Carpenters District Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 291 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
Carpenters District Council, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and
Donn E . McKay d/b/a Apollo Dry Wall. Case
7-CC-790
June 10, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On February 25, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
Respondent filed a brief in support of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's Decision, cross-exceptions, and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions 1 of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
I In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respon-
dent has not violated Sec . 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act and his recommended
dismissal of the complaint in its entirety , we rely on the particular facts and
circumstances of the instant case . The crux of General Counsel's case
involves a single conversation between two of Respondent 's representatives
and the neutral employer 's job superintendent . The latter appears to have
testified about this conversation primarily on the basis of his subjective
interpretation of the remarks made by Respondent 's representatives rather
than in terms of the actual statements made and language used by
Respondent 's representatives . There were no events or conduct either
preceding or subsequent to this conversation that are attributable to
Respondent which could be utilized to evaluate the apparently ambiguous
nature of the remarks of Respondent 's representatives . In such circum-
stances the specific language used , which the witness in the instant case
appears either to have been unable to recall or failed to testify about
specifically ,becomes critical in determining whether or not the Act has been
violated.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
291
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge: This
is a secondary boycott case in which the issue is whether
union representatives unlawfully threatened , coerced, or
restrained a general contractor to not use a nonunion
subcontractor. I find hereinafter that they did not act
unlawfully.
The case arises out of unfair labor practice charges filed
with the National Labor Relations Board (herein the
Board) on October 9, 1973,1 by Donn E. McKay, an
individual, doing business as Apollo Dry Wall (herein
Apollo) against Carpenters District Council, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO (herein Respondent). Based on these charges a
complaint issued October 29 on behalf of the Board,
alleging that Respondent had committed unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(B) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act).
Respondent filed an answer denying Board jurisdiction
and also denying that it had committed unfair labor
practices as alleged. The matter was tried before me at
Detroit, Michigan, on December 11.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses,
and consideration of the arguments of counsel and the
brief filed by Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
This case involves the construction of a housing project
in Westland, Michigan, known as Continental Woods
Condominiums. North American Development Corpora-
tion, owned and operated by one Daniel Malone, is the
owner-developer and general contractor in the construc-
tion. Between the months of June and December 1973,
North American will have purchased and received at the
project lumber and related products valued in excess of
$ 55,000 from ERB Lumber Company, which is located in
Michigan but receives the lumber and related products
from suppliers outside Michigan. When completed in the
autumn of 1974, the project will consist of at least 140
housing units in 20 to 27 separate buildings. The whole
project will cost between $4.5 and $5 million. Lumber and
related products valued at between $400,000 and $500,000
will have been used in the construction. I find that North
American is a person engaged in commerce and in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
At the time of the events involved in this case, a variety
of subcontractors were working on the jobsite. These
All dates herein are in 1973 unless otherwise indicated.
211 NLRB No. 36
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
included Sam Wien (painting), Jouppi, Inc., and Jerritt
(carpentry), Spalding Aluminum Siding and Roofing
(siding and roofing), Truwall Construction (basement
walls), Garden City Construction, Inc. (drywall), and
Bryant Moon Plumbing (plumbing). Of these, only Moon
operated nonunion. There is no evidence that his nonunion
status had any effect on the job. All of the other
subcontractors named were union operators and, since
their work involved some carpentry, all maintained
collective-bargaining agreements with Respondent.
John Miller and his wife are coowners of Garden City
Construction, Inc. (herein Garden City). In the perform-
ance of drywall work, Garden City uses both carpenters
and painters and maintains collective -bargaining agree-
ments not only with Respondent, covering the carpenters,
but also with a union representing the painters, which is
not involved in the present matter.
Construction at the project proceeded by stages. Subcon-
tracts for various aspects of the work were awarded for
each stage as it was about to commence. Thus, Garden
City, the initial drywall subcontractor on the job, began
work in August on the first building brought to that stage
of completion, building 3. The next buildings scheduled to
be available for drywall work were building 5 and building
4, in that order. It does not appear that Garden City's
subcontract covered these two buildings. I infer, however,
from the record as a whole, that Miller hoped to obtain
further drywall work beyond the initial building 3.
