Carpenters District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF'K.C. AND VICINITY 1101
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its theaters in Topeka , Kansas, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix ." 6 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 17 , shall, after being duly signed by Respondent , be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter , in conspicuous places, where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notice is not
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.?
OIn the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" In the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
7In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT hereafter refuse to bargain collectively with International
Alliance of Theatrical, Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Opera-
tors of the United States and Canada , Local No. 206, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization representing our employees, by failing , within 30 days after
service of written notice of proposed termination or modification of an exist-
ing collective -bargaining contract , to notify the Federal Mediation and Concili-
ation Service and the appropriate State agency of the existence of any dispute
as prescribed by Section 8(d)(3) of the Act; provided , however, that no such
notice under Section 8(d) (3) shall be required if an agreement is reached
within 30 days following service of a notice of proposed termination or
modification.
Fox MIDWEST THEATRES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1200
Rialto Building , 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City , Missouri, Telephone No. Balti-
more 1-7000, Extension 2733.
Carpenters District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-
CIO [Ralph H . McClain, et al.] and Builders' Association of
Kansas City. Case No. 17-CC-?4$. May 25, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 16, 1966, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
158 NLRB No. 112.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR :RELATIONS a BOARD
ent had engaged in' and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning 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 attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings Hof the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the ex-
ceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] 2
1 Respondent has requested oral argument . This request is hereby denied because the
record, the exceptions , and the brief adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties
2 The address - and telephone number for Region 17, appearing at the bottom of the
notice attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision , is amended to read: 610 Federal Build-
ing, 601 East 12th Street , Kansas City , Missouri 64106, Telephone No. FR4-5282.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on June 29, 1965, a complaint, dated August 13, 1965, was
duly issued alleging, in substance , that the Respondent was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent by its answer denied the mate-
rial allegations of the compl'aint.l A hearing in this proceeding was held before
Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman on October 26 and 27, 1965, in Kansas City,
Missouri. Thereafter, briefs were duly filed by the General Counsel and by the
Respondent. -
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
• FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED,
The Respondent, Carpenters District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-
CIO (herein also called the Union ), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
1 The answer also avers that the conduct complained of herein Is the subject of a pend-
ing charge against the Respondent of violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D ). This allegation
raises no justiciable Issue because it is well settled that Section 8 ( b) (4) (B) and ( D) are
not mutually exclusive . The existence of a jurisdictional dispute does not preclude a
finding that conduct aimed at resolving the dispute by secondary means violates Section
8(b (4) (B ). N.L.R.B. v. Local . 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters ( U.S. Trucl.-
ing Corp.), etc., 344 F. 2d 649 (CA. 2) ; Local 5, Plumbers Union (Arthur Venneri Co.)
v. NLRB., 321 F. 2d 366, 371 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 375 U.S. 921; Local 1291, In-
ternational Longshoremen's Association, et at. (Pennsylvania Sugar Division , National
Sugar Refining Company), 142 NLRB 257, enfd. 332 F. 2d 559 (CA. 3).
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF K C AND VICINITY 1103
11 THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The genesis of this case lies in the Union's insistence that a carpenter should
be included as a member of any building construction crew engaged in the instal-
lation of precast concrete wall panels or other precast concrete fabrications such
as column trees and beams The assertions of this claim with respect to three
building projects in the Greater Kansas City metropolitan area give rise to the
conduct complained of herein In each instance a masonry company was engaged
as a subcontractor to install precast concrete wall panels and other concrete fab-
rications which companies, although employing members of various craft unions
to do the work, did not employ any carpenters The refusals of the masonry con-
tractors to add carpenters to their crews resulted in walkouts of the carpenters
employed by the general contractors and subcontractors at the three projects
Pertinent to the issues in this proceeding are the following facts concerning the
three building projects
Board of Trade Building
48th and Main St ,
Kansas City, Missouri
Roeland Park State Bank
Building 4710 West 50th
Terrace Roeland Park,
Kansas
Hallmark Garage 201
Nichols Road Kansas
City Missouri
General Contractor Winn Senter Construe D F Cahill Construe Sharp Brothers Con
tion Company (herein tion Company (herein tracting Company
called Winn Senter) called Cahill) (herein called Sharp)
Job Superintendent John C McCahon Donald E Lundgren Don C happel
Subcontractor employing Coco Steel Products Ceco
carpenters Company (herein
called Ceco)
Masonry Subcontractor Ralph II McClain McClain Weldon B Royce M.
