Painters District Council No. 36

808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Painters District Council No. 36 and Sammie L. tember 24 letter which granted Respondent until Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- October 6 to request negotiations. tor. Case 31-CB-3895 We agree that Chewelah Contractors is inapposite. December 21, 1981 We find it unnecessary, however, to rely on the Charging Party's September 24 letter as evidence DECISION AND ORDER of Respondent's representative intent. Instead, we find that Respondent's continuing interest in repre- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND senting the Charging Party's employees is clearly ~ZIMMERMAN^ ^shown by the series of telephone calls between the On June 24, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Jay parties in July, a month after the contract expired, R. Pollack issued the attached Decision in this pro- wherein Respondent stated that it would not dis- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General patch workers or apprentices until the Charging Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Party signed a new contract. We further find that Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Respondent failed to present any evidence which National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- showed that, thereafter, it abandoned its intent to tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- continue to represent the employees. Therefore, we thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. find, in agreement with the Administrative Law The Board has considered the record and the at- Judge, that Respondent represented or maintained tached Decision in light of the exceptions and an interest in representing the Charging Party's em- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ployees at the time the discipline was imposed ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law against Brown.3 Judge, as modified below, and to adopt his recom- mended Order, as modified herein. ORDER We agree with the Administrative Law Judge Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor that Respondent represented, or at least showed an interest in representing, the Charging Party's em- lations o a s as its Oder the eo ended lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended ployees at the time it disciplined supervisor- member Jacob Br n fr wring fr the Charg- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- member Jacob Brown for working for the Charg- ing Party, a "nonaffiliated contractor," and that the fied below and hereby orders that the Respondent, imposition of such discipline violated Section Painters District Council No. 36 Los Angeles, 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act because it had the reasonably California, its officers, agents, and representatives, foreseeable effect of interfering with the Charging shall take the action set forth in the said recom- Party's chosen representative for purposes of ad- mended Order, as so modified: justing grievances. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a): Respondent contends that the instant case is gov- "(a) Restraining or coercing Sammie L. Brown, erned by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Chewelah d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the se- Contractors,' where the court found that a union lection of its representative for the purpose of col- does not violate Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by lective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances disciplining a member who works for a nonsigna- by preferring charges, holding a trial, fining, or tory employer if it neither represents nor shows an otherwise disciplining any such representative per- intent to represent the employer's employees. The forming supervisory, managerial, or grievance-ad- Administrative Law Judge found that Chewelah justment functions for said Employer." Contractors is inapposite because Respondent's rep- 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the resentative status was presumed to continue after Administrative Law Judge. the collective-bargaining agreement expired,2 since, prior to the contract's expiration, Respondent ex- pressed its intent to bargain with the Charging Party on an individual basis, and since Respondent did not affirmatively abandon its interest in bar- 3 Plumbers. Steamfiters and Refrigeration Local No. 364, United Associ- gaining for a new agreement as shown by its failure ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus- to respond negatively to the Charging Partys Sep- try of the United States and Canada. AFL-CIO (William Stewanr d/b/a to respond negatively to the Charging Party's Sep- Ws contractors), 254 NLRB 1123 (1981). West Coast Contractors), 254 NLRB 1123 (1981). In finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(bXXlB), Member Fanning N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local relies upon the views set out in his separate opinion in International Union No. 73, AFL-CIO [Chewelah Contractors, Inc.], 621 F.2d 1035 (9th Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 323 (Drexel Properties, Cir. 1980), denying enforcement of 231 NLRB 809 (1977). Inc.), 255 NLRB 1395 (1981), and he would not find that in all instances 2 See Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara-Tahoe Hotel, 229 NLRB a supervisor is immune from union discipline, as suggested by the Order, 1094 (1977). as amended, in this case. 259 NLRB No. 106 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Painters District Council No. 36 and Sammie L. tember 24 letter which granted Respondent until Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- October 6 to request negotiations. tor. Case 31-CB-3895 We agree that Chewelah Contractors is inapposite. December 21, 1981 We fin d it unnecessary, however, to rely on the Charging Party's September 24 letter as evidence DECISION AND ORDER of Respondent's representative intent. Instead, we By MEMBER_ FANNING, JENKINS, AND find that Respondent's continuing interest in repre- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND senting the Charging Party's employees is clearly shown by the series of telephone calls between the On June 24, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Jay parties in July, a month after the contract expired, R. Pollack issued the attached Decision in this pro- wherein Respondent stated that it would not dis- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General patch workers or apprentices until the Charging Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Party signed a new contract. We further find that Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Respondent failed to present any evidence which National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- showed that, thereafter, it abandoned its intent to tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- continue to represent the employees. Therefore, we thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. find, in agreement with the Administrative Law The Board has considered the record and the at- Judge, that Respondent represented or maintained tached Decision in light of the exceptions and an interest in representing the Charging Party's em- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ployees at the time the discipline was imposed ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law against Brown. 3 Judge, as modified below, and to adopt his recom- mended Order, as modified herein. ORDER We agree with the Administrative Law Judge Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor that Respondent represented, or at least showed an R A a a d th N interest in representing, the Charging Party's em- l B a a its Od th ro n ployees at the time it disciplined supervisor- y nBodaopsstOrethrco edd ployes t te tie i dicipinedsuprvior- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- member Jacob Brown for working for the Charg- fi d e lo w a he ordersstr at the Respodet ing Party, a "nonaffiliated contractor," and that the f ed bel ow r and here i or d er s that the Respondent, imposition of such discipline violated Section Pa mter s D lstr l c t C o uncil N o. 36, Los Angeles, 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act because it had the reasonably California, its officers, agents, and representatives, foreseeable effect of interfering with the Charging sh all t ak e th e a c tio n se t fo r th in th e sa id recom- Party's chosen representative for purposes of ad- mended Order, as so modified: justing grievances. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a): Respondent contends that the instant case is gov- "(a) Restraining or coercing Sammie L. Brown, erned by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Chewelah d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the se- Contractors,' where the court found that a union lection of its representative for the purpose of col- does not violate Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act by lective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances disciplining a member who works for a nonsigna- by preferring charges, holding a trial, fining, or tory employer if it neither represents nor shows an otherwise disciplining any such representative per- intent to represent the employer's employees. The forming supervisory, managerial, or grievance-ad- Administrative Law Judge found that Chewelah justment functions for said Employer." Contractors is inapposite because Respondent's rep- 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the resentative status was presumed to continue after Administrative Law Judge. the collective-bargaining agreement expired,' since, prior to the contract's expiration, Respondent ex- pressed its intent to bargain with the Charging Party on an individual basis, and since Respondent did not affirmatively abandon its interest in bar- 3 Plumberst eam/ltlers and Refrigeration Local No. 364. United Aswoci- gaining for a new agreement as shown by its failure al ion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus- to resnond neeativelv to the Chargine Party's Sen- "t of t'he Unit d Slates and Canada. AFL-CIO (William Stewurr d/b/a 10 respond negatively to the Charging Party's Sep ^ West Coas Contractors), 254 NLRB 1123 (1981). In finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(bX(XB), Member Fanning N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local relies upon the views set out in his separate opinion in International Union No. 73. AFL-CIO [Chewelah Contractors, Inc.], 621 F.2d 1035 (9th Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local Union No. 323 (Drexel Properties. Cir. 1980), denying enforcement of 231 NLRB 809 (1977). Inc.). 255 NLRB 1395 (1981), and he would not find that in all instances I See Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara-Tahoe Hotel, 229 NLRB a supervisor is immune from union discipline, as suggested by the Order, 1094 (1977). as amended, in this case. 259 NLRB No. 106 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Painters District Council No. 36 and Sammie L. tember 24 letter which granted Respondent until Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- October 6 to request negotiations. tor. Case 31-CB-3895 We agree that Chewelah Contractors is inapposite. December 21, 1981 We fin d it unnecessary, however, to rely on the Charging Party's September 24 letter as evidence DECISION AND ORDER of Respondent's representative intent. Instead, we By MEMBER_ FANNING, JENKINS, AND find that Respondent's continuing interest in repre- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND senting the Charging Party's employees is clearly shown by the series of telephone calls between the On June 24, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Jay parties in July, a month after the contract expired, R. Pollack issued the attached Decision in this pro- wherein Respondent stated that it would not dis- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General patch workers or apprentices until the Charging Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Party signed a new contract. We further find that Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Respondent failed to present any evidence which National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- showed that, thereafter, it abandoned its intent to tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- continue to represent the employees. Therefore, we thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. find, in agreement with the Administrative Law The Board has considered the record and the at- Judge, that Respondent represented or maintained tached Decision in light of the exceptions and an interest in representing the Charging Party's em- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ployees at the time the discipline was imposed ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law against Brown. 3 Judge, as modified below, and to adopt his recom- mended Order, as modified herein. ORDER We agree with the Administrative Law Judge Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor that Respondent represented, or at least showed an R A a a d th N interest in representing, the Charging Party's em- l B a a its Od th ro n ployees at the time it disciplined supervisor- y nBodaopsstOrethrco edd ployes t te tie i dicipinedsuprvior- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- member Jacob Brown for working for the Charg- fi d e lo w a he ordersstr at the Respodet ing Party, a "nonaffiliated contractor," and that the f ed bel ow r and here i or d er s that the Respondent, imposition of such discipline violated Section Pa mter s D lstr l c t C o uncil N o. 36, Los Angeles, 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act because it had the reasonably California, its officers, agents, and representatives, foreseeable effect of interfering with the Charging sh all t ak e th e a c tio n se t fo r th in th e sa id recom- Party's chosen representative for purposes of ad- mended Order, as so modified: justing grievances. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a): Respondent contends that the instant case is gov- "(a) Restraining or coercing Sammie L. Brown, erned by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Chewelah d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the se- Contractors,' where the court found that a union lection of its representative for the purpose of col- does not violate Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act by lective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances disciplining a member who works for a nonsigna- by preferring charges, holding a trial, fining, or tory employer if it neither represents nor shows an otherwise disciplining any such representative per- intent to represent the employer's employees. The forming supervisory, managerial, or grievance-ad- Administrative Law Judge found that Chewelah justment functions for said Employer." Contractors is inapposite because Respondent's rep- 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the resentative status was presumed to continue after Administrative Law Judge. the collective-bargaining agreement expired,' since, prior to the contract's expiration, Respondent ex- pressed its intent to bargain with the Charging Party on an individual basis, and since Respondent did not affirmatively abandon its interest in bar- 3 Plumberst eam/ltlers and Refrigeration Local No. 364. United Aswoci- gaining for a new agreement as shown by its failure al ion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus- to resnond neeativelv to the Chargine Party's Sen- "t of t'he Unit d Slates and Canada. AFL-CIO (William Stewurr d/b/a 10 respond negatively to the Charging Party's Sep ^ West Coas Contractors), 254 NLRB 1123 (1981). In finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(bX(XB), Member Fanning N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local relies upon the views set out in his separate opinion in International Union No. 73. AFL-CIO [Chewelah Contractors, Inc.], 621 F.2d 1035 (9th Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local Union No. 323 (Drexel Properties. Cir. 1980), denying enforcement of 231 NLRB 809 (1977). Inc.). 255 NLRB 1395 (1981), and he would not find that in all instances I See Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara-Tahoe Hotel, 229 NLRB a supervisor is immune from union discipline, as suggested by the Order, 1094 (1977). as amended, in this case. 259 NLRB No. 106 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Painters District Council No. 36 and Sammie L. tember 24 letter which granted Respondent until Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- October 6 to request negotiations. tor. Case 31-CB-3895 We agree that Chewelah Contractors is inapposite. December 21, 1981 We fin d it unnecessary, however, to rely on the Charging Party's September 24 letter as evidence DECISION AND ORDER of Respondent's representative intent. Instead, we By MEMBER_ FANNING, JENKINS, AND find that Respondent's continuing interest in repre- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND senting the Charging Party's employees is clearly shown by the series of telephone calls between the On June 24, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Jay parties in July, a month after the contract expired, R. Pollack issued the attached Decision in this pro- wherein Respondent stated that it would not dis- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General patch workers or apprentices until the Charging Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Party signed a new contract. We further find that Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Respondent failed to present any evidence which National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- showed that, thereafter, it abandoned its intent to tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- continue to represent the employees. Therefore, we thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. find, in agreement with the Administrative Law The Board has considered the record and the at- Judge, that Respondent represented or maintained tached Decision in light of the exceptions and an interest in representing the Charging Party's em- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ployees at the time the discipline was imposed ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law against Brown. 3 Judge, as modified below, and to adopt his recom- mended Order, as modified herein. ORDER We agree with the Administrative Law Judge Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor that Respondent represented, or at least showed an R A a a d th N interest in representing, the Charging Party's em- l B a a its Od th ro n ployees at the time it disciplined supervisor- y nBodaopsstOrethrco edd ployes t te tie i dicipinedsuprvior- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- member Jacob Brown for working for the Charg- fi d e lo w a he ordersstr at the Respodet ing Party, a "nonaffiliated contractor," and that the f ed bel ow r and here i or d er s that the Respondent, imposition of such discipline violated Section Pa mter s D lstr l c t C o uncil N o. 36, Los Angeles, 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act because it had the reasonably California, its officers, agents, and representatives, foreseeable effect of interfering with the Charging sh all t ak e th e a c tio n se t fo r th in th e sa id recom- Party's chosen representative for purposes of ad- mended Order, as so modified: justing grievances. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a): Respondent contends that the instant case is gov- "(a) Restraining or coercing Sammie L. Brown, erned by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Chewelah d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the se- Contractors,' where the court found that a union lection of its representative for the purpose of col- does not violate Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act by lective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances disciplining a member who works for a nonsigna- by preferring charges, holding a trial, fining, or tory employer if it neither represents nor shows an otherwise disciplining any such representative per- intent to represent the employer's employees. The forming supervisory, managerial, or grievance-ad- Administrative Law Judge found that Chewelah justment functions for said Employer." Contractors is inapposite because Respondent's rep- 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the resentative status was presumed to continue after Administrative Law Judge. the collective-bargaining agreement expired,' since, prior to the contract's expiration, Respondent ex- pressed its intent to bargain with the Charging Party on an individual basis, and since Respondent did not affirmatively abandon its interest in bar- I Plumberst eam/ltlers and Refrigeration Local No. 364. United Aswoci- gaining for a new agreement as shown by its failure al ion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus- to resnond neeativelv to the Chargine Party's Sen- "t of t'he Unit d Slates and Canada. AFL-CIO (William Stewurr d/b/a 10 respond negatively to the Charging Party's Sep ^ West Coas Contractors), 254 NLRB 1123 (1981). In finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(bX(XB), Member Fanning N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local relies upon the views set out in his separate opinion in International Union No. 73. AFL-CIO [Chewelah Contractors, Inc.], 621 F.2d 1035 (9th Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local Union No. 323 (Drexel Properties. Cir. 1980), denying enforcement of 231 NLRB 809 (1977). Inc.). 255 NLRB 1395 (1981), and he would not find that in all instances I See Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara-Tahoe Hotel, 229 NLRB a supervisor is immune from union discipline, as suggested by the Order, 1094 (1977). as amended, in this case. 259 NLRB No. 106 PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 809 APPENDIX sor and denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS Upon the entire record, 3 from my observation of the POSTED BY ORDER OF THE demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD post-hearing briefs of the General Counsel and the An Agency of the United States Government Charging Party,' I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- I. JURISDICTION tor, in the selection of its representative for the The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times purpose of collective bargaining or the adjust- material herein, a sole proprietorship of Sammie L. ment of grievances by preferring charges, Brown, with an office and principal place of business lo- holding a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining cated in Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged as any such representative performing supervi- a painting subcontractor in the building and construction sory, managerial, or grievance-adjustment industry. During calendar year 1980, Respondent per- functions for said Employer. formed services in excess of $50,000 for Shirley Brothers and Goldrich & Kest, both general contractors located in WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner California. I find that Shirley Brothers meets the Board's restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis by virtue Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, in the se- of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of materials and lection of its representatives for the purpose of suppliers from suppliers located outside the State of Cali- collective bargaining or the adjustment of fornia. I also find that Goldrich & Kest meets the grievances. Board's jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis WE WILL rescind and expunge from our re- by virtue of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of ma- cords all disciplinary action taken against terials and supplies from suppliers located outside the cords all disciplinary action taken against State of California. Jacob Brown, including the fines, because of Accordingly, I find that the Charging Party meets the his working for Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Board's indirect outflow standard for asserting jurisdic- Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, and WE tion over a nonretail enterprise. See Siemons Mailing WILL notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958). Thus, I find that the fines levied against him have been rescinded Charging Party is an employer engaged in commerce and that all records of disciplinary action and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning against him have been expunged. of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find DECISION that Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, A. The Bargaining Relationship on May 7, 1981. Pursuant to a charge filed against Paint- ers District Council No. 36 (Respondent) by Sammie L. Asstated above, the Charging Party is asole propri- Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor (the etorship of Sammie L. Brown who normally employed Charging Party), t on September 12, 1980, 2 the Regional eight or more journeymen painters. The parties agree Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations that the harging Party was bound to a collective-bar- Board issued a complaint against Respondent on October gainig agreement between the Los Angeles County Painters and Decorators Contractors Association, Inc., 20, alleging that Respondent committed certain viola- and Respond Decorators Contractors Association, Inc tions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended an d Respondent (including al of its affiliated local (the Act). In substance, the complaint alleges that Re- unions), which agreement was effective by its terms from July I, 1977, until June 30, 1980 (hereinafter referred to spondent, by disciplining Jacob Brown, a supervisor em- July, 1977 June 30 1980 (herenafter referred to ployed by the Charging Party, has restrained and co- as the 1977-80 agreement) erced, and is restraining and coercing, the Charging On January 31, 1980, Sammie L. Brown wrote the Los Party in the selection of its representatives for the pur- Angeles County Painters and Decorators Joint Commit- pose of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances tee Inc. with a copy to Respondent, giving notice of his in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Respondent in violain a of Section 8(b)()(B) of th e Act. Respondent 3 On May 28, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel made a motion to iled an answer denying that Jacob Brown was a supervi- correct the record. As the motion was unopposed, the corrections con- tained therein are hereby granted and incorporated, sua sponre , into the 'The name of the Charging Party appears as corrected at the hearing. record as ALJ Exh. 1. 