686. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION SAMUEL M. SINGER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was tried before me in Columbus, Ohio, on July 29, 1971, pursu- ant to complaint issued on June 8 based on charges filed April 27 and May 26, 1971. The complaint alleges that Respondent Union restrained and coerced an employer, Mansfield Floor- ing Co., Inc., d/b/a Columbus Cement Floors in the selection of its representative for purposes of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances by forcing the Charging Party (a member of the Union) to leave a construction jobsite and cease representing the Employer as a laborer -foreman there -in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and examine and cross-examine witnesses; all filed briefs. Upon the entire record' and my observation of the testimonial demeanor of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. JURISDICTION Columbus Cement, the Employer, is an Ohio corporation engaged in concrete contracting in Ohio, including the jobsite here involved at Dublin, Ohio. During the past year, a repre- sentative period, Columbus Cement purchased and received at its locations in Ohio products valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside Ohio . I find that at all material times Columbus Cement has been an employer engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce within the mean- ing of the Act and that assertion of jurisdiction herein is proper. II LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. III ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background,- Contractual Relations Columbus Cement is party to a collective agreement with Central Ohio Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America (A.G.C.), of which it was a member during the period here involved. Article 7 (sec. 8) of that agreement provides for appointment of a foreman for each seven or more laborers on a particular job, the choice of the particular fore- man to be that of the Employer. The contract does not make any reference to a foreman engaging, or not engaging, in manual (i.e., nonsupervisory) work. Union Business Manager Scales testified credibly and without contradiction that that subject was touched upon in contract negotiations; that the Union had opposed physical work by foremen "for the simple reason he would be taking a day's work away from" a laborer; and that the Union did not object to occasional "minimal" work by foremen where less than seven laborers were on the job, as, for example, in helping a laborer to lift a pump. Article 9, dealing with grievance-arbitration, does not give the foreman any specific role in resolving Employer-Union disputes; it merely provides tLat when a "grievance, misun- derstanding, difference or dispute" arises, the "steward or foreman shall immediately notify the job superintendent and the field representative that a condition of dispute exists," whereupon a meeting shall be held to resolve the dispute- ultimately, if necessary, by arbitration. However, as presently noted, the foreman here involved (Charging Party Schunatz) did in fact handle certain grievances with the union steward (Smith) without referring them to higher officials as the con- tract provides. ' Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated September 13, 1971. 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Schunatz's Status as Foreman' In the latter party of 1969, Columbus Cement, a concrete floor contractor with main offices in Mansfield (and a branch in Columbus), Ohio, entered into a subcontract with Martin & Nettrour, general contractors, to work at the construction project of Ashland Oil Company in Dublin, Ohio. The $200,000 subcontract called for installation of concrete floors and roofs on two five-story buildings. Job site operations commenced in June or July.' In September or October, Columbus Cement assigned Schunatz from its Mansfield lo- cation to act as foreman ("laborer-foreman") over the labor- ers "to coordinate laborers on the job, to see that the job progressed as per scheduled." Schunatz had been a member of the Union since 1968. The size of the laborer crews varied from time to time, depending on the amount of work sched- uled to be done on a particular day. If there was to be a "pour" of concrete anywhere from 7 to 11 laborers would be engaged, and Schunatz' job would normally be confined to supervision. At other times, the laborer force might consist of as few as three, in which case Schunatz would do manual (laborer) work as well as any necessary supervision . Concrete, hauled to the jobsite in a truck with a portable mixer, was normally hoisted by buckets, attached to a crane, directly to the location of the pour or dumped from the crane into a hopper, beneath which concrete buggies were positioned. In each case, the laborers would rake out the concrete as re- quired. According to Company Manager Moore, Schunatz did not work at the Dublin jobsite on a "daily basis" because the number of pours in a given week depended on how "the job progressed." Although Moore usually determined the number of men to be used each time, Schunatz could request more help. He had effectively recommended the hiring of men; was authorized to change the laborers ' assignments in order, for example, to even out the workload; and could send a man home if, for example, he was intoxicated. Schunatz also kept the employees' time records. The record establishes that Schunatz also handled and resolved minor employee grievances. In some cases, he was the first management representative whom employees or un- ion steward contacted in the event of a dispute. Among other things, Schunatz would provide the laborers with needed tools and safety equipment such as hard hats; settle questions of shortages in employee paychecks; and borrow additional help from the general contractor when the job steward claimed there were insufficient laborers to perform work. According to Schunatz, if an employee or his steward thought the problem involved was `too big," the steward would take the matter up directly with Company Manager Moore. According to Moore, it was Schunatz' responsibility "to see that things are handled properly and safely as possi- ble, and also if some small thing comes up through the union, to try to handle it before it gets out