(herein called Me sonry and Waterproof
Clain) 2 ing Co , Inc (herein
called Royse)
Carpenter steward on the Phillip 'I alley Mark Waterman Cecil C Corson
job
Date when carpenters June 17 1965 June 22 1965 June 25 1965
walked off job
The following representatives of the Union were involved in the complained of
activities
Henry Brown, president
E R Maddux, business representative
Richard Cox, business representative
Morris Eastland, special representative
Ray Myers, special representative
The events leading to the carpenters' walkout at each of the projects to the
extent they are relevant to the issues herein are as follows
1 The Board of Trade Building
On June 15, 1965, during two telephone conversations, Union President Henry
Brown advised James Hutton, assistant to the managing director of the Builders'
Association of Kansas City,s that the Union was "going to have to put their peo-
ple" in the morning unless some carpenters were added to the crew erecting precast
concrete panels at the Board of Trade job Hutton persuaded Brown to delay such
action one day so that Hutton might speak with Mr Senter about the problem
The next day Union Representatives Brown and Maddux visited the jobsite where
they met with Steward Talley About 4 30 p in that day Talley informed Job
2 The subcontract to furnish and install precast concrete panels was held by Wilson
Concrete Company ( herein called Wilson) of Omaha Nebraska which company engaged
McClain to do the on the site work
a All the contractors and subcontractors listed above except Wilson are members of
the Association The Association exists, in part for the purpose of bargaining collec
tively on behalf of its members with various labor organizations including lbe Respondent
Accordingly the Association, which acts as an agent of its members at le ist for the pur
pose of collective bargaining is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Superintendent McCahon that 'she was asked to walk off the job, if there wasn't
carpenters put in the precast gang." After telephoning his company's offices
McCahon asked Talley whether McClain could unload two truckloads of precast
concrete panels which were expected at the jobsite. Talley replied that he would
find out. Later Talley informed McCahon that he had called Maddux and Mad-
dux advised him "that that was part of it." The next morning at about 8: 30 a.m.
when the two truckloads of precast panels arrived- at the jobsite and McClain's
employees began to unload the trucks, the approximately 30 carpenters working
for Winn-Senter and Ceco left their jobs and stayed away 4 or 5 weeks.
Either on June 18 or 21, a meeting , was held at the offices of Winn-Senter
attended by U. B. Senter, a partner of the company, James Hutton, and Union
Repiesentatives Brown and Maddox at which there was an extended discussion
about the walkout and other problems. Among other things, Brown said that
"he would put the men back to work" if a carpenter is added to the crew installing
the precast concrete panels. It was pointed out to the union representatives that
the employees in the precast crew do not work for Winn-Senter. The response was
that Winn-Senter as the general contractor controlled the job and could force the
subcontractor to do something. During the meeting either Maddux or Brown
mentioned that Cahill was going to have the same problem with respect to the
Roeland Park State Bank Building, that the job would be struck if a carpenter
was not added to the precast crew, and a similar remark was made concerning
the Hallmark Garage project.
2. The Roeland Park State Bank Building
On June 21, 1965, Union Representative Myers spoke with Job Superintendent
Lundgren at the site of the work and advised Lundgren "that there should be a
carpenter in the crew erecting this precast material." Myers then met with
Steward Mark Waterman. After Myers left the jobsite Waterman advised Lund-
gren that if McClain continued to set the precast material and if there was no
carpenter in his crew the next morning the carpenters would have to leave the
job. This same threat was repeated to Lundgren by Waterman later on the same
day after a meeting between Waterman and Union Representative Eastland. The
next morning, prior to the commencement of work, while various men on the
job, including four carpenters, were sitting in a shed , in response to a question
from David F. Cahill, Waterman stated, "Well, we carpenters can't go to work
unless McClain hires a carpenter" and that he had received such order from his
business agent . The carpenters left the jobsite soon after 8 a.m. when Lundgren
informed the men that it was time to go to work. The carpenters did not return
to work until July 13 4
3. The Hallmark Garage
On June 23, 1965, Union Representative Maddux met with Steward Corson at
the site of the project and directed Corson to walk off the job the next day if
there was no carpenter in the crew installing precast material . Maddux also
instructed Corson to tell the other carpenters what Corson was going to do and
why. Corson complied with this instruction and in addition advised Job Super-
intendent Don Chappel that he was going to walk off the job if a carpenter was
not employed in the precast crew.- The next day Maddux telephoned Corson and
instructed him to remain at work' that day in order to avoid damage to certain
work in process but not to go to work the following morning if there was no
carpenter in the precast concrete crew.
Also, on June 24, Brown visited the jobsite where he 'spoke with Don E. Sharp
about the installation of the precast concrete work. Sharp said 'that he would abide
by a Joint Board decision which was adverse to the Union' s position and asked
Brown what he was going to do about it. Brown replied, "what do you think I am
going to do about it?" All the carpenters working for Sharp and Ceco walked off
the job the next day, June 25, and remained away for, approximately 3 weeks.5
.4 The carpenters worked 2 days in the period between June 22 and July 13 when
McClain's crew was absent from the jobsite.
