District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 644 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS _oF AMERICA FOR THE CITY_ AND COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, MIS-
SOURI AND VICINITY, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CARPENTERS' DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND VICINITY and ARTCRAFT
VENETIAN BLIND MANUFACTURING CO. Case No. 14-00-62.
February 17,1955
Decision and Order
On December 6, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup-
porting brief.
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 In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, District Council
of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America for
the City and County of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, also known
as The Carpenters' District Council of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicin-
ity, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
the employees of MacDonald Construction Company or any other
employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or
require MacDonald Construction Company or any other employer
or other person to cease doing business with Artcraft Venetian Blind
Manufacturing Co.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
111 NLRB No. 111.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS 645
(a) Post at its St. Louis, Missouri, business offices, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate, Report marked "Appendix." 1
Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Fourteenth Region, shall after being duly signed by an authorized
representative, be posted by said Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by said Respondent to insure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this Order is en-
forced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the
words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed and served , a complaint and notice of hearing there-
on having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relar
tions Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named Respondent Union,
counsel for each of the above-named parties met in St. Louis, Missouri , on October 27,
1954, and entered into a recorded stipulation . In substance, said stipulation included:
(1) Waiver of a hearing before a Trial Examiner ; (2) submission of the record made
in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of Missouri, Eastern
District (Civil No. 9942), on September 7, 1954 , as well as the pleadings and other
formal documents in Case No. 14-CC-62, as the entire record in this proceeding be-
fore the Board ; and (3) submission of the record thus made to the Chief Trial Ex-
aminer for referral to a Trial Examiner for the preparation of an Intermediate Re-
port . The parties also agreed that they would have until November 16, 1954, to file
briefs with the Chief Trial Examiner . Thereafter, upon request of the Respondent
such time was extended to November 29, and the Chief Trial Examiner designated
this Trial Examiner to prepare an Intermediate Report . Despite the Respondent's
request for extension of time for filing a brief , only a brief from General Counsel has
been received.
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent Union has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) 1 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 126 ), herein called the Act. In
substance , the complaint contends that in July 1954, the Respondent Union in-
duced and encouraged the employees of a general contractor , MacDonald Construc-
tion Company, to engage in strikes or concerted refusals to handle or work on com-
modities of Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Co., or to perform services, an
object thereof being ( 1) to force MacDonald to cease using the products of Artcraft
or to cease doing business with it , and (2 ) to force MacDonald to assign the installa-
1 The relevant section of the Act states that "It shall be an unfair labor practice for a
labor organization or its agents . . . to engage in, or to induce or encourage the em-
ployees of any employer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials , or commodities or to perform any services , where an object
thereof is : forcing or requiring any employer or self -employed person to join any labor,
or employer organization or any employer or other person to cease using , selling, handling,
transporting , or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or
11manufacturer , or to cease doing business with any other person... .
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of venetian blinds to members of the Respondent instead of members of an-
other AFL affiliate, the Upholsterers' International Union.
Upon the record submitted by stipulation in this case , the Trial Examiner makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE PRIMARY EMPLOYER
Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Co. is a Missouri corporation, with its
principal office and plant in St. Louis, Missouri, where it is engaged in the produc-
tion, sale, and distribution of venetian blinds and related products. During the year
1953 it transported finished products valued at more than $1,000,000 from its plant
in St. Louis to points outside the State of Missouri. The Respondent Union con-
cedes that Artcraft is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
As described more fully below, Artcraft is the primary employer involved in the
labor dispute giving rise to these proceedings. The Board has jurisdiction. (See
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, et al., 110 NLRB 206.)
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
for the City and County of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, also known as The Car-
penters' District Council of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, and Local 113, Vene-
tian Blind Workers, affiliated with the Upholsterers' International Union of North
America, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting of events in issue
This case stems from a long-standing dispute between two AFL affiliates as to
which has jurisdiction over making and installing blinds. Specifically, it involves
employees of general contractor MacDonald and employees of subcontractor Art-
craft, during the construction of a hospital in St. Louis and at a time when the latter
Employer, pursuant to contract with the former, began using its own employees in
the installation of blinds. Artcraft's employees were represented by the duly certified
Upholsterers, and at the material time some 6 or 7 members of the Respondent
Carpenters were working for MacDonald, apparently on other construction at the
same project.
The Respondent's claim of jurisdiction and requirement that its officers, agents,
and members observe the claim are described in its constitution, bylaws, and trade
rules, applicable at the time of the dispute. Relevant portions are quoted:
jurisdiction . . . shall . . . include all men engaged in . . . the fitting
and hanging of all . . . blinds (and) . . . making and setting of all :. .
blinds.2
Carpenters shall not erect any mill or cabinet work that has been made in a
shop that does not have an agreement with the Brotherhood.3
Rule 44. When a non-union man comes on the job to do the work claimed
by the jurisdiction of the U. B., the steward shall (with the cooperation of the
members) endeavor to have him removed. Failing in this, the steward shall
order al members to quit work. .
Rule 45. It shall be the duty of all members working on a job to co-operate
with the steward in performing his duties. . . . Any member violating any of
the Rules 41 to 46, inclusive, shall be fined after due trial and conviction.
The Respondent's acts, which General Counsel would have found violative of the
Act, occurred in July 1954.
B. Events in issue
Artcraft's employees began installing blinds on the hospital project about July 19.
