Bricklayers, Mason & Tile Setters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1251 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

BRICKLAYERS, MASON & TILE SETTERS 1251
Bricklayers, Masons and Tile Setters Local No. 20,
Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International
Union of America, AFL-CIO; Building and
Construction Trades Council of San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties, AFL-CIO; and Hod
Carriers & Laborers Local No. 783, Laborers'
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO
(I. C. Minium ) and Frank A. Calhoun
Building and Construction Trades Council of San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties , AFL-CIO (I.
C. Minium ) and Frank A. Calhoun
Building and Construction Trades Council of San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, AFL-CIO;
Carpenters Local No. 944, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO;
Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO; Roofers Local No. 146, United Slate,
Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and
Waterproof Workers Association , AFL-CIO; San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties District Council
of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO; Sheet Metal
Workers No. 509, Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association , AFL-CIO; International
Union of Operating Engineers , Local Union No.
12, AFL-CIO; Construction Teamsters Local No.
606, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America ; and Local Union 364 , United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada , AFL-CIO and I. C. Minium. Cases
31-CC-122, 31-CP-34, 31-CC-141, and 31-CP-47
March 19,1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On August 19, 1968, Trial Examiner John P. von
Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceedings, finding that all of the above
Respondents except Teamsters had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondents and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner insofar as they are consistent
herewith.
1. We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that
the evidence presented by the General Counsel with
respect to the Plumbers is insufficient to establish
violations of Section 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) 2
2. We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that,
at the time of the incidents involved herein, the
Bricklayers was not, and Hod Carriers was,
affiliated with the Building and Trades Council of
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, AFL-CIO.
3. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner,
that Respondents Building and Construction Trades
Council, Carpenters Local 944, Hod Carriers,
Operating Engineers, and Electrical Workers'
engaged in a joint venture or common cause to
picket and cause to be picketed the shopping center
project with an object of forcing or requiring
Minium to recognize the Building and Construction
Trades Council and themselves, including
Respondent Bricklayers as discussed below, as
collective-bargaining agents in violation of Section
8(b)(7)(C). We also find in agreement with the Trial
Examiner that Hod Carriers engaged in Section
8(b)(4)(i), and Bricklayers engaged in Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (u), conduct with the same
recognitional object and to force or require
subcontractors to cease doing business with Minium
in furtherance of that object, in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(B). As the conduct of all the above-named
Respondents was in furtherance of the same
recognitional object, we find that these Respondents
were all engaged in a joint venture or common cause
to harass Minium at the shopping center site by
means of illegal primary and secondary pressures to
obtain Minium's capitulation to their recognitional
demand, and thereby violated Section 8(b)(7) and
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).4
4. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner,
that Respondents District Council, Carpenters Local
'The Trial Examiner inadvertently refers in fn 27 to a conversation
between Rippetoe and Calhoun as having occurred on January 20, 1968,
when in fact that conversation occurred on January 30, 1968
'The evidence with respect to Plumbers shows only that ( 1) Jahnke, the
Plumbers business agent, was observed at the shopping center project
conversing with pickets , and (2 ) in response to questions directed to Jahnke
during a telephone call made to him by Evans , the plumbing subcontractor
at the winery project, Jahnke told Evans that Plumbers considered the
picket line at that project to be a "legitimate " line that Evans "should
honor "
'in finding that Respondent Electrical Workers had engaged in a joint
venture we do not rely on the facts , as found by the Trial Examiner, that
O'Shea, executive secretary of the Building and Construction Trades
Council, communicated with the pickets through the "various " business
agents, and that business agent Geir of the Electrical Workers "spoke to
the pickets" in the absence of evidence as to the content of the
conversations between Geir and the pickets
ace Hodcarriers ' and Construction Laborers ' Union Local 300 (Fiesta
Pools, Inc.), 145 NLRB 911
174 NLRB No. 185
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
944, Sheet Metal Workers, and Electrical Workers
engaged in a joint venture or common cause to
picket and cause to be picketed the winery project
with an object of forcing or requiring Minium to
recognize the District Council and themselves,
including Respondents Roofers and Electrical
Workers as discussed below, as collective-bargaining
agents, in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C). We also
find in agreement with the Trial Examiner that
Roofers and Electrical Workers engaged in Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (u)5 conduct with the same
recognitional object and to force or require
subcontractors to cease doing business with Minium
in furtherance of that object, in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(B). As the conduct of all the above-named
Respondents was therefore in furtherance of the
same recognitional object, we agree with the Trial
Examiner that they were all engaged in a joint
venture or common cause to harass Minium at the
winery site by means of illegal primary and
secondary pressures to obtain Minium's capitulation
to their recognitional demand, and thereby violated
Section 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.'
5. In light of our conclusions in paragraphs
numbered 3 and 4 above, we find it unnecessary to,
and do not, reach the issue of whether or not all of
the Respondents found above to have engaged in
unfair labor practices were engaged in a single joint
venture or common cause with respect to both the
shopping center and winery projects. The remedial
order we enter below would be the same whether or
not a single joint venture is found to extend to both
projects or different joint ventures to each project
separately.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondents,
Bricklayers , Masons and Tile Setters Local No. 20,
Bricklayers , Masons and Plasterers International
Union of America , AFL-CIO; Building and
Construction Trades Council of San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties , AFL-CIO; Hod Carriers &
Laborers Local No. 783 , Laborers ' International
Union of North America , AFL-CIO; Carpenters
Local No. 944, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO ; Electrical
Workers Local Union No. 477, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO;
'In finding that Respondents Roofers and Electrical Workers engaged in
conduct violative of Sec 8(bx4X1XB ) of the Act, we rely on the fact as
shown by the record that employees of two neutral subcontractors (Bell
Roofing Co, and Skyline Electric Co ) refused to perform services at the
Minium project as a result of statements violative of 8(bx4Xi)(B; made by
Gauthier, a Roofers ' business agent to Christiansen , an employee of Bell,
and by Ballard, an Electrical Workers business agent, to Green, an
employee of Skyline Cf Sheet Metal Workers' International Assn Local
299 (S M Kisner & Sons ), 134 NLRB 1202 at p 1203, fn 3
'Fiesta Pools, suora
Roofers Local No. 146, United Slate, Tile and
Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof
Workers Association, AFL-CIO; San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties District Council of
Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; Sheet Metal
Workers No. 509, Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association, AFL-CIO; and
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No 12, AFL-CIO; their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall.
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Picketing, causing to be picketed, or
threatening-to picket I. C. Minium where an object
thereof is to force or require said employer to
recognize or bargain with any of the Respondents,
or any other labor organization, as the bargaining
agent of the employees or prospective employees of
I. C. Minium in circumstances violative of Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining
subcontractors of I C. Minium, or any other person
engaged in commerce, or an industry- affecting
commerce, where an object thereof is to force or
require such employers and others to cease doing
business with I. C. Minium for the purpose of
causing I. C. Minium to recognize or bargain with
any of the Respondents' or any other labor
organization, as the bargaining agent of the
employees or prospective employees of I. C.
Minium
(c) Inducing or encouraging any individual
employed by any subcontractor of I. C. Minium, or
any other person engaged in commerce, or in an
industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike
or refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle
or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities, or to perform any services where an
object thereof is to force or require such employers
to cease doing business with I. C. Minium for the
purpose of causing I. C. Minium to recognize or
bargain with any of the Respondents, or any other
labor organization, as the bargaining agent of the
employees or prospective employees of I. C.
Minium.
2. Take the following affirmative action which we
find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at the respective business offices and
meeting halls of each of the Respondents described
above, copies of the attached notice marked
Appendix.' Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall, after
being duly signed by a representative of each one of
the Respondents, be posted by each respective
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive
'In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a
Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order"
BRICKLAYERS, MASON & TILE SETTERS
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region
31 signed copies of said notice for posting by I. C.
Minium and his subcontractors, if willing, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Copies of said notices on forms provided the
Regional Director, shall, after being signed by each
of the respective Respondents, be forthwith returned
to the Regional Director for distribution by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondents have taken to comply
herewith
It is further ordered that the consolidated
complaint be, and is hereby, dismissed as to any
unfair labor practices alleged but not herein found
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF SAN BERNARDINO
AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, AFL-CIO; SAN
BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO;
CARPENTERS LOCAL No. 944, UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO;
BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND TILE SETTERS LOCAL No
20, BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO: HOD
CARRIERS & LABORERS LOCAL No. 783, LABORERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO; ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION No.
477, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO; ROOFERS LOCAL No. 146,
UNITED SLATE, TILE AND COMPOSITION ROOFERS,
DAMP AND WATERPROOF WORKERS ASSOCIATION,
AFL-CIO; SHEETMETAL WORKERS No. 509, SHEET
METAL WORKERS ' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AFL-CIO; AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION No 12, AFL-CIO, AND TO
ALL EMPLOYEES OF 1. C MINIUM AND ITS
SUBCONTRACTORS
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify our members that:
WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or
threaten to be picketed, I C Minium, where an object
is to force or require I C Minium to recognize or
bargain with us, or any other labor organization, as the
bargaining representative of its employees in
circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain
subcontractors of I. C. Minium, or any other person
engaged in commerce, or an industry affecting
commerce, where an object thereof is to force or
require such employers and others to cease doing
business with I. C. Minium for the purpose of causing
1. C Minium to recognize or bargain with any of the
Respondents, or any other labor organization, as the
1253
bargaining agent of the employees or prospective
employees of I. C. Minium.
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual
employed by any subcontractor of I. C Minium, or any
other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry
affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or refusal in
the course of his employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, materials, articles, or commodities, or to
perform any services where an object thereof is to force
or require such employers to cease doing business with
1. C Minium.
Dated By
BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL OF SAN
BERNARDINO AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTIES,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated By
Dated By
Dated By
Dated By
SAN BERNARDINO AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
CARPENTERS LOCAL No.
944, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
BRICKLAYERS , MASONS
AND TILE SETTERS LOCAL
No. 20, BRICKLAYERS,
MASONS AND
PLASTERERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
HOD CARRIERS &
LABORERS LOCAL No.
783, LABORERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA.
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
1254
Dated By
Dated By
Dated By
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ELECTRICAL WORKERS
LOCAL UNION No. 477,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
ROOFERS LOCAL No. 146,
UNITED SLATE, TILE AND
COMPOSITION ROOFERS,
DAMP AND WATERPROOF
WORKERS ASSOCIATION,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
SHEET METAL WORKERS
No. 509, SHEET METAL
WORKERS'
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION , AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL
UNION No. 12, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 10th Floor,
Bartlett Building, 215 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles,
California 90014, Telephone 213-688-5800
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN P. VON ROHR, Trial Examiner- Upon charges,
duly filed,' the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 31
(Los Angeles, California), issued an order consolidating
cases and a consolidated complaint on March 8, 1968,
against each of the labor organizations named in the
caption, above, alleging that they had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B), and Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat 136, herein called the Act. The
Respondents' answers deny the allegation of unlawful
conduct alleged in the consolidated complaint.
'The original charge in Case 3I-CC-122 was filed on September 6, 1967
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in
San Bernardino, California, on May 22, 23, and 27, 1968
All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded
opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have
been received from the General Counsel and the
Respondents and they have been carefully considered
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
I C. Minium has his principal place of business located
in San Bernardino, California, where as a general
contractor he is engaged in the business of constructing
commercial buildings in and around San Bernardino In
the course and conduct of his business operations in the
calendar year 1967, Minium' s gross annual revenues
exceeded $350,000, and he purchased and received
materials, consisting principally of lumber, windows,
doors, and air-conditioning units, valued in excess of
$50,000 from other firms and enterprises located within
the State of California, which other firms and enterprises
in the calendar year 1967 purchased and received said
materials directly from points outside the State of
California.
At all times material herein, Minium has employed
various contractors, including Tri-Co Concrete
Construction Co , Ralph Duris, Tom Lovley, William R.
Ford, Jr, Tony Todarello, Dan L Gaeber, and Fourth
Street Rock Crusher, to perform subcontracting work for
him at the San Bernardino Shopping Center Project,
which is hereinafter described. Each of the aforesaid
subcontractors supplied materials valued at approximately
$50,000 for Minium in connection with their work at the
shopping center project.
At all times material herein, Minium has subcontracted
work to various subcontractors, including Evans
Plumbing, Skyline Electric, Matthews Co , Electric Air,
George F Cassey Co , Joe T Fernandez, Summerbell
Structures, G R. G. Trucking, Bill McDaniel Equipment,
David W. Bryan and Bell Roofing Co. to perform
subcontracting work for him at the Colton Winery
project, which is hereinafter described. The aforesaid
subcontractors performed services and supplied materials
valued at approximately $50,000 for Minium in
connection with their work at the said project.
I find that I C Minium is, and has been at all times
material hereto, engaged in interstate commerce and in
operations affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, I find that
the Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this
proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Bricklayers, Masons and Tile Setters Local No. 20,
Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International Union
of America, AFL-CIO (at times herein called the
Bricklayers ); Building and Construction Trades Council of
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, AFL-CIO (at
times herein called the Building and Construction Trades
The charge in Case 31-CP- 34 was filed on September 6, 1967 The original
charge in Case 31-CC-141 was filed on January 5, 1968 The original
charge in Case 31-CP-47 was filed on January 5, 1968
BRICKLAYERS, MASON & TILE SETTERS
Council), Hod Carriers & Laborers Local No. 783,
Laborers ' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO (at times herein called the Hod Carriers),
Carpenters Local No 944 , United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO (at times
herein called the Carpenters Local 44); Electrical Workers
Local Union No. 477, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO (at times herein called the
Electrical Workers ); Roofers Local No. 146, United Slate,
Tile and Composition Roofers , Damp and Waterproof
Workers Association , AFL-CIO ( at times herein called
the Roofers ), San Bernardino and Riverside Counties
District Council of Carpenters , United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO (at times
herein called the District Council ), Sheet Metal Workers
No. 509, Sheet Metal Workers ' International Association,
AFL-CIO (at times herein called the Sheet Metal
Workers ); International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local Union No 12 , AFL-CIO (at times herein called
Operating Engineers ); Construction Teamsters Local No
606, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (at times herein
called the Teamsters ), Local Union 364, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO ( at times herein called the
Plumbers ), are now and have been at all times material
herein , labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
This case represents a renewal of a dispute between I
C Minium and certain labor organizations in the building
and construction industry, the facts of which are reported
in Lathers Local Union No 252, AFL-CIO, et al (I C
Minium), 159 NLRB 550 Briefly stated, the basic dispute
in that case involved an attempt in 1964 by Carpenters
Local 944 to require Minium to enter into a contract
containing various clauses which the Board found to be
prohibited by the terms of Section 8(e) of the Act.'
Although unfair labor practice charges were filed against
the Carpenters in the above proceeding, the Carpenters
entered into a settlement agreement prior to the litigation
therein and therefore were not named as a
Party-Respondent However, in the above case the Board
found that certain other labor organizations, in
furtherance of the same objectives as Carpenters Local
944, engaged in certain conduct violative of Section
8(b)(4)(i),(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act.