2 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to calendar year 1980. Respondent argued orally at the hearing but did not file a brief PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 809 APPENDIX sor and denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS Upon the entire record, 3 from my observation of the POSTED BY ORDER OF THE demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD post-hearing briefs of the General Counsel and the An Agency of the United States Government C h arg i n g Party,' I m ake t h e fo l lo w i ng: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- 1. JURISDICTION tor, in the selection of its representative for the The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times purpose of collective bargaining or the adjust- material herein, a sole proprietorship of Sammie L. ment of grievances by preferring charges, Brown, with an office and principal place of business lo- holding a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining cated in Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged as any such representative performing supervi- a painting subcontractor in the building and construction sory, managerial, or grievance-adjustment industry. During calendar year 1980, Respondent per- functions for said Employer. formed services in excess of $50,000 for Shirley Brothers and Goldrich & Kest, both general contractors located in WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner California. I find that Shirley Brothers meets the Board's restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis by virtue Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, in the se- of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of materials and lection of its representatives for the purpose of suppliers from suppliers located outside the State of Cali- collective bargaining or the adjustment of fornia. I also find that Goldrich & Kest meets the grievances. Board's jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis WE WILL rescind and expunge from our re- by virtue of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of ma- cordsall iscipinar actin taen aginst terials and supplies from suppliers located outside the cords all disciplinary action taken against State of California. Jacob Brown, including the fines, because of Accordingly, I find that the Charging Party meets the his working for Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Board's indirect outflow standard for asserting jurisdic- Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, and WE tion over a nonretail enterprise. See Siemens Mailing WILL notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958). Thus, I find that the fines levied against him have been rescinded Charging Party is an employer engaged in commerce and that all records of disciplinary action and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning against him have been expunged. o f Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find DECISION that Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, A. The Bargaining Relationship on May 7, 1981. Pursuant to a charge filed against Paint- , t C P is a s por ers District Council No. 36 (Respondent) by Sammie L. A s e s t a t e d a b o v e m t h e C L a r g n g P a rt y w s a nr o le peploe Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor (the eigtp o f S am m o e L j e rownpwho normally employed Charging Party),' on September 12, 1980, 2 the Regional that th Core Journeymen painters. The parties agree Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations t h ati t h e C h a r g n g P a r t y w as b o u n d t o a c o nlective-bar- Board issued a complaint against Respondent on October Pantr andeeent Contractos Associationty 20, alleging that Respondent committed certain viola- and Dent c ongracts Affiliateoc. tions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended an d Respondent (including all of its affiliated local (the Act). In substance, the complaint alleges that Re- u n io n s) , w h ic h ag r e e m e n t w as e f ec t iv e b y it s t er ms fr o m (theAct) Insubsance th comlain alegesthatRe- July 1, 1977, until June 30, 1980 (hereinafter referred to spondent, by disciplining Jacob Brown, a supervisor em- the 1 97 7-80 ae n t). ployed by the Charging Party, has restrained and co- On Jna 31, 1980, . B w ecred, and is restraining and coercing, the Charging On January 31, 1980, Sammie L. Brown wrote the Los Party in the selection of its representatives for the purg Angeles County Painters and Decorators Joint Commit- Part intheselctio ofitsrepesetaties or he ur- tee, Inc., with a copy to Respondent, giving notice of his pose of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. Respondent May ,19 , cn f t Ge C m „,le .n ,nwe .eyn ... t Tao ,rw D a * sue3On May 28, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel made a motion to iled an answer denying that Jacob Brown was a supervi- correct the record. As the motion was unopposed, the corrections con- tained therein are hereby granted and incorporated, sua sponre , into the 'The name of the Charging Party appears as corrected at the hearing. record as ALJ Exh. 1. 2 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to calendar year 1980. ' Respondent argued orally at the hearing but did not file a brief. PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 809 APPENDIX sor and denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS Upon the entire record, 3 from my observation of the POSTED BY ORDER OF THE demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD post-hearing briefs of the General Counsel and the An Agency of the United States Government C h arg i n g Party,' I m ake t h e fo l lo w i ng: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- 1. JURISDICTION tor, in the selection of its representative for the The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times purpose of collective bargaining or the adjust- material herein, a sole proprietorship of Sammie L. ment of grievances by preferring charges, Brown, with an office and principal place of business lo- holding a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining cated in Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged as any such representative performing supervi- a painting subcontractor in the building and construction sory, managerial, or grievance-adjustment industry. During calendar year 1980, Respondent per- functions for said Employer. formed services in excess of $50,000 for Shirley Brothers and Goldrich & Kest, both general contractors located in WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner California. I find that Shirley Brothers meets the Board's restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis by virtue Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, in the se- of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of materials and lection of its representatives for the purpose of suppliers from suppliers located outside the State of Cali- collective bargaining or the adjustment of fornia. I also find that Goldrich & Kest meets the grievances. Board's jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis WE WILL rescind and expunge from our re- by virtue of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of ma- cordsall iscipinar actin taen aginst terials and supplies from suppliers located outside the cords all disciplinary action taken against State of California. Jacob Brown, including the fines, because of Accordingly, I find that the Charging Party meets the his working for Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Board's indirect outflow standard for asserting jurisdic- Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, and WE tion over a nonretail enterprise. See Siemens Mailing WILL notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958). Thus, I find that the fines levied against him have been rescinded Charging Party is an employer engaged in commerce and that all records of disciplinary action and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning against him have been expunged. o f Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find DECISION that Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, A. The Bargaining Relationship on May 7, 1981. Pursuant to a charge filed against Paint- , t C P is a s por ers District Council No. 36 (Respondent) by Sammie L. A s e s t a t e d a b o v e m t h e C L a r g n g P a rt y w s a nr o le peploe Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor (the eigtp o f S am m o e L j e rownpwho normally employed Charging Party),' on September 12, 1980, 2 the Regional that th Core Journeymen painters. The parties agree Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations t h ati t h e C h a r g n g P a r t y w as b o u n d t o a c o nlective-bar- Board issued a complaint against Respondent on October Pantr andeeent Contractos Associationty 20, alleging that Respondent committed certain viola- and Dent c ongracts Affiliateoc. tions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended an d Respondent (including all of its affiliated local (the Act). In substance, the complaint alleges that Re- u n io n s) , w h ic h ag r e e m e n t w as e f ec t iv e b y it s t er ms fr o m (theAct) Insubsance th comlain alegesthatRe- July 1, 1977, until June 30, 1980 (hereinafter referred to spondent, by disciplining Jacob Brown, a supervisor em- the 1 97 7-80 ae n t). ployed by the Charging Party, has restrained and co- On Jna 31, 1980, . B w ecred, and is restraining and coercing, the Charging On January 31, 1980, Sammie L. Brown wrote the Los Party in the selection of its representatives for the purg Angeles County Painters and Decorators Joint Commit- Part intheselctio ofitsrepesetaties or he ur- tee, Inc., with a copy to Respondent, giving notice of his pose of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. Respondent May ,19 , cn f t Ge C m „,le .n ,nwe .eyn ... t Tao ,rw D a * sue3On May 28, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel made a motion to iled an answer denying that Jacob Brown was a supervi- correct the record. As the motion was unopposed, the corrections con- tained therein are hereby granted and incorporated, sua sponre , into the 'The name of the Charging Party appears as corrected at the hearing. record as ALJ Exh. 1. 2 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to calendar year 1980. ' Respondent argued orally at the hearing but did not file a brief. PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 809 APPENDIX sor and denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS Upon the entire record, 3 from my observation of the POSTED BY ORDER OF THE demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD post-hearing briefs of the General Counsel and the An Agency of the United States Government C h arg i n g Party,' I m ake t h e fo l lo w i ng: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- 1. JURISDICTION tor, in the selection of its representative for the The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times purpose of collective bargaining or the adjust- material herein, a sole proprietorship of Sammie L. ment of grievances by preferring charges, Brown, with an office and principal place of business lo- holding a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining cated in Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged as any such representative performing supervi- a painting subcontractor in the building and construction sory, managerial, or grievance-adjustment industry. During calendar year 1980, Respondent per- functions for said Employer. formed services in excess of $50,000 for Shirley Brothers and Goldrich & Kest, both general contractors located in WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner California. I find that Shirley Brothers meets the Board's restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis by virtue Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, in the se- of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of materials and lection of its representatives for the purpose of suppliers from suppliers located outside the State of Cali- collective bargaining or the adjustment of fornia. I also find that Goldrich & Kest meets the grievances. Board's jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis WE WILL rescind and expunge from our re- by virtue of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of ma- cordsall iscipinar actin taen aginst terials and supplies from suppliers located outside the cords all disciplinary action taken against State of California. Jacob Brown, including the fines, because of Accordingly, I find that the Charging Party meets the his working for Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Board's indirect outflow standard for asserting jurisdic- Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, and WE tion over a nonretail enterprise. See Siemens Mailing WILL notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958). Thus, I find that the fines levied against him have been rescinded Charging Party is an employer engaged in commerce and that all records of disciplinary action and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning against him have been expunged. o f Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find DECISION that Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, A. The Bargaining Relationship on May 7, 1981. Pursuant to a charge filed against Paint- , t C P is a s por ers District Council No. 36 (Respondent) by Sammie L. A s e s t a t e d a b o v e m t h e C L a r g n g P a rt y w s a nr o le peploe Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor (the eigtp o f S am m o e L j e rownpwho normally employed Charging Party),' on September 12, 1980, 2 the Regional that th Core Journeymen painters. The parties agree Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations t h ati t h e C h a r g n g P a r t y w as b o u n d t o a c o nlective-bar- Board issued a complaint against Respondent on October Pantr andeeent Contractos Associationty 20, alleging that Respondent committed certain viola- and Dent c ongracts Affiliateoc. tions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended an d Respondent (including all of its affiliated local (the Act). In substance, the complaint alleges that Re- u n io n s) , w h ic h ag r e e m e n t w as e f ec t iv e b y it s t er ms fr o m (theAct) Insubsance th comlain alegesthatRe- July 1, 1977, until June 30, 1980 (hereinafter referred to spondent, by disciplining Jacob Brown, a supervisor em- the 1 97 7-80 ae n t). ployed by the Charging Party, has restrained and co- On Jna 31, 1980, . B w ecred, and is restraining and coercing, the Charging On January 31, 1980, Sammie L. Brown wrote the Los Party in the selection of its representatives for the purg Angeles County Painters and Decorators Joint Commit- Part intheselctio ofitsrepesetaties or he ur- tee, Inc., with a copy to Respondent, giving notice of his pose of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. Respondent May ,1, cn f t Ge C m „,le .n ,nwe .eyn ... t Tao ,rw D a * sue3On May 28, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel made a motion to iled an answer denying that Jacob Brown was a supervi- correct the record. As the motion was unopposed, the corrections con- tained therein are hereby granted and incorporated, sua sponre , into the 'The name of the Charging Party appears as corrected at the hearing. record as ALJ Exh. 1. 