Donn E. McKay, doing business as Apollo DryWall, is
engaged at Westland, Michigan as a drywall contractor in
the construction industry. He operates nonunion. In early
July he obtained from Malone of North American copies
of plans and specifications for the project involved here for
the purpose of developing bids for drywall work. Around
the first of August, he submitted bids to North American
according to the type of units being built. Sometime in
September, Malone advised him he had been awarded a
subcontract, and on September 24 or 25 he and Malone
executed a written contract for the drywall work on
buildings 5 and 4. At that time Garden City was still
working on building 3 but North American was dissatisfied
with the quality and speed with which the work was being
accomplished. North American made the decision to
change drywall subcontractors because it was looking for
more in performance and quality than it was getting from
Garden City, plus the fact that Apollo's bid was lower than
the price Garden City was charging. The subcontract
awarded to Apollo amounted to $4,628 for building 5 and
$11,664 for building 4, a total of approximately $16,293.
Malone told McKay that if his work was satisfactory as to
quality and production, he would receive more work from
North American. Malone indicated he previously had
awarded a subcontract for building 3. In any case, McKay
knew that Garden City was already on the job.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is an organization made up of 15 local
unions in and around Detroit, Michigan, which are
affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. As noted above, Respon-
dent is party to a collective-bargaining agreement with
Garden City, but not with Apollo. The complaint alleges,
the answer admits, and I find that it is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
George Betz, an industry steward, is employed by
Respondent as a field investigator concerning the employ-
ment of carpenters installing drywall, floors, roofing, and
aluminum siding. Floyd Lynch is a business agent of
Carpenters Local 982, one of the local unions affiliated
with Respondent, and in whose district the project in
question is located.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Planned Replacement of Garden City by
Apollo
As noted in section I, above, Garden City was the initial
drywall subcontractor on the project and was so engaged
on September 24 or 25 when North American signed a
contract with Apollo to perform the drywall work on the
next two buildings to come on line.
On the morning of Thursday, September 27, Thomas
Harbourne, the project superintendent for North Ameri-
can, told McKay that in about I week building 5 would be
ready for Apollo to commence drywall work . Later that
same morning, Miller of Garden City had occasion to be in
North American's construction office on the project and
Harbourne told him Garden City was being replaced as the
drywall subcontractor . On learning this , Miller stated to
Harbourne that the replacement had better be a union
contractor or "there 's going to be trouble ." That afternoon
Harbourne reported by telephone to McKay what Miller
had said . He wanted to know what they could do about
that. As a result of this call , McKay contacted Lee
Lawrence , executive secretary of Associated Builders and
Contractors, an association of contractors to which
McKay belongs, and arranged for a meeting between
Lawrence , McKay, and Harbourne for the following
Monday, October 1.
B. Garden City Complains to the Union
Upon learning that Garden City was being replaced,
Miller immediately complained to Betz. According to Betz,
Miller mentioned that he had been doing the drywall work
at the project in question and that there was going to be
another subcontractor coming in. Miller wanted to make
sure that the replacement was a legitimate contractor who
paid fringe benefits the same as Garden City. Betz
promised Miller he would investigate, learn who was going
in on the job, and check the whole project. Miller
mentioned Apollo's name to Betz but he did not recognize
the name at that time.
C. Respondent's Representatives Meet With North
American
On the morning of Friday, September 28, Betz appeared
on the project in the company of Floyd Lynch. After
Harbourne approached them and they had introduced
themselves, he invited them into the project office where
they conversed for about 10 minutes.
Betz did most of the talking. Neither he nor Lynch stated
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL 293
at any time precisely why they were on the jobsite. Betz
inquired as to the identity of contractors on the job
beginning with the roofing subcontractor . Harbourne
replied that Spalding Aluminum was doing the roofing.