of hand or settle it right there. Union Business Manager Scales admitted that he had authorized his steward (Smith) to handle minor problems on the spot in order to "keep a cordial relationship" with the Company. The findings in this and subsequent sections are based primarily on the credited (and to a degree composite and mutually corroborative) testimony of General Counsel's witnesses Company Manager Moore and Foreman Schunatz ' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are 1970 Although the Company's representatives (Moore and Schunatz) tes- tified that Schunatz was directly responsible to the finishing foreman on the job (a member of a different union) insofar as "coordinating and getting the job completed" was concerned, they testified that Schunatz had complete authority to resolve some of the grievances involving the laborers C. The April 9 Dispute The record establishes that prior to April 9 the "major" dispute between Union Steward Smith and Foreman Schu- natz related to the latter's practice of performing manual work.' Schunatz testified that Smith was "constantly against me working" as a laborer,' Company Manager Moore tes- tified that the difference between Company and Union was "primarily whether or not Mr. Schunatz was allowed to work," indicating that while he was aware of "the problem of John Schunatz's working when he had under seven men," he was unaware of the "extent" of the "trouble." According to Union Representative Scales, the general practice in the area was to confine foremen to supervision in accordance with the understanding reached between the Union and the employers' bargaining representative (supra, sec. A); and when the Union discovered breach of this practice it would call it to the attention of the alleged offending employer who then "rectified" the situation. On April 9, the Company scheduled a pour of 5,000 to 6,000 feet of concrete at the project, using 9 to 12 laborers. Apparently fearing that the winds prevailing on that day might be "causing the boom on the crane to blow," Schunatz decided to switch the method of pouring from direct crane to crane and buggy (supra, sec. B). As Schunatz was unloading the buggies and plywood from a truck preparatory to switch- ing, Steward Smith walked past and said to Schunatz, "I want you to get that f- ass in that car" and return to Mansfield (the location from which he was transferred to Dublin) "or there would be no concrete poured here." When Smith re- peated the statement as Company Manager Moore appeared on the scene, the latter attempted to telephone and seek the intercession of Leslie Jones of the Associated General Con- tractors (AGC), Columbus Cement's bargaining representa- tive (supra, sec. A), but was unsuccessful in reaching him. Smith again demanded (in similar language) that Schunatz leave the jobsite or Respondent would be faced with a shut- down. Anxious to complete the job "without any more tur- moil," Moore asked Schunatz to leave. Schunatz admitted that the manual work he performed on April 9 (unloading buggies and plywood from trucks) was "normally" done by laborers under his supervision; that Smith so indicated to him before demanding he get off the jobsite; and that Smith had previously protested his perform- ing laborer's work when seven men were on the job. Accord- ing to Hill, an agent of the concrete supplier on the scene, "the whole argument was over" the physical work by Schu- natz. Moore admitted that since 12 laborers were on the job that day Schunatz' "direct duties were to do nothing but supervise," but indicated that because of an existing "emer- gency" (the need to unload concrete on the truck), Schunatz -as he would have expected-undertook to help with the physical work. ' Another disputed point was the size of the Employer's work crews, According to Schunatz and Moore, Steward Smith would often request the Company to use more laborers, at times threatening to shut down the job if additional men were not supplied About 2 or 3 weeks prior to April 9, Smith actually directed a shutdown, lasting about 30 minutes, in a dispute over the size of the work crew ' Schunatz affirmed his assertion in his preheating affidavit that when he had a crew of seven or more he "generally [did] only supervisory work," but worked along with the laborers when there were fewer men LOCAL 423, LABORERS D. The April 13 Grievance Resolution On or about April 13, representatives of the Union (Busi- ness Manager Scales) and of Columbus Cement (Leslie Jones of the Contractors Association) met to discuss Schunatz' right to perform manual work at the jobsite; also present were Company Manager Moore and Foreman Schunatz The Un- ion reiterated its position that, except for "minimal" assist- ance to a laborer, Schunatz (who was classified as a foreman and was at all times paid the " remium " foreman's wage rate) could not perform manual labor at the jobsite , regardless of the size of the crews . The Employer reiterated its position that although classified as a foreman and receiving the "premium scale," Schunatz could always perform manual work when fewer than seven laborers were on the jobsite; and, apparently also, that in view of the special circumstances (the wind) existing on April 9 , Schunatz properly acted in per- forming manual work although over seven laborers were on the job. The Association representative (Jones) agreed with the Union's interpretation of the collective agreement that Schunatz, as foreman, "may not do any labor irrespective of the number of employees" at the jobsite . Both Union and Association concluded that Schunatz "had overstepped his boundaries as far as manual work " to be performed on the jobsite was concerned. Company Manager Moore testified that "[b]ecause of the decision that came out of the [April 13] meeting," he subse- quently dispatched Schunatz to the Dublin project only on those occasions when the Company needed a foreman or supervisor on the job-i.e., when it used at least seven labor- ers. According to Schunatz , "If we had a small crew, there is no supervisors needed . The men know what to do " Admit- tedly, Steward Smith took no issue with Schunatz ' super- visory work while on the Dublin project ; and Schunatz is still a member of the Union. Schunatz has also been sent to pro- jects outside the jurisdiction of Local 423 ' E. Conclusions 