TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 147
rejected the picketing union's contention that it struck and picketed
merely to protest the employer's termination of its bargaining relationship
with the union and its refusal to sign a new agreement The
picketing in this case followed the employer's termination of the one
trucking operation covered by this union's contract, the discharge
of the drivers covered thereby, and the transfer of their functions to
other operations whose employees were represented by other unions"
On the other hand, the Board quashed the notices of hearing m one
case where the employer at all times desired to employ members of
the respondent union, rather than members of sister locals, but could
not do so because of the respondent union's persistent refusal to refer
workmen 7 Under the circumstances, the Board concluded there was
no dispute over the assignment of work within the meaning of section
8(b) (4) (D)
One union moved to dismiss 10(k) proceedings on the ground that
the disputed work was covered by provisions of its contract with the
employer, and further contended that the arbitrativ provisions of its
contract with the employer provided a method for the adjustment
of the dispute 8 Holding that the assignment of the disputed work
to other unions was not in derogation of the Board's certification to
the respondent union, the Board found that the conti act provisions
and even past practices thereunder did not lend any support to the
union's position." With respect to the alleged applicability of the
arbitration clauses the union sought to enforce, the Board pointed
out that any award issued thereunder would not be binding on the
other unions
b Violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
Violations of section 8(b) (4) (D) were found in three cases during
the past year.9 In each case, the Board held that the respondents
had refused to comply with the decision in the antecedent 10(k) proceeding
determining the underlying work assignment claims adverse
to the respondents The union's defenses m each case turned largely
on matters which had been determined in the earlier 10(k) proceeding
and were not subject to relitigation
O After the fiscal year. another Board majority held that the conduct here did not give
rise to a "jurisdictional dispute" because there was no "real competition beta een unions
or groups of employees for the work," the real dispute being wholly betteen the picketing
union and the employer on the retrieval of jobs 134 NLRB No 130 (Dec 15, 1901),
Members Rodgers and Leedom dissenting
*Local 9 Electrical Workers (G A. Wel and Co ), 128 NLRB 899
▪ Local 4, Electrical Workers (Pulitzer Publishing Co ), 120 NLRB 058
■A But see Tacoma Printing Pressmen's Union No 44 (Valley Publishing Co ), 131 NLRB
No 1 q3 there the Board relied upon a contract in determining a dispute
ILWU Local 8 (General Ore) 128 NLRB 351, Des Moines Electrotyper' Union No 84
(Meredith Publishing Co ), 128 NLRB 801 • International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 926 (Tip 7'op Roofers), 128 NLRB 1057
816401-02-11