B The Facts as to the Shopping Center Project
I C Minium, a general contractor engaged in the
construction of commercial buildings for 16 years, first
operated as a union contractor between approximately
1955-60 Since the latter date and to the present time he
has had no union contracts
The alleged unfair labor practices herein involve two
projects which were undertaken by Minium, the first of
which to be considered involves the construction of a
shopping center at San Bernardino, California. Minium
The Board here found these clauses to be of the same type which it
found to be unalwful in Quality Builders , Inc (Los Angeles Building &
Construction Trades Council ). 153 NLRB 383
1255
was engaged to perform this work by Forest Karst, an
individual whose principal office is located in San
Bernardino Work on this project commenced on or about
August 1, 1967 Although Minium at times employed his
own carpenter employees, all work on this particular
project was performed under subcontract with other
companies
On August 4, 1967, a Friday, Con O'Shea, the
executive secretary of the Building and Construction
Trades Council of San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties, California, wrote Minium a letter which stated,
inter alia, as follows
You are probably aware of the shocking wave of
insolvencies which have taken place in the construction
industry in San Bernardino & Riverside Counties in the
past year among subcontractors The San
Bernardino-Riverside Counties Building and
Construction Trades Council has undertaken a
campaign to obtain agreements from general
contractors guaranteeing the payment of benefits earned
by employees of subcontractors
In view of the recent legislation signed by the Governor,
which undermined the lien laws of California, it has
become necessary for employees to seek protection from
the general contractors who are usually more financially
responsible than the subcontractors
This Council would like to negotiate an agreement with
you to the effect that in the event any subcontractor
from one of your jobs fails to pay wages or fringe
benefits, which he has contractually or legally obligated
to pay, you will guarantee payment
Would you please advise us when you will be available
to meet with us to negotiate such an agreement)
A picket line was established at the shopping center
project on August 8, 1967, a Tuesday, and continued until
about October 25, 1967.' It is undisputed that at all times
the legend on the picket signs stated as follows
1. C MINIUM IS UNFAIR TO THE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES OF SAN
BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES,
AFL-CIO
On the morning of August 8, Minium telephoned
O'Shea and arranged to meet with him at 2 o'clock that
afternoon It is undisputed that Minium kept this
appointment and met with O'Shea at the latter's office in
Riverside, California.' The conversation began with
Minium asking O'Shea what he could do to remove the
pickets from the shopping center project According to the
credited testimony of Minium, O'Shea asked if he would
'The picketing ceased on this date in anticipation of approval of a
proposed settlement agreement with the Board in Cases 31-CC-122 and
31-CP-34 by the Building Trades Council, Bricklayers Local No 20 and
Laborers Local No. 783 Although this settlement agreement was signed
by the unions on November 13, 1967, it was not approved by the Regional
Director for the apparent reason that the unions committed further alleged
unfair labor practices at Minium's winery project, which is hereinafter
discussed
'O'Shea did not testify in the instant unfair labor practice hearing
However, O'Shea did testify in an injunction proceeding brought by the
General Counsel before a U S District Court and the transcript of his
testimony therein was incorporated as a part of the instant record by
agreement of the parties Although I note that O'Shea somewhat
uncertainly testified that his meeting with Minium occurred the day before
the picketing began, I credit the testimony of Mmium, above, as to the
time of this meeting
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sign an agreement of the type referred to in his August 4
letter Although Minium agreed to sign a letter to this
effect, O'Shea declined, stating that "he couldn't type up
a letter such as that." However, at this point O'Shea
pulled out a document headed "Articles of Agreement"
and asked that Minium sign it This document, consisting
of one page with printing on both sides, is in reality a
short form contract. It provides for the execution, on the
one hand, of the Building and Construction Trades
Council of [San Bernardino or other appropriate county
named therein] and, on the other hand, of the "Employer,
Developer and/or Owner-Builder " The provisions in the
said artic!es of agreement which are relevant to the instant
case are as follows
Union affiliated with the Council. In the event that any
subcontractor fails to pay the wages or fringe benefits
provided under the Agreement with the appropriate
Union affiliated with the Council, the Employer,
Developer and/or Owner-Builder shall become liable for
the payment of such sums and such sums shall
immediately become due and payable by the Employer,
Developer and/or Owner-Builder provided, however, he
shall be notified of any such nonpayment by registered
letter by the appropriate Union no later than ninety
(90) days after notice of and/or completion of the entire
project
vi
I
This Agreement shall apply to and cover all building
and construction work performed by the Employer,
Developer and/or Owner-Building within the
jurisdiction of any Union affiliated with the Councils
and the contracting or subcontracting of work to be
done at the site of the construction, alteration, painting,
repair or demolition of a building structure or other
work
II
The Employer, Developer and/or Owner-Builder agrees
that all work performed within the jurisdiction of any
Union affiliated with the Councils shall be performed
pursuant to an executed agreement with the appropriate
Union having work and territorial jurisdiction and
affiliated with the Council in the area in which the work
is performed
III
The Employer, Developer and/or Owner-Builder agrees
to abide by all of the terms and conditions of the
current agreements of the respective crafts employed,
including wages, hours, working conditions, health and
welfare benefits, pension benefits, and other benefits,
and further including any amendments, modifications,
extensions, changes, supplements and renewals of said
agreements negotiated by the parties thereto
IV
The Employer, Developer and/or Owner-Builder agrees
that he shall contract or subcontract all jobsite work set
forth in Article I above to a person, firm, partnership or
corporation that is party to an executed, current
Agreement with the appropriate Union having work and
territorial jurisdiction, affiliated with the Council in
which area the work is performed
V
The Employer, Developer and/or Owner-Builder agrees
that in the event he contracts or subcontracts any
jobsite work set forth in Article I above, there shall be
contained in his contract with the subcontractor a
provision that the subcontractor shall be responsible for
the payment of all the wages and fringe benefits
provided under the agreement with the appropriate
It is mutually agreed that any provision in the
agreements of the respective crafts covering or relating
to the subjects of Strikes, Lockouts, Procedure for
Settlement of Grievances and Disputes the Selection
and Functioning of Tribunals for Arbitration, and the
Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes shall not be in
effect or binding upon the Employer, Developer and/or
Owner-Builder, and the Councils and the respective
craft Unions, nor incorporated in these Articles of
Agreement by reference or otherwise, except as herein
provided
VII
In the event a jurisdictional dispute arises which is not
resolved by the Unions themselves locally, the matter
shall be determined in the manner and by the procedure
established by the National Joint Board for the
Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, or in the event
the National Joint Board for the Settlement of
Jurisdictional Disputes is abolished, the Procedure
established by the Building and Construction Trades
Department shall prevail.
Minium credibly testified that after perusing the above
articles of agreement he advised O'Shea that he would
like to see the various agreements with the other craft
unions referred to in the document which he would be
bound to if he signed the agreement According to the
credited testimony of Minium, O'Shea declined, stating
that he did not have these agreements on file Minium
thereupon stated that he had a non-union plumber on the
job (who was hired by Karst, the owner of the shopping
center) and asked if he removed the plumber if he
(O'Shea) would remove the pickets. According to the
undenied and credited testimony of Minium, O'Shea
replied that the only way the pickets could be removed
would be for him to sign the agreement. Minium
responded that he would not sign the agreement unless he
was furnished with the various other agreements referred
to in the Articles of Agreement. He thereupon left and
has not since been in communication with O'Shea 5
'From my observation of him as he testified, Minium impressed me as
an honest and forthright witness and I credit his testimony concerning the
above conversation Although O'Shea testified that the discussion centered
about Article V of the Articles of Agreement, he testified that "I asked
him for the opportunity of sitting down and negotiating a contract", and
also that, "I offered to negotiate the contract with him " Concerning this
meeting, it is noteworthy that O'Shea also testified, "He (Mmium) said
that his general working policy is to subcontract the work out, but he said
there might be the possibility that he sometimes might hire carpenters
directly " (Emphasis supplied )
BRICKLAYERS, MASON & TILE SETTERS
It may be stated at this point that O'Shea conceded
that he, on behalf of Respondent the Building and
Construction Trades Council, established and authorized
the picketing at the shopping center project Respondents'
defense to this picketing and my findings and conclusions
as to the objectives of the picketing are considered and set
forth later in this Decision I shall also reserve for later
discussion the alleged involvement in and participation by
agents'of various craft unions affiliated with the Council
in the picketing at the shopping center.' However, I shall
now turn to a consideration of the evidence pertinent to
the allegation that certain other Respondent unions
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i)( ii)(B) in
allegedly supporting the picketing by the Building Trades
Council at the shopping center This evidence relates to
two incidents, which are as follows
1. William R. Ford, a masonry contractor, has a
collective bargaining agreement with Respondent
Bricklayers Local No 20 Ford agreed to perform
masonry work for Minium at the shopping center project
Upon being apprised by Minium that the shopping center
was being picketed, Ford went to the business office of
Local 20 and spoke to Arthur Loyer, a business
representative of Bricklayers Local 20.' Gordon
Chambers, a bricklayer-employee and a member of the
Union, accompanied Ford and was present during Ford's
conversation with Loyer. Ford testified, "I asked him
[Loyer] if we should honor the picket line " According to
the credited and undenied testimony of Ford, Loyer
replied that "he didn't want to tell us not to cross the
picket line or to cross the picket line" but that it was
possible that charges would be brought "against the men
that did cross the line." Ford testified that based on this
conversation he decided not to send his men through the
picket line. He did not perform the work at the shopping
center which he had agreed to do
2. Mark Gonzales was employed by the Tri-Co
Concrete Company as a laborer at the shopping center
project. Although Tri-Co is a non-union contractor,
Gonzales is a member of the Hod Carriers & Laborers
Local No 783.8 On an occasion after the inception of the
picketing , Gonzales was approached while at work on this
project by Willy Wilson , a business agent of Laborers
Local 783 Wilson asked Gonzales for his union book,
apparently for the purpose of stamping it for dues
previously collected by him 9 However , according to the
credited and undenied testimony of Gonzales, during the
conversation which ensued Wilson told him that he had to
"turn him in" for working behind a picket line. He
thereupon took Gonzales ' social security number and the
number of his union book Further, after advising
Gonzales that he would lose various union benefits such as
insurance and health and welfare if he worked for a
nonunion employer , Wilson offered to obtain Gonzales a
job with a union contractor if he would cease work on
Minium's shopping center project
'This conduct is pertinent to the allegation , which is hereinafter
discussed, that all Respondents in this proceeding are jointly and severally
responsible for the alleged unfair labor practices herein
'Ford placed the date of this occurrence as being some time in August
1967
'Apparently in need of work, Gonzales testified that he obtained this job
by himself
'Gonzales testified that 2 weeks before this time he paid Wilson for 3
months ' union dues but that Wilson did not have a stamp at this time
C. Facts As to the Winery Project
1257
In about the latter part of November 1967, Minium
began the construction of a winery warehouse in Colton,
California, for the Brookside Winery This project will be
hereinafter referred to as the winery project Although
Minium subcontracted the major portion of this work to
various subcontractors, he did on this project directly
employ carpenters as his own employees These
carpenters, of whom there were four or five in number,
began work at the winery project about latter November
or the first days in December 1967.
