Glaziers' & Glassworkers' Local 1184

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1228 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Glaziers' & Glassworkers ' Local 1184 of the
International Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators
and Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO, and its
Agent C. W. Russell and Gyndel E. Wells, d/b/a
Pete Wells Glazing Contractor . Case 26-CC-137
March 18, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On November 1, 1968, Trial Examiner Josephine
H. Klein issued her Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents 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 attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and supporting briefs, and the Charging
Party filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
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
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 and briefs,' and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and orders that the Respondents,
Glaziers' & Glassworkers' Local 1184 of the
International Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators
and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, and C.
W Russell, Nashville, Tennessee, their officers,
agents, successors, and representatives, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as modified herein:
1 Add the following as paragraph 1(b) of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, and reletter
the subsequent paragraphs accordingly-
'in view of our adoption of the Trial Examiner ' s finding that the bylaw
was adopted and applied , ab inino, as a device to cause Wells to cease
doing business with Tennessee Glass Company, we find it unnecessary to
pass on the General Counsel's contention that the Trial Examiner erred in
failing to find that Wells substantially complied with the bylaw.
(b) Refusing to refer to Gyndel E. Wells, d/b/a
Pete Wells Glazing Contractor, at his request,
individuals for employment as glaziers or
glassworkers, where an object thereof is to force or
require Wells to cease doing business with Tennessee
Glass Company, Incorporated.
2. Add the following as the fourth indented
paragraph of the notice:
WE WILL NOT refuse to refer to Gyndel E.
Wells, d/b/a Pete Wells Glazing Contractor, at
his request, individuals for employment as glaziers
or glassworkers, where an object thereof is to
force or require Wells to cease doing business
with Tennessee Glass Company, Incorporated.
3. Add the following as the fifth indented
paragraph of the notice:
WE WILL NOT in any other manner or by any
other means threaten, coerce, or restrain Wells or
any other person engaged in commerce or in any
industry affecting commerce, where an object
thereof is to force or require Wells, or any other
person, to cease using, selling, handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products
of, or to cease doing business with, Tennessee
Glass Company, Incorporated
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPHINE H. KLEIN , Trial Examiner . Upon a charge
filed by Gyndel E Wells, d /b/a Pete Wells Glazing
Contractor (Wells), on April 2, 1968, and amended on
June 7 , 1968, a complaint was issued on July 10, 1968,
against Glaziers' & Glassworkers ' Local 1184 of the
International Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and
Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO, and its agent, C W
Russell . The alleged unfair labor practice consists of the
Respondents' having threatened , restrained , or coerced
Wells with an object of forcing and requiring Wells to
cease doing business with Tennessee Glass Company,
Incorporated (Tennessee Glass)
A hearing was held at Nashville, Tennessee , on August 8,
1968 All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to introduce relevant evidence , and to examine and
cross-examine witnesses . The parties waived oral
argument . Since the hearing, briefs have been filed by the
General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the
Respondent'
Upon the entire record ' and from observation of the
witnesses , together with careful consideration of the briefs,
the Trial Examiner makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
1. Tennessee Glass, a Tennessee corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Nashville,
'In addition , by memorandum , the Charging Party has submitted a copy
of a Memorandum Decision rendered on September 10, 1968, by United
States District Court Judge Frank Gary, Jr, in Reynolds v Glaziers' &
Glassworkers ' Local 1184 etc, 69 LRRM 2270 (D C Tenn )
'rhe General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is
hereby granted
174 NLRB No. 184
GLAZIERS' & GLASSWORKERS' LOCAL 1184 1229
Tennessee, is engaged in the sale, distribution,
manufacture and installation of glass and related products
to customers, including Wells During the 12 months
preceding the hearing Tennessee Glass, in the course and
conduct of its business, received gross revenues in excess
of $500,000 During the same period it purchased and
received in Nashville goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of
Tennessee. Tennessee Glass is, and was at all times
material herein, an employer and person engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(l),(6),(7) and
8(b)(4) of the Act.3
2. Wells is a sole proprietor with his principal place of
business at Nashville, Tennessee, where he is engaged in
the installation of glass and related products. During the
12 months preceding the hearing Wells provided services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State of Tennessee. Wells is, and was at all
times material herein, a person engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Sections 2(l),(6),(7) and
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
3 Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
4. Respondent C W. Russell is, and at all times
material herein was, a representative and agent of
Respondent Union.
