Carpenters Local 1570

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 450 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Yuba, Sutter & Colusa Counties Building & Construc-
tion Trades Council , AFL-CIO; Carpenters Union
Local 1570 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and James N.
Wilson . Case 20-CP-357
March 30, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On December 4, 1970, Trial Examiner Maurice
Alexandre issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in
and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the attached Trail Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision with a brief in support thereof and the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions together with
a 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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The Rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-excep-
tions, and briefs, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations 2 of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Yuba, Sutter &
Colusa Counties Building & Construction Trades
Council, AFL-CIO, and Carpenters Union Local
1570, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and
representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be
picketed James N. Wilson d/b/a Cortez Construc-
tion, at any jobsite, where an object thereof is to force
or require him to recognize or bargain with Respon-
dents as the bargaining representative of his employ-
ees in circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their business offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3
Copies of said notice, on forms porvided by the
Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly
signed by he Respondents' authorized representa-
tives, shall be posted by Respondents immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Deliver signed copies of said notice to the
Regional Director for Region 20 for posting by James
N. Wilson d/b/a Cortez Construction, if willing, at
locations where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
I We find merit in the General Counsel 's exception to the Trial
Examiner's failure to set forth the specific commerce data which serves as
the basis for the Board 's assertion of jurisdiction over this controversy
Therefore, based upon a stipulation of the parties, we find that during the
past year the Charging Party, James N Wilson d/b/a Cortez Construction,
purchased supplied valued in excess of 50,000 from suppliers located
directly outside the State of California or from suppliers who received
those supplies directly from suppliers located outside the State of
California On the basis of the foregoing, we further find that James N
Wilson d/b/a Cortez Construction is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
2 Since both Respondents have been found to be equally responsible for
the unlawful picketing in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, we
shall, pursuant to the General Counsel's request, amend the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order and notice to require the same remedial
action of both Respondents Also, as requested by the General Counsel, we
shall add to our Order the usual provision requiring that copies of our
notice be made available to the Employer for posting.
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgmen of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed
James N. Wilson d/b/a Cortez Construction at
any jobsite , where an object thereof is to force or
require James N. Wilson to recognize or bargain
with us as the bargaining representative of his
employees in circumstances violative of Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
189 NLRB No. 70
CARPENTERS LOCAL 1570
CARPENTERS UNION
LOCAL 1570, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
YUBA, SUTTER &
COLUSA COUNTIES
BUILDING
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102,
Telephone 415-556-3197.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Trial Examiner' This case was
heard in Yuba City, California, on September 15, 1970, on a
complaint issued on June 23, 1970,1 alleging that Respon-
dents had violated Section 8(b) (7)(C) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. In their point answer,
Respondents denied the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practice. The principal question presented is whether
or not the picketing in this case had an unlawful object.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses,
and the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS2
1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Wilson, doing business as Cortez Construction, is
engaged in business as a general contractor in the building
and construction industry in Yuba City, California, where
he constructs single-family and multi-family residences.
During 1970, he was engaged in the construction of a
Based on a charge filed on May 26, 1970 by James N. Wilson
z No issue of commerce is presented The complaint alleged and the
parties stipulated to facts which, I find, establish that James N Wilson,
doing business under the trade name and style of Cortez Construction, is
an employer engaged in operations affecting commerce within the meaning
of the Act I further find that Respondents are labor organizations within
the meaning of the Act
All dates referred to hereafter relate to 1970 unless otherwise stated
Respondents' answer admits that Douthat acted as agent and on
451
50-unit apartment building at a project known as Colonial
Gardens. On April 28, 1970,3 Local 1570 began picketing
the project. The picket signs carved by the pickets read as
follows:
PICKET
JAMES N.
WILSON
Employs Carpenters at
Wages and Conditions
Below STANDARDS
as Established by
Carpenters Local 1570
The picketing continued intermittently until July 6, when a
temporary injunction was issued. At the hearing, Respon-
dents conceded that picketing took place on more than 30
working days, and that they did not file a petition for
representation during the period between the commence-
ment and termination of the picketing. There is no evidence
or claim that Respondents were the certified representatives
of Wilson's project employees.
