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

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 2162 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

2162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS &
JOINERS OF AMERICA FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF ST . Louis, MIS-
SOURI AND VICINITY, ALSO KNOWN AS CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
OF ST. Louis, MISSOURI AND VICINITY and ARTCRAFT VENETIAN
BLIND MANUFACTURING COMPANY. Case No. 14-CD-47. December
29,1954
Decision and Determination of Dispute
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of
the Act, the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine
the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen, ..."
On July 27, 1954, Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Com-
pany, herein called Artcraft, filed with the Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region a charge 1 alleging that District Council of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America for the City
and County of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, also known as Car-
penters' District Council of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, herein
called the Carpenters, had engaged in and is engaging in certain
activities proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. It
was alleged, in substance, that the Carpenters had induced and en-
couraged employees of McDonald Construction Company, herein
called McDonald, and of Artcraft to engage in a strike or in a con-
certed refusal to work in the course of their employment with an object
of forcing Artcraft to assign particular work to members of the
Carpenters rather than to members of Local 113, Venetian Blind
Workers affiliated with the Upholsterers' International Union of
North America, AFL, herein called the Upholsterers.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections
102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director investigated the charge and provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice to all parties. A hearing was held before
Ralph E. Kennedy, hearing officer, on October 27, 1954. All par-
ties, except the Upholsterers, appeared at the hearing and were af-
forded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing
officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Although the parties were afforded an opportunity
I The charge was amended on August 27, 1954 , to indicate the correct name of the
Respondent
110 NLRB No. 272.
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD, ETC. 2163
to file briefs with the Board, they did not do so within the time allotted
therefor.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
Findings of Fact
1. Artcraft is a Missouri corporation engaged in manufacture and
installation of venetian blinds. It has its principal office and plant
in St. Louis, Missouri. During 1953, its net sales amounted to ap-
proximately $2,000,000, of which about 75 percent represented sales
of finished products shipped to points located outside the State of
Missouri.
We find that Artcraft is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The Carpenters and the Upholsterers are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute :
(a) The facts
McDonald is the general contractor in the construction of the
Lutheran hospital and nurses' home in St. Louis, Missouri . It directly
employs on this job members of the Carpenters, among others. In
August 1953, McDonald awarded a subcontract to Artcraft to furnish
and install all venetian blinds for the Lutheran hospital job. Artcraft
assigned the work, in accordance with the contract provisions which
empowered it to do so, to its employees, who were members of the Up-
holsterers which was the certified bargaining representative of the
employees.
On July 19, 1954, employees of Artcraft began installing venetian
blinds at the nurses ' home. Shortly after the start of this activity,
William Perchbacher, steward for the Carpenters on the job, asked
the Artcraft employees to leave because venetian blind work belonged
to members of the Carpenters. He also told McDonald's general
superintendent Gall that noncarpenters had to quit the venetian blind
work or the carpenters would leave. Artcraft's employees left the job
at the request of Perchbacher, but returned on July 23, 1954. On the
day of the return Perchbacher, together with the Carpenters' business
agent McDaniels, called on Gall and threatened that their members
would quit if Artcraft's employees continued installing the blinds.
Erwin Meinert, secretary-treasurer of the Carpenters, made a similar
threat to Gall over the telephone. When Gall told the representatives
of the Carpenters that under McDonald's contract with Artcraft, he
had no power to assign the disputed work to members of the Carpen-
z Artcraft submitted a brief 2 days after the time for filing of briefs had expired. It
was, moreover , in typewritten rather than in the prescribed mimeographed form. Ac-
cordingly , we have not considered this brief.
2164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ters, the latter walked off the job. This occurred at 1 p. in. on July
23, 1954. Subsequently, Secretary-Treasurer Meiriert assured Mc-
Donald's president that the carpenters would return, but asked him to
give preference in subcontracting to shops which employ members of
the Carpenters and to use his influence to persuade Artcraft to sublet
its contract "to some one else as has been done in Pittsburgh." The
Artcraft employees continued with the installation of the venetian
blinds and, at the time of the hearing on October 27, 1954, had com-
pleted 95 percent of the venetian blind work at the nurses' home and
25 to 30 percent of that for 'the entire project. Members of the Car-
penters returned to work on July 30, 1954, and have continued to work
since that date.
(b) Contentions of the parties
Artcraft contends that by the above conduct, the Carpenters vio-
lated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
The Carpenters contend that the Board is without jurisdiction as
the Carpenters have renounced their claim to the disputed work at the
Lutheran hospital job and that the dispute therefore has been adjusted
within the meaning of Section 10 (k) of the Act.
