Building and Construction Trades Council of Pittsburgh

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 241 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTIoN TRADES COUNCIL OF
PITTSBURGH , PENNSYLVANIA , AND VICINITY ; INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 5 ; UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA , CARPENTERS' DISTRICT
COUNCIL ' OF PITTSBURGH AND VICINITY ; SHEET METAL WORKERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 66,
66-A, 66-B AND 66-C, ALL AFFILIATED WITII THE AMERICAN FED-
ERATION OF LABOR and GEORGE PETREDIS AND WILLIAM S. FRYER,
PARTNERS , D/B/A PETREDIS AND FRYER
Case No. 6-CC-17.-Decided July 19,19/9
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 11, 1949, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that
the Respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 5 , herein referred to as IBEIV , had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.''
Thereafter, the Respondent IBEW and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and all parties ( except the
Respondent Building and Construction Trades Council of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania , and Vicinity ) filed briefs. All Respondents ( except
the Trades Council ) requested oral argument . These requests are
hereby denied , as the record and briefs , in our opinion , adequately
present the issues and positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Inter-
' The Trial Examiner also found that the remaining Respondents , noted in the caption
above, had not violated the Act in any respect , and recommended dismissal of the com-
plaint as to them.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 45.
241
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in
the case. We find merit in the Respondents ' contention that because
the operations of the Employers involved herein are essentially local
in character , the Board should exercise its discretion to decline
jurisdiction.
This case involves a local general contractor and various local
subcontractors engaged in the construction of an $80,000 drive-in
theatre in Bridgeville , Pennsylvania . With one exception ,3 they' pur-
chase all of their materials from supliers located within the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania and perform all of their work within
Pennsylvania . To be sure, as noted in the Intermediate Report, much
of the material purchased by these local suppliers originated outside
of Pennsylvania . This fact may establish that the Federal power
under the commerce clause of the Constitution could be exercised in
this case . But it is not dispositive of the issue of whether this Board
should exercise this power , in employing its discretion to take juris-
diction only where the policies of the Act will be effectuated. On the
basic jurisdictional facts, which are fully set forth in the Intermediate
Report,3 this case involves, at the very most, an impact on commerce
no greater and no less remote than that present in the recent Mentzer
case,4 in which a majority of the Board declined to assert jurisdicton.
Nor does the fact that this case , unlike the Mentzer case, involves an
allegation of a secondary boycott dictate a different result here.-' For
reasons stated in the Mentzer opinion, we find that it will not effectu-
ate the purposes or policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction in the
instant proceeding , and we shall therefore dismiss the complaint.e
2 Subcontractor H. C. Smith Company , which agreed to do the sheet metal and roofing
worx at the theatre project on a time and material basis, did some part of its business,
and made some purchases of materials , out of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. How-
ever, this company's connection with the theatre project was insubstantial . It had no
definite contract as to what was to be done and the duration of its services was uncertain.
Its total bill for services rendered to Dill amounted to only $800.
3 There are two Inadvertencies in the Intermediate Report which we hereby correct :
(a) The Trial Examiner found that the "steel and ornamental iron were furnished Dill
by companies found by the Board to be engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act." We find that these materials were not furnished directly to Dill but to Dill's sup-
pliers . (b) The Trial Examiner found that the Dill Construction Company in the latter
part of July 1948 entered into a contract to construct the drive -in theatre herein involved.
We find that the contract was entered into on July 6, 1948.
4 Matter of Walter J. Mentzer, 82 N. L . R. B. 389.
5 Compare Matter of Walter J. Mentzer, supra ; and Matter of International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 501 (AFL), et at. ( Samuel Langer), 82 N. L. R. B. 1028,
and Chairman Herzog ' s comments in the opinion therein.
6 Matter of Local 905 of the Retail Clerks International Association (AFL) (A-1 Photo
Service), 83 N. L. R. B. 564.
Member Reynolds would be disposed to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding on the basis
of recent cases in which the Board has asserted jurisdiction over the building and con-
struction industry . See Matter of Gould and Preisner, 82 N. L. It. B. 1195 ; Matter
of Ira A. Watson Co ., 80 N. L . R. B. 533 ). However, he agrees that the effect upon com-
merce in the instant case is no greater than that presented in the Mentzer case, and deems
himself bound by the majority decision In that case.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
ORDER
243
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint issued herein be,
and is hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
W. G. Stuart Sherman and Erlvin Lerten, for the General Counsel;
J. Alfred Wilner, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for Building and Construction Trades
Council of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Vicinity, Sheet Metal Workers' Inter-
national Association, Local No. 12, and International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local No. 66, 66-A, 66-B, and 66-C.
Bernard Kaplan, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local No. 5.
Thomas D. Whitten, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Carpenters' District Council of Pittsburgh and Vicinity.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge filed on September 16, 1948, by William S. Fryer
on behalf of George C. Petredis and William S. Fryer, partners , d/b/a Petredis
and Fryer , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board 1 by the
Regional Director for the Sixth Region ( Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania ), issued a
complaint dated October 8, 1948, against Building and Construction Trades Coun-
cil of Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , and Vicinity, herein called the Council ; Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 5, herein called I. B. E. W.;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Carpenters ' District
Council of Pittsburgh and Vicinity , herein called Carpenters ; Sheet Metal Work-
ers' International Association , Local No. 12 , herein called Sheet Metal Workers ;
and International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 66 , 66-A, 66-B, and
66-C, herein called Operating Engineers ; alleging that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (4) (A) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
.National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, as amended by the Labor Manage -
ment Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the coin-
plaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Respondents and
Petredis and Fryer.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondents through their officers, agents, and representatives, on or
about August 30, 1948, and thereafter , induced and encouraged members of their
Unions and others employed by John Al. Ridella, d/b/a Dill Construction Com-
pany , herein called Dill, the general contractor for the construction of an open-
air drive -in-theater at Bridgeville, Pennsylvania , H. C. Smith Company , herein
called Smith , and K . M. B. Co., Inc., subcontractors on the afore-described drive-
in-theater project, by orders, direction , instructions , threats and/or promises of
benefits, to leave their employ and to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in
the course of their employment to perform any services for their respective
' The General Counsel and his representatives in this case are referred to as the General
Counsel ; the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
857829-50-vol. 85-17
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employers, an object thereof being to force or require Dill to cease doing business
with Petredis and Fryer in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
In a joint answer duly filed the Respondents deny that they had engaged in
unfair labor practices. The answer avers that the facts alleged in the complaint
fail to state a case affecting interstate commerce and the Respondents therefore
deny that the Board has jurisdiction in the proceedings. Further, the Respond-
ents' answer affirmatively alleges that no employee members of their Union had
engaged in any strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to
perform services for any of the parties named in the complaint ; that no picket
line had been placed on or about the site of the drive-in-theater; that there had
been no cessation or interruption in the flow of supplies or materials or equip-
ment to said job; that there had been no cessation or interruption in the progress
of any phase of the work of the said job; that from August 30, 1948, and thereafter
work has continued on the said job without interference and that the job is now
completed or substantially completed and the said drive-in-theater is and has for
sometime been actively operated.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on divers dates between October 27 and
November 18, 1948, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania before the undersigned Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel
and the Respondents were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.'
