Source: https://openjurist.org/210/f2d/377
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:54:40+00:00

Document:
George J. Bott, Gen Counsel, David P. Fingling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. Elmer Davis, Chief Law Officer, N.L.R.B., Fort Worth, Tex., Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Dean E. Denlinger, Atty., N.L.R.B., Dayton, Ohio, for petitioner.
Quentin Keith, Cecil, Keith & Mehaffy, Beaumont, Tex., for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of an order requiring respondent, The Lummus Company, to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action which the Board found would effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged at various places throughout the United States and in foreign countries in the designing, engineering, and construction of petroleum refineries and chemical and alcohol plants. It performs services and sells materials on a multistate basis throughout the United States and in foreign countries; and between January 1 and November 22, 1951, was engaged in construction operations and the installation of machinery at the Taylor Refining Company in Corpus Christi, Texas, the situs of the instant case. The machinery installation work involved was of a type with respect to which the Carpenters and Machinists have a longstanding jurisdictional dispute. See N.L.R.B. v. George D. Auchter Co., 5 Cir., 209 F.2d 273; Eichleay Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 3 Cir., 206 F.2d 799, N.L.R.B. v. Local 743, etc., 9 Cir., 202 F.2d 516; N.L.R.B. v. Cantrall, 9 Cir., 201 F.2d 853; N.L.R.B. v. Oertel Brewing Co., 6 Cir., 197 F.2d 59; N.L.R.B. v Arthur G. McKee & Co., 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 636; N.L.R.B. v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., 5 Cir., 185 F.2d 1020. The principal question here is whether there is substantial evidence in the record, considered as a whole, supporting the Board's finding that respondent, in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, discriminated against applicants for employment who were members of the Machinists.
There is evidence that before and during the time of respondent's temporary construction activities at Corpus Christi the recognized local bargaining group of employers engaged in construction work was the South Texas Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, herein called A.G.C. The policies and practices of A.G.C. during this interval included an agreement with the Carpenters2 to be bound by the 'Bylaws and Working Rules' of the Carpenters' Union. These bylaws forbid members of the Carpenters to work with nonmembers without special union permission; require millwright foremen to be members of the Carpenters; and further require that they hire only members of the Carpenters for any work within the jurisdiction of the Carpenters including the machinery setting work in dispute. Respondent although not a member of A.G.C. or a party to this agreement did by letter which it sent to the Board on November 2, 1951, admit that 'in the State of Texas we follow the policies and practices of the recognized bargaining group in the area, which policies and practices have been recognized and agreed upon between the employers' group and the various unions.' It is undisputed that by 'recognized bargaining group' respondent meant A.G.C. and although its Assistant Personnel Manager, Burke, denied that the letter referred to its hiring policy it affirmatively appears that the letter was written in response to an inquiry from the Board's Sub-Regional Office at Houston, Texas, concerning respondent's employment practices. Further, that at the time the letter was written respondent had received a copy of the charge which the Machinists had filed with the Board alleging primarily a refusal to hire Reneau and Tucker. And that despite such clear notice of the importance of its hiring policy, respondent did not, in the letter, exclude its hiring policy from the general phrase 'policies and practices.' This evidence of respondent's compliance with A.G.C.'s hiring policy finds further support in the testimony which shows that respondent selected Wilson, a known member of the Carpenters, to be its craft foreman over the men doing machinery setter work and gave him power to hire and fire its employees engaged in this craft. It further appears that Brown, a former member of the Carpenters and who was a responsible official of respondent, was Wilson's immediate superior and that Wilson and Brown procured all their millwright employees from the Carpenter's business agent, Echols, and did not hire anyone not a member of the Carpenters.
On this record, we agree with the Board that respondent maintained a discriminatory hiring policy and applied such policy to Reneau and Tucker, and that in any event there was an independent discriminatory refusal on the part of respondent to hire these men. It is clear that respondent, through Brown, discriminated against Reneau and Tucker on May 31 and June 1, 1951, respectively, and through Wilson on June 5, and that these supervisors were acting in a dual capacity for both the Carpenters and respondent. Under these circumstances there is no merit in respondent's principal argument which is that no jobs were actually available at the time the named claimants visited the machinery installation project. While it is true that hiring took place four or five days later, the job applicants were told that they could not obtain employment unless they received clearance from the Carpenters. Where such an illegal requirement has been imposed, and it is apparent from such discriminatory hiring policy that further application for employment would be futile, the job applicants need not go through the useless procedure or reapplying for employment at the later time when jobs are actually available in order to establish that they were victims of the discriminatory hiring policy. By thus conditioning employment on membership in the Carpenters, respondent necessarily denied the applicants their statutory right to be considered for employment on a nondiscriminatory basis, that is, without regard to their union affiliation, when jobs became available shortly thereafter, as the respondent expected. N.L.R.B. v. Arthur G. McKee & Co., supra; N.L.R.B. v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., supra; N.L.R.B. v. Cantrall, supra.
Finally, respondent complains that the cease and desist order of the Board is too broad in its geographic scope, and also that it should order respondent only to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices of the kind found by the Board to have been committed by it. We think the order properly requires respondent to post the usual notices at all of its places of employment within the geographic confines of the South Texas Chapter of the A.G.C. since there is every reason to anticipate that if not deterred, respondent would pursue the same discriminatory policies at every project within the area embraced by said Chapter. However, we agree that the Board's order is too broad in that it prohibits respondent, in all-inclusive language, from in any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees or applicants for employment, in the exercise of those rights3 and those activities guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. We hold that the order must be modified so as to limit its full effect to the restraint of the unfair labor practices found to have been committed by the respondent and other related unlawful acts. N.L.R.B. v, Express Pub. Co., 312 U.S. 426, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. 930.
As thus modified, the Board's order is enforced.

References: § 151
 § 141
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.