Betz then asked who was doing the siding and Harbourne
answered that Spalding was also doing the siding. Betz
then asked who was doing the wood flooring . Harbourne
replied that they were having rugs. Betz noted that did not
concern him . He then asked who was the roughing
contractor . Harbourne said Jouppi . Betz also asked about
finished carpentry contractors.
Finally, Betz asked who was doing the drywall work.
According to him , Harbourne answered that Garden City
was doing the drywall work at that time but that he was
thinking about changing contractors and going to either
Econo or Apollo . The testimony of Harbourne indicates
that he did not volunteer that a change in drywall
subcontractors was imminent . According to him , after he
had identified Garden City as the drywall contractor on
the job, Betz asked him if he contemplated any other
contractors than those then currently working on the job,
to which Harbourne responded that he had bids from at
least two, Apollo and Econo . I credit Harbourne 's version
of that part of the interchange because I think it unlikely
that he would have volunteered the information about
additional bids.
Betz and Lynch indicated that Garden City and Econo
were union contractors. They did not recognize the name
of Apollo as being that of a union contractor . Up to that
point Apollo was the only contractor named in the
conversation who was not identified by Betz and Lynch as
having a contract with Respondent.
There is variance in the testimony as to what was said
from this point on. According to Harbourne , Betz said,
respecting Apollo, "He's not one of our members to the
best of my knowledge ." The conversation then turned to
"general complications ." According to Harbourne, "He
[Betz ] informed me of general complications once again of
having a non-union contractor on a job such as this and
said that his union did not want any trouble in this respect
and neither did I .... " Harbourne said he would keep
them informed , to which either Betz or Lynch said that
Lynch had a son working on the job who could always
keep them posted.
Harbourne's testimony is not entirely clear . On direct
examination, he reported that nothing was said about what
the "complications" might be. On cross -examination, he
indicated that the term "general complications" were not
words used by Betz but was his own summary of what was
said. He described his meaning as follows, "General
complications would be any complication that arose to
slow up the job in any way ." He admitted, that that was
what he was worried about , but he also admitted that
neither Betz nor Floyd said anything about slowing up the
job, and that , although carpenters were working on the job
at the time, they did not say they were going to interfere
with those carpenters continuing to work , nor did they in
fact interfere with them . But, using slightly different words,
Harbourne did adhere on cross-examination to his earlier
testimony that Betz alluded generally to the possibility of
adverse developments . Thus , he was asked if Betz and
Lynch said anything to him about "not wanting any
problems." He reported that Betz said something like that.
He was then asked to state exactly what was said, with the
admonition that it was a very important matter. He then
answered, "I understand. The conversation tone and so
forth was something to the effect that we don't want any
problems and neither do you. It was a-it was a bit of
information that was being relayed on. It was an informing
statement of sorts."
Both Betz and Harbourne agree that near the end of the
conversation, and after Apollo had been named as a
possible drywall subcontractor, Betz handed Harbourne
his business card with the instructions that he could call a
telephone number written on the back to learn whether
Apollo was a union contractor. The number is that of
Respondent's office.
Betz' version of the conversation after Harbourne
identified Apollo as a possible contractor is as follows, "I
asked him-I told him, I says, well, Econo strikes me. I
know them. I says but Apollo, I says, I don't know them. I
don't know if they have a contract or not, I says, and, at
that time, I pulled out my card and I gave him my business
card and I says well he might be a legitunate contractor,
but would you please call this number and I wrote it on the
back because he might have signed up Betz
continued his account of the conversation as follows,
"Well, he [Harbourne ] says, well, we don't want any
trouble and I say, well, I'm not out here to cause any
trouble, but, I says, would you just call this number. The
girls at the desk there have a spindle and you can find out
if he [Apollo] has a contract or not. He [Harbourne] says,
well, this job has got to go. It's behind and it's got to go."