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the opening of the hearing, the Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint
and the proceedings on the grounds that the dispute did not "affect commerce"
within the meaning of the Act. The undersigned denied the motion without preju-
dice to its renewal. At the close of the General Counsel's case the Respondents
renewed their motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) that the nature
of the business engaged in by Petredis and Fryer, the charging party herein, is
purely intrastate in character and does not "affect commerce" ; (2) that even
if commerce were affected, the volume of business conducted by Petredis and
Fryer was of such a limited nature that it could not possibly be a burden on
commerce assuming arguendo there was interference in such business; (3) that
even if the Board had jurisdiction over the subject matter, there was no evidence
in the record of a strike on the part of any of the employees of Dill, Smith, or
K. 111. B. Co., Inc. ; (4) that there was no evidence of any picket line or any other
announcement made on the site of the job calling upon employees to refrain from
rendering service on behalf of their employers on the job; and (5) that there was
no evidence of any interference in the progress of the job, but as a matter of fact,
the job was completed as promptly as it might have been even had there been no
temporary interruption on the job. This motion was denied. At the close of all
of the evidence the Respondents renewed their motion made at the close of the
General Counsel's case. Ruling was reserved on this last motion, and is disposed
of as hereafter appears. A motion by the General Counsel to conform the plead-
ings to the proof in respect to minor matters, such as names and dates, was
granted without objection. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties waived
oral argument. After the hearing, pursuant to extentions of time for filing to
January 25, 1949, the General Counsel and the Respondents filed briefs.
2 William S. Fryer, while present throughout the hearing, evidenced no desire to partici-
pate, except that he testified when called as a witness by the General Counsel.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 245
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following : 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVED ; THE QUESTION CONCERNING JURISDICTION
In the latter part of July 1948, John M. Ridella, an individual doing business
under the name of Dill Construction Company with headquarters at Latrobe,
Pennsylvania, entered into a contract with one Romeo Chiappini, trustee for the
incorporators of I,1 Rancho Drive-in-Theater, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania cor-
poration, to constrict an open air drive-in-theater at Bridgeville, Pennsylvania.
The contract price of the theater upon which construction began in August 1948,
was $80,000. Dill performed part of the work with, its own employees and sub-
contracted the sheet metal work to H. C. Smith Company, the grading and ex-
cavating to K. M. B. Co., Inc., and the electrical work to Petredis and Fryer.
Dill is engaged in the construction of commercial and industrial buildings.
During the period from January 1 to October 15. 1948, Dill did a gross business of
$463,832.32, and wade purchases of building materials, equipment, and accessories
in the amount of approximately $250,000. Although the principal suppliers of
lumber, raw materials, building materials, steel etc., to Dill were located within
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the record reveals that all of the lumber
used by Dill came from States in the southeastern or northwestern portions of
the United States and shipped to Dill's principal suppliers from States other than
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The steel and ornamental iron were fur-
nished Dill by companies found by the Board to be engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.'
The H. C. Smith Company, subcontractor of the sheet metal and roofing work
at the El Rancho Drive-in-Theater did a gross business from July 1, 1947, to
June 30, 1948, in the amount of $200,000 of which about 35 percent represents
revenue from jobs done outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During
this same period Smith purchased roofing materials, ahuuinlnn, galvanized iron,
copper, and pitch in the amount of $116,411.80 of which at least $35,600 repre-
sented purchases of materials from suppliers located outside the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and which materials were shipped to the H. C. Smith Company
in McKeesport, Pennsylvania.
There is some confusion in the record as to the total gross business of Petredis
and Fryer, the electrical subcontractor at the El Rancho Drive-in-Theater con-
struction job, for the period from January 1, 1947, to November 1948. Neverthe-
less, it appears and the undersigned finds that the total gross business during this
period slightly exceeded $30,000. All of the electrical equipment and supplies.
purchased by Petredis and Fryer during this same period, in an amount exceeding.
$15,000 were purchased from large electrical supply companies located in Pitts-
a The undersigned has taken judicial notice of the fact that pending the final adjudication.
of the instant matter by the Board, a restraining order entered pursuant to Section 10 (1)
of the Act was entered against the Respondents after hearing by United States District
Judge R. M. Gibson, Western District of Pennsylvania, Civil No. 7400, on September 30,
1948. It is also noted that the Respondents have taken an appeal from the said order
to the Court of Appeals.
4 Such companies were as follows: Joseph T. Ryerson 4 Son, Inc. (Chicago, Illi-
nois ), 67 N. L. R. B. 88; Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 53 N. L. R. B. 65; Youngs-
town Sheet d Tube Company ( Youngstown , Ohio ), 56 N. L. R . B. 559 ; Bethlehem Steel
Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 226 ; Jones it Laughlin Steel Corporation , 1 N. L. R. B.. 503,
301. U. S. 1.
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
burgh, Pennsylvania. Such electrical supply companies obtained their supplies
and equipment from sources outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in
amounts varying from 49.6 percent to 75 percent. The following items of elec-
trical equipment originating from nationally known companies outside the CoFn-
monwealth of Pennsylvania were installed on the El Rancho Drive-in-Theater
job by Petredis and Fryer : wire manufactured by the Rome Wire Company, Rome,
New York; safety switches from the Cutler-Hammer Company, Milwaukee, Wis-
consin; wiring devices from the Hart-Hegeman Company, Hartford, Connecticut,
and the Hubbell Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut ; fixtures from the Appleton
Electric Company, Chicago, Illinois ; conduit pipe from the Triangle Electric Com-
pany, New Brighton, New Jersey ; condulettes from the Pyle' National Company,
Chicago, Illinois. In addition Petredis and Fryer installed 700 individual speakers
which were purchased by El Rancho Incorporated directly from Atlas Theater
Supply Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the amount of $9,100. The said
speakers purchased originally by Atlas from Motiograph Inc., Chicago, Illinois,
were shipped directly by Motiograph in Chicago to the site of the El Rancho
Drive-in-Theater at Bridgeville, Pennsylvania.