B. The Evidence
1. Wilson's testimony
Wilson testified as follows. In late March or early April,
before the picketing began, he had a series of conversations
with McNew, the business representative of Respondent
Local 1570, and Douthat, the president of Respondent
Council with which Local 1570 is affiliated? At the time of
the first conversation, which took place in his office, he had
a total of five project employees in two categories:
carpenters and laborers. McNew told him he would have to
sign a contract with the Carpenters Union. During the
conversation, Wilson stated that he was paying his men the
prevailing wage plus fringe benefits.5 McNew stated that
the men would be better off if the fringe benefits were paid
into the Union fund, since they would then receive health,
welfare, and unemployment benefits, and that such
payment to the fund would not cost him anything since he
was already paying union wages. Wilson replied that he did
not wish to sign a contract. When the picketing began on
April 28, he talked to Douthat on the telephone on several
occasions. He pointed out that employees of unionized
subcontractors were being hurt because they could not
cross the picket line, and asked what he could do to get the
behalf of both Respondents at all matenal times
5 Wilson testified that the project was financed by a loan guaranteed
by the Federal Housing Administration, that he was paying his carpenters
$752-1/2 an hour, and that this rate was based on a wage schedule
received from the Secretary of Labor setting forth the wage rate payable
under the Davis-Bacon Act in the Yuba City area He admitted, however,
that the schedule showed on its face that its expiration date was April 1,
1970
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pickets removed. Douthat replied that he could sign a
contract.
On Monday, May 11, he meth with Douthat, McNew,
Max Cummings (a representative of the Teamsters Union),
and unidentified members of other unions affiliated with
the Council, e.g. the Painters Union, the Laborers Union,
and the Sheetmetal Workers Umon.7 The meeting was
conducted by Douthat. Wilson stated that he could not sign
a contract at that time, asked what he could do to have the
pickets removed, and stated that he had no objections to
having an election. McNew and others stated that they
thought the reason for the meeting was that Wilson planned
to sign a contract. McNew further stated that he had
removed the pickets with that understanding, and that he
now realized that Wilson had employed a ruse in order "to
get his blocks laid." 8 No written contract was ever shown
or tendered to Wilson for signature .9
2. Watts' testimony
Watts testified as follows. She is Wilson's personal
secretary. After Wilson was first contacted by McNew and
Douthat, she read a book dealing with labor relations, and
then explained to Wilson that picketing to compel
execution of a contract was unlawful. Prior to the May 11
meeting, she was informed by Wilson that he had consulted
an attorney. She was present at the May 11 meeting, took
shorthand notes of what was said at the meeting, but
recalled what was said McNew said that he thought the
purpose of the meeting was to have Wilson "sign" but did
not disclose what was to be signed. Wilson inquired about
the Union pension fund and McNew attempted to explain
it to him, but he was cut off by someone at the meeting, who
stated that "it was beside the point" and that it was
sufficient that Wilson was aware of the fund. Wilson asked
what the Union could do for him. McNew replied that
unionized contractors could borrow pension fund money if
they needed it. Cummings did considerable talking. Among
other things, he stated that:
it was not profitable to stay in business unless you were
in the union in this area [and] that Jim [Wilson] knew
that and that he could remedy it by signing it.
Cummings or Douthat stated to Wilson:
You've done a lot of talking, you realize that we cannot
backoff and let a nonunion organization operate in our
midst.
When Wilson replied that 90 percent of the residential
buildings in the area were nonunion, Cummings respond-
ed:
At this stage of the game you cannot build nonunion
and make it profitable, others have tried to do so but
6 Wilson testified that at some time prior to the May II meeting, he
admitted to McNew or Douthat that he would have to sign a contract "at
some time "
7 Wilson testified that he had requested a meeting with "the building
trade representative "
8 The picketing had stopped on the Friday before the meeting, i e, May
8 It was resumed following the meeting
9 I do not credit the testimony of Perry, Wilson's superintendent of
construction at the project, that when approached by Douthat and McNew
in late March or early April the latter stated in effect that he wanted to talk
to Perry about signing a contract, that Perry referred them to Wilson, and
that Perry then heard McNew make the same statement to Wilson Perry's
have not been successful ; why don't you sign the
agreement and let them get on with it?