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
The complaint alleges that since March 22, 1968,
Respondents have applied a bylaw of Respondent Union
to Wells so as to preclude reaching a collective-bargaining
agreement with him, with the result that none of the
members of Respondent Union will work for Wells An
alleged object of Respondents' conduct has been to force
or require Wells to cease purchasing his supplies from
Tennessee Glass.
In October 1964, the Union struck three contractors,
including Tennessee Glass That strike was ended against
two of the contractors with the signing of a 3-year
contract on March 21, 1965. Tennessee Glass, however,
did not sign and the Union continued to picket that
company The picketing ended in the early part of 1966,
but Tennessee Glass and Respondents have never reached
agreement and Tennessee remains nonunion.
Wells is a member of Respondent Union. Sometime in
1965 he commenced operating as an independent
contractor On November 16, 1965, he and the Union
signed a collective-bargaining agreement, effective through
March 21, 1968. All glassworkers employed by Wells were
members of Respondent Union.
On April 28, 1967, the Board found Respondent Union
guilty of violating Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by
disciplining Wells on two occasions in 1965 and by
threatening in September 1965 to discipline other
members of Respondent who were independent
contractors in order to force or require them to cease
doing business with Tennessee Glass Glaziers Local
Union 1184 etc, 164 NLRB No 19.
On January 13, 1968, Respondent Union adopted the
following provision as an amendment to Article II of its
by-laws
Glaziers' Local Union 1184 will not enter into an
Agreement with any Glazing Contractor unless he is a
qualified Contractor by accepted Trade standards
These standards are-
'National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 29 U S C Sec 151 et seq
(1) A bona fide Glass Shop is one maintaining a
regular commercial place of business with Trade name
on the Building, proper listing in the Telephone
Directory and at least one person on the premises to
give service to the Trade during regular business hours
and where our membership are employed, discharged
and receive their wages.
(2) He must maintain a warehouse and sufficient
stock to do the work, he is contracting for [sic]
On January 16, 1968, Respondent Russell, as president
and business representative of Respondent Union,4 wrote
Wells that his collective-bargaining agreement "will be
terminated for all purposes as of its expiration date,
March 21, 1968."5 On January 29, 1968, Wells replied,
requesting that Russell negotiate with him for a new
contract "which can be signed and in effect on March 21,
1968, the date the present contract expires." Russell made
no reply to Wells' letter. Thereafter, in February and
early March, Russell rejected oral requests by Wells that
they get together to negotiate a renewal contract
From the inception of his contracting business, through
the early part of March 1968, Wells operated his business
from his home When he secured a contract, he ordered
the necessary materials, which he either picked up in his
own trucks or had delivered to the jobsite His business
consisted exclusively of installing glass under specific
contracts, at no time did he sell glass either at retail or at
wholesale. According to his undisputed testimony, he had
no need for off-job facilities for fabrication of glass, since
he carried to the job site the saws and ladders he might
need Further, he had no need for salvage facilities, since
he disposed of surplus glass as junk or, in the case of
large pieces, sold them back to Tennessee Glass, his
supplier Employees he hired for specific jobs reported to
work at the jobsite and were there discharged His
stationery, invoices, estimate forms, etc., bore his home
address and/or a post office box address His telephone
was at his home, where he also kept his two trucks
On or about March 22, 1968, Russell told Wells that
the Union would not contract with him because he did not
meet the requirements of the new bylaw provision, quoted
above On or about 26, 1968, for the purposes of
complying with the bylaw, Wells rented what he maintains
was a warehouse and office. Shortly thereafter, at Wells'
request, Russell inspected the premises Without
expressing his own opinion as to whether Wells' new
facilities met the standards prescribed in the bylaws,
Russell reported to a membership meeting of the Union.