(c) Applicability of the statute
The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director,
alleges a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, and the
Regional Director was satisfied, on the basis of his investigation, that
a violation of the Act had been committed.
On the record before us, we find that there is reasonable cause to
believe that the Carpenters enaged in activities proscribed by Section 8
(b) (4) (D) of the Act, with the object of forcing the Employers in-
volved herein, to assign the work of installing venetian blinds on the
Lutheran hospital job to its members rather than to members of the
Upholsterers.
There is no evidence that the parties have adjusted their dispute,
as contended by the Carpenters. Although the Carpenters, on the
record herein, declared its intention not to interfere with the contract
of McDonald and Artcraft, it continues to claim jurisdiction over em-
ployees who make and install venetian blinds and it maintains that it is
entitled to assert that jurisdiction under custom and practice in the
St. Louis, Missouri, area. The record further indicates that the oc-
currences herein are just one incident in a long-standing dispute be-
tween the Carpenters and the Upholsterers over the work in question.
Moreover, the work on the Lutheran hospital job is not yet com-
plete and there is no sufficient assurance that further interruptions
might not be caused by the Carpenters. The limited effectiveness and
publicity of the Carpenters' renunciation, therefore, fails to establish
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD, ETC. 2165
that the dispute has been "adjusted," and that the National Labor
Relations Board has thereby been freed from the mandate to hear
and determine the dispute.' We therefore find that the dispute in
question is properly before us for determination in a proceeding under
Section 10 (k) of the Act.
(d) Merits of the dispute
At the time the Carpenters first demanded that the disputed work
of installing venetian blinds be given to its members, and at all times
thereafter, Artcraft had assigned such work to its employees, mem-
bers of the Upholsterers, with which it has a collective-bargaining
agreement. Artcraft was entitled to make this assignment under its
contract with McDonald.
It is well established that an employer is free to make such assign-
ments, free of strike pressure by a labor organization, "unless such
employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the
Board determining the bargaining representative for employees per-
forming such work."' The Respondent does not claim that it is the
certified bargaining representative for employees performing the in-
stallation of venetian blinds.
We find, accordingly, that the Carpenters was not and is not law-
fully entitled to require Artcraft to assign the disputed work of
installing venetian blinds to members of the Carpenters rather than
to employees assigned by Artcraft. However, we are not, by this
action, to be regarded as "assigning" the work in question to the
Upholsterers.
Determination of Dispute
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act:
1. District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America for the City and County of St. Louis, Missouri
and Vicinity, also known as Carpenters District Council of St. Louis,
Missouri and Vicinity, is not and has not been lawfully entitled to
force or require Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Company
and McDonald Construction Company, to assign work of installing
venetian blinds to members of the Carpenters' District Council
3 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners , at at ( Ora Collard ), 98 NLRB 346, 350.
4 Juneau Spruce Corporation, 82 NLRB 650.
G For the reasons appearing in his dissent to the Board 's Decision and Determination in
Local 562, at at (Charles L. Myles, Northwest Heating Company), 107 NLRB 542, Mem-
ber Murdock would hold that the Board should not make any determination at this stage
of the case, but rather that it should quash the notice of hearing under Section 10 (k)
and leave the Geneial Counsel free to process the pending Section 8 ( b) (4) (D) charge
in his discretion
2166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rather than to members of Local 113, Venetian Blind Workers affili-
ated with the Upholsterers ' International Union of North America,
AFL.
2. Within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute , the Respondent Carpenters ' District Council,
shall notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in
writing, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with
the Decision and Determination of Dispute.
ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER NEW YORK, LOCAL 802, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, AFL, AND AL MANUTI, ITS AGENT and
GOTHAM BROADCASTING CORPORATION. Case No. 2-CC-294.
December 29, 1954
Decision and Order
On July 29, 1954, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,,finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions and a supporting brief. The Charging Party, hereafter
called Gotham, filed a supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications
and additions :
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondents, by the picketing
at the Yankee Stadium and the Eastern Parkway Rink, in connection
with their dispute with Gotham, violated Section' S (b) (4) (A) of
the Act. We agree.
Gotham owns and operates Radio Station WINS, with offices and
studios located at 28 West 44th Street, New York, New York.
Gotham has an agreement with River Operating Company, Inc.,
herein called River, whereby Yankee baseball games are broadcast
over WINS. In connection with the broadcasts of these games from
Yankee Stadium, Gotham provides only a portable amplifier, portable
microphones, and an engineer. The sportscasters, and all other equip-
"The requests for oral argument made by the Respondents and Gotham are hereby denied
because the record and exceptions and briefs , in our opinion, adequately present the issue
and positions of the parties.
110 NLRB No. 269.