Betz also testified that Lynch mentioned that at one time
his son had worked on the job, but he was not there at that
time.
The testimony of Harbourne and Betz are in conflict on
two points: First as to whether or not Betz used words
indicating there might be difficulties on the job, and
second, the supplemental point as to whether Betz and
Lynch indicated they could keep track of the situation on
the job through Lynch's son. Both Harbourne and Betz
appeared to be forthright witnesses. In some respects Betz'
testimony is more specific and clearer than that of
Harbourne. Nevertheless, Harbourne was a credible
witness and I credit his account rather than that of Betz
primarily because Lynch did not testify. Lynch is an
official of one of Respondent's constituent locals and
presumably within the control of Respondent. No explana-
tion appears in the record as to why he did not testify
regarding this meeting in which he participated and in
which his presence was of some significance. In the
circumstances, I make the inference that if he had testified
his testimony would not have corroborated Betz.
Further, I think Harbourne's version is corroborated by
the fact that after this meeting with Betz and Lynch the
general contractor decided not to use Apollo with which it
already had a written contract for drywall work on
buildings 5 and 4 and instead to continue with Garden City
with whom it had no written contract for those buildings
and with whom at that point it was dissatisfied. It is true
that at the hearing Harbourne stated he was satisfied with
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Garden City 's later work , but he came to this conclusion
only after completion of building 5 which was substantially
after the time of events involved here.
Counsel for Respondent brought out that use of a
nonunion plumbing subcontractor has not resulted in any
difficulties on the job . But there is no evidence that any
union representative ever visited the job with respect to the
nonunion plumbing subcontractor.
By contrast, the prospect that Garden City, a known
union contractor , was not going to have further work on
the project and that Apollo , who admittedly was not
known as a union contractor , was being brought in, was
the reason that Betz and Lynch came to the job to
"investigate ." Neither Betz nor Lynch stated outright that
Apollo was nonunion . The testimony of Harbourne is that
they did not recognize the name of Apollo as that of a
contractor with whom Respondent had a collective-bar-
gaining agreement . I find , however , that they in fact knew
at that time that Apollo was a nonunion operator. I base
this on the record as a whole and particularly on the fact
that Betz, as industry steward , is concerned with contrac-
tors doing specialized work in drywall , wood floors,
roofing, and siding and as a professional would likely know
who were the union and nonunion contractors in his field
of interest . Further, he had already been alerted by Miller
to the possibility that Apollo was nonunion and had
already had an opportunity to check it out in his own
office , the very place he wanted Harbourne to telephone.
In addition , at the meeting with Harbourne he was
accompanied by Lynch in whose district the job was
located , which , coincidentally , is the same community in
which Apollo does business . It is inconceivable that a
professional such as Lynch would not know that Apollo
was a nonunion contractor using carpenters . In sum, Betz
and Lynch showed a false mask of ignorance regarding
Apollo's nonunion status.
The overall purpose of Betz and Lynch in going to the
job was to investigate the entire job insofar as carpenters
were being used. This general investigation included, and
in fact concluded , with Betz' inquiry regarding the
replacement of Garden City. Irrespective of the words
used , the message conveyed to Harbourne was that in the
eyes of the Union Apollo was not on par with either
Garden City or Econo . The thrust of this message was not
significantly altered by holding out to Harbourne the
possibility that a phone call to the union hall might turn up
information about which the industry steward and the
business agent were unaware. I find , therefore , that the
intentional message given to Harbourne was that in the
eyes of Respondent Apollo had not qualified as a union
contractor.
The more crucial question is whether the message also
included words which reasonably could be construed to
indicate that Respondent would cause some adverse
consequences to flow to North American from its use of
Apollo . Based on the testimony of Harbourne, whom I
credit , I find that Betz, using words such as "trouble" or
"problems ," told Harbourne that Respondent did not want
any such difficulties and neither did Harbourne. In
context , the inference inescapably flowing from that vague
statement was that unspecified difficulties could result if a
nonunion drywall subcontractor such as Apollo were used
on the job.