After Russell described the premises, in a manner which
Wells concedes was accurate, the membership voted 11 to
8 against the Union's executing an agreement with Wells
At a subsequent meeting the matter was brought up again,
but then tabled At the time of the present hearing, no
further action on the matter had been taken by the
membership
Since March 22, 1968, Wells has been unsuccessful in
his attempts to secure the services of any members of
Respondent Union, although he has made repeated
attempts to do so Wells credibly testified that at least
three union members indicated that they would like to
work for Wells, but, after talking to Russell, did not do
'Russell still serves as business representative but is no longer president
of the Union
'An identical letter was sent to Charles Weeks , d/b/a Woodbine Glass
Co , another Union member operating as a contractor Woodbine had
gone out of business and never sought a renewal contract Other
contractors were apparently sent notices of the Union ' s desire to negotiate
new terms upon expiration of the existing contract
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
so.
Russell denied that he ever told any union members
that they could not work for Wells. However, Russell did
testify that he had made all the members aware of the
provisions of the Union's bylaws, which include a
provision forbidding members to work for any glazing
contractor who does not have a collective-bargaining
agreement with Respondent Union. In their answer to the
complaint, Respondents admit that "employees refused to
perform services for Wells" because of the provision
referred to.'
The General Counsel and the Charging Party maintain
that the bylaw amendment was, in effect, a manufactured
tool for denying Wells a collective-bargaining agreement.
According to the General Counsel, Respondents were
motivated, not by any desire to protect any legitimate
interest of the Union or its members, but rather by a
determination to have Wells cease doing business with
Tennessee Glass. Respondents, on the other hand,
maintain that the bylaw was adopted and applied as a
reasonable measure to assure the financial responsibility
of employers with whom the Union contracted
The complaint alleges that "Since on or about March 26
Wells has complied with the bylaw amendment." At
the outset, it should be observed that the bylaw in
question is ambiguous. It limits contracts to "qualified
Contractor[s] by accepted Trade standards " It then
proceeds to specify "these standards" in two separate
subsections. The first purports to define a"bona fide Glass
Shop." Wells, however, has never operated a "Glass
Shop", he does not sell glass as such and has never held
himself out as a seller or distributor of glass He operates
solely as a contractor, installing glass under contracts
There was no evidence of any practice in the trade
whereby glass contractors necessarily also operated as
retail or wholesale distributors Indeed, Russell testified
concerning one company with which the Union had a
contract which does "art" glass work and obviously
makes no general sales of plain glass. Presumably the
"bona fide Glass Shop" provision of the bylaw is
applicable only to those contractors who also hold
themselves out as distributors' The second "trade
standard" set forth in the bylaw is the maintenance of "a
warehouse and sufficient stock to do the work, he is
contracting for." While Wells attempted to meet this
requirement, the evidence shows at most a token
compliance The premises rented were small and
essentially unattended Wells readily admitted that he did
not maintain in stock sufficient material for the jobs he
did and did not even carry insurance on the contents of
the "warehouse "
'The answer , as amended at the hearing , admits "the application of the
Bylaws to Wells as well as to others who sought a contract with
Respondent Local because of their failure to comply with said bylaws "
The evidence, however, establishes that Wells is the only contractor to
whom the bylaws have been so applied
'District Judge Gary, who granted a temporary injunction on the basis of
the record in the present hearing, said " It will be noted that the first
paragraph of the Bylaw states that the Union will not enter into an
agreement with a glazing contractor ' unless he is a qualified Contractor by
accepted Trade standards' It then proceeds to define the standards of a
'bona fide Glass Shop ' Wells had operated as a glazing contractor, but he
did not have a glass shop He did no retail business , he either picked up his
materials at a supplier and trucked them to his jobsite or had them
delivered to the jobsite, and he did no fabrication except on the jobsite
The record is bare of any showing that a contractor must, by any accepted
standards of the trade, operate a 'glass shop ' " Reynolds v Glaziers'
etc, supra , 69 LRRM 2270
The Examiner finds that the evidence fails to establish
that Wells ever met the standards of "a qualified
contractor" prescribed in the bylaw amendment In his
brief, the General Counsel apparently concedes that Wells
does not meet the standards of the bylaw, saying that
' Wells attempted to comply with the letter of the bylaw
amendment to the extent that any reasonable person could
expect him to "
The General Counsel's primary contention is that
application of the bylaw to Wells is so unreasonable as to
require the conclusion that it was dictated by some
hidden, ulterior motive.
The record contains no evidence tending to establish a
reasonable basis for the "warehouse" requirement of the
bylaw.