3. Douthat's testimony
Douthat testified as follows. In February or March, he
received from the Department of Labor a determination of
the prevailing wage rates payable to those employed at the
project. The determination was dated December 3, 1969,
and stated that it expired April 1, 1970. The wage scale
shown therein for carpenters was 21 cents below the scale
set forth in the master collective-bargaining agreement
negotiated by the Carpenters Union for the area, and he so
advised an inspector of the Federal Housing
Administration. 10 Douthat visited the project a number of
times, alone on some occasions and accompanied by
McNew on about a half dozen occasions. In early April, he,
McNew, and another individual went to see Wilson to
ascertain whether or not the latter was paying prevailing
wages At that time Wilson employed three carpenters and
one laborer, and there were several subcontractors
involving other crafts at the project. They told Wilson the
purpose of their visit, asked what wage scale he was paying
his carpenters, and were told. They informed him of the
wage rate in the master contract governing the area, and
stated that the prevailing wage posted at his job site was
below the contract rate. Wilson replied that he knew that
eventually he would have to unionize but that he saw no
advantage at that time in "going-paying-or signing the
union contract", that he did not feel he was in a position to
get involved with the Union, and that he had enough paper
work to do "with these government projects." Douthat was
present at a second meeting with Wilson before the
picketing began on April 28, but gave no testimony
respecting the details of that conversation. During a
telephone conversation after those meetings, Wilson stated
to Douthat that based on information received from
carpenters employed on the project relating to McNew and
the pension fund, he could not trust McNew and would not
deal with him. Douthat never requested Wilson to sign a
contract during any of the meetings with him and did not
state at the May I I meeting that he thought the purpose of
the meeting was for Wilson to sign a contract.
4. McNew's testimony
McNew testified as follows. He talked to Wilson on three
occasions, once at Wilson's office in the presence of
Douthat and Savage, once at that office in the presence of
Douthat, and once at the meeting on May 11 held at
Wilson's request. At the first meeting, Wilson stated that he
was paying his men $7.52-1/2 an hour, including fringe
testimony was equivocal, evasive, and conflicting, and it was contradicted
in part by that of Wilson
is The wage determination showed a basic hourly wage of $6 20-1/2 plus
fringe benefits of $1 32, or a total of $7 52-1/2 The contract rate is 21 cents
higher it provides for a basic wage rate for carpenters of $6 30-1/2 plus
fringe benefits of $1 33 payable by the employer to the Carpenters pension
and other funds, making a total of $7 73-1/2 At the hearing, counsel for
Respondents pointed out that the contract wage scale of $6 40-1/2 was
effective on December 16, 1969, that the scale which had been effective
June 16 , 1969, was $6 20-1/2, and that it was probable that the Department
of Labor had inadvertently used the latter amount in its wage determina-
tion
CARPENTERS LOCAL 1570
benefits, and was told that he was paying 21 cents less than
the scale negotiated by the Union . At the second meeting,
held at Wilson 's request , McNew told Wilson that he was
not paying the prevailing Union scale negotiated in the
area At one point , McNew testified that Wilson wanted to
know what advantage he would receive if his men were
unionized , and that McNew replied, "It would be cheaper
on you You wouldn 't have to pay all the extra taxes." At
another point , McNew testified that Wilson asked about
the advantage of paying into the Carpenters trust fund; that
McNew replied "he wouldn 't have to pay the taxes, it's
cheaper on the taxes and he wouldn ' t have to pay more
withholding taxes, he wouldn't have to pay more unem-
ployrrient tax"; and that Wilson responded that did not
matter since the bookkeeping would make up the
difference . McNew was present at the May 11 meeting."
He did not say, during that meeting, that he thought the
purpose of the meeting was for Wilson to sign a contract,
and he never asked Wilson to sign a contract . He withdrew
the pickets prior to the meeting because he "thought it
would show my good faith , that Mr. Wilson might come off
and pay the wages."
C. Concluding Findings
Section 8(b) of the Act provides , in relevant part , that it
shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization
"or its agents"-
(7) To picket any employer where an object thereof is
forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or
bargain with a labor organization as the representative
of his employees , or forcing or requiring the employees
of an employer to accept or select such labor
organization as their collective bargaining representa-
tive, unless such labor organization is currently certified
as the representative of such employees.
(C) Where such picketing has been conducted
without a petition under Section 9(c) being filed
within a reasonable period of time not to exceed
thirty days from the commencement of such
picketing
The General Counsel' s principal contention is that the
record establishes that an object of the picketing by
Respondent Local 1570 was to compel Wilson to recognize
that union as the bargaining representative of his employ-
ees, that Local 1570 had not been certified as bargaining
representative of such employees; and that since Local
1570 engaged in such picketing for more than 30 days
without filing a petition for certification the picketing
violated Section 8(b)(7)(C). The General Counsel further
asserts that Douthat , president of Respondent Council,
made it clear to Wilson that the picketing would continue
unless and until Wilson signed a contract with Local 1570;
that Douthat was admittedly acting as agent of that Local;
and hence that Respondent Council must share responsi-
bility with Respondent Local 1570 for the unlawful
picketing Respondents make no claim that the Council is
453
not responsible for the picketing if it was unlawful. Their
sole contention is that the picketing took place only to
protect area standards and accordingly was lawful. I find
that the picketing was unlawful , and that both Respon-
dents are responsible therefor.