6 Corson testified that a few days before the carpenters returned to work, at the urging
of some carpenters who "thought they ought to go back to work," Corson telephoned the
Union's offices and spoke with both Brown and Maddux. Corson inquired if the carpenters
could go back. The reply was that they could not tell him to remain away from work
but it would be to their advantage if Corson stayed off the, job and as long as Corson
was not at the job "the rest of them couldn't come back."
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF B.C. AND VICINITY 1105
4., Conclusions
The findings above set forth, based upon uncontradicted testimony, establish
the violations of the Act alleged in the complaint. The various arguments
advanced by the Respondent in its defense I find do not have persuasive merit.
Relying on N.L.R.B. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc., Local 60, et al.
(Wendnagel & Company), 261 F. 2d 166 (C.A. 7), decided in 1958, Respondent
argues that its complained-of actions were not for an unlawful object. Accord-
ing to Respondent, "The evidence establishes that the Respondent sought, asked
for, and desired only that the [masonry subcontractors] include a carpenter
employee in their precast concrete erection crews. The evidence shows that there
was never a request, demand, or even a hint, made for anything else, and certainly
not for the general contractors to get rid of, or stop doing business with, the
precast erection contractors." However, contrary to Respondent, an object,
although perhaps only an intermediate object, of the Union's conduct was to
force the general contractors to cease doing business with the masonry subcontrac-
tors. The proposition enunciated in the cited case that the applicable statute is
concerned only with the Union's ultimate, rather than any intermediate objec-
tive, has not been accepted by the Board and is contrary to the trend of the
decisions of the courts of appeals "The Board in determining legality of object
does not differentiate between the ultimate, alternative, conditional, or immediate
nature of the various objectives that may be involved in the activities of a labor
organization. However denominated, if an object is proscribed by subparagraph
(B), an attempt to achieve it by means within Section 8(b) (4) (i) or (ii) is
unlawful." 7 Regardless of Respondent's ultimate purpose and objective, as pointed
out by the court in Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council (Hankins & Hankins
Constr. Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 339 F. 2d 142, 145"(C.A. 6):
The Board has held several times that, if a union demands that a contractor
do something he is powerless to do except by ceasing to do business with
somebody . it is manifest that an object of the union is to induce this
cessation of business. The courts to which this problem has come have
agreed with the holdings.
In rejecting a contention similar to that of Respondent in this case, the Board
in Local 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Company),8 held:
While it does not appear that Respondent explicitly demanded that the
Company cancel the Delee contract if Delee refused to use its members, this
was the only alternative the Company had if Delee continued to refuse
replacement of its employees by members of Respondent. We conclude,
therefore, that Respondent's threat to the Company had an object of forcing
the Company to cease doing business with Delee. Even assuming, arguendo,
that Respondent did not consciously contemplate imposition of this sanction,
it is nonetheless clear that Respondent sought by its threat to require that
the Company superimpose upon its existing agreement with Delee an added
condition of performance, that the work had to be done by Respondent's
members. Acceptance of this condition by Delee would require the Com-
pany to cease doing business with Delee on the basis of their original arrange-
ment. The objective of causing such a disruption of an existing business
relationship, even though something less than a total cancellation of the
business connection , is a "cease doing business" object within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4)(B ) of the Act.
Respondent additionally argues that the record is barren of evidence proving that
the Union had used means proscribed by the Act to achieve its objectives. As to
the alleged violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i), Respondent argues that "[t]here is no
8 The court in the Local 60 case at p. 172 cites with approval the opinion of Judge Hand
in Douds v . International Longshoremen's Association, et al. (New York Shipping Asso-
ciation), 224 F. 2d 455, 459 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 350 U.S. 873. However , the view of
Judge Hand that only the union 's ultimate "object" is of statutory concern has since
been repudiated by the same court. See National Maritime Union of America v. N L.R.B.,
342 F. 2d 538 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 382 U.S. 835.
TNationai Maritime anion of America, AFL-CIO ( Delta Steamship Lines, Inc.) 147
NLRB 1328, 1331, enfd. 346 F. 2d 411 (C.A.D C ), cert. denied 382 U.S. 840.
8140 NLRB 729, 730, enfd. 325 F 2d 561 (C.A. 2).
221-731-67-vol. 15'8-71
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence that the Respondent, or any of its agents, `induced or encouraged' any
person other than its steward, to refuse to perform services on any of these three
construction projects.... ' However, since the 1959 amendments to the Act the
inducement or encouragement of even a single employee to engage in - conduct
'described in Section 8(b)(4)(i) meets the statutory test . Thus, although I'dis-
agree with Respondent's argument that there is no proof in this case that persons
other than the Union's stewards had been "induced or encouraged," it is unneces-
sary to consider such argument because admittedly the stewards, who were employ-
ees of the respective general contractors, were induced and encouraged by the Union
to engage in refusals to perform their customary work.