On December 4, 1967, a business agent of the San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties District Council of
Carpenters (hereinafter called the District Council of
Carpenters) came to the winery jobsite and asked Minium
"who was going to hire the carpenters." Minium replied
that he was hiring the carpenters. When the business agent
thereupon stated that he understood that Minium had
subcontracted the carpentry work to the Lemkes, Minium
advised that he had not, that he was hiring the men to do
the job The business agent thereupon departed '° It should
here be noted that the Lemkes, a carpentry contractor,
signed a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Carpenters' Union a week or two prior to this
conversation 'i
On Decmber 5, 1967, Vern C. Rippetoe, secretary of
the District Council of Carpenters (also a delegate to the
Building and Construction Trades Council and a former
officer of Carpenters Local 944) sent Minium the
following telegram
Advised you are employing carpenters at 22900
Washington Colton at below area rate and fringe If
this is not correct we are available to examine your
payroll books and records Your failure to make
records available to us will leave no conclusion except
that you are not meeting area standards for carpenters
and we will picket jobsite to protest below standard
wages and fringes.
On the same date, Minium replied by sending the
following telegram to Rippetoe
Answering your telegram this date please be advised
that I am employing carpenters on said job site at rates
of pay and under conditions that are satisfactory to the
workers. I believe these rates are equal to or above area
rate and fringe Please advise if you have been selected
as collective bargaining representative of carpenter
employees and what you deem to be the area rate and
fringe Request that you not engage in picketing or
other action which is designed to interfere with my
reputation or progress of job. I have authorized Frank
Calhoun 571 South Eye St. San Bernardino phone
884-8017 to represent me He stands ready to meet with
you to arrive at satisfactory solution to your problem
It is undisputed that Respondent District Council of
Carpenters and Respondent Carpenters' Local 944
engaged in picketing at Minium's winery project on
December 7, 1967, and that such picketing continued until
"Although the business agent was not identified by name, Verne
Rippetoe of the District Council conceded in his District Court testimony
that on about December 4, 1967, he received a report from a business
agent that Minium was employing his own carpenters at the winery
project Under this circumstance, I find that the above individual who
spoke to Minium on this date was an agent of the District Council of
Carpenters The facts concerning the above conversation are based on the
credited testimony of Minium
"The uncontroverted testimony of Minium
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
February 15, 1968, at which time it ceased pursuant to a
temporary restraining order issued by a United States
District Court It is also undisputed that at all times the
legend on the picket signs read as follows
CARPENTER EMPLOYEES OF I C MINIUM
EMPLOYER WORK UNDER SUB-STANDARD
CONDITIONS AND SUB-STANDARD WAGES
CARPENTERS LOCAL NO. 944 SAN
BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
At all times material herein, Frank A Calhoun, a labor
relations consultant, was engaged by Minium to represent
him in labor relations affairs, particularly the disputes
involved herein. On January 30, 1968, Calhoun held a
meeting with Rippetoe at the office of the District Council
of Carpenters in Colton Calhoun's version of this meeting
is as follows Calhoun began by asking what could be
done to get the picket line off the winery project After
some further conversation which need not be detailed
here, Rippetoe finally stated, "We don't like the picketing
any better than you do, and we will pull the pickets off
when Minium signs the agreement" Calhoun then asked
if he meant the Carpenters agreement or the Building
Trades agreement Rippetoe responded that he would have
to check with his attorney and that Calhoun should get in
touch with him later that day Calhoun then left but
returned to see Rippetoe in the latter part of the afternoon
of the same day. Calhoun's version of the second meeting
which then transpired is as follows- Rippetoe at this time
took a signed memorandum agreement from his file,
handed it to Calhoun, and stated that this was the
agreement which Minium should sign After examining
the document, Calhoun stated that he objected to a clause
providing for payment to a proposed industry fund
Rippetoe replied that the proposed industry fund was "not
operative yet " Calhoun then suggested that this provision
of the clause be stricken. Rippetoe thereupon telephoned
his attorney, Abe F Levy. After some conversation,
Calhoun was put on the telephone to speak with Levy.
Calhoun repeated his objection to the industry fund
proviso, whereupon Levy stated that he could write the
work "inoperative" alongside the clause Calhoun stated
that he did not wish to be bound by this provision if it
became operative later on Levy responded that he did not
have authority to change any part of the agreement
whatsoever When the telephone conversation thus ended,
Rippetoe advised Calhoun, "Yes, we can't make a one
man agreement out of this." With this the meeting ended
I turn now to the testimony of Rippetoe concerning his
meetings with Calhoun on January 30 Rippetoe began by
testifying that Calhoun came to his office and asked for a
copy of the short form memorandum agreement He said
he told Calhoun that a copy of this agreement "was not
available." Calhoun then asked "what we could do to
solve our problem and take the picket line off," and if he
had received his telegram." Rippetoe testified that he
responded that he had received the telegram, but that he
then asked Calhoun "to show proof that prevailing rates
were being paid, and fringe benefits were being paid " At
this point Rippetoe continued his testimony as follows
He said that there were some clauses in the agreement
that Mr Minium did not - could not abide by and he
wished to remove them and possibly he would sign our
"This had reference to a telegram which Calhoun sent to Rippetoe and
the other Respondent Unions herein The telegram stated that Minium at
this time no longer had any carpenters on the winery project and requested
that the picketing cease
agreement I told him that I didn't have the power to
remove anything from that, but I would call my
attorney and let him talk to him
Rippetoe acknowledged that he and Calhoun spoke to
Attorney Levy on the telephone He said that after he
spoke to Levy he advised Calhoun that he could not
change or delete any portion of the agreement. However,
Rippetoe denied that he told Calhoun that the picket line
would be removed if or when Minium signed the
agreement He also denied that he handed or displayed to
Calhoun a copy of a signed memorandum agreement at
any time during the meetings which were held on this day.