It is the contention of the Respondents raised at the hearing and in their brief
that (1) the activities of Dill, Smith, and Petredis and Fryer did not bear the
close, intimate, and substantial relation to interstate commerce required for a
proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Board and (2) that Congress did not intend
to include within the jurisdiction of the Board the alleged activities of the Re-
spondents. The undersigned finds these contentions without merit. It is appar-
ent that numerous strands in the web of commerce were interlaced in the con-
struction of the 'El Rancho Drive-in-Theater. Furthermore, such construction
was embedded in a network of commercial relationships involving Dill, Smith, and
Petredis and Fryer and their respective suppliers, which relationships in their
ramifications manifestly affect commerce. The undersigned has given careful
consideration to the various cases cited by the Respondents and extensively
quoted in their brief. The undersigned believes, however, that a more recent
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in a building
and construction industry case involving the commerce issue, reflects the con-
trolling opinions of the Supreme Court on the commerce question. Portions of
that decision, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, et al. v. Sperry, et al., 170 F. 2d
S63 (C. A. 10), follow :
The supreme, plenary, and complete power of Congress under the Constitu-
tion to regulate interstate commerce is without restriction or limitation,
except that prescribed in the Constitution ; and within the reach of that
paramount authority lies the power to safeguard such commerce against
substantial burdens or obstructions, no matter the source from which the
encroachment comes. And in the exertion of its constitutional authority
to protect interstate commerce, Congress may regulate not only commerce
itself but matters which affect, interrupt, or stifle interstate commerce. In
other words, Congress may regulate not merely transactions or goods in
interstate commerce, but activities which in isolation might be deemed to be
local and yet in the course of the interlacings of business across state lines
affect adversely interstate commerce. National Labor Relations Board v.
Jones d Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1; Wicicard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111;
Polish National Alliance v. National Labor Relations Board, 322 U. S. 643.
And acts or practices having the effect of interrupting or otherwise adversely
affecting interstate commerce are not immune from Congressional refiulation
=and control merely because they grow out of labor disputes. National Labor
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 247
Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., supra; Cf. Thomas V.
Collins, 323 U. S. 516.
The question whether or not practices of a given pattern may be deemed
by Congress to affect interstate commerce in a harmful manner is not to be
determined solely by the quantitative effect of the activities immediately
involved. National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601; Polish
National Alliance v. National Labor Relations Board, supra. And the power
to protect interstate commerce against harmful encroachment may be exer-
cised in such manner as to have application in individual cases in which
the activities are of such character that when multiplied into a general
practice they could reasonably exert adverse effect calling for preventive
regulation. Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co.,
334 U. S. 219.
The undersigned concludes and finds from all of the facts in this case concern-
ing commerce that the jurisdiction of the Board has been established. See the
Board's recent decisions in Matter of Local 711, United Brotherhood of Carpenters,
et al., and Ira A. Watson Company, d/b/a Watson's Specialty Store, 80 N. L. R. B.
533; Matter of J. H. Patterson Co., 79 N. L. R. B. 355; and Matter of Wadsworth
Building Company, Inc., and Klassen & Hodgson, Inc., 81 N. L. R. B. 802.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Building and Construction Trades Council of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and
Vicinity is a labor organization composed of delegates allotted on the basis of
membership who represent the various local labor unions the members of which
are engaged in the building and heavy construction industries in Pittsburgh,.
Pennsylvania and vicinity. The Council has its own officers and its own consti-
tution and bylaws. Among the several unions which have thus affiliated to form
the Council are the four craft unions involved herein, I. B. E. W., Carpenters,
Sheet Metal Workers, and Operating Engineers.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters District
Council of Pittsburgh and Vicinity; International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local No. 5; Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local
No. 12; and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 66, 66-A,
66-B, and 66-C, all affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are local
organizations which admit to membership craftsmen in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania and vicinity whose work falls within their respective craft jurisdictions..
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
As heretofore noted, John M. Ridella, an individual doing business under the
name of Dill Construction Company with headquarters at Latrobe, Pennsylvania,
was given the general contract in the last week of July 1948 to construct the
El Rancho Drive-In-Theater at Bridgeville, Pennsylvania. Dill in turn subcon-
tracted certain of the grading and excavation work on the project to the K. Al. B.
Construction Company. About August 20' Dill retained the H. C. Smith Com-
pany of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, on a time and material basis,' to do some of
the sheet metal and roofing work on the project. On or about August 25, Dill
° All dates in this chronology are In the year 1948.
° It was explained by Smith that his company did not have a contract with Dill. But
on the completion of certain work , billed Dill for the labor and material used.
'248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entered into a verbal arrangement with Petredis and Fryer to do the electrical
work, which the latter firm started on the same date.
The record does not reveal the exact date when construction began, but it
appears that construction was progressing without event with laborers and
craftsmen of the general contractor and subcontractors participating until
August 30.'
B. The events on August 30
Patrick Hackett, assistant business manager of Local 5, I. B. E. W., whose
duties consisted among others, of locating construction jobs and contacting the
general contractors with a view toward obtaining the electrical work for niem-
hers of his union, came upon the construction of the El Rancho Drive-In-Theater
at Bridgeville on August 30,.between 1 and 2 p. nl. He stopped there to investi-
gate the job. Hackett noticed the Petredis and Fryer truck on the premises
and knew that they were "non-union to the electrical workers" as he had made
unsuccessful efforts to organize Petredis and Fryer employees in November 1947.°
Hackett entered a building which housed the projection room, lunch room, and
store room and asked a carpenter for the names of the general contractor and
foreman. Hackett was given the information and was told that the foreman,
Neil Porter, was not on the job at the moment.