It is well established that picketing solely to compel an
employer to adhere to area standards does not violate
Section 8(b)(7)(C). Retail Clerks International Assn., Local
899, etc. (State Mart, Inc ),166 NLRB 818. And the fact that
the area standards sought to be protected coincide with a
union negotiated wage rate does not brand the picketing as
recognitional and hence illegal . Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators & Paperhangers of America Union No. 76 (Gomez
Painting and'Decorating Co.), 182 NLRB No. 58. The theory
behind these decisions is that although a union normally
desires recognition , it also has a legitimate interest in
obtaining employer adherence to prevailing area standards
in order to prevent such standards from being undermined.
For this reason , a union may decide to forego , at least for
the time being, its normal objective of obtaining recogni-
tion by a particular employer , and confine its immediate
goal to preserving the gains it has already achieved by
exerting pressure on him to abide by the area standards. In
determining whether or not the object behind picketing was
the usual or a limited goal, all the facts must be carefully
scrutinized. For even where a union asserts that its
objective was the protection of area standards , the assertion
may be a pretext designed to mask a recognitional
objective.
Here, an examination of all the facts leads me to find that
the picketing had a recognitional object . The record
contains conflicting evidence as to whether Respondents
told Wilson that signing a contract was the price for
removal of the picket line . However , it is unnecessary to
resolve the conflict since there is other evidence establish-
ing a recognitional object . It is true , as Respondents point
out, that the wages and fringe benefits paid by Wilson to
the carpenters whom he employed at the project were below
those provided in the area master collective-bargaining
agreement. But although Respondents undoubtedly were
concerned about the fact , the record establishes that they
were interested in more than protection of the area
agreement . Thus, the evidence shows that at either their
first or second meeting as well as dunng the May 11
meeting McNew described to Wilson the advantages of
unionization . In my opinion , such conduct constituted an
attempt to persuade Wilson to recognize Local 1570.
Certainly, it involved a failure by Respondents to
disentangle their asserted immediate objective relating to
area standards from the normal union goal of obtaining
recognition . A union cannot act equivocally , but must
make it clear in unmistakable terms that its immediate goal
is the limited one of protecting area standards . Where it
does equivocate, this is evidence of a recognitional
objective Painters Local 272, etc. (Charles R Curtiss), 183
NLRB No. 89.
Further evidence of such objective lies in the fact that
McNew sought to persuade Wilson that it was more
desirable for him to pay the fnnge benefits into the
11 MIcNew testified that he was told that Wilson had called to say that
he wan Led to get the representatives down to the trade building to meet "
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carpenters trust fund than to pay them directly to his
employees. There is a dispute as to what McNew said to
Wilson during their first or second meeting . According to
McNew, he told Wilson that payment of fringe benefits
directly to the Carpenters trust fund would benefit Wilson
by eliminating certain taxes. According to Wilson, McNew
stated that such payment would benefit his employees in
the form of health, welfare and unemployment benefits. It
is unnecessary to resolve the dispute; for even if McNew's
version were accepted, it is apparent that his attempt to
have the fringe benefits paid to the Carpenters trust fund is
more consonant with an attempt to impose bargaining
terms than to protect area standards. Retail Clerks, Local
899, supra, 166 NLRB 818.
In their brief, Respondents attempt to make much of the
fact that it was Wilson who raised the subject of the benefits
of unionization and that having learned that picketing for a
contract was unlawful, Wilson deliberately set out to trick
Respondents into making a demand for a contract by
raising the subject. It is unnecessary to decide whether
Wilson sought to entrap Respondents or merely to smoke
them out. The issue here turns on Respondents' objective,
not Wilson's motive. Regardless of who raised the subject
or why, Respondents cannot have it both ways. They
cannot discuss the benefits of recognition and at the same
time insist that they are interested solely in protecting area
standards.
In addition to the foregoing, other statements at the May
11 meeting support the view that Respondents had not
abandoned recognition as an immediate goal. Again there
is a conflict as to what was said. Wilson and Watts testified
that McNew stated that he thought the reason for the
meeting was for Wilson to sign a contract. Douthat and
McNew each denied having made that statement . I credit
Wilson and Watts. The latter was a forthright witness, her
testimony was in part uncontradicted, and it had the ring of
truth. In addition, Wilson had indicated that the possibility
of recognizing Respondents was on his mind. Thus, he
expressed a realization that he would ultimately have to
sign a contract; he inquired about the benefits of
unionization; and it was Wilson who requested the May 11
meeting . As a result, whether or not he was seriously
considering recognition, it seems likely that Respondents
had concluded that Wilson had decided to sign a contract.