I do not credit the foregoing denials made by Rippetoe
Calhoun impressed me as a credible witness and I am
convinced that he was telling the truth as to this and other
matters relative to the instant dispute concerning which he
testified. Accordingly, and upon the credited testimony of
Calhoun, I find that on January 30, 1968, Rippetoe
advised Calhoun that the picket line would be removed
from the winery project on the condition that Minium sign
the memorandum agreement referred to in the testimony
cited above "
It is undisputed that on about January 16, 1968,
Calhoun held a conversation with E L Burke, a business
agent for Sheet Metal Workers Local 509, while Burke
was in the winery picket line Calhoun testified that after
Burke identified himself, he asked Burke "what they were
picketing for " According to Calhoun, Burke replied that
the reason for the picketing "was to get Mmium signed up
with the Carpenters Union " Conceding that he spoke to
Calhoun at this time, Burke testified that this was a short
conversation in which Calhoun asked who he was and also
if another Sheet Metal Worker representative was in the
vicinity Burke denied that Minium's name was mentioned
or that there was any discussion concerning the picketing
of Minium From my observation of the witnesses, I do
not credit Burke's denials I credit the testimony of
Calhoun, as aforesaid
It is undisputed that Rippetoe telephoned Minium on
the evening of May 13, 1968 Minium's testimony
concerning this conversation was a follows.
Mr Rippetoe called me, and he's known me for about
20 years, and he asked if there wasn't some way that we
could resolve this problem without going to court, and
if I could meet him for breakfast in the morning and
come to some kind of an agreement with him so that
we could work this out, and the agreement wouldn't
have to be with the Trades Union just as long as I
worked out an agreement with the Carpenters Union,
and as far as the agreement with the Trades Council
and Con O'Shea's union, it didn't necessarily have to
concern them.
Concerning the above conversation, Rtppetoe testified
that he telephoned Minium and asked that they meet for
breakfast some morning so that they could "try to work
out some situation" where they could work "in
cooperation" in a forthcoming project which Minium had
scheduled for construction on Waterman Street He
"A copy of the Memorandum Agreement was received in evidence as G
C Exh 16- B Calhoun , whose testimony demonstrates that he was
knowlegeable on the subject , credibly testified that this agreement , absent
the signatures of any parties , was identical to the one handed to him by
Rippetoe on January 30 Indeed , the quoted portion of Rippetoe's own
testimony clearly reflects that there was a meeting of minds as to the
agreement under discussion It is undisputed that Calhoun also obtained a
copy of the Carpenters' Master Labor Agreement (G C Exh l6-A)
during this conference
BRICKLAYERS, MASON & TILE SETTERS 1259
denied that he made any demand upon Minium to accede
to the Carpenters agreement or the Building Trades
agreement. On cross-examination, however, Rippetoe said
that he did not refer to the Waterman Street job, but only
that "[we] talk over our positions on any jobs in the
future coming up " I credit Minium's version of this
conversation as set forth above
The conversations which Calhoun had with Rippetoe on
January 30, Calhoun's conversation with Burke on
January 16, and Minium's conversation with Rippetoe on
May 13 were adduced by the General Counsel for the
purpose of showing the objective of the picketing at
Mmium's winery project There rema ns one further
incident along this line, this having occ,.rred on about
January 2, 1968, at which time David Bryan, a drywall
contractor who had agreed to perform drywall work at the
winery project, called upon Rippetoe at the latter's office
Bryan testified that the purpose of this visit was to
ascertain when the pickets would be removed from this
project so that he could perform his agreement with
Minium. Accordingly to Bryan, when he asked this
question Rippetoe at first responded that he did know,
that it would be up to the Board to decide Bryan then
stated that he would assume the pickets would be removed
when there no longer were any carpenters on the job
According to Bryan, Rippetoe first stated that he did
know about the pickets being removed, but then stated
that the picket line would be removed "if Mr. Minium
would sign any of the agreements " Rippetoe testified that
he did not remember having any conversation with Bryan
in early January about the winery job and he denied that
he ever told Bryan that Minium could get rid of the picket
line by signing the Carpenters agreement Bryan
impressed me as an honest witness and his testimony was
not shaken on cross-examination. I credit his testimony
concerning this incident 10
To this point I have set forth the facts pertinent to the
allegation that Respondents engaged in conduct violative
of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act in connection with the
picketing of Minium's winery project. Concerning this
same project, the following incidents are alleged to involve
violations of Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by the
various Respondents who participated therein.
1 Aubrey D Green is an employee of the Skyline
Electric Company and a member of Electrical Workers
Local Union No 477 He was sent to work at the winery
project shortly after the picketing commenced Upon
observing the picketing, Green telephoned Charles Gier,
the president of Local 477, and asked what he "was
supposed to do" Gier advised that he could not tell him
not to cross the picket line but that he would see if he
could obtain some information concerning the picketing
A short while later Green spoke to Gier for the second
time This time Gier told Green that the picket line was
"legitimate" but that he could not advise him whether or
not to cross the picket line Green did not cross the picket
line to perform the work which he had been assigned Two
or three weeks later Green was working on another
"In crediting this testimony , I have taken into consideration the fact that
although Bryan gave an account of this conversation in his pretrial
affidavit , this statement did not allude to Rippetoe ' s statement to him
concerning Minium signing an agreement Nevertheless , from my
observation of him as he testified, I do not believe that Bryan fabricated
this testimony Moreover , not only did Bryan give a plausible reason for
not mentioning this matter in his affidavit, but the mere fact that he did
not mention it is not in itself a basis for impeachment There is nothing
contradictory in his pretrial affidavit with the testimony which he gave as a
witness
project for his employer when he encountered John
Ballard, a business agent of Local 477 Green took this
occasion to ask Ballard "if anything new had come up on
the picketing of the Colton winery." According to Green,
Ballard responded that "as far as he was concerned, it was
as it was." When Green then asked "what to do," Ballard
responded that he could not advise him what to do
However, Green (who testified that he wanted to return to
work at the winery job) persisted and asked, "What would
you do." Ballard thereupon answered with the statement
that "personally he would not cross any picket line "IS
2 Kevin J Christiansen is an employee of the Bell
Roofing Company and a member of Roofers Local No
126 On about January 26 he and one McDaniel, also a
Bell employee, were working at the winery project when
Vic Gauthier, a business agent of Local 126, appeared on
the scene Christiansen credibly testified that Gauthier
came up and spoke to him while he was on a ladder.
Gauthier asked if he knew whether there was a picket line
on the job and also whether he was making time and a
half According to Christiansen, Gauthier at this point
also said "we shouldn't be there, or something like that."
Christiansen responded to Gauthier by stating that he was
not aware of any picket line and also that he was making
time and a half 16 Gauthier then stated that he was going
to see the Bell superintendent - and at this point,
according to the credited testimony of Christiansen -
stated three times, "You're fined, you're fined, you're
fined " Christiansen followed Gauthier to the car,
protesting again that he had not observed the picket line.
The roofing job was shut down a short while later and the
roofing employees left the job after Gauthier departed
3. James H. Rmdfleisch is a truckdriver employed by
the J Matthews Grading and Paving Company He is not
a member of any union On December 8, 1967,
Rindfleisch had just dumped a load of dirt which he had
delivered at the winery project when Wilmer Furst, a
business representative of Teamsters Local No. 606, came
up to his truck and said he wanted to talk Furst asked
Rindfleisch why he was crossing the picket line The latter
replied that he was non-union and he was doing his job
Furst thereupon asked Rindfleisch for his driver's license
Rmdfleisch refused, declaring that if he had a grievance he
should give him a business card and he would give it to
Minium, the general contractor Furst gave him a business
card and Rindfleisch thereupon departed
D. Conclusions
1. As to the shopping center project
Section 8(b)(7)(C) provides that it is unlawful to picket
for more than 30 days for a recognitional or
organizational object unless a representation petition has
been filed. It being undisputed that the picketing lasted for
over 30 days and that no petition was ever filed by any of
the Respondent Unions herein, the principal issue to be
decided is whether Respondents picketing at the shopping
center jobsite was for an objective proscribed by Section
8(b)(7)(C).