Hackett continued to look around the job and within a short time talked with
Eugene Tyler,'a sheet metal worker in the employ of Smith. Hackett inquired
what trade Tyler followed, for whom he worked, and if he was "union." Tyler
went out to his truck, obtained his union card and showed it to Hackett. Tyler
and his helper returned to their work when Hackett left the room to talk with
Pryer and his helper Rudolph Krall ° Hackett returned shortly and asked Tyler
If he was going to work with "those fellows." Tyler replied that he would not if it
meant a fine for him. Hackett then advised Tyler to contact his union business
agent.10
Tyler and Hackett went to a nearby tavern where a telephone call was placed
to John T. Garvey, business agent for Sheet Metal Workers International Asso-
ciation, Local No. 12, in Pittsburgh. Hackett talked with Garvey and informed
him that he was on the site of the El Rancho Drive-In-Theater construction job
in Bridgeville, that there was a nonunion condition for the electrical workers
on the job and that a sheet metal worker there would like to talk to Garvey.
Hackett handed the phone to Tyler. Tyler, according to Garvey, explained that
there was some difficulty on the job with the electricians and he wanted to know
7 There is a conflict in the testimony as to the exact number of craftsmen and laborers
working on the project on August 30. The undersigned finds from his review of the
testimony and pay-roll records in evidence that there were two carpenters and six laborers
in the employ of Dill, a sheet metal worker and his helper in the employ of Smith, and
Fryer the electrician and his helper working on the project on that day.
8 Fryer and several of his employees, including electricians and helpers, were members
of District 50, United Mine Workers of America. Fryer testified at the hearing that his
firm was then contemplating entering into a union-shop agreement with District 50.
° The conversation between Hackett and Fryer will be related hereinafter.
10 Hackett denied that he asked Tyler if he was going to continue working with the non-
union electricians and further denied that Tyler answered that he would not if it meant a
fine for him . Hackett, testifying regarding his version of the conversation with Tyler
about this incident, stated that he asked Tyler if he knew that nonunion electrical work
was being done on the job, to which Tyler replied that lie did not know. Tyler asked
Hackett what to do. Hackett told Tyler that it would be best for him to contact his
office. Tyler's testimony regarding this incident with Hackett was corroborated in the
main by Fryer. The undersigned believes and finds that this incident occurred substantially
as testified to by Tyler and rejects Hackett's denials.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 249
what to do. Garvey testified that he told Tyler that if there was any difficulty
he would like to get out to the project, but that since that was impossible Tyler
had better take the matter up with his employer.
Tyler's testimony varied regarding his conversation with Garvey. At first
Tyler testified that Garvey told him to pack his clothes and leave the job. At
another point in his testimony Tyler stated that he explained to Garvey that
"there was a bunch of electricians working there" and that he "would probably
have to pay a fine" and asked Garvey what he was "supposed to do," in response
to which Garvey allegedly said "if the carpenters are leaving, you better leave,"
whereupon Tyler went back to the project, packed his tools and left. It should
be noted that when Tyler left the job the carpenters were still on the job. In still
another version, Tyler testified that when he returned to the Smith shop in Mc-
Keesport lie told his superintendent, Mr. Caskie, what the trouble was at Bridge-
ville and that lie had talked with Garvey and asked him what to do ; that Garvey
said "go back and work in the shop." Tyler was also confused in his testimony
regarding "the fine." As heretofore noted, he testified that the possibility of his
having to pay a fine entered into the conversation with Garvey, yet at another
point in his testimony he admitted that the matter of a fine was not mentioned
to Garvey or by Garvey. Although the undersigned has previously credited Tyler,
his testminoy regarding the conversation with Garvey was confused, inconsistent,
and vague and is not credited in this regard. On the other hand, Garvey, by his
demeanor on the witness stand and by his over-all testimony, unshaken by cross
examination and supported by other corroborating circumstances in the record,
impressed the undersigned as a truthful witness. The undersigned credits
Garvey's version of his conversation with Tyler.
At about 2: 30 p. in., a half hour-after the Garvey telephone conversation, Tyler
packed his tools and left the drive-in-theater job. Tyler went to his shop in
.McKeesport where lie worked the remainder of the afternoon until 4: 30 p. in., his
regular quitting time.
John Ridella testified that he talked with Smith and it was decided that since
Dill had "labor troubles" at Bridgeville it would be best if Dill's mechanics applied
the materials which had been supplied by Smith and left on the job n Neither
'Tyler nor any other sheet metal worker in the employ of Smith returned to the
El Rancho Drive-In-Theater job after August 30. There is no evidence in the
.record that Smith requested any of his employees to work on the Bridgeville job
after that date. John Ridella testified that he never requested the Sheet Metal
Workers' International Association to supply him with any men.
Fryer and his helper Rudolph Krall were working in the projection room when
Hackett came over to talk to them. Hackett asked Fryer if he knew that he was
working on a nonunion job. Fryer replied"]. don't know who you are." 12 Hackett
handed his business card to Fryer and asked Fryer for his card. Fryer stated
that he and his men were all members of a bona fide union and that he did not
have to show his card to Hackett. When Hackett told Fryer he did not believe
his statement, Fryer said Hackett would have to accept his word. Hackett asked
to see Krall's card and was told that Krall left his wallet at home. Save for this
incident Fryer and his helper continued with their work on the job.
11 As will appear hereinafter, Porter, the carpenter foreman, returned to the Bridgeville
job on September 4 to put up some tin on a ticket office. The record is not clear as to
whether this work was the regular work of a sheet metal worker or a carpenter. Porter
testified, however, that the sheet metal workers did this type of work in the projection
room, but that the carpenters did such work in the ticket office.
12 Fryer admitted knowing Hackett but explained that he wanted Hackett to identify
himself.
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly after 2 p. in., Porter, the carpenter foreman and union steward, returned
to the job from a nearby lumber yard and was met by Hackett. Porter was told
that there was a "nasty situation" there with respect to the electricians, that the
electricians were members of a union not recognized by the I. B. E. W., and was
asked to cooperate and leave the job. Hackett told Porter that the sheet metal
worker Tyler was cooperating and leaving the job. Porter told Hackett that he
would not leave the job unless told to do so by his union business agent"
Hackett and Porter proceeded to the telephone where Porter tried unsuccess-
fully to reach his boss, John Ridella. A call was then placed to Charles McGowan,
business agent for the Carpenters, in Pittsburgh.
Hackett talked with McGowan, telling him that there was a nonunion condi-
tion as far as the electricians were concerned on the El Rancho Drive-In-Theater
job and that the carpenters' steward on the job was standing next to him and
wanted to talk to McGowan."