Also based on the testimony of Harbourne , I find that he
told Betz and Lynch he would keep them informed . Either
Betz or Lynch then said that Lynch had a son on the job
who could keep them posted . I do not credit the testimony
of Betz that Lynch said his son had been , but no longer
was, on the job. I reach this finding because Lynch did not
testify, nor did his son, and while the record is not entirely
clear , a fair inference from the evidence regarding the
various contractors on the job at the time is that both
Jerritt (the contractor for whom Lynch 's son worked) as
well as Jouppi were working on the project.
The remark about Lynch 's son served as notice to North
American that a conduit existed for quickly notifying
Respondent of the presence on the job of the disfavored
subcontractor . Betz and Lynch were not satisfied to leave it
up to Harbourne to advise them who was to do the drywall
work . This emphasized the possibility that Respondent
might do something if North American persisted in its
choice of Apollo . The definition of what "trouble" or
"problems" might develop remained unspecified.
Later in the afternoon of September 28, Harbourne saw
McKay at the jobsite . The record doesmotreflect what, if
anything, he told McKay at that time.
D. The Meeting on October 1
As noted earlier herein , McKay arranged the meeting at
the jobsite on Monday , October 1, between himself, Lee
Lawrence of his association , and Harbourne . The meeting
lasted about 20 minutes . Harbourne reported that on the
previous Friday a representative of Respondent had been
at the project and indicated there would be trouble if a
nonunion subcontractor were brought on to the project.
Lawrence gave an extensive recitation of the benefits of
membership in his association , including various ways of
working around work stoppages which might occur.
Finally Harbourne decided, and announced to the other
two, that he had made a decision to use a union drywall
subcontractor on building 5, the next building to come on
line, in order to avoid the possibility of interruption of the
work . At that point the possibility of Apollo doing the
drywall work on building 4 _remained open , but McKay
was not given any definite time when he might begin work.
Lawrence suggested that McKay file charges with the
Board.
E. Later Events
Later in the week of October 1, Harbourne decided that
he would use Garden City to do the drywall work on
building 5 and so advised Miller . In informing Miller,
Harbourne ihdicated that the reason for using Garden City
was that North American could not afford to use Apollo
because it was not a unionized contractor and the job
might be stopped . Sometime in the latter part of that week
he informed McKay that Garden City had been chosen for
building 5 and that it would be 2 or 3 weeks before the next
building (building 4) would be ready for drywall work,
indicating that Apollo could do that building.
Since the events reported above, Apollo has received no
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL 295
word from North American as to when it could commence
work pursuant to its subcontract . About a week or so
before the hearing herein (which would put it around the
end of November or early December), McKay had a
further talk with Malone of North American who at that
time denied that he had a contract with Apollo or that he
had signed a further contract with Garden City to do
additional drywall work on the project. Malone further
told McKay that he did not want him coming onto the
project because if he did all the union men would walk off.
F. Discussion
The project started with Garden City performing the
work on the first building . In the circumstances , I find that
Miller reasonably anticipated that he would receive further
work . In part because Garden City's work was unsatisfac-
tory, and in part because McKay put in a lower bid, North
American contracted with Apollo for drywall work on the
next two buildings . Because of the intervention of Betz and
Lynch on September 28, North American decided not to
use Apollo and instead continue with Garden City, thereby
avoiding any problems which might be caused by use of a
nonunion subcontractor . The intervention which caused
this switch was a vague reference to "trouble" or
"problems." Whether such conduct rises to the level of a
threat , coercion, or restraint within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act is the dispositive legal issue here.
The record as a whole , including the September 28
meeting between Betz , Lynch, and Harbourne , demon-
strates that Respondent's purpose in contacting North
American was to insure that a nonunion drywall subcon-
tractor such as Apollo did not come onto the project.