2 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to calendar year 1980. ' Respondent argued orally at the hearing but did not file a brief. PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 809 APPENDIX sor and denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS Upon the entire record, 3 from my observation of the POSTED BY ORDER OF THE demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD post-hearing briefs of the General Counsel and the An Agency of the United States Government C h arg i n g Party,' I m ake t h e fo l lo w i ng: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- 1. JURISDICTION tor, in the selection of its representative for the The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times purpose of collective bargaining or the adjust- material herein, a sole proprietorship of Sammie L. ment of grievances by preferring charges, Brown, with an office and principal place of business lo- holding a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining cated in Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged as any such representative performing supervi- a painting subcontractor in the building and construction sory, managerial, or grievance-adjustment industry. During calendar year 1980, Respondent per- functions for said Employer. formed services in excess of $50,000 for Shirley Brothers and Goldrich & Kest, both general contractors located in WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner California. I find that Shirley Brothers meets the Board's restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis by virtue Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, in the se- of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of materials and lection of its representatives for the purpose of suppliers from suppliers located outside the State of Cali- collective bargaining or the adjustment of fornia. I also find that Goldrich & Kest meets the grievances. Board's jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis WE WILL rescind and expunge from our re- by virtue of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of ma- cordsall iscipinar actin taen aginst terials and supplies from suppliers located outside the cords all disciplinary action taken against State of California. Jacob Brown, including the fines, because of Accordingly, I find that the Charging Party meets the his working for Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Board's indirect outflow standard for asserting jurisdic- Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, and WE tion over a nonretail enterprise. See Siemens Mailing WILL notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958). Thus, I find that the fines levied against him have been rescinded Charging Party is an employer engaged in commerce and that all records of disciplinary action and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning against him have been expunged. o f Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find DECISION that Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, A. The Bargaining Relationship on May 7, 1981. Pursuant to a charge filed against Paint- , t C P is a s por ers District Council No. 36 (Respondent) by Sammie L. A s e s t a t e d a b o v e m t h e C L a r g n g P a rt y w s a nr o le peploe Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor (the eigtp o f S am m o e L j e rownpwho normally employed Charging Party),' on September 12, 1980, 2 the Regional that th Core Journeymen painters. The parties agree Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations t h ati t h e C h a r g n g P a r t y w as b o u n d t o a c o nlective-bar- Board issued a complaint against Respondent on October Pantr andeeent Contractos Associationty 20, alleging that Respondent committed certain viola- and Dent c ongracts Affiliateoc. tions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended an d Respondent (including all of its affiliated local (the Act). In substance, the complaint alleges that Re- u n io n s) , w h ic h ag r e e m e n t w as e f ec t iv e b y it s t er ms fr o m (theAct) Insubsance th comlain alegesthatRe- July 1, 1977, until June 30, 1980 (hereinafter referred to spondent, by disciplining Jacob Brown, a supervisor em- the 1 97 7-80 ae n t). ployed by the Charging Party, has restrained and co- On Jna 31, 1980, . B w ecred, and is restraining and coercing, the Charging On January 31, 1980, Sammie L. Brown wrote the Los Party in the selection of its representatives for the purg Angeles County Painters and Decorators Joint Commit- Part intheselctio ofitsrepesetaties or he ur- tee, Inc., with a copy to Respondent, giving notice of his pose of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. Respondent May ,1, cn f t Ge C m „,le .n ,nwe .eyn ... t Tao ,rw D a * sue3On May 28, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel made a motion to iled an answer denying that Jacob Brown was a supervi- correct the record. As the motion was unopposed, the corrections con- tained therein are hereby granted and incorporated, sua sponre , into the 'The name of the Charging Party appears as corrected at the hearing. record as ALJ Exh. 1. 2 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to calendar year 1980. ' Respondent argued orally at the hearing but did not file a brief. PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 809 APPENDIX sor and denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS Upon the entire record, 3 from my observation of the POSTED BY ORDER OF THE demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD post-hearing briefs of the General Counsel and the An Agency of the United States Government C h arg i n g Party,' I m ake t h e fo l lo w i ng: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contrac- 1. JURISDICTION tor, in the selection of its representative for the The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times purpose of collective bargaining or the adjust- material herein, a sole proprietorship of Sammie L. ment of grievances by preferring charges, Brown, with an office and principal place of business lo- holding a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining cated in Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged as any such representative performing supervi- a painting subcontractor in the building and construction sory, managerial, or grievance-adjustment industry. During calendar year 1980, Respondent per- functions for said Employer. formed services in excess of $50,000 for Shirley Brothers and Goldrich & Kest, both general contractors located in WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner California. I find that Shirley Brothers meets the Board's restrain or coerce Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis by virtue Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, in the se- of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of materials and lection of its representatives for the purpose of suppliers from suppliers located outside the State of Cali- collective bargaining or the adjustment of fornia. I also find that Goldrich & Kest meets the grievances. Board's jurisdictional standards on a direct inflow basis WE WILL rescind and expunge from our re- by virtue of annual purchases in excess of $50,000 of ma- cordsall iscipinar actin taen aginst terials and supplies from suppliers located outside the cords all disciplinary action taken against State of California. Jacob Brown, including the fines, because of Accordingly, I find that the Charging Party meets the his working for Sammie L. Brown, d/b/a Board's indirect outflow standard for asserting jurisdic- Brown & Co. Painting Contractor, and WE tion over a nonretail enterprise. See Siemens Mailing WILL notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958). Thus, I find that the fines levied against him have been rescinded Charging Party is an employer engaged in commerce and that all records of disciplinary action and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning against him have been expunged. o f Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find DECISION that Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, A. The Bargaining Relationship on May 7, 1981. Pursuant to a charge filed against Paint- , t C P is a s por ers District Council No. 36 (Respondent) by Sammie L. A s e s t a t e d a b o v e m t h e C L a r g n g P a rt y w s a nr o le peploe Brown, d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Contractor (the eigtp o f S am m o e L j e rownpwho normally employed Charging Party),' on September 12, 1980, 2 the Regional that th Core Journeymen painters. The parties agree Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations t h ati t h e C h a r g n g P a r t y w as b o u n d t o a c o nlective-bar- Board issued a complaint against Respondent on October Pantr andeeent Contractos Associationty 20, alleging that Respondent committed certain viola- and Dent c ongracts Affiliateoc. tions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended an d Respondent (including all of its affiliated local (the Act). In substance, the complaint alleges that Re- u n io n s) , w h ic h ag r e e m e n t w as e f ec t iv e b y it s t er ms fr o m (theAct) Insubsance th comlain alegesthatRe- July 1, 1977, until June 30, 1980 (hereinafter referred to spondent, by disciplining Jacob Brown, a supervisor em- the 1 97 7-80 ae n t). ployed by the Charging Party, has restrained and co- On Jna 31, 1980, . B w ecred, and is restraining and coercing, the Charging On January 31, 1980, Sammie L. Brown wrote the Los Party in the selection of its representatives for the purg Angeles County Painters and Decorators Joint Commit- Part intheselctio ofitsrepesetaties or he ur- tee, Inc., with a copy to Respondent, giving notice of his pose of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. Respondent May ,1, cn f t Ge C m „,le .n ,nwe .eyn ... t Tao ,rw D a * sue3On May 28, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel made a motion to iled an answer denying that Jacob Brown was a supervi- correct the record. As the motion was unopposed, the corrections con- tained therein are hereby granted and incorporated, sua sponre , into the 'The name of the Charging Party appears as corrected at the hearing. record as ALJ Exh. 1. 2 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to calendar year 1980. ' Respondent argued orally at the hearing but did not file a brief. 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD intent to terminate the 1977-80 agreement as of June 30. Co. Painting. A nonaffiliated contractor." 5 On August On February 20, Ray De Namur, Respondent's executive 28, Respondent notified Jacob of the charges filed secretary, wrote Sammie L. Brown acknowledging re- against him and set a trial of the case for the evening of ceipt of Brown's intent to terminate the contract and ad- September 18 at Respondent's offices in Los Angeles, vising Brown that Respondent desired to negotiate with California. On September 9, Jacob wrote Respondent re- the Charging Party "on an individual basis prior to the questing the specifics of the charges against him. On expiration date of June 30." Although the Charging September 12, Respondent, by Executive Secretary De Party, through its attorneys, requested negotiation meet- Namur, sent Jacob copies of the notice of his alleged ings with the Union, negotiation on a single-employer violations, the applicable provisions of the Union's con- basis never commenced. On September 24, the Charging stitution and bylaws, and the applicable contract provi- Party, through its attorney, notified Respondent's attor- sions- Jacob did not attend the trial on September 18, but neys that: was notified by letter dated September 19 that he had been found guilty of the alleged violations and had been In light of the union's failure to respond to any of fined $600, $300 payable within 30 days and the remain- these requests for negotiations, the company can ing $300 suspended provided that there were no further only assume that the union no longer wishes to rep- violations for a period of 2 years. The record is silent as resent Brown & Company's employees. Therefore, to whether Jacob paid any portion of the fine. effective October 6, 1980, the company intends to D. implement the terms and conditions contained in the attached bargaining proposals, unless the union re- Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act provides that "it shall be quests negotiations prior to that date. an unfair labor practice for a labor organization . . . to restrain or coerce . . . an employer in the selection of Apparently, Respondent did not request negotiations his representative for the purposes of collective bargain- with the Charging Party, nor did it respond to the letter. ing or the adjustment of grievances." The applicable principles of law are as follows:6 B. The Supervisory Status of Jacob Brown Section 8(b)(l)(B) prohibits both direct union pres- Jacob Brown is the brother of Sammie L. Brown and sure-for example, strikes-to force replacement of has been employed by the Charging Party for approxi- grievance representatives and indirect union pres- mately 10 years. Jacob Brown serves as painting foreman sure-for example, union discipline of supervisor- for the Charging Party and, except for occasional visits members-which may adversely affect the chosen by his brother, is the individual in charge at the jobsites. supervisors' performance of their representative Jacob Brown's general duties are to see that the painting functions. American Broadcasting Companies v. Writ- work is performed safely and correctly. Jacob Brown is ers Guild of America, West, Inc., et al., 437 U.S. 411 paid $2 an hour more than the journeymen painters. (1976); New Mexico District Council of the United During his 10 years of employment, Jacob Brown has Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A. recommended the discharge of three or four employees S. Horner, Inc.), 177 NLRB 500, 502 (1969), enfd. for inadequate performance, with the result that all such 454 F.2d 1116 (C.A. 10, 1972); and Wisconsin River employees were discharged by Sammie L. Brown. With Valley District Council of Carpenters (Skippy Enter- respect to hiring, Jacob has hired three or four applicants prises Inc.), 218 NLRB 1063, 1064 (1975), enfd. 532 and rejected others, without checking with Sammie. Fi- F.2d 47 (C. A. 7, 1976). nally, Jacob testified that he resolves employee com- It is also well settled that union discipline of su- plaints about working conditions without checking with pervisor members who cross a picket line or other- Sammie and that, therefore, Sammie does not have to wise violate a union's no-work rule in order to per- deal with such complaints. form their normal supervisory functions constitutes Based on the foregoing facts, I find that Jacob Brown indirect union pressure within the prohibition of is now, and has been at all times material herein, a super- Section 8(b)(l)(B). In reaching this conclusion, the visor of the Charging Party within the meaning of Sec- Board and courts have recognized that the reason- tion 2(11) of the Act. I further find that Jacob Brown ably foreseeable and intended effect of such disci- was a natural and potential representative of the Charg- pline is that the supervisor-member will cease work- ing Party for the purposes of collective bargaining or the ing for the duration of the dispute, thereby depriv- adjustment of grievances within the meaning of Section ing the employer of the grievance adjustment serv- 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. See Norwalk Typographical Union ices of his chosen representative. American Broad- No. 529 (The Hour Publishing Co.), 241 NLRB 310 casting Companies, supra, 437 U.S. at 433-437, note (1979). 