1. Section 8(b)(1)(B) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to "restrain or coerce ... an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances." The basic issue here is whether Respondent Un- ion thus restrained the Employer (Columbus Cement) by forcing Foreman Schunatz to leave the jobsite on April 9 because he performed rank -and-file laborer work of Union members. Although the controlling collective agreement here does not assign to the foreman any specific role in resolution of Employer-Union disputes , it is clear that as a matter of prac- tice Schunatz did handle and resolve minor grievances raised by employees and Union steward. These included questions over use of tools, equipment safety, paycheck shortages, and number of needed laborers. I find , as General Counsel and Charging Party contend , that Schunatz (a supervisor within the meaning of the Act) was a "representative" of the Em- ployer for purposes of "adjustment of grievances" within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Cf. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union 49, AFL- CIO (General Metal Products, Inc.), 178 NLRB No. 24, In- ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 7 Schunatz testified, however, that he lost some work on some days (subsequent to April 9) when the Company had less than seven men (and needed no foreman) at the Dublin jobsite It appears that that job was not yet completed at the time of the hearing 245 and Local 134 (Illinois Bell Telephone Company), 192 NLRB. No. 17, 2. However, I reject General Counsel's and Charging Par- ty's contention that the Respondent Union's conduct here constituted "restraint" and "coercion" in the selection of an employer "representative" for the "adjustment of griev- ances." As we have seen, the dispute between Employer and Union concerned the right of Schunatz, a foreman and Union member, to perform "laborer" work at the project. The Un- ion interpreted the collective agreement that he could not perform such work regardless of the size of the work crews, although it had no objection to the foreman giving "minimal" assistance to a laborer. The Employer took the opposing position, namely, that even though classified as a "foreman" and receiving the "premium scale," Schunatz could perform manual or laborer work when fewer than seven laborers were at the jobsite; and, apparently also, that he could perform such manual work in special or emergency situations even when more than seven laborers were on the site. The long- smoldering dispute came to a head on April 9 when Schunatz admittedly performed physical work (unloading buggies and plywood) "normally" done by laborers under his supervision. Protesting this, Union Steward Smith demanded and insisted that Schunatz get off the jobsite Moore, Schunatz' superior who was on the scene, then asked the foreman to leave and sought to resolve the dispute under the contractual grievance procedure. At the April 14 grievance session the Employer's own bargaining representative (the Contractors Association) upheld the Union's interpretation of the contract, to the effect that Schunatz, as foreman, "may not do any labor work irrespective of the number of employees" at the jobsite. Abid- ing by this determination, the Employer subsequently sent the foreman to the jobsite involved (Dublin) only when he had a sufficiently large crew (seven laborers) needing super- vision. Admittedly, at no time (before or after April 9) had the Union attempted to interfere with Schunatz' performance as a foreman irrespective of the size of the crew (seven or fewer laborers). Insofar as appears, the Union's sole interest was in preserving laborer work for employees classified as laborers in the bargaining unit. 3. The instant case therefore is distinguishable from cases relied on by General Counsel and Charging Party,' where the Board found unions in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) because they resorted to internal disciplinary procedures (e g , union fines and other reprisals or threats of reprisals) to compel a supervisor-member to interpret a collective agreement or handle a grievance in any particular manner. Here the Union did not resort to any internal disciplinary action-direct or indirect-to foist its interpretation on the Employer. Indeed, when he left the jobsite on April 9, Schunatz did so not in response to the steward's demands, but to the request of his superior (Moore), who then invoked the contractual griev- ance machinery for resolving a contract question. Accord- ingly, unlike in the cited cases, this is not one where a union seeks to wean the loyalty of a supervisor away from his em- ployer by threatened or actual disciplinary action against a member. The Union here invoked no such action, agreeing to resolve the dispute directly with the Employer through the established contract procedure, which indeed both parties did; and the determination of which neither appealed Cf. E g, General Metal Products, Inc, supra, 178 NLRB No 24, enfd 430 F 2d 1348 (C A 10), San Francisco- Oakland Mailers' Union No 18, International Typographical Union (Northwest Publications , Inc), 172 NLRB No 252, Local Union No 2150, International Brotherhood ofElec- trical Workers, AFL-CIO (Wisconsin Electric Power Company), 192 NLRB No 16 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Collyer Insulated Wire, a Gulf and Western Systems Co., 192 NLRB No. 150. I find and conclude that the record does not support the allegation of the complaint that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Columbus Cement is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. John Schunatz, the Charging Party, was at all material times a supervisor and "representative" of Columbus Cement within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(B) of the Act. 3. It has not been established that by demanding and insist- ing that Schunatz abstain from "laborer" work and confine himself to foreman or supervisory work while on the Dublin project under the circumstances shown, Respondent Union "restrained" or "coerced" an employer in the selection of his "representative[s] for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances," in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is ordered that the complaint be and hereby is dismissed in its entirety.