McGowan testified that when the other party got on the phone he asked who
was speaking and was told it was Porter. McGowan asked "What is going on
out there?" Porter replied "Mr. Hackett tells me that this job is non-union for
his electricians," and then asked McGowan what to do. McGowan said he could
not tell Porter what to do, that Porter was on the job and McGowan was in
Pittsburgh. Porter again asked McGowan for advice and was told "Well, what-
ever you do, you will just have to use your own judgment until I investigate the
job." 15
Shortly after the McGowan conversation, Hackett talked over the phone at
the company office in Latrobe with Andrew Ridella, brother of John and general
superintendent of Dill. Andrew testified that Hackett asked him if he knew
that nonunion electricians were working on the El Rancho Drive-In-Theater job
to which Andrew replied that he thought they were union electricians. Hackett
said they were not recognized by the American Federation of Labor and asked
Andrew if he could not have the electricians removed from the job. Andrew
stated that he did not have the authority to remove them, that a contract had
13 Hackett testified that upon seeing Porter and ascertaining that he was the foreman
and union steward, asked him if he know of the nonunion condition on the job for the
electricians. Porter replied that he did not know and asked Hackett what he could do
about it. Hackett suggested that Porter contact his office. Hackett's testimony is not
credited in this regard and the undersigned finds that the conversation between Hackett
and Porter took place substantially as testified to by Porter.
14 Hackett according to Porter repeated to McGowan what he had previously told Porter
and asked for the cooperation of the carpenters to leave the job. Hackett's testimony
as set forth above was corroborated in all respects by McGowan and is credited.
11 Porter, testifying regarding his version of the conversation with McGowan, stated
that McGowan said "Porter, you better tell your men to pack their tools and leave the
job" that nothing further was said by either of them and Porter turned the phone back to
Hackett. The undersigned credits McGowan and finds that the conversation between
McGowan and Porter took place substantially as testified to by McGowan. In arriving at
this finding the undersigned has carefully considered among other things the constitution
and bylaws of Carpenters District Council of Pittsburgh and Vicinity introduced in
evidence by the General Counsel. Section 32-A, "Strike and Lockouts" provides; "When
any difficulty or trade dispute arises in any locality under the jurisdiction of the District
Council the members so involved shall at once report the same to the Secretary-Treasurer
of District Council who shall select and instruct a Business Agent to investigate said
grievance. If the report of the Business Agent should warrant, the Secretary-Treasurer
shall request the President to call a special meeting of District Council to consider the
same ." The undersigned has also taken into consideration the fact, as will be detailed
hereinafter more fully, that Porter did return to the El Rancho Drive-In-Theater job later
the same week and worked on the said job even though the nonunion electrical condition
still existed there.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 251
been let, that he was not the owner of the company and had nothing to say abort
it. Hackett told Andrew that Dill was violating the Fair Labor Rules of the
Building Trades Council 11 and threatened that if the electricians were not re-
moved he would declare Dill unfair throughout all the counties in Westera
Pennsylvania. Further that Dill would not get any I. B. E. W. men for future
jobs. Andrew repeated that he did not have authority in the matter, that
he would have to talk to John and suggested that Hackett call John that night 1"
It was about 3 p. M. when the phone conversation ended. Hackett left the
project site and Porter returned to the job. Porter testified that he and the
other carpenter, George Popp, put up their tools, fooled around and started to
put materials away. That from that hour they did not do any carpentry work
for the remainder of the work day.
The laborers on the job continued with their work during the various con-
versations between Hackett and the different craftsmen set out above. When
Porter returned to the job at about 3 p. in. he told the laborers that the car-
penters had to leave the job, that there would be no boss there and Porter thought
that they had better leave also. The laborers then decided of their own volition
to leave.
Andrew Ridella testified that at 4: 30 p. m., Porter again called the office and
wanted to know whether to come back to Latrobe 18 or wait in Bridgeville until
"things settled." Andrew suggested that rather than have Porter and Popp
get into trouble with the union they return to Latrobe with their tools and work
would be found for them there. Porter and Popp left the job at 6 p. in., and drove
back to Latrobe.
John Ridella testified credibly that that evening he talked with Hackett who
explained that the electrical subcontractor on the El Rancho Drive-In-Theater
job was not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and that Dill would
have "to get that straightened out." Hackett asserted that Dill would not be
able to use other American Federation of Labor craftsmen with such an elec-
trical contractor and that Petredis and Fryer would have to be removed from
the job. Hackett asked Dill if the work at Bridgeville would be continued.
John Ridella stated that he could not give Hackett an answer immediately and
that the job "would just stand there" until a solution was figured out.
C. Events subsequent to August 30
The following morning, Tuesday , August 31 , John Ridella met with Porter
and several of his other employees regarding the events of the previous day at
Bridgeville.
John Ridella testified that he asked Porter aboutabout returning to work there
and that Porter said that if they went down , most likely everything would be
all right and then again they might still be subject to a fine. The record is clear
that whenever the matter of a fine was brought up it was raised by Porter and
not once mentioned to him by any of the union business agents with whom he
talked . Furthermore, it should be noted that although the constitution and by-
laws of Carpenters District Council of Pittsburgh and Vicinity provides for fines
against any member who violates any section of the constitution, nevertheless,
16 The constitution and bylaws of the Council does not contain any reference to fair
labor rules, nor were any fair labor rules introduced in evidence.
17 Hackett denied that he requested Andrew to remove the Petredis and Fryer men from
the El Rancho job. His denial is not credited.
1B rorter testified that during the work week he and Popp had a room in Bridgeville
and went home to Latrobe on week ends.
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
before such a fine can be levied, charges must be preferred and the accused shall
have a fair and impartial trial before a Trial Committee. None of the employees
stated that he would not work on the Bridgeville project. In fact, John Ridella
testified that if he instructed the employees to return to work there, they would
have gone . He decided however, to "just leave it go." Porter and several of
the other men were sent to work on other jobs that day."
Fryer and a helper returned to the job on August 31, and continued with the
electrical installation work throughout the day without interruption.
John Haynie, a bulldozer operator in the employ of K. M. B., had been work-
ing at the Bridgeville project about 4 weeks, but had not worked on August 30.
He reported back for work on August 31.