36; N.L.R.B. v. International Union of Operating En- gineers, Local Union No. 501, 580 F.2d 359, 360 (C. C. The Union Discipline ' Jacob testified that on August 15, the date of his alleged violation, he Jacob Brown has been a member of affiliate local was probably showing employees how he wanted certain items painted. unions of Respondent for approximately 14 years. On I As recently set forth by Administrative Law Judge Shapiro in Plumb- August 20, charges were filed by Jack Mike, a business ers, Steamfiters and Refrigeration Local No. 364 (West Coast Contractors.) representative, against Jacob for "working for Brown & 254 NLRB 1123(1981). 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD intent to terminate the 1977-80 agreement as of June 30. Co. Painting. A nonaffiliated contractor."5 On August On February 20, Ray De Namur, Respondent's executive 28, Respondent notified Jacob of the charges filed secretary, wrote Sammie L. Brown acknowledging re- against him and set a trial of the case for the evening of ceipt of Brown's intent to terminate the contract and ad- September 18 at Respondent's offices in Los Angeles, vising Brown that Respondent desired to negotiate with California. On September 9, Jacob wrote Respondent re- the Charging Party "on an individual basis prior to the questing the specifics of the charges against him. On expiration date of June 30." Although the Charging September 12, Respondent, by Executive Secretary De Party, through its attorneys, requested negotiation meet- Namur, sent Jacob copies of the notice of his alleged ings with the Union, negotiation on a single-employer violations, the applicable provisions of the Union's con- basis never commenced. On September 24, the Charging stitution and bylaws, and the applicable contract provi- Party, through its attorney, notified Respondent's attor- sio n s. J a c o b d id n o t a t t e n d t h e tria l on September 18, but neys that: w a s n ot ifie d by le t te r d a t e d September 19 that he had been found guilty of the alleged violations and had been In light of the union's failure to respond to any of fined $600, $300 payable within 30 days and the remain- these requests for negotiations, the company can ing $300 suspended provided that there were no further only assume that the union no longer wishes to rep- violations for a period of 2 years. The record is silent as resent Brown & Company's employees. Therefore, to whether Jacob paid any portion of the fine. effective October 6, 1980, the company intends to D. Conclusions implement the terms and conditions contained in the attached bargaining proposals, unless the union re- Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act provides that "it shall be quests negotiations prior to that date. an unfair labor practice for a labor organization ... to restrain or coerce ... an employer in the selection of Apparently, Respondent did not request negotiations his representative for the purposes of collective bargain- with the Charging Party, nor did it respond to the letter,. ing or the adjustment of grievances." The applicable principles of law are as follows:6 B. The Supervisory Status of Jacob Brown Section 8(b)(l)(B) prohibits both direct union pres- Jacob Brown is the brother of Sammie L. Brown and sure-for example, strikes-to force replacement of has been employed by the Charging Party for approxi- grievance representatives and indirect union pres- mately 10 years. Jacob Brown serves as painting foreman sure-for example, union discipline of supervisor- for the Charging Party and, except for occasional visits members-which may adversely affect the chosen by his brother, is the individual in charge at the jobsites. supervisors' performance of their representative Jacob Brown's general duties are to see that the painting functions. American Broadcasting Companies v. Writ- work is performed safely and correctly. Jacob Brown is ers Guild of America, West, Inc., et al., 437 U.S. 411 paid $2 an hour more than the journeymen painters. (1976); New Mexico District Council of the United During his 10 years of employment, Jacob Brown has Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A. recommended the discharge of three or four employees S. Horner, Inc.), 177 NLRB 500, 502 (1969), enfd. for inadequate performance, with the result that all such 454 F.2d 1116 (C.A. 10, 1972); and Wisconsin River employees were discharged by Sammie L. Brown. With Valley District Council of Carpenters (Skippy Enter- respect to hiring, Jacob has hired three or four applicants prises Inc.), 218 NLRB 1063, 1064 (1975), enfd. 532 and rejected others, without checking with Sammie. Fi- F.2d 47 (C. A. 7, 1976). nally, Jacob testified that he resolves employee com- It is also well settled that union discipline of su- plaints about working conditions without checking with pervisor members who cross a picket line or other- Sammie and that, therefore, Sammie does not have to wise violate a union's no-work rule in order to per- deal with such complaints. form their normal supervisory functions constitutes Based on the foregoing facts, I find that Jacob Brown indirect union pressure within the prohibition of is now, and has been at all times material herein, a super- Section 8(b)(l)(B). In reaching this conclusion, the visor of the Charging Party within the meaning of Sec- Board and courts have recognized that the reason- tion 2(11) of the Act. I further find that Jacob Brown ably foreseeable and intended effect of such disci- was a natural and potential representative of the Charg- pline is that the supervisor-member will cease work- ing Party for the purposes of collective bargaining or the ing for the duration of the dispute, thereby depriv- adjustment of grievances within the meaning of Section ing the employer of the grievance adjustment serv- 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. See Norwalk Typographical Union ices of his chosen representative. American Broad- No. 529 (The Hour Publishing Co.), 241 NLRB 310 casting Companies, supra, 437 U.S. at 433-437, note (1979). 36; N.L.R.B. v. International Union ofOperating En- gineers, Local Union No. 501, 580 F.2d 359, 360 (C. C. The Union Discipline . Jacob testified that on August 15, the date of his alleged violation, he Jacob Brown has been a member Of affiliate local was probably showing employees how he wanted certain items painted. unions of Respondent for approximately 14 years. On I As recently set forth by Administrative Law Judge Shapiro in Plumb- August 20, Charges were filed by Jack Mike, a business Sler amfilers and Refrigeration Local No. 364 (West Coast Contractors). representative, against Jacob for "working for Brown & 254 NLRB 1123(1981). 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD intent to terminate the 1977-80 agreement as of June 30. Co. Painting. A nonaffiliated contractor."5 On August On February 20, Ray De Namur, Respondent's executive 28, Respondent notified Jacob of the charges filed secretary, wrote Sammie L. Brown acknowledging re- against him and set a trial of the case for the evening of ceipt of Brown's intent to terminate the contract and ad- September 18 at Respondent's offices in Los Angeles, vising Brown that Respondent desired to negotiate with California. On September 9, Jacob wrote Respondent re- the Charging Party "on an individual basis prior to the questing the specifics of the charges against him. On expiration date of June 30." Although the Charging September 12, Respondent, by Executive Secretary De Party, through its attorneys, requested negotiation meet- Namur, sent Jacob copies of the notice of his alleged ings with the Union, negotiation on a single-employer violations, the applicable provisions of the Union's con- basis never commenced. On September 24, the Charging stitution and bylaws, and the applicable contract provi- Party, through its attorney, notified Respondent's attor- sio n s. J a c o b d id n o t a t t e n d t h e tr ia l on September 18, but neys that: w a s n ot ifie d by le t te r d a t e d September 19 that he had been found guilty of the alleged violations and had been In light of the union's failure to respond to any of fined $600, $300 payable within 30 days and the remain- these requests for negotiations, the company can ing $300 suspended provided that there were no further only assume that the union no longer wishes to rep- violations for a period of 2 years. The record is silent as resent Brown & Company's employees. Therefore, to whether Jacob paid any portion of the fine. effective October 6, 1980, the company intends to D. Conclusions implement the terms and conditions contained in the attached bargaining proposals, unless the union re- Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act provides that "it shall be quests negotiations prior to that date. an unfair labor practice for a labor organization ... to restrain or coerce ... an employer in the selection of Apparently, Respondent did not request negotiations his representative for the purposes of collective bargain- with the Charging Party, nor did it respond to the letter,. ing or the adjustment of grievances." The applicable principles of law are as follows:6 B. The Supervisory Status of Jacob Brown Section 8(b)(l)(B) prohibits both direct union pres- Jacob Brown is the brother of Sammie L. Brown and sure-for example, strikes-to force replacement of has been employed by the Charging Party for approxi- grievance representatives and indirect union pres- mately 10 years. Jacob Brown serves as painting foreman sure-for example, union discipline of supervisor- for the Charging Party and, except for occasional visits members-which may adversely affect the chosen by his brother, is the individual in charge at the jobsites. supervisors' performance of their representative Jacob Brown's general duties are to see that the painting functions. American Broadcasting Companies v. Writ- work is performed safely and correctly. Jacob Brown is ers Guild of America, West, Inc., et al., 437 U.S. 411 paid $2 an hour more than the journeymen painters. (1976); New Mexico District Council of the United During his 10 years of employment, Jacob Brown has Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A. recommended the discharge of three or four employees S. Horner, Inc.), 177 NLRB 500, 502 (1969), enfd. for inadequate performance, with the result that all such 454 F.2d 1116 (C.A. 10, 1972); and Wisconsin River employees were discharged by Sammie L. Brown. With Valley District Council of Carpenters (Skippy Enter- respect to hiring, Jacob has hired three or four applicants prises Inc.), 218 NLRB 1063, 1064 (1975), enfd. 532 and rejected others, without checking with Sammie. Fi- F.2d 47 (C. A. 7, 1976). nally, Jacob testified that he resolves employee com- It is also well settled that union discipline of su- plaints about working conditions without checking with pervisor members who cross a picket line or other- Sammie and that, therefore, Sammie does not have to wise violate a union's no-work rule in order to per- deal with such complaints. form their normal supervisory functions constitutes Based on the foregoing facts, I find that Jacob Brown indirect union pressure within the prohibition of is now, and has been at all times material herein, a super- Section 8(b)(l)(B). In reaching this conclusion, the visor of the Charging Party within the meaning of Sec- Board and courts have recognized that the reason- tion 2(11) of the Act. I further find that Jacob Brown ably foreseeable and intended effect of such disci- was a natural and potential representative of the Charg- pline is that the supervisor-member will cease work- ing Party for the purposes of collective bargaining or the ing for the duration of the dispute, thereby depriv- adjustment of grievances within the meaning of Section ing the employer of the grievance adjustment serv- 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. See Norwalk Typographical Union ices of his chosen representative. American Broad- No. 529 (The Hour Publishing Co.), 241 NLRB 310 casting Companies, supra, 437 U.S. at 433-437, note (1979). 36; N.L.R.B. v. International Union ofOperating En- gineers, Local Union No. 501, 580 F.2d 359, 360 (C. C. The Union Discipline . Jacob testified that on August 15, the date of his alleged violation, he Jacob Brown has been a member Of affiliate local was probably showing employees how he wanted certain items painted. unions of Respondent for approximately 14 years. On I As recently set forth by Administrative Law Judge Shapiro in Plumb- August 20, Charges were filed by Jack Mike, a business Sler amfiters and Refrigeration Local No. 364 (West Coast Contractors). representative, against Jacob for "working for Brown & 254 NLRB 1123(1981). 