Accordingly, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
establishes that Respondent harbored a "cease doing
business" object within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B).
Such an object is not unlawful, however, unless implement-
ed by unlawful means.
The only thing Respondent's agents did here was make
verbal statements to the superintendent of the general
contractor . The legality of the statements depend not only
upon the words used but also upon the background facts
against which they were made and the identity of the
person to whom they were made . The background here was
the imminent removal from the job of union subcontractor
Garden City and the arrival on the job of nonunion
subcontractor Apollo . Respondent might have achieved a
change in the projected course of events by various types
of conduct , legal or illegal . It did not exert direct influence
on the primary employer, Apollo . Betz and Lynch never
went to McKay. Their whole effort was directed toward
North American, a neutral insofar as the nonunion status
of Apollo was concerned . Respondent's conduct in this
affair, therefore , whether lawful or unlawful , was entirely
secondary in nature . I find that Betz' statements to
Harbourne , although secondary in nature and for a cease-
doing-business object, were too vague and ambiguous to
justify a finding that they threatened , coerced, or re-
strained North American . I conclude , therefore, that
Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act. See Carpenters District Council ofHouston and Vicinity
(Astrodomain Corporation), 202 NLRB No. 109; Local
Union 825, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO (William C. Ehret), 137 NLRB 136, 139. But cf.
Local Union No. 174, Teamsters (V. G. Scab, 172 NLRB
1217; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 5, AFL-CIO (Jonel Construction Co., Inc.), 164
NLRB 455.
The question is a close one, particularly in view of such
Board pronouncements as Scalf and Jonel. Relying on
Jonel, the General Counsel argues that vague or guarded
threats by a union agent which are broad enough to
encompass the possibility of illegal secondary action are
unlawful. The decision in Jonel stands for that proposition.
However, factually that case differs from the present one in
that it also involved unlawful inducement of employees, a
type of conduct not present here. It is noteworthy that here
Respondent took no further action after Betz and Lynch
talked to Harbourne, so the meaning of the words used by
them are not colored by any later events attributable to
Respondent.
The Scalf case, on the other hand, involved no
inducement of employees. Like the present case the issue
was limited to the lawfulness of the particular words used
by the union representative. There the union agent
informed a neutral employer that the union would use
"economic pressure" if the neutral employer did business
with the concern disfavored by the union. The Board
viewed this "as a threat to take economic action of an
unspecified nature against a secondary employer without
restriction or limitation, and therefore a violation of
8(b)(4)(ii)(B)."
But the statements of the union agents in Scalf and Jonel
were more direct and specific in indicating action to be
taken by the unions there involved than in the present
situation. Here the language of Betz was cast in the form of
a wish of both the Union and the general contractor that
there not be "trouble" or "problems." It was not a positive
statement, even if the implication was present that
difficulties could result for the general contractor. More-
over,there is nothing to indicate what form the "trouble"or
"problems" might take or who might cause such if it
developed, even if it was inferable that the speaking union
might cause the kind of joint employee action typical
among unionized craftsmen in the construction industry.
Inferences of unlawful conduct by Respondent surely were
not the only possibilities.
Another consideration here is the clear intent of the law
that union representatives be free to express the position of
their organization even to neutral employers so long as
they avoid coercive language and conduct. See Section 8(c)
of the Act, and also Little v. Local 481, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Indianapolis Electrical
Co.), 50 LRRM 2141 (D.C. Ind.). I find the language here
falls in that category. Any inference that the vague and
unspecific language used referred to future conduct,
unlawful under the Act or otherwise, is too remote to
sustain a finding of a violation under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. North American is a person engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and business activities
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of
the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By statements made on about September 28, 1973,
by its agents George Betz and Floyd Lynch to North
American relating to the use of a nonunion drywall
subcontractor on the Continental Woods Condominiums
project, Respondent did not threaten, coerce, or restrain
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
North American and has not committed unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(bX4Xii)(B) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
102.48 of the 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