"The incidents involving Green , as set forth above, are predicated upon
the uncontroverted testimony of this witness The complaint does not allege
any violation of the Act in connection with the incident between Green and
Gier I have set this forth merely as background to the subsequent
conversation which Green had with Ballard
"Christiansen testified that he did not observe any picket line when he
reported to work on this occasion
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I shall assume that Respondents' defense to the alleged
Section 8(b)(7)(C) allegation is that the picketing of the
shopping center project was for the objective set forth in
O'Shea's August 4, 1967, letter to Minium, viz , that
Minium negotiate an agreement to the effect that in the
event any of Minium's subcontractors failed to pay wage
or fringe benefits, that Minium guarantee payment "
Beyond a purview of a doubt, the true objective of the
picketing at issue here was manifested by O'Shea in his
meeting with Minium on August 8, 1967, at which time,
as previously found, O'Shea demanded that Minium sign
the articles of agreement as a condition to removing the
pickets at the shopping center jobsite It is true that
article V of this agreement, as previously set forth,
purports to cover the type of agreement requested by
O'Shea in his August 4 letter. Whether or not
Respondents could engage in picketing to require Minium
to sign this type of an agreement need not be decided
here Suffice it to say that O'Shea's demand at the August
4 meeting was not limited to article V, but also
encompassed each of the other articles hereinabove noted
It is clear, and I find, that the articles of agreement in
fact is a collective-bargaining agreement. Not only would
it require Minium to recognize the Building and
Construction Trades Council as the collective-bargaining
representative with respect to the articles of agreement
(which relate to wages, hours and working conditions) but
by the execution of the agreement Minium would be
required to sign contracts with and recognize the local
unions affiliated with the Council having jurisdiction over
crafts performing work for Minium Accordingly, I find
that an object of the picketing at the shopping center
jobsite was to force Minium to recognize the Respondent
Building and Construction Trades Council of San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, AFL-CIO, and its
affiliates who are named as Respondents hereto, and the
picketing therefore violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
The complaint further alleges that "Since on or about
August 4, 1967, and continuing to date, Respondents have
been engaged in a joint plan, program, and campaign to
force or require Minium to enter into collective-bargaining
agreements with Respondents Trade Council and District
[Carpenters] Council." Aside from the Building and
Trades Council, whom I find to have violated Section
8(b)(7)(C) by the conduct discussed above, I turn now to
the General Counsel's contention that the other
Respondents are jointly and severally liable for the
aforesaid unfair labor practices Preliminarily, it may be
noted that there is no direct evidence that the various
Respondent unions who are affiliated with Respondent
Building and Trades Council" participated in the decision
of the Building and Trades Council, by its agent O'Shea,
to conduct the picketing campaign against Minium's
shopping center project Accordingly, I find that the mere
fact of affiliation with the Building and Trades Council by
the Respondent craft unions is not, standing alone, a
sufficient basis for finding that they are jointly and
st serally liable for the,instant unfair labor practices of the
Building and Trades Council However, the General
Counsel adduced other evidence in support of this
allegation, this consisting principally of participation by
"The undersigned has received two briefs filed on behalf of the
Respondents hereto These briefs have been submitted by attorneys who
are not of record in this case, it also appearing that these attorneys are not
members of the same law firms as the attorneys who represented the
Respondents at the hearing . Although I have nevertheless considered these
briefs, it is noteworthy that neither brief offers a defense as to the objective
of the picketing at the shopping center jobsite
business agents of other Respondent craft unions in the
picketing at the shopping center jobsite Thus, the
credited and unrefuted testimony of Calhoun reveals that
on various occasions during the course of this picketing he
observed the following (1) On at least one occasion, Dale
Messner, a business agent for Carpenters Local 944,
engaged in picketing at the jobsite On other occasions he
was observed at the jobsite while picketing was taking
place; (2) on several occasions Charles Love, also a
business agent of Carpenters Local 944, came to the
jobsite and distributed picket signs to the pickets He was
also observed bringing them refreshments while they were
picketing; (3) Willie Wilson, business agent for Hod
Carriers & Laborers Local 783, engaged in picketing on
several occasions; (4) Lyle Van Meter, a business agent of
the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No. 12, engaged in picketing on at least one
occasion; (5) Gus Jahnke, vice president of the Building
and Trades Council and also a business agent of Local
Union 364 of the Plumbers Union, came to the jobsite
and spoke to pickets at both entrances to the jobsite; and
(6) Charles Gier, business agent for Electrical Workers
Local 477, appeared at the jobsite and spoke to the
pickets Aside from the foregoing direct evidence of
Respondent activity on the picket line, O'Shea conceded
that he requested business agents of the Building and
Trades Council constituent unions to furnish pickets from
their own unions for picketing at the shopping center
project " He also conceded that business agents of various
craft affiliates themselves engaged in the picketing
Although O'Shea professed to be hazy as to the identity
of the business agents who engaged in such picketing, he
conceded in his testimony that "there has been quite a few
such agents " Inasmuch as the evidence reflects that
business agents Jahnke of the Plumbers and Geir of the
electrical workers only spoke to pickets at the jobsite,20 it
is significant that O'Shea's following testimony reflects
that they did so in an official capacity:
Q Who gave the instructions to the pickets as to
how they should picket and how they should answer
any questions asked of them9
A. I did, ma'am.
Q Did you do that every day?
A Oh, not every day In other words when the
picket line gets started I will instruct maybe one of the
other business agents to go by that job and see that it is
going, because I can't be there every day, and I tell
them to drop by and see if the pickets are getting along
all right and let me know, give me a telephone call
Q So the business agents when they go by the job
are speaking on your behalf in giving instructions to the
picket line"
A. In other words, if I call them up to tell them to
tell the pickets something, I expect them to do so, yes
There remains other conduct relied upon by the General
Counsel to establish that the Respondents herein engaged
in a joint venture to achieve the objective heretofore
"With the exception of Construction Teamsters Local No 606 and Hod
Carriers & Laborers Local No 783, all other Respondent craft unions
named in the caption hereof are affiliated with the Building and Trades
Council of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties , AFL-CIO (Testimony
of O'Shea in injunction proceeding.)
"Tr 55, injunction testimony Elsewhere in his testimony , O'Shea
asserted that members of the various crafts "volunteered" to engage in the
picketing
"O'Shea conceded in his injunction testimony that Electrical Workers
Local 477 furnished pickets at the shopping center project "once in
awhile "
BRICKLAYERS, MASON & TILE SETTERS 1261
found One incident of such conduct, according to the
credited testimony of David Bryan, a drywall contractor,
occurred in October 1967, when Bryan went to see Verne
Rippetoe, the executive secretary of the District Council
of Carpenters On this occasion Bryan, who had been
requested by Minium to perform drywall work at the
shopping center project, asked Rippetoe if he could
perform the job.21 Rippetoe replied that he would be in
violation of this contract with the Carpenters Union if he
did so. Similarly, as has been heretofore detailed, Arthur
Loyer, a business representative of Bricklayers Local 20,
advised William R Ford, a union masonry subcontractor,
that possibly charges might be brought against his men if
they crossed the picket 'line at the shopping center project.
Finally, as further bearing upon the joint venture aspect of
this case, General Counsel points to the incident,
heretofore discussed, wherein Willie Wilson, business
agent of Laborers Local 783, told employee Mark
Gonzales that he would have to "turn him in" for working
behind the picket line at the shopping center project.
The question as to whether the Respondents herein
engaged in a joint venture against Minium to achieve the
objective indicated is, of course, a question of fact to be
determined upon all the evidence and in light of all
circumstances 22 Upon the entire record in this case, I am
convinced and find that the Respondent Unions affiliated
with the Building and Trades Council joined in a common
cause with the Council to have Minium recognize the
Council and themselves as the collective bargaining agent
Thus, as noted above, the evidence establishes that
business agents of the Carpenters, Hod Carriers &
Laborers, Operating Engineers, Plumbers, and Electrical
Workers all participated in the picket line activity at the
shopping center project Indeed, with reference to business
agents of the affiliated local unions who picketed at this
jobsite, O'Shea conceded "there has been quite a few such
agents " Further evidence of the support given to the
Building and Construction Council are the heretofore
noted statements made by representatives of the
Carpenters and the Bricklayers to Minium's subcontractor
employers and the threat by the Laborers' business agent
Wilson to turn Gonzales in for working behind the
pickets Accordingly, I find, as alleged in the complaint,
that the Respondent Unions affiliated with Respondent
Building and Trades Council engaged in a joint venture or
common cause with the Building and Trades Council to
picket and cause to be picketed the shopping center
project for an object of forcing or requiring Minium to
recognize the Building and Trades Council and themselves
as the collective-bargaining agent Accordingly, I find that
by such conduct each of the Respondents herein, with the
exception of Construction Teamsters Local No. 606,
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.21 There being no evidence
that Teamsters Local No. 606, not an affiliate of the
Building and Construction Council, engaged in any
unlawful activity at the shopping center project, I shall
recommend that this allegation in the complaint be
dismissed as to this Respondent Although O'Shea
testified that Hod Carriers & Laborers Local No. 783 is
not an affiliate of the Building and Construction Council,
the evidence discussed above reflects, and I find, that this
labor organization participated in common cause with the
affiliated craft unions to achieve the unlawful objective.