That day Steward Perchbacher of the Carpenters approached one of Artcraft's em-
ployees, Walter Niemczyk, and asked to see his card. Shortly thereafter, when
Niemczyk and others started to hang blinds, Perchbacher came. to them and said,
'Sorry, fellows, I will have to ask you fellows to leave the job. This is Carpenters'
2 Quoted from "General Jurisdiction of Work. ," sections 5 and 6.
3 Quoted from unnumbered page opposite p. 41, same document.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS 647
work." Another Artcraft employee, Pfingsten, objected to this request of the Car-
penters' steward, and said, "We have jurisdiction over the blinds." Perchbacher
said he was wrong, and insisted that the Carpenters had jurisdiction. Pfingsten said
he would call the local office of the Upholsterers. Artcraft's employees then left
the job.
Upon Artcraft's instruction, Pfingsten and its other employees returned to the job
on July 23. The Carpenters' steward again approached them, and told them they
would have to leave the job, that the work belonged to the Carpenters. Artcraft's
employees, however, did not leave the job.
Perchbacher then went to MacDonald's superintendent, Roy Gall, and again
(having registered a similar protest with him on July 19) complained that the Up-
holsterers were hanging the blinds. Gall again pointed out that he had no control
over it "since we had a signed contract for that division of work." The steward told
him flatly that unless Artcraft's employees were taken off the job the Carpenters
would leave. Soon after noon of the same day Perchbacher again went to Gall, this
time accompanied by the Carpenters' business agent, McDaniels. McDaniels warned
Gall that if the Upholsterers continued to hang the blinds the Carpenters would walk
off, and in Gall's presence instructed Perchbacher to have the Carpenters work until
1 o'clock, to bring in company tools. At 1 o'clock Perchbacher told the Carpenters,
"We'll walk off, pick up your tools and we'll go." The Carpenters thereupon walked
•off the job and did not return until a week later, July 30.
During the week's interim, while the Carpenters did not work, the Respondent's
secretary-treasurer, Erwin C. Meinert, communicated with William R. MacDonald,
head of the general contracting firm, and tried to persuade him to get Artcraft to
sublet its contract, so the Carpenters could hang the blinds. Meinert also, according
to his own testimony, tried to get MacDonald to withdraw its contract with Artcraft.4
Also during the week's interim, charges were filed with the Board, and the Re-
spondent was informed of them.
C. Conclusions
The foregoing findings of fact lead to the conclusion that Steward Perchbacher
and Business Agent McDaniels, officials of the Respondent Carpenters, induced em-
ployees of MacDonald to engage in a "concerted refusal in the course of their
employment . . . to perform any services," an object thereof being to force
MacDonald "to cease doing business with" Artcraft.5 (The quoted language is from
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.) The Respondent Carpenters is plainly responsi-
ble for such conduct on the part of its agents. (Sunset Line and Twine Company,
79 NLRB 1487 at p. 1507.) Upon such conclusions it reasonably should follow,
without further comment, that the usual "cease and desist" recommendations be made.
As noted above, in the "Statement of the Case," although counsel for the Respond-
ent obtained from the Chief Trial Examiner an extension of time within which to
file his brief, no brief was filed. Consideration of contentions opposing those of Gen-
eral Counsel must be limited, therefore, to those set forth in the Respondent's answer.
In that answer, outside of denial of factual allegations-determined, in effect, to be
without merit by the foregoing findings of fact-the sole claim appears to be that
the complaint should be dismissed because, since July 30, the conduct complained
of has not been engaged in, and the Respondent's secretary, Meinert, promised that
in the future it will not be repeated. The latter contention is wholly without merit.
In Lakeview Creamery Company, 107 NLRB 601, the Board pointed out: "The
Board and the Courts have repeatedly held that the cessation of an unfair labor prac-
tice does not render a case moot," and cited Consolidated Edison Co. v. N. L. R. B.,
305 U. S. 197, 230. Moreover, in this case, not only does it appear that the Respond-
•ent's remedial action was taken after it was informed of the filing of the charge,
raising the natural question as to whether its action was voluntary or impelled
by fear of legal consequences, but also there is no showing in this record that the
intrinsic and inherent evil of the trade rules, quoted above, binding upon both
stewards and members, have in any way been altered. Upon another occasion
4 At the hearing, before the court, the following colloquy occurred between Meinert and
counsel for the Respondent
Q. Did you tell him (MacDonald) to withdraw or attempt to withdraw any con-
tracts with Artcraft'
A I told him to ask him if they would. I didn't tell him that he should.
Q Mr MacDonald said that he could not, is that correct'
A. Well, substantially ; he said he was tied up.
5N. L. it. B v. Denver Bldg & Construction Trades Council, et at , 341 U. S. 675, enfg.
82 NLRB 1195
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
another official may decide differently than the current secretary now promises,
in his application of such rules.
In summary , the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the preponderance of
the evidence sustains the allegations of the complaint , and that by the conduct above
described the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Artcraft set forth in section I, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in concerted action violative of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. It will therefore be recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom , and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Co. is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica for the City and County of St . Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, also known as The
Carpenters' District Council of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, is a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in concerted action where an object thereof was to force or re-
quire MacDonald Construction Company to cease doing business with Artcraft
Venetian Blind Manufacturing Co., the Respondent Council has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF ST. Louis,
MISSOURI AND VICINITY, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CARPENTERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL
OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND VICINITY
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of MacDonald
Construction Company or any other employer to engage in, a strike or a con-
certed refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods , articles, materials, or
commodities , or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force
or require MacDonald Construction Company or any other employer or other
person to cease doing business with Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufactur-
ing Co.
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA FOR THE
CITY OF ST . Louis, MISSOURI AND VICINITY, ALSO
KNOWN AS THE CARPENTERS ' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND VICINITY,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------(Title of officer)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.