Similarly, I find no merit to Respondent's argument that there is no proof that the
Union threatened, coerced, or restrained any employer within the proscription of
Section 8(b) (4) (ii). The walkouts at the three projects, without more, in the cir-
cumstances of this case, constitute restraint and coercion within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (b)(4)(ii)(B).9 Furthermore, constituting threats within the purview of the
same section were Brown's statement to Hutton on June 15, 1965, with respect to
the Board of Trade Building and to Sharp on June 24 with respect to the Hallmark
Garage, and the advice given to the job superintendents at the three projects by the
respective union stewards that the latter were going to walk off the jobs if carpenters
were not added to the precast concrete crews. Contrary to the Respondent, I find
that by reason of the conduct described above it has engaged in activities which
violate Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
IH. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Each of the contractors and subcontractors listed above purchases and receives or
sells and ships goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 annually which are
transported in interstate commerce, or performs services outside the State where it
maintains its principal place of business exceeding $50,000 annually. By reason of
their respective business operations said contractors and subcontractors are each
engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce. The activities of the
Respondent, set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions of said contractors and subcontractors 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.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and that the Respondent take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
By the conduct of the Respondent described above, it has demonstrated a disposi-
tion to engage in secondary misconduct in order to accomplish the objectives which
it seeks. Unless appropriately restrained it is to be anticipated from Respondent's
conduct in the past that in the future it will engage in the same or similar viola-
tions of the Act. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the
Recommended Order herein is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, I shall
recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from secondary activity against
any person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce where an
object is to force any person to cease doing business with McClain, Royse, or any
other person.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By inducing or encouraging individuals employed by persons engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the
course of their employment to perform services , and by threatening, coercing, and
restraining persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with
an object of forcing or requiring Winn-Senter and Cahill to cease doing business
with McClain or Sharp to cease doing business with Royse, Respondent has violated
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
°Local Union 825, International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Carle-
ton Brothers Company ), 131 NLRB 452.
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF K.C. AND VICINITY 1107
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record
in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the
Respondent, Carpenters District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, its
officers, representatives, agents, and successors, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, inducing, or encouraging any individual
employed by Winn-Senter Construction Company, D. F. Cahill Construction Com-
pany, Sharp Brothers Contracting Company, Ceco Steel Products Company, or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage
in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use , manufacture, pro-
cess, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services, and from threatening, coercing , or restrain-
ing the above-named employers or any other person engaged in commerce or an
industry affecting commeice where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or
require the above-named employers or any such other person to cease doing busi-
ness with Ralph H. McClain, Weldon B. Royse Masonry and Waterproofing Co.,
Inc., or any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post in Respondent' s business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 17, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 17 signed copies of said notice for
posting by Ralph H. McClain, Weldon B. Royse Masonry and Waterproofing Co.,
Inc., Winn-Senter Construction Company, D. F. Cahill Construction Company,
Sharp Brothers Contracting Company, and Ceco Steel Products Company, or any
of them, if said companies are willing to post such notices, at all places where
notices to their respective employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF KANSAS CITY
AND VICINITY, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage any individual employed by
Winn-Senter Construction Company, D. F. Cahill Construction Company,
Sharp Brothers Contracting Company, Ceco Steel Products Company, or any
other person engaged,in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to
engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manu-
facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials or commodities or to perform any services, and WE WILL NOT
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
threaten , coerce, or restrain the above-named employers or any other person
engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce where, in either case,
an object thereof is to force or require the above-named employers or any such
other person to cease doing business with Ralph H. McClain, Weldon B. Royse
Masonry and Waterproofing Co., Inc., or any other person.
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF KANSAS CITY
AND VICINITY, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro.
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1200
Rialto Building , 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. 221-2732.
Coors Porcelain Company and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local No. 452, Petitioner . Case No. d7-RC-2911. May 25, 1966
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on January 26, 1966, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 27
among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of
the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots show-
ing that of approximately 736 eligible voters, 687 cast valid ballots,
of which 177 were for, and 501 were against, the Petitioner, and 9 were
challenged. The challenged ballots were insufficient in number to
affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed
timely objections to the conduct of the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted
an investigation, and on March 10, 1966, issued and duly served on
the parties his report on objections in which he recommended sus-
taining the objections pertaining to the Employer's campaign litera-
ture distributed to employees during the critical period. Accord-
ingly, the Regional Director further recommended that the election
be set aside and that a second election be directed. Thereafter, the
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Members Brown, Fanning, and Zagoria].
158 NLRB No. 109.