"The jobsite was being picketed at this time
"There can be no doubt that the affiliated Respondents stood to benefit
from this activity , for the agreement which Respondents would have
With reference to the heretofore described incident
between Business Agent Willie Wilson and employee
Mark Gonzales at the shopping center jobsite, I conclude
and find that Respondent Hod Carriers & Laborers Local
No. 783 thereby induced and encouraged Gonzales to
engage in a strike or refusal to perform services with the
object of forcing or requiring his employer, the Tri-Co
Concrete Company, to cease doing business with Minium.
This Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of
the Act.2" Additionally, and in accord with the facts
heretofore set forth, I find that Respondent Bricklayers
Local No 20 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act by the conduct of its agent , Arthur Loyer in
threatening an employee (in the presence of his employer,
Ford) that charges could be brought against employees
who crossed the picket line at the shopping center jobsite 25
E Conclusions as to the Winery Project
Notwithstanding the language on the 'picket sign
utilized by Respondent Carpenters at Minium's winery
project (which, if believable, would indicate that it was for
a permissible purpose)," the evidence in this case clearly
reflects that the picketing had a recognitional or
bargaining object. Thus, the pertinent provisions of the
memorandum agreement which Rippetoe insisted be
signed by Minium as a condition to a cessation of the
picketing contained the following provisions which are
pertinent to the issued herein.27
1. The Contractor agrees to comply with all the terms,
including wages, hours and working conditions and
rules as set forth in the Agreement referred to as the
Master Labor Agreement between Southern California
General Contractors and United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, dated May 1, 1965,
and the Agreements establishing (1) the Carpenters
Health and Welfare Trust for Southern California,
dated February 8, 1955 (2) the Carpenters Pension
Fund for Southern California dated September 14,
1959: (3) the Carpenters Joint Apprenticeship
Committee Fund for Southern California, dated May 1,
1960• (4) the 1l-County Carpenters Vacation Savings
Plan, dated April 1, 1962, and my amendments,
modifications, extensions, supplementations and
renewals of the Master Labor Agreement and the Trust
Agreements and any agreements establishing other
benefits or plans negotiated by the parties signatory to
Minium sign provides that he be required to abide by the terms and
conditions of current agreements of all Unions affiliated with the Building
and Trades Council
"The Building & Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and
Vicinity (Ed Goldstein and Fisher Construction Company). 149 NLRB
1629
"Since it appears that Gonzales did not leave the job, I do not find that
by this conduct Local 783 violated Sec 8(bx4XiXB)
"In view of the illegal object of the picketing, it is immaterial that the
standards set forth in Moore Dry Dock, 92 NLRB 547, may have been
implied with international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et at (L G
Electric Contractors, Inc ), 154 NLRB 766
"Houston Budding and Construction Trades Council (Claude Everett
Construction Company), 136 NLRB 321
"As to my basis for finding that the object of the picketing was to
require Mmium to sign the memorandum agreement, I particularly rely
upon the conversations which Rippetoe had with Calhoun on January 20,
1968, and with Minium on May 13, 1968, the facts concerning which have
been heretofore set forth Further indicative that such was the purpose is
reflected in Bryan's conversation with Rippetoe on January 2, 1968, and in
Calhoun's conversation with E L Burke on January 16, 1968
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Master Labor Agreement, including a Joint
Committee or Trust Fund formed for the objectives of
promoting and advancing the Industry affecting
contractors and carpenters Exept as specifically
excluded by this Memorandum Agreement, the Master
Labor Agreement and Trust Agreements are specifically
incorporated by reference and made a part of this
Memorandum Agreement.
2. The Contractor agrees to pay to the Carpenters
Health and Welfare Trust for Southern California, the
Carpenters Pension Fund for Southern California, the
11-County Carpenters Vacation Savings Plan, and to
the Carpenters Joint Apprenticeship Committee Fund
for Southern California, the sums in the amounts and
manner provided for in the Master Labor Agreement
and the Trust Agreements and the rules and procedures
adopted by the Trustees of the Trust Funds referred to
herein and all amendments, modifications, extensions,
and renewals thereto
3 The Contractor agrees that he does irrevocably
designate and appoint the Employers mentioned in the
Carpenters Southern California Health and Welfare
Trust Agreement, the Carpenters Southern California
Pension Trust Agreement, the 11-County Carpenters
Vacation Savings Plan Agreement and the Carpenters
Joint Apprenticeship Committee Fund for Southern
California, as his attorneys-in-fact for the selection,
removal and substitution of Trustees as provided by or
pursuant to the Master Labor Agreement or Trust
Agreements.
The provisions cited above clearly show, and I find,
that Respondents' true objective in the instant situation
was to require Minium to maintain and abide by the
identical terms and benefits as defined in Respondent's
contracts with other employers in the area 28 In a virtually
identical situation, the Board held that "such a
requirement clearly reflects a purpose to impose a
bargaining relationship on the Employer, contrary to the
provisions of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act." Local Joint
Executive Board, et al (Holiday Inns of America, Inc ),
169 NLRB No. 102. Retail Clerks International
Association, Local 899, et al . (State-Mart, Inc dlbla
Giant Food, 166 NLRB No. 92; San Francisco Joint
Board International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, 171 NLRB No 110; Centralia Building and
Construction Trades Council, 155 NLRB 803, enfd. 363
F 2d 699 (C.A D.C ) Accordingly, I find that by picketing
Minium's jobsite at the winery project for the
accomplishment of the aforesaid objective, Respondent
District Council of Carpenters and Respondent Carpenters
Local 44 violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act."
"This area covers II counties in Southern California, including San
Bernardino
"With respect to the legend on the picket sign and Respondent's
apparent assertion that it was picketing to protest substandard wages and
working conditions , it is significant that Respondent offered no evidence to
show that it in fact was aware of the wages and working conditions of
Minium ' s employees prior to the inception of the picketing . Indeed, the
facts heretofore discussed disclose that the picketing began on the day after
Rippetoe received a report from another business agent which disclosed
only teat Minium was employing his own carpenters on the job In view of
the foregoing , and also in view of the other evidence herein discussed which
I have found establishes that the picketing was for a recognitional and
bargaining objective, I am convinced and find that the legend on the picket
sign was a pretext for disguising the true objective of the picketing
Accordingly, I find that the protection afforded informational picketing in
the proviso to Sec 8 (bX7)(C) is not applicable here
Similar to the issue of common cause in the case of
Minium's shopping center project, the complaint alleges
that the Respondent affiliates of Respondent Building and
Trades Council, and Respondent Building and Trades
Council itself, engaged in a "joint plan, program and
campaign to force or require Minium to enter into a
collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent District
Council of Carpenters." In support of this allegation,
General Counsel relies in part on the Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (u)(B) conduct which allegedly occurred in connection
with the winery project The facts concerning the incidents
involved are set forth earlier in this Decision My
summarization of these incidents and conclusions are as
follows
(1) Green, an employee of Skyline Electric, did not
cross the picket line at the winery jobsite when advised by
President Geir of the Electrical Workers that the picket
line was "legitmate " Several weeks later he was advised
by Business Agent Ballard that the situation at this
project remained the same When he further queried
Ballard as to -whether he could cross the picket line,
Ballard responded that he could not advise him what to
do, but that "personally he would not cross the picket
line " I conclude and find that the latter statement,
including the fact that it was made in the context of Geir's
previous statement to Green that the picket line was
"legitimate," constituted inducement and encouragement
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) 30 I further
conclude and find that an object of this conduct was to
force or require Skyline Electric to cease doing business
with Minium and that by such conduct Electrical Workers
Local Union No 477 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) By the
resultant restraint and coercion of Skyline Electric, such
conduct also violated Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act.