Fred Mangold, assistant business agent of the Operating Engineers, testified
that while he was on another Dill job in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, one of the
operating engineers informed him of the Bridgeville job, suggested that he in-
vestigate and get the operator to join the Union. Mangold came on the Bridge-
ville job about noon on August 31, to talk to Haynie 2°
Mangold testified that he asked Haynie if he carried a card in the Operating
Engineers Union. Haynie answered "No," but stated that he always wanted to-
join and that he would go down and call his boss, Michael Bulazo, on the
telephone.
According to the testimony of Haynie the following conversation ensued be-
tween himself and Mangold:
Mr. Mangold cane out and flagged me down and asked me whose equip-
ment I was running. I told him it belonged to K. Al. B. Construction Cor-
poration, and he says, "Do you belong to the Union?" I says, "No." Then
he asked me, he says, did I understand they had a little union trouble..
I says No, and he says, well, they had. I said, "What do you want me to
do?" He says, "You'll have to join the Union." I asked how much it was
and he told me the dues and the fees. I told him I wasn't in position to,
pay that money at that time and asked if it would be all right for my boss
to pay it for me, and asked if .I could go on back to work. He said lie didn't,
care who paid the money as long as it was paid when I joined, and I said,
"Well, what do you want me to do?" He says, "Well, I advise you to dis-
continue work until we get that straightened out." . . . So I called my boss,
and put Mr. Mangold on the phone. . . .
Haynie also testified that at that time he was given an application card by
Mangold and he asked Mangold if he could go back to work if he joined the-
Union since he was not concerned with the electricians' work. Haynie, not
sure about what Mangold answered him, testified that he thought that Man-
gold's answer was that he would advise him to wait until all the labor trouble-
was over before he started back to work. When Haynie was asked if Mangold
told him with whom the labor trouble existed, he answered "I'd be afraid to^
say, because I don't remember." His further testimony regarding the parties:
engaged in the labor dispute at the El Rancho Drive-In-Theater was that when
he first talked to Mangold, he did not know who it was, but after his second con-
versation, he did. When again asked by the General Counsel to name the-
groups of individuals engaged in the labor dispute, he stated "I don't hardly know-
how to answer that."
l° It appears from the record that John Ridella shifted his employees from one job to
another as he saw fit and planned his work on a day -to-day basis.
20 This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of Mangold which the under-
signed credits.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 253
Mangold denied that he told Haynie he would have to join the Union; that he
said anything to Haynie about union dues and fees or that lie did not care who
paid the money as long as it was paid when he joined ; and that lie advised him
to wait until the labor trouble was over before he started to work. Mangold
further denied that Haynie asked hint the question if he joined the Union would
he be able to go back to work, since the electricians' work was none of his work.
Haynie testified that he called Bulazo in Mangold's presence and said, "Mike,
they're having a little trouble out here concerning unions and I've been told to
stop work and I thought I'd tell you and then you can advise me what to do."
The phone was then handed to Mangold who testified that he made known his.
union position to Bulazo. He told Bulazo that he was inquiring as to Haynie's
union status and learned that he was not a union member. Mangold asked
Bulazo what he thought about Haynie's joining the Union. Bulazo, according
to Mangold, stated that the matter was entirely up to his men. Mangold said
that that was all right and that was all he wanted to know.
Bulazo, testifying regarding his version of the telephone conversation with
Mangold stated that he asked Mangold what the trouble was, and was told that
Haynie was not a union member and therefore could not work on the job.
Bulazo asked Mangold if Haynie would be permitted to complete the job if he
joined the Union. Mangold answered "No," asserting that the reason was be-
cause the rest of the job was not union. Bulazo told Mangold that it appeared
to him that there was no difference if his operator was union or nonunion and
that Mangold wanted Bulazo to "sympathize" with him. Mangold, according to
Bulazo, stated, "Well, if you want to put it that way, that's right." Bulazo
then told Mangold "to go ahead and straighten out his other affairs, his union
troubles on that job," and he would be down that afternoon to, see Haynie.
Bulazo spoke again to Haynie and said "If you want to join the Union, you can,
if you don't want to join, you don't have to. I'm leaving it up to you. You
do as you please as far as that is concerned," Bulazo then directed Haynie
to stop his machine and come out to K. M. B. headquarters.
Mangold testified that after Haynie completed his telephone conversation Hay-
nie asked him for a union application card and inquired about the union fees.
Mangold gave Haynie the application card and two booklets showing the dif-
ferent rates for operating engineers in building construction and heavy industry,
and then left the project.
Haynie testified that he left the job about noon 21 When he got to Oakmont,
K. M. B.'s headquarters, he sat talking to Bulazo for awhile, and Bulazo said,
"I'm not telling you to join the Union, and I'm not telling you not to join it,
I'll leave it up to you to decide to join or not to join." Bulazo told Haynie he
would accompany him to the El Rancho job the following morning to see if every-
thing was settled.
Mangold also testified that it is the general practice of his Union to send union
operators out on jobs where some of the other crafts may be nonunion.
The undersigned is convinced on the basis of the testimony above outlined, from
the record as a whole and from his observation of the witnesses that Mangold
was a truthful witness. The undersigned credits Mangold's testimony, above
outlined, and rejects the testimony of Haynie and Bulazo inconsistent there-
with. The undersigned further finds that Haynie quit his work at the Ei
Rancho Drive-In-Theater at about noon on August 31, and proceeded to his boss'
office at Oakmont in accordance with the directions given him by Bulazo.
21 Haynie did not have a regular quitting hour . He testified that during the summer
months he usually worked until dark , which was about 9 p. m.
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Haynie returned to the El Rancho Drive-In-Theater project early Wednesday
morning, September 1. He carried on his regular work that day and without
interference or interruption thereafter until September 17, when he quit B. M. B.
of his own volition.
Petredis and Fryer were working on the job on September 1, and performed
their regular work without interference or interruption from any source.
In addition the pay-roll record of Dill reveals that one laborer and one oper-
ating engineer in Dill's employ worked on the job that day.
Hackett testified that at about 11 a. m., September 1, he entered the build
ing where the Building Trades Council of Pittsburgh and Vicinity were meet-
ing, with the intention of attending the said meeting. The meeting had ended
when Hackett arrived. The business agents of the constituent unions of the
Council who had attended the meeting were on their way out of the building.
Hackett told several of the business agents about the nonunion electrical con-
dition on the El Rancho Drive-In-Theater job and suggested that they investi-
gate the conditions of their crafts on the job. It was then suggested that a
group of the business agents talk with the general contractor the next day.