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD intent to terminate the 1977-80 agreement as of June 30. Co. Painting. A nonaffiliated contractor."5 On August On February 20, Ray De Namur, Respondent's executive 28, Respondent notified Jacob of the charges filed secretary, wrote Sammie L. Brown acknowledging re- against him and set a trial of the case for the evening of ceipt of Brown's intent to terminate the contract and ad- September 18 at Respondent's offices in Los Angeles, vising Brown that Respondent desired to negotiate with California. On September 9, Jacob wrote Respondent re- the Charging Party "on an individual basis prior to the questing the specifics of the charges against him. On expiration date of June 30." Although the Charging September 12, Respondent, by Executive Secretary De Party, through its attorneys, requested negotiation meet- Namur, sent Jacob copies of the notice of his alleged ings with the Union, negotiation on a single-employer violations, the applicable provisions of the Union's con- basis never commenced. On September 24, the Charging stitution and bylaws, and the applicable contract provi- Party, through its attorney, notified Respondent's attor- sio n s. J a c o b d id n o t a t t e n d t h e tr ia l on September 18, but neys that: w a s n ot ifie d by le t te r d a t e d September 19 that he had been found guilty of the alleged violations and had been In light of the union's failure to respond to any of fined $600, $300 payable within 30 days and the remain- these requests for negotiations, the company can ing $300 suspended provided that there were no further only assume that the union no longer wishes to rep- violations for a period of 2 years. The record is silent as resent Brown & Company's employees. Therefore, to whether Jacob paid any portion of the fine. effective October 6, 1980, the company intends to D. Conclusions implement the terms and conditions contained in the attached bargaining proposals, unless the union re- Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act provides that "it shall be quests negotiations prior to that date. an unfair labor practice for a labor organization ... to restrain or coerce ... an employer in the selection of Apparently, Respondent did not request negotiations his representative for the purposes of collective bargain- with the Charging Party, nor did it respond to the letter,. ing or the adjustment of grievances." The applicable principles of law are as follows:6 B. The Supervisory Status of Jacob Brown Section 8(b)(l)(B) prohibits both direct union pres- Jacob Brown is the brother of Sammie L. Brown and sure-for example, strikes-to force replacement of has been employed by the Charging Party for approxi- grievance representatives and indirect union pres- mately 10 years. Jacob Brown serves as painting foreman sure-for example, union discipline of supervisor- for the Charging Party and, except for occasional visits members-which may adversely affect the chosen by his brother, is the individual in charge at the jobsites. supervisors' performance of their representative Jacob Brown's general duties are to see that the painting functions. American Broadcasting Companies v. Writ- work is performed safely and correctly. Jacob Brown is ers Guild of America, West, Inc., et al., 437 U.S. 411 paid $2 an hour more than the journeymen painters. (1976); New Mexico District Council of the United During his 10 years of employment, Jacob Brown has Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A. recommended the discharge of three or four employees S. Horner, Inc.), 177 NLRB 500, 502 (1969), enfd. for inadequate performance, with the result that all such 454 F.2d 1116 (C.A. 10, 1972); and Wisconsin River employees were discharged by Sammie L. Brown. With Valley District Council of Carpenters (Skippy Enter- respect to hiring, Jacob has hired three or four applicants prises Inc.), 218 NLRB 1063, 1064 (1975), enfd. 532 and rejected others, without checking with Sammie. Fi- F.2d 47 (C. A. 7, 1976). nally, Jacob testified that he resolves employee com- It is also well settled that union discipline of su- plaints about working conditions without checking with pervisor members who cross a picket line or other- Sammie and that, therefore, Sammie does not have to wise violate a union's no-work rule in order to per- deal with such complaints. form their normal supervisory functions constitutes Based on the foregoing facts, I find that Jacob Brown indirect union pressure within the prohibition of is now, and has been at all times material herein, a super- Section 8(b)(l)(B). In reaching this conclusion, the visor of the Charging Party within the meaning of Sec- Board and courts have recognized that the reason- tion 2(11) of the Act. I further find that Jacob Brown ably foreseeable and intended effect of such disci- was a natural and potential representative of the Charg- pline is that the supervisor-member will cease work- ing Party for the purposes of collective bargaining or the ing for the duration of the dispute, thereby depriv- adjustment of grievances within the meaning of Section ing the employer of the grievance adjustment serv- 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. See Norwalk Typographical Union ices of his chosen representative. American Broad- No. 529 (The Hour Publishing Co.), 241 NLRB 310 casting Companies, supra, 437 U.S. at 433-437, note (1979). 36; N.L.R.B. v. International Union ofOperating En- gineers, Local Union No. 501, 580 F.2d 359, 360 (C. C. The Union Discipline . Jacob testified that on August 15, the date of his alleged violation, he Jacob Brown has been a member Of affiliate local was probably showing employees how he wanted certain items painted. unions of Respondent for approximately 14 years. On I As recently set forth by Administrative Law Judge Shapiro in Plumb- August 20, Charges were filed by Jack Mike, a business Sler amfiters and Refrigeration Local No. 364 (West Coast Contractors). representative, against Jacob for "working for Brown & 254 NLRB 1123(1981). PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 811 A. 9); A. S. Horner, supra, 177 NLRB at 502; and e.g., Pioneer Inn Associates, d/b/a Pioneer Inn and Pioneer Skippy Enterprises, supra, 218 NLRB 1064, enfd. 532 Inn Casino, 228 NLRB 1263 (1977), enfd. 578 F.2d 835 F.2d at 52-53. Such discipline is unlawful even (9th Cir. 1978); Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara- where as here the supervisor defies the union and Tahoe Hotel, 229 NLRB 1094 (1977). Further, Respond- continues to work for the employer during the dis- ent had expressed an intent to continue representation pute; the discipline is unlawful because the supervi- and bargain for a contract on an individual employer sor, having been disciplined for working during a basis. The record does not establish that Respondent af- labor dispute, may reasonably fear further discipline firmatively abandoned its intent to bargain for a new and hence will be deterred from working during agreement for the Charging Party's employees. Rather, any future disputes. The employer, in such circum- Respondent failed to respond to the Charging Party's stances, must either replace the disciplined supervi- correspondence which, by its terms, granted Respondent sor or risk loss of his services during a future dis- until October 6 to request negotiations. Thus, during pute; in either event, the employer is coerced in the August, when the intraunion charges were filed against selection and retention of his chosen grievance ad- Jacob Brown, and September, when the discipline was justment representative. American Broadcasting imposed, Respondent represented the Charging Party's Companies, supra, 437 U.S. at 433-437. employees or at least showed an interest in representing In light of the foregoing principles, Respondent's disci- said employees. pline of the Charging Party's supervisor, Jacob Brown, Respondent argues that the General Counsel must because he worked for a nonunion employer, restrained prove that the union's object is to influence the supervi- and coerced the Charging Party in the selection and re- sory function. However, in Chicago Typographical Union tention of its grievance adjustment representative. No. 16 (Hammond Publishers, Inc.), 216 NLRB 903, 903- Respondent, relying on the decision of the United 904 (1975), the Board stated that a violation of Section States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the 8(b)(l)(B) does not turn on a determination of the moti- Chewelah Contractors case,7 argues that union discipline vation behind a union's act of discipline, but rather on a of a member who works for a nonsignatory contractor is determination of the reasonable effect of that discipline not a violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B), even though that on the supervisor's activities as an 8(b)(IXB) representa- member is a supervisor, unless it is clear that the union's tive. object is to influence the supervisory function. The Board has continued to adhere to the reasonable In Chewelah Contractors, the court, in refusing to en- effect test. See e.g., Chewelah Contractors, supra, 231 force the Board's finding of a violation of Section NLRB at 811-812; West Coast Contractors, supra; New 8(b)(l)(B), stated that the purposes of the section were to York Newspaper Printing Pressman's Union No. 2 (New prevent unions from forcing employers into or out of York News, Inc.), 249 NLRB 1284, 1285 (1980). Applying multiemployer bargaining units and to guarantee that an the effect test here, I find that the reasonable and fore- employer's bargaining representative would be complete- seeable consequences of Respondent's discipline of Jacob ly faithful to the employer's desires. The court noted Brown is that the supervisor-member would cease work- that, in any decision involving Section 8(b)(l)(B) that ing for his employer until a contract was signed or cease had come to its attention, the charged union had been working for his employer in future disputes, thereby de- the bargaining representative of the complaining compa- priving the Charging Party of its chosen representative ny's employees. However, the charged union in Chewe- for the purposes of grievance adjustment. See American lah Contractors neither represented the company's em- Broadcasting Companies, supra, 437 U.S. at 436, fn. 36; ployees nor demonstrated a desire to represent the em- N.L.R.B. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, ployees. The court reasons that the union had no incen- Local 501 supra, 580 F.2d at 360. Thus, I conclude that tive to influence the company's choice of representative by disciplining Jacob Brown, Respondent has violated or affect the member's loyalty to the company. Thus, the Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. court held that a union does not violate Section 8(b)(l)(B) by disciplining a member, even though that IV. THE REMEDY member is also the bargaining representative of an em- ployer if the union neither represents nor shows an intent Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair to represent the employer's employees. labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent be I find that the court's opinion in Chewelah Contractors ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- is inapposite because the record establishes that Respond- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the ent represented or showed an interest in representing the Act. Charging Party's employees at the time of the subject Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on discipline. As noted above, Respondent represented the the entire record in the case, I make the following: Charging Party's employees for some time prior to the expiration of the 1977-80 agreement. At the expiration of CONCLUSIONS OF LAW the agreement, Respondent was presumed to be the ex- I. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- clusive bargaining representative of the employees. See, ing of Section 2(5) and Section 8(b) of the Act ' N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2.The Charging Party is an employer engaged in Union No. 73. AFL-CIO [Chewelah Contractors, Inc.I, 621 F.2d 1035 (9th commerce and in a business affectig commerce within Cir. 1980), denying enforcement of 231 NLRB 809 (1977). the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 811 A. 9); A. S. Horner, supra, 177 NLRB at 502; and e.g., Pioneer Inn Associates, d/b/a Pioneer Inn and Pioneer Skippy Enterprises, supra, 218 NLRB 1064, enfd. 532 Inn Casino, 228 NLRB 1263 (1977), enfd. 578 F.2d 835 F.2d at 52-53. Such discipline is unlawful even (9th Cir. 1978); Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara- where as here the supervisor defies the union and Tahoe Hotel, 229 NLRB 1094 (1977). Further, Respond- continues to work for the employer during the dis- ent had expressed an intent to continue representation pute; the discipline is unlawful because the supervi- and bargain for a contract on an individual employer sor, having been disciplined for working during a basis. The record does not establish that Respondent af- labor dispute, may reasonably fear further discipline firmatively abandoned its intent to bargain for a new and hence will be deterred from working during agreement for the Charging Party's employees. Rather, any future disputes. The employer, in such circum- Respondent failed to respond to the Charging Party's stances, must either replace the disciplined supervi- correspondence which, by its terms, granted Respondent sor or risk loss of his services during a future dis- until October 6 to request negotiations. Thus, during pute; in either event, the employer is coerced in the August, when the intraunion charges were filed against selection and retention of his chosen grievance ad- Jacob Brown, and September, when the discipline was justment representative. American B r o ad c as ting imposed, Respondent represented t h e C ha rging Party's Companies, supra, 437'U.S. at 433-437. employees or at least showed an interest in representing In light of the foregoing principles, Respondent's disci- sa id employees. pline of the Charging Party's supervisor, Jacob Brown, Respondent argues that the General Counsel must because he worked for a nonunion employer, restrained prove that the union's object is to influence the supervi- and coerced the Charging Party in the selection and re- sory function. However, in Chicago Typographical Union tention of its grievance adjustment representative. No. 16 (Hammond Publishers, Inc.), 216 NLRB 903, 903- Respondent, relying on the decision of the United 904 (1975), the Board stated that a violation of Section States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the 8(b)(l)(B) does not turn on a determination of the moti- Chewelah Contractors case, 7 argues that union discipline vation behind a union's act of discipline, but rather on a of a member who works for a nonsignatory contractor is determination of the reasonable effect of that discipline not a violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B), even though that on the supervisor's activities as an 8(b)(lXB) representa- member is a supervisor, unless it is clear that the union's tive. object is to influence the supervisory function. The Board has continued to adhere to the reasonable In Chewelah Contractors, the court, in refusing to en- effect test. See e.g., Chewelah Contractors, supra, 231 force the Board's finding of a violation of Section NLRB at 811-812; West Coast Contractors, supra; New 8(b)(l)(B), stated that the purposes of the section were to York Newspaper Printing Pressman's Union No. 2 (New prevent unions from forcing employers into or out of York News, Inc.), 249 NLRB 1284, 1285 (1980). Applying multiemployer bargaining units and to guarantee that an the effect test here, I find that the reasonable and fore- employer's bargaining representative would be complete- seeable consequences of Respondent's discipline of Jacob ly faithful to the employer's desires. The court noted Brown is that the supervisor-member would cease work- that, in any decision involving Section 8(b)(l)(B) that ing for his employer until a contract was signed or cease had come to its attention, the charged union had been working for his employer in future disputes, thereby de- the bargaining representative of the complaining compa- priving the Charging Party of its chosen representative ny's employees. However, the charged union in Chewe- for the purposes of grievance adjustment. See American lah Contractors neither represented the company's em- Broadcasting Companies, supra, 437 U.S. at 436, fn. 36; ployees nor demonstrated a desire to represent the em- N.L.R.B. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, ployees. The court reasons that the union had no incen- Local 501, supra, 580 F.2d at 360. Thus, I conclude that tive to influence the company's choice of representative by disciplining Jacob Brown, Respondent has violated or affect the member's loyalty to the company. Thus, the Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. court held that a union does not violate Section 8(b)(l)(B) by disciplining a member, even though that Iv. THE REMEDY member is also the bargaining representative of an em- ployer if the union neither represents nor shows an intent Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair to represent the employer's employees,.labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent be I find that the court's opinion in Chewelah Contractors ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- is inapposite because the record establishes that Respond- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the ent represented or showed an interest in representing the Act. Charging Party's employees at the time of the subject Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on discipline. As noted above, Respondent represented the the entire record in the case, I make the following: Charging Party's employees for some time prior to the expiration of the 1977-80 agreement. At the expiration of CONCLUSIONS OF LAW the agreement, Respondent was presumed to be the ex- 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- clusive bargaining representative of the employees. See, ing of Section 2(5) and Section 8(b) of the Act. ' N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local 2. T h e Charging Party is an employer engaged in Union No. 73. AFL-CIO [Chewelah Contractors. Inc.], 621 F.2d 1035 (9th commerce and in a business affecting commerce within Cir. 1980), denying enforcement of 231 NLRB 809 (1977). the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 811 A. 9); A. S. Horner, supra, 177 NLRB at 502; and e.g., Pioneer Inn Associates, d/b/a Pioneer Inn and Pioneer Skippy Enterprises, supra, 218 NLRB 1064, enfd. 532 Inn Casino, 228 NLRB 1263 (1977), enfd. 578 F.2d 835 F.2d at 52-53. Such discipline is unlawful even (9th Cir. 1978); Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara- where as here the supervisor defies the union and Tahoe Hotel, 229 NLRB 1094 (1977). Further, Respond- continues to work for the employer during the dis- ent had expressed an intent to continue representation pute; the discipline is unlawful because the supervi- and bargain for a contract on an individual employer sor, having been disciplined for working during a basis. The record does not establish that Respondent af- labor dispute, may reasonably fear further discipline firmatively abandoned its intent to bargain for a new and hence will be deterred from working during agreement for the Charging Party's employees. Rather, any future disputes. The employer, in such circum- Respondent failed to respond to the Charging Party's stances, must either replace the disciplined supervi- correspondence which, by its terms, granted Respondent sor or risk loss of his services during a future dis- until October 6 to request negotiations. Thus, during pute; in either event, the employer is coerced in the August, when the intraunion charges were filed against selection and retention of his chosen grievance ad- Jacob Brown, and September, when the discipline was justment representative. American B r o ad c as ting imposed, Respondent represented t h e C ha rging Party's Companies, supra, 437'U.S. at 433-437. employees or at least showed an interest in representing In light of the foregoing principles, Respondent's disci- sa id employees. pline of the Charging Party's supervisor, Jacob Brown, Respondent argues that the General Counsel must because he worked for a nonunion employer, restrained prove that the union's object is to influence the supervi- and coerced the Charging Party in the selection and re- sory function. However, in Chicago Typographical Union tention of its grievance adjustment representative. No. 16 (Hammond Publishers, Inc.), 216 NLRB 903, 903- Respondent, relying on the decision of the United 904 (1975), the Board stated that a violation of Section States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the 8(b)(l)(B) does not turn on a determination of the moti- Chewelah Contractors case, 7 argues that union discipline vation behind a union's act of discipline, but rather on a of a member who works for a nonsignatory contractor is determination of the reasonable effect of that discipline not a violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B), even though that on the supervisor's activities as an 8(b)(lXB) representa- member is a supervisor, unless it is clear that the union's tive. object is to influence the supervisory function. The Board has continued to adhere to the reasonable In Chewelah Contractors, the court, in refusing to en- effect test. See e.g., Chewelah Contractors, supra, 231 force the Board's finding of a violation of Section NLRB at 811-812; West Coast Contractors, supra; New 8(b)(l)(B), stated that the purposes of the section were to York Newspaper Printing Pressman's Union No. 2 (New prevent unions from forcing employers into or out of York News, Inc.), 249 NLRB 1284, 1285 (1980). Applying multiemployer bargaining units and to guarantee that an the effect test here, I find that the reasonable and fore- employer's bargaining representative would be complete- seeable consequences of Respondent's discipline of Jacob ly faithful to the employer's desires. The court noted Brown is that the supervisor-member would cease work- that, in any decision involving Section 8(b)(l)(B) that ing for his employer until a contract was signed or cease had come to its attention, the charged union had been working for his employer in future disputes, thereby de- the bargaining representative of the complaining compa- priving the Charging Party of its chosen representative ny's employees. However, the charged union in Chewe- for the purposes of grievance adjustment. See American lah Contractors neither represented the company's em- Broadcasting Companies, supra, 437 U.S. at 436, fn. 36; ployees nor demonstrated a desire to represent the em- N.L.R.B. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, ployees. The court reasons that the union had no incen- Local 501, supra, 580 F.2d at 360. Thus, I conclude that tive to influence the company's choice of representative by disciplining Jacob Brown, Respondent has violated or affect the member's loyalty to the company. Thus, the Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. court held that a union does not violate Section 8(b)(l)(B) by disciplining a member, even though that Iv. THE REMEDY member is also the bargaining representative of an em- ployer if the union neither represents nor shows an intent Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair to represent the employer's employees,.labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent be I find that the court's opinion in Chewelah Contractors ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- is inapposite because the record establishes that Respond- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the ent represented or showed an interest in representing the Act. Charging Party's employees at the time of the subject Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on discipline. As noted above, Respondent represented the the entire record in the case, I make the following: Charging Party's employees for some time prior to the expiration of the 1977-80 agreement. At the expiration of CONCLUSIONS OF LAW the agreement, Respondent was presumed to be the ex- 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- clusive bargaining representative of the employees. See, ing of Section 2(5) and Section 8(b) of the Act. ' N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local 2. T h e Charging Party is an employer engaged in Union No. 73. AFL-CIO [Chewelah Contractors. Inc.], 621 F.2d 1035 (9th commerce and in a business affecting commerce within Cir. 1980), denying enforcement of 231 NLRB 809 (1977). the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36 811 A. 9); A. S. Horner, supra, 177 NLRB at 502; and e.g., Pioneer Inn Associates, d/b/a Pioneer Inn and Pioneer Skippy Enterprises, supra, 218 NLRB 1064, enfd. 532 Inn Casino, 228 NLRB 1263 (1977), enfd. 578 F.2d 835 F.2d at 52-53. Such discipline is unlawful even (9th Cir. 1978); Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara- where as here the supervisor defies the union and Tahoe Hotel, 229 NLRB 1094 (1977). Further, Respond- continues to work for the employer during the dis- ent had expressed an intent to continue representation pute; the discipline is unlawful because the supervi- and bargain for a contract on an individual employer sor, having been disciplined for working during a basis. The record does not establish that Respondent af- labor dispute, may reasonably fear further discipline firmatively abandoned its intent to bargain for a new and hence will be deterred from working during agreement for the Charging Party's employees. Rather, any future disputes. The employer, in such circum- Respondent failed to respond to the Charging Party's stances, must either replace the disciplined supervi- correspondence which, by its terms, granted Respondent sor or risk loss of his services during a future dis- until October 6 to request negotiations. Thus, during pute; in either event, the employer is coerced in the August, when the intraunion charges were filed against selection and retention of his chosen grievance ad- Jacob Brown, and September, when the discipline was justment representative. American B r o ad c as ting imposed, Respondent represented t h e C ha rging Party's Companies, supra, 437'U.S. at 433-437. employees or at least showed an interest in representing In light of the foregoing principles, Respondent's disci- sa id employees. pline of the Charging Party's supervisor, Jacob Brown, Respondent argues that the General Counsel must because he worked for a nonunion employer, restrained prove that the union's object is to influence the supervi- and coerced the Charging Party in the selection and re- sory function. However, in Chicago Typographical Union tention of its grievance adjustment representative. No. 16 (Hammond Publishers, Inc.), 216 NLRB 903, 903- Respondent, relying on the decision of the United 904 (1975), the Board stated that a violation of Section States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the 8(b)(l)(B) does not turn on a determination of the moti- Chewelah Contractors case, 7 argues that union discipline vation behind a union's act of discipline, but rather on a of a member who works for a nonsignatory contractor is determination of the reasonable effect of that discipline not a violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B), even though that on the supervisor's activities as an 8(b)(lXB) representa- member is a supervisor, unless it is clear that the union's tive. object is to influence the supervisory function. The Board has continued to adhere to the reasonable In Chewelah Contractors, the court, in refusing to en- effect test. See e.g., Chewelah Contractors, supra, 231 force the Board's finding of a violation of Section NLRB at 811-812; West Coast Contractors, supra; New 8(b)(l)(B), stated that the purposes of the section were to York Newspaper Printing Pressman's Union No. 2 (New prevent unions from forcing employers into or out of York News, Inc.), 249 NLRB 1284, 1285 (1980). Applying multiemployer bargaining units and to guarantee that an the effect test here, I find that the reasonable and fore- employer's bargaining representative would be complete- seeable consequences of Respondent's discipline of Jacob ly faithful to the employer's desires. The court noted Brown is that the supervisor-member would cease work- that, in any decision involving Section 8(b)(l)(B) that ing for his employer until a contract was signed or cease had come to its attention, the charged union had been working for his employer in future disputes, thereby de- the bargaining representative of the complaining compa- priving the Charging Party of its chosen representative ny's employees. However, the charged union in Chewe- for the purposes of grievance adjustment. See American lah Contractors neither represented the company's em- Broadcasting Companies, supra, 437 U.S. at 436, fn. 36; ployees nor demonstrated a desire to represent the em- N.L.R.B. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, ployees. The court reasons that the union had no incen- Local 501, supra, 580 F.2d at 360. Thus, I conclude that tive to influence the company's choice of representative by disciplining Jacob Brown, Respondent has violated or affect the member's loyalty to the company. Thus, the Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. court held that a union does not violate Section 8(b)(l)(B) by disciplining a member, even though that Iv. THE REMEDY member is also the bargaining representative of an em- ployer if the union neither represents nor shows an intent Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair to represent the employer's employees,.labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent be I find that the court's opinion in Chewelah Contractors ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- is inapposite because the record establishes that Respond- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the ent represented or showed an interest in representing the Act. Charging Party's employees at the time of the subject Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on discipline. As noted above, Respondent represented the the entire record in the case, I make the following: Charging Party's employees for some time prior to the expiration of the 1977-80 agreement. At the expiration of CONCLUSIONS OF LAW the agreement, Respondent was presumed to be the ex- 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- clusive bargaining representative of the employees. See, ing of Section 2(5) and Section 8(b) of the Act. ' N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local 2. T h e Charging Party is an employer engaged in Union No. 73. AFL-CIO [Chewelah Contractors. Inc.], 621 F.2d 1035 (9th commerce and in a business affecting commerce within Cir. 1980), denying enforcement of 231 NLRB 809 (1977). the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Jacob Brown, at all times material herein, was a su- resentative for performing supervisory, managerial, or pervisor for the Charging Party within the meaning of grievance adjustment functions for said Employer. Section 2(11) of the Act and a natural and potential rep- (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- resentative of the Charging Party for the purposes of ing Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the selection of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 8(b)X)(B) of the Act. or the adjustment of grievances. 4. By preferring intraunion charges against Jacob 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to Brown, holding hearing on said charges, and imposing a effectuate the policies of the Act: fine against him, Respondent restrained and coerced the (a) Rescind and expunge from its records all disciplin- Charging Party in the selection and retention of its rep- ary action taken against Jacob Brown, including the resentative for the purposes of collective bargaining and fines, because of his working for Brown & Co. Painting the adjustment of grievances, and thereby has engaged in ontractor. and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the (b) Notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the fines meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. levied against him have been rescinded and all records of disciplinary action against him expunged. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor discipnary action against him expunged. (c) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of Region 31, after being duly signed by its authorized rep- law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) resentative, shall be posted by said Respondent immedi- of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- ORDER" eluding all places where notices to members are custom- The Respondent, Painters District Council No. 36, Los arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond- Angeles, California, its officers, agents, and representa- ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or tives, shall: covered by any other material. 1. Cease and desist from: (d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 31 (a) .. . Rsrnn e c . Brown // signed copies of said notice in sufficient number for post- (a) Restraining or coercing Sammie L. Brown d/b/a & C Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the selection of its ontractor, said Employer willing at all locations where representative for the purpose of collective bargaining or notc to employees are customarily posted. the adjustment of grievances by preferring charges, hold- (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in ing a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining any such rep- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. ' All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Jacob Brown, at all times material herein, was a su- resentative for performing supervisory, managerial, or pervisor for the Charging Party within the meaning of grievance adjustment functions for said Employer. Section 2(11) of the Act and a natural and potential rep- (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- resentative of the Charging Party for the purposes of ing Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the selection of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. or the adjustment of grievances. 4. By preferring intraunion charges against Jacob 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to Brown, holding hearing on said charges, and imposing a effectuate the policies of the Act: fine against him, Respondent restrained and coerced the (a ) Rescind and expunge from its records all disciplin- Charging Party in the selection and retention of its rep- ary a c tio n taken against Jacob Brown, including the resentative for the purposes of collective bargaining and fin e s, b e c a u s e o f h is working f o r B r o w n & Co. Painting the adjustment of grievances, and thereby has engaged in o n t r a c,. and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the (b) Notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the fines meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. levied against him have been rescinded and all records of 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor disciplinary action against him expunged. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor (c) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of Region 31, after being duly signed by its authorized rep- law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) resentative, shall be posted by said Respondent immedi- of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- ORDER" eluding all places where notices to members are custom- The Respondent, Painters District Council No. 36, Los arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond- Angeles, California, its officers, agents, and representa- ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or tives, shall: covered by any other material. 1. Cease'and desist from: (d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 31 (a) . Restrainingor crcing Sammie L. Brown di/b/a signed copies of said notice in sufficient number for post- (a) Restraining or coercing Sammie L. Brown d/b/a ' Bron &Co.Pantig Cntrctr i th seecionof ts ing by Sammie L. Brown d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the selection of its contractor, said Employer willing, at all locations where representative for the purpose of collective bargaining ornotices to employees are customarily posted. the adjustment of grievances by preferring charges, hold- (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in ing a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining any such rep- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what ------- ~~~~~~~~~~~steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. ' All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Jacob Brown, at all times material herein, was a su- resentative for performing supervisory, managerial, or pervisor for the Charging Party within the meaning of grievance adjustment functions for said Employer. Section 2(11) of the Act and a natural and potential rep- (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- resentative of the Charging Party for the purposes of ing Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the selection of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. or the adjustment of grievances. 4. By preferring intraunion charges against Jacob 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to Brown, holding hearing on said charges, and imposing a effectuate the policies of the Act: fine against him, Respondent restrained and coerced the (a ) Rescind and expunge from its records all disciplin- Charging Party in the selection and retention of its rep- ary a c tio n taken against Jacob Brown, including the resentative for the purposes of collective bargaining and fin e s, b e c a u s e o f h is working f o r B r o w n & Co. Painting the adjustment of grievances, and thereby has engaged in o n t r a c,. and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the (b) Notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the fines meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. levied against him have been rescinded and all records of 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor disciplinary action against him expunged. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor (c) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of Region 31, after being duly signed by its authorized rep- law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) resentative, shall be posted by said Respondent immedi- of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- ORDER" eluding all places where notices to members are custom- The Respondent, Painters District Council No. 36, Los arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond- Angeles, California, its officers, agents, and representa- ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or tives, shall: covered by any other material. 1. Cease'and desist from: (d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 31 (a) . Restrainingor crcing Sammie L. Brown di/b/a signed copies of said notice in sufficient number for post- (a) Restraining or coercing Sammie L. Brown d/b/a ' Bron &Co.Pantig Cntrctr i th seecionof ts ing by Sammie L. Brown d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the selection of its contractor, said Employer willing, at all locations where representative for the purpose of collective bargaining ornotices to employees are customarily posted. the adjustment of grievances by preferring charges, hold- (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in ing a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining any such rep- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what ------- ~~~~~~~~~~~steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. ' All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Jacob Brown, at all times material herein, was a su- resentative for performing supervisory, managerial, or pervisor for the Charging Party within the meaning of grievance adjustment functions for said Employer. Section 2(11) of the Act and a natural and potential rep- (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- resentative of the Charging Party for the purposes of ing Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the selection of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. or the adjustment of grievances. 4. By preferring intraunion charges against Jacob 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to Brown, holding hearing on said charges, and imposing a effectuate the policies of the Act: fine against him, Respondent restrained and coerced the (a ) Rescind and expunge from its records all disciplin- Charging Party in the selection and retention of its rep- ary a c tio n taken against Jacob Brown, including the resentative for the purposes of collective bargaining and fin e s, b e c a u s e o f h is working f o r B r o w n & Co. Painting the adjustment of grievances, and thereby has engaged in o n t r a c,. and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the (b) Notify Jacob Brown, in writing, that the fines meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. levied against him have been rescinded and all records of 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor disciplinary action against him expunged. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor (c) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of Region 31, after being duly signed by its authorized rep- law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) resentative, shall be posted by said Respondent immedi- of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- ORDER" eluding all places where notices to members are custom- The Respondent, Painters District Council No. 36, Los arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond- Angeles, California, its officers, agents, and representa- ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or tives, shall: covered by any other material. 1. Cease'and desist from: (d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 31 (a) . Restrainingor crcing Sammie L. Brown di/b/a signed copies of said notice in sufficient number for post- (a) Restraining or coercing Sammie L. Brown d/b/a ' Bron &Co.Pantig Cntrctr i th seecionof ts ing by Sammie L. Brown d/b/a Brown & Co. Painting Brown & Co. Painting Contractor in the selection of its contractor, said Employer willing, at all locations where representative for the purpose of collective bargaining ornotices to employees are customarily posted. the adjustment of grievances by preferring charges, hold- (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in ing a trial, fining, or otherwise disciplining any such rep- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what ------- ~~~~~~~~~~~steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. ' All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board."