(2.) In the case of employee Christiansen, an employee
of Bell Roofing, it will be recalled that he was approached
while working behind the picket line on the winery project
by Business Agent Gauthier of Roofers Local No. 126
Gauthier told Christiansen, a member of the Union, that
he "shouldn't be there" . and then, upon departing
from the jobsite, yelled back at Christiansen, "You're
fined, you're fined, you're fined " I find that such conduct
constituted inducement and encouragement of employees
of Bell Roofing to engage in a refusal in the course of
their employment to perform services within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act " By such conduct, and for
the same objective noted above, Roofers Local No 126
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act
With reference to the incident described in sec C, 3, of
this Decision, I think that it is apparent that the conduct
of Furst did not constitue "inducement and
encouragement" of Rindfleisch, a non-union employee,
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act
Accordingly, insofar as the complaint alleges this conduct
to be an unfair labor practice on behalf of Teamsters
Local No. 606, I shall recommend that this allegation be
dismissed
"See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No II, et
al (L. G Electric Contractors , Inc ), 154 NLRB 766, 777, 778, wherein
the Board found that a business manager ' s statement to an employee that
he "never crossed a picket line when he was a journeyman" constituted
inducement and encouragement See also Local Union No 789,
International Hod-Carriers , et al (H E Doyle), 125 NLRB 571, 573,
Truck Drivers Local 728, Teamsters v N L R B ( Overnite Transportation
Co.), 332 F 2d 693 (C A 5)
"Cf International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators, et al
(Speedline Manufacturing Co, Inc ), 137 NLRB 1410
BRICKLAYERS, MASON & TILE SETTERS 1263
Turning to other evidence adduced by the General
Counsel for the purpose of showing the joint venture
nature of the picketing at Minium's winery jobsite, Julian
Evans, the owner of Evans Plumbing Company, testified
without contradiction that early in January 1968, he called
Business Agent Jahnke of the Plumbers Union and asked
if the picket line at the winery jobsite was a legitimate
picket line 11 According to the credited testimony of
Evans, Jahnke replied that "We should honor all pickets"
He then gave Evans a telephone number and suggested
that Evans call it Evans did so and ascertained that the
telephone number was that of Rippetoe 11 While this
conduct is not alleged to be violative of the Act I view this
as persuasive evidence that the Plumbers Union was
lending its support to the picketing at the winery project
Similarly, it is undisputed that E. L. Burke, business
agent for Sheetmetal Workers Local 509, participated in
the picketing of the winery project by carrying a picket
sign on the picket line on January 16, 1968. As previously
noted, on this occasion Burke told Calhoun that the object
of picketing was "to get Minium signed up with the
Carpenters Union."1d
Upon the entire record in this case, I think it clear that
the picketing of Minium's winery project cannot be viewed
in isolation but must be considered in the context of the
earlier picketing of his shopping center project Viewed in
this light, it becomes apparent that the entire activity
involved herein was all directed toward the same end,
namely, to obtain recognition and bargaining from
Minium, a non-union employer It is my conclusion that
the evidence and the record as a whole establishes that all
of the Respondents herein, excluding the Teamsters," were
engaged in a joint course of action to accomplish this
common purpose, and that each should be held
responsible for the unlawful activity which continued at
the winery project. I rest this conclusion not only upon the
direct evidence discussed below, but also upon the closely
related timing of the picketing at the two jobsites, as well
as the quite obvious forced change in tactics utilized by
the Respondents to achieve their objective Thus the
Respondents ceased their picketing at Minium's shopping
center project only when advised by the Regional Director
that it was his conclusion that the picketing at this project
was for an unlawful objective and that a complaint would
issue against them unless they consented to cease and
desist from further engaging in such conduct. As
heretofore noted, the Respondents at this point executed a
Settlement Agreement, 3' pursuant to which the picketing
at the shopping center ceased on October 25, 1967 The
picketing at the winery project began but approximately 6
weeks later, this on December 7, 1967 Although the
language on the picket sign was pretextually changed, the
"Evans had an agreement with Minium to perform work at the winery
jobsite He testified that the purpose of this call was to ascertain whether
he could have his employees cross the picket line without objection from
the Union
"Evans testified that Jahnke also told him which labor organization was
sponsoring the picket line However, he was not sure if Jahnke referred to
it as a Building Trades picket line or a Carpenters picket line
"Burke testified that his purpose in picketing was only to relieve Pete
Rusnick , a member of the Sheetmetal Workers Union , so that Rusnick
could have lunch during the noon hour While I am inclined to be skeptical
of this explanation by Burke , the fact remains that his presence on the
picket was evidence to outsiders that Burke's Union officially sanctioned
the picket line Moreover, Burke admittedly returned at 4 30 p m , at
which time he transported Rusnick with the picket sign away from the
jobsite in his car In addition, I would find that the picketing of Rusnick, a
member of the Sheetmetal Workers , is in itself evidence of cooperation
between the Sheetmetal Workers and the Carpenters
objective of obtaining recognition and bargaining
remained the same ." As has been set forth above, there is
direct evidence to reflect that a representative number of
the Respondents , these including the Electrical Workers,
Roofers, Plumbers, and Sheet Metal Workers, engaged in
conduct clearly demonstrative of their aid and support of
the picketing of Minium ' s winery project . These facts and
the record as a whole convince me, and find , that the
Respondent craft unions, as well as the Building &
Construction Trades Council ," must be held to have
continued in a joint venture against Minium for the
unlawful objectives heretofore found Accordingly, I find
that each of the Respondents herein engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(7)(C)
and 8 ( b)(4)(i) and ( u)(B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents as set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
employers as described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents, collectively, (with
the exception of Respondent Teamsters Union) have
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that
they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act In view of the serious nature of the
violations herein found, it may reasonably be anticipated
that Respondents will engage in similar practices. I will,
therefore, recommend that the Respondent unions cease
and desist from engaging in such unfair labor practices
with respect to any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce.
"Since the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that
Construction Teamsters Local No 606, International Brotherhood of
Teamster, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America engaged in
any unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that the allegations in the
complaint pertaining to this Respondent be dismissed
"For the reasons previously noted, this Settlement Agreement was not
approved by the Regional Director Inasmuch as the Respondents
obviously would not seek to enter into a settlement agreement without first
having been broached by the Regional Director , I infer that it was for the
reasons noted above that they did so In this regard , I take official notice
that it is established Board policy that when a Regional Director
determines that an unfair labor practice charge has merit, he will first
endeavor to dispose of the matter by means of a settlement agreement
before bringing the matter to hearing before the Board
"Cf Selby-Barrersby & Co v N L R B, 259 F 2d 151 (C A 4)
"O'Shea testified that he was not aware of the picketing at the winery
project before it began When Rippetoe was queried as to whether he
advised O'Shea of his decision to picket the winery, Rippetoe replied "not
directly," adding that "it just became known through the advertising in the
paper " However, not only is it significant that Rippetoe at all times
material herein was a delegate to the Building & Construction Trades
Council, but it is noteworthy that at no time did the Building and
Construction Trades Council take any action to disavow or disassociate
itself from the action of Rippetoe or its member affiliates Here, and as
pointedly described by the Court in an analagous situation, "there is
nothing to suggest that the policy and attitude of the [Building &
Construction Trades] Council were changed in the interim " Selby
Barrersby & Co v N L R B, supra
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I The labor organizations named in the caption of this
proceeding, and each of them, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
2. I C. Minium is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(5) and (7) of the Act
3 Respondents, by picketing I. C Minium with the
object of forcing or requiring I C. Minium to recognize
or bargain collectively with Respondents as representatives
of his employees, although none of them were at any time
certified as the representative of such employees and
although none of them had filed a petition under Section
9(c) of the Act within 30 days from the commencement of
said picketing, have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act
4 By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by Tri-Co Concrete Company, William R Ford, Skyline
Electric Company and Bell Roofing Company to engage in
strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to
perform services, an object thereof being to force the
aforesaid employers to cease doing business with I C
Minium, the Respondents have engaged and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
5. By the acts described in paragraph 3, above, for the
object set forth above in said paragraph, Respondent did
threaten, coerce and restrain Tri-Co Concrete Company,
William R. Ford, Skyline Electric Company and Bell
Roofing Company, and the Respondents thereby have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
7. Construction Teamsters Local No 606, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America has not engaged in any of the
above-mentioned unfair labor practices
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]