Hackett agreed to contact John Ridella and make necessary arrangements for
the meeting and advise the different business agents accordingly.
John Ridella testified that he talked with Hackett Wednesday evening, and
was told that the Council had a meeting and would like to meet with him as
soon as possible.' A meeting was arranged for Thursday, September 2, at
3p.m.
The meeting on Thursday, September 2, was held as scheduled. John Ridella
testified that there were about 10 business agents from different American
Federation of Labor craft unions present. John Ridella testified further that
no one particular business agent acted as spokesman for the group, or stated
that he represented the Council. In fact the Council was not mentioned during
the meeting.23 Each one introduced himself, told John Ridella the Union he repre-
sented and then inquired of him whether he was doing the entire job with his
own employees or subcontracting parts of it. Hackett and John Ridella did most
of the talking during the meeting. Hackett insisting that Dill remove Petredis
and Fryer from the electrical work for the same reasons given by Hackett
previously. John Ridella stated that he would not break his contract with
Petredis and Fryer, that they had completed half of it and that Dill would
not get a "straight deal" if it was broken at this time. Hackett, in anger, ac-
cording to Ridella, made the statement that if the situation at Bridgeville was
not cleared up, Dill would not have any A. F. L. men working for him ever.
John Ridella also testified that none of the other business agents went along
with Hackett's last statement, that none of them talked in the same vein, and'
that the position they took with reference to the Bridgeville job "was good."
Furthermore, that "he had no argument whatsoever" with any of the other
business agents."
22 Hackett admitted talking with John Ridella, Wednesday evening. He testified that
be told John Ridella that he would like to meet him the following day at the El Rancho
Drive-In -Theater site at Bridgeville to talk to him about the job. The undersigned does.
not credit Hackett's testimony in this regard and finds that the conversation was sub-
stantially as testified to by John Ridella.
23 John Ridella testified that the only place the Council was mentioned was in his tele-
phone conversation with Hackett the previous day.
24 These findings are based on a reconciliation of the testimony of 1Tackett and John
Ridella . There is little conflict, if any, regarding the happenings at the meeting.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 255
As the meeting progressed, Romeo Chiappini came in. Hackett took Chiap-
pini to another room and made efforts to get Chiappini to bring influence to bear
on Dill to get Petredis and Fryer off the job. Chiappini refused Hackett's re-
quest, but nevertheless talked with Dill. They decided that Petredis and
Fryer would remain on the job. John Ridella then talked with Fryer who
had been working on the job that day, and told him to continue with the elec-
trical work and complete the job.
The laborer and operating engineer in Dill's employ, as well as Haynie also
worked on the job on September 2.
On September 3, Dill sent a carpenter, six laborers, and on operating engineer
to the job. Thereafter the number of carpenters, laborers and other crafts-
men assigned to the job by Dill varied in number depending upon how many
were needed and the work was carried on with regularity until the job's com-
pletion. Porter and Popp, the carpenters who were on the job on August 30
returned to the job on September 5, even though the nonunion electrical con-
dition still existed. As a matter of fact Popp and other union carpenters
were on the job on September 13 and September 20, when McGowan visited
the job. They were working alongside nonunion electricians but nothing was,
said or done to them.
Hackett testified that he never returned to the El Rancho job after the
September 2 meeting, nor does it appear that any of the other union business
agents (with the exception of McGowan as noted above) talked with either
Ridella or any of the employees of the job after that date.
No picket line was placed around the job by any of the respondents at any
time. The construction of the theater was completed early in October..
Conclusions
The complaint alleges that the respondents, through their officers, agents,.
and representatives, on or about August 30, 1948, and thereafter, induced and
encouraged members of their union and others employed by the general con-
tractor Dill and the subcontractors, Smith and K. M. B., to leave their employ
and to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to perform any services for their respective employers, an object thereof
being to force or require Dill to cease doing business with Petredis and Fryer.
It has been found that there was a cessation of work on the part of Dill's
carpenters, the sheet metal workers of Smith, and the operating engineer of
K. M. B., at different times during the days of August 30 and 31 at the El
Rancho Drive-In-Theater job. Although in point of time such cessations of
work took place before Hackett made his threats known to Dill, it is none-
theless clear from the findings made in the foregoing sections of this Inter-
mediate Report that the object, at all times herein, was in the language of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A), "forcing or requiring any employer [Dill] . . . to,
cease doing business with any other person [Petredis and Fryer]." The object
thus established, one of the questions for determination herein is: Was the
cessation of work by these employees brought about as a result of inducement
and encouragement by the respondent labor organizations or their agents?
With respect to respondent Carpenters: From the facts set out in the fore-
going sections of this Intermediate Report it has been found that Porter, re-
questing advice from his business agent, McGowan, as to what he should do
when the nonunion electrical condition on the job was called to his atten-
tion , was told that he would have to use his own judgment until McGowan
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was able to investigate the job. True, neither Porter nor Popp did any
carpentry work on the job for the remainder of that day after the McGowan
conversation. But, did this come about because of inducement or encourage-
ment envisaged by Section 8 (b) (4) (A) ? 'Prom' the evidence it cannot be
inferred that McGowan was doing more than advising Porter, who requested
such advice. Therefore, when Porter and Popp ceased work after McGowan
told Porter to "use his own judgment," the undersigned finds that they did
so of their own volition, and left the job site only when directed to do so by
their superintendent, Andrew Ridella. The undersigned therefore finds that
neither respondent Carpenters nor McGowan, its agent, induced or encouraged
Porter or Popp to quit their work at the El Rancho job within the meaning
,of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
With respect to respondent Sheet Metal Workers: It has been found that
Garvey told Tyler, who admittedly requested advice because of the "labor diffi
culty" on the El Rancho job, that he had better take the matter up with his
employer. The evidence reveals that Tyler accepted Garvey's advice, left the
job and reported back to his employer and continued his work at his employer's
shop for the remainder of that day and thereafter. These premises established,
there is no substantial evidence to warrant the inference that Garvey induced
or encouraged Tyler to leave the El Rancho job or to cease working for Smith.