This conclusion is supported by Wilson's uncontradicted
testimony that certain unidentified union representatives
present at the meeting stated that they had so concluded.
Since there is nothing to show that any of them had talked
to Wilson, it is reasonable to infer that they reached their
conclusion by talking to McNew or Douthat. Moreover,
McNew had admittedly stopped the picketing shortly
before the May 11 meeting. According to Wilson, McNew
stated at the meeting that he had removed the pickets
12 The evidence does not satisfactorily explain Cummings' presence at
the meeting Even assuming that Respondents invited him because they
were under the impression that Wilson had asked to meet with
representatives of the unions affiliated with the Council, Cummings was
undoubtedly interested in having the picketing ended, since respecting the
picket line meant a loss of working time
13 In view of this finding, it is unnecessary to decide whether, as the
General Counsel contends, the picketing also had an organizational
objective.
14 Since Local 1570 engaged in the picketing, it is of course responsible
because of his understanding that a contract would be
signed. At the hearing, McNew gave a rather lame
explanation for his action in halting the picketing-his
desire to demonstrate his good faith. It is difficult to
understand why McNew should have felt a need to
demonstrate good faith unless he went to the meeting with
the expectation that Wilson would sign a contract in order
to rid himself of the picket line.
Finally, it is undisputed that one of those present at the
May II meeting told Wilson that a nonunion employer
could not be permitted to operate in the area, and urged
him to sign the contract. Assuming that the statement was
made by Teamster representative Cummings rather than by
Douthat, the fact remains that although Respondents did
not expressly adopt his remarks, there is nothing to show
they disavowed or disassociated themselves from these
remarks. Such a failure does not invariably indicate
agreement with the remarks. On the other hand, because
the determination of a picketing union's objective requires
inquiry into mental processes, the potential for masking the
true objective through a pretext is great. Accordingly, as
already noted, the picketing union should be required to act
unequivocally. Having acted equivocally, Respondents'
failure to disavow or disassociate themselves from the
remarks in question should be regarded as constituting tacit
approval thereof and hence as evidence that they were
interested in recognition as an immediate goal. A contrary
conclusion would permit a union with immediate recogni-
tion as its secret goal to use an accomplice as a source of
pressure on the employer to sign a contract, and then to
claim that its only goal was protection of area standards.12
Respondents contend that it is illogical to conclude that
they were seeking a contract from Wilson. If they desired a
contract, they argue, they would not have confined
themselves to the project carpenters, but would also have
attempted to obtain contracts on behalf of the other craft
unions at the project which were affiliated with Respondent
Council. This contention is without merit. The record
establishes that in addition to carpenters, the only other
person employed by Wilson at the project consisted of a
single laborer. The fact that no request was made for a
contract covering a single laborer hardly establishes that
Respondents did not desire a contract covering the
carpenters.
Considering the entire record, I find that an object of the
picketing by Local 1570 was forcing or requiring Wilson to
recognize or bargain with that union as the bargaining
representative of his project employees.13 Since Local 1570
was certified as the representative of such employees, and
since it engaged in such picketing for more than 30 days
without filing a petition for certification, I further find that
Respondents violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.14
therefor In addition, I find that Respondent Council is also chargeable
with the unlawful picketing The Council's president , Douthat , was present
when McNew talked to Wilson, he visited the project alone, he discussed
the picketing with Wilson on the telephone , he presided at the May 11
meeting , he admitted at the hearing that he attended the meetings with
Wilson because he "was trying to get the problem resolved." and he never
indicated in any manner that the Council did not fully support the
objective and conduct of Local 1570 In view of these circumstances as well
as Respondents' admission that Douthat acted as their agent and on their
behalf at all material times, I find that the efforts of Local 1570 and the
CARPENTERS LOCAL 1570 455
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Wilson is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act and is engaged in operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
B. Respondent Local 1570 and Respondent Council are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
C. By picketing the jobsite of Wilson, as found herein,
Respondent Local 1570 engaged in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
D. Since Respondent Council is equally responsible
with Local 1570 for the picketing, as found herein, the said
Council "were coordinated to compel [Wilson] to recognize" Local
1570 at the representative of his employees, and hence that the Council is
equally responsible with Local 1570 for the picketing Construction,
Shipyard and General Laborers Local 1207, etc (Alfred S Austin
Construction Co, Inc), 141 NLRB 283, 286
Council engaged in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8 (b)(7)(C) of the Act.
E. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
III. THE REMEDY
I recommend that Respondents cease and desist from
their unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies 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:
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]