On the contrary, it is clear and the undersigned finds that there never was a
cessation of work by Tyler for Smith, there was merely a stoppage of work by
Tyler for about an hour while he was in transit between the El Rancho job,
which he had left of his own accord, and his shop. The undersigned therefore
concludes and finds that neither respondent Sheet Metal Workers nor its agent,
Garvey, induced or encouraged Tyler to cease his work at the El Rancho job
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
With respect to respondent Operating Engineers : The undersigned has found
that Mangold, during the course of his organizational duties on August 31, came
on the El Rancho job with a view toward enrolling Haynie as a member of his
Union. The General Counsel concedes in his brief that Mangold was on the
project in an attempt to get Haynie to join the Union. The General Counsel
contends, however, that when Haynie demurred at joining the Union, Mangold
advised Haynie to discontinue his work on the job until he had his union mem-
bership straightened out ; that because of this advice Mangold succeeded in forc-
ing Haynie to cease his work for at least the balance of the day and that such
cessation of work on the part of Haynie was brought about as a result of induce-
ment and encouragement by Mangold.. As heretofore found, Haynie left the
El Rancho job to confer with his employer, when instructed to do so by Bulazo.
The undersigned finds the General Counsel's contention to be without merit.
Under all of the circumstances, the undersigned finds that Mangold did not
induce or encourage Haynie to stop his work and leave the El Rancho job within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
With respect to respondent Council, there is no evidence whatsoever that it
or its agents engaged in a strike the object of which was to force Dill to cease
doing business with Petredis and Fryer, or induced or encouraged the employees
of Dill, Smith, or K. M. B. to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the
,course of their employment to perform any services for their respective employ-
ers. Nor is there any evidence that respondent Council took action such as
picketing or placing Dill, Smith, or K. M. B. on an unfair list. The undersigned
therefore finds that respondent Council did not violate Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of
the Act.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 257
Another question for determination is: Whether the activities of Hackett con-
stitute inducement or encouragement of employees in the course of their employ-
ment within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A).
Hackett talked with several employees on the job, not members of his union,
and called to their attention the fact that a nonunion electrical condition existed
there. In addition the undersigned has found and the Respondents' brief con-
cedes that Hackett asked Porter to cooperate with him and leave the job.
Although this did not result in Porter's ceasing work or leaving the job,u never-
theless, it was an effort by Hackett to persuade Porter to do an act to further
a secondary boycott.26 In the light of the recent decision of the majority of the
Board in Matter of Wadsworth Building Company, Inc., et at., 81 N. L. R. B. 802,
in which it was found inter alia that "Section 8 (b) (4) (A) was intended to
prohibit peaceful picketing, as well as persuasion and encouragement to further
a secondary boycott" (emphasis supplied) and that "Section 8 (c) is inapplicable
to Section 8 (b) (41 (A)," no useful purpose could be served by a discussion
of whether Hackett's attempted persuasion of Porter is protected by the First
Amendment of the Constitution or Section 8 (c) of the Act.
Notwithstanding the foregoing findings and the fact that Hackett's conduct
with respect to Porter stands as an isolated instance of inducement or encourage-
ment,27 based on the Wadsworth case supra, the undersigned concludes and finds
that I. B. E. W. by Hackett's conduct violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent I. B. E. W., set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the general contractor and sub-
contractors set forth in Section I, 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 respondent I. B. E. W. has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having
found that the respondents Council, Carpenters, Sheet Metal Workers, and Oper-
ating Engineers have not committed the unfair labor practices alleged in the
u As found hereinabove, Porter ceased work of his own volition after conferring with
McGowan, and left the job upon instructions from his superintendent, Andrew Ridella.
26 While the undersigned has used the term "secondary boycott" hereinabove, an inter-
esting question arises as to whether Congress intended the Act to apply to the precise
factual situation here involved. Conceivably, Dill, the general contractor could have
performed all of the work on the El Rancho job with his own employees, rather than as he
did here, subcontract part of the work to others. Had Dill done the work himself and had
in his direct employ nonunion electricians together with craftsmen, members of A. P. of L.
unions, an appeal by a business agent of I. B. E. W. to the other employees not to work
with the nonunion electricians would not be violative of the Act because it would have
been a primary dispute. Does this situation change because Dill subcontracted the elec-
trical work to an employer who hires nonunion electricians? The undersigned merely
raises the problem without deciding it because of the findings hereinafter made.
27 Cf. Matter of Rice-Sties of Arkansas, Inc., 79 N. L. R. B. 1333; Matter of The Pure Oil
Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 539; Matter of E, I. Du Pont de Nemours d Company, 62
N. L. R. B . 816; Matter of Sbicca, Inc., 30 N. L. R. B. 60, 66.
Q
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
complaint, it will be recommended that the complaint against the said respond-
ents be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The respondents Council, Carpenters, Sheet Metal Workers, Operating Engi
neers, and I. B. E. W. are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. By inducing and encouraging employees of Dill Construction Company not
to perform services in the course of their employment, an object thereof being to
force or require their employer to cease doing business with Petredis and Fryer,
the respondent I. B. E. W. has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The respondents Council, Carpenters, Sheet Metal Workers, and Operating
Engineers have not engaged in the unfair labor practices charged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended that the respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local No. 5, A. F. of L. and its agents shall :
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging employees of any employer
to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to perform services for their employer
in the course of their employment where an object thereof is to force and require
their employer or any other person to cease doing business with Petredis and
Fryer.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places at the business office of International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 5, A. F. of L. copies of the notice attached
hereto as an appendix. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an officer of
respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 5,
A. F. of L., be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a
period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the said respondent to insure that these notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the said
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that, unless the respondent who is subject to this
recommended order shall, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Interme-
diate Report notify the said Regional Director in writing that it will comply
with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue
an order requiring the said respondent to take the action aforesaid.
It is also recommended the complaint be dismissed with respect to respondents
Building and Construction Trades Council of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and
Vicinity ; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters'
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 259
District Council of Pittsburgh and Vicinity ; Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association, Local No. 12; and International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local No. 66, 66-A, 66-B, and 66-C, all affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file
with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and
six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon
together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any
party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in
support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing:
the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements
of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the
record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeo-
graphed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all
papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85..
As further provided in said Section 203.46 should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
SIDNEY LINDNER,
Trial Examiner.
Dated : March 11, 1949.
APPENDIX
NOTICE
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our members that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of any employer to engage in a
strike or concerted refusal to perform services in the course of their employ-
ment, where an object thereof is to force or require any employer to cease
doing business with Petredis and Fryer.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL No. 5, A. F. OF L.,
Labor Organization.
By --------------------------------------------------------
(Officer or Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
857829-50-vol. 85-18