To explain the adoption of the bylaw by the Union's
bylaw committee, Russell said
We had two contractors' that did not have a warehouse
or place of business, and we felt like as a committee to
revise the bylaws, that this was detrimental to our
trade where contractors or customers couldn't get ahold
of these people, and if they needed them they had to
wait on them to come in at night If they'd come in at
midnight they'd have to wait until midnight to get ahold
of them and we felt like we should do something to
protect our local Union from this kind of stuff Most of
the time when a guy don't have a shop or warehouse it
is because he is not financially able If he is not
financially able he shouldn't be in this business
Well, like I said before, we felt like with these small
contractors they really didn't have a place of business
A contractor would come up with a truck and say, "I
want a contract," and become a contractor This type
of business we felt like was detrimental to the glazing
business in this territory, and we'd just like the glazing
business to be as much a respected part of the business
in this area as the rest of it
Russell conceded, however, that Union members had
never had any trouble getting paid by Wells Russell
provided no explanation of how a contractor's expenditure
of funds for the maintenance of an unnecessary warehouse
and business establishment might reasonably be expected
to enhance his financial reliability Nor did Russell make
any attempt to refute Wells' testimony that it would be
impracticable, if not impossible, to hire and fire
employees at his place of business rather than at the
jobsites. These deficiencies are not remedied in
Respondents' brief, which concedes that the bylaw
amendment "was never designed to be a guarantee
system "
The record thus fails to establish affirmatively any
reasonable , practical basis for adoption of the bylaw
amendment involved The General Counsel and the
Charging Party maintain that the motivation for its
adoption and application to Wells is readily found in
Respondents' displeasure with the fact that Wells
maintains a close business relationship with Tennessee
Glass, having bought between $175,000 and $200,000
worth of materials from Tennessee Glass during the year
ended July 1, 1968.
The other contractor referred to was Charles Weeks, who went out of
business See fn 5, supra
GLAZIERS' & GLASSWORKERS' LOCAL 1184 1231
The record overwhelmingly establishes a continuing
disagreement' between Respondents and Tennessee Glass.
As fully set forth in Glaziers' Local Union 1184 etc ,
supra, 164 NLRB No. 19, Wells has had a close working
relationship with Tennessee Glass and has been twice fined
by the Union for dealing with that company In addition,
Wells, along with four other Union members who also
were contractors, had been threatened with disciplinary
action if they dealt with Tennessee Glass Russell also
testified that in 1965 the Union had fined two members
for dealing with Tennessee Glass.
Although Respondent Union ceased picketing
Tennessee Glass' premises in 1966, the antagonism has
never been resolved Tennessee Glass has not executed a
collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent At the
present hearing it was noted that Tennessee Glass has
instituted an action for damages against Respondent
Union under Section 301 of the Act.
There is considerable additional evidence of specific
union action directed against Tennessee Glass
In 1967, Capital Chevrolet, of Nashville, had a new
building constructed William E. Powell, Capital's vice
president and general manager, testified that in April 1967
Respondent Russell threatened damage to the new
building if a nonunion contractor was awarded the glass
contract Russell specifically mentioned Tennessee Glass
as being nonunion Tennessee Glass was given the contract
and performed the work Respondent Union then picketed
on the day of the grand opening of the new building in
April 1968
Roy Shamberg, a real estate broker, testified
concerning the construction of a shopping center in
1965-1967 Around June 1967, when Tennessee Glass was
awarded the subcontract for the glass work in a bank at
the center, Russell complained, sought to have the work
secured for a Union contractor, and threatened picketing
and damage to the property if Tennessee Glass performed
the work. The parties unsuccessfully sought to work out
some sort of compromise. According to Shamberg,
Tennessee Glass was asked to give up the bank contract to
avoid trouble to the shopping center by Respondent
Union Tennessee Glass agreed to do so if the contract
was then given to Wells, who could take over the
materials which Tennessee Glass had already procured for
execution of the contract. Russell refused to go along with
that suggestion, stating that, so far as he was concerned,
Tennessee Glass and Wells were "one and the same "
According to Russell, the shopping center owners agreed
to use a Union contractor, but none would take the job
because the price was too low Russell testified that he
then agreed that the job could be given to Wells, but
Wells turned it down Wells denied that he had been
offered the bank job Tennessee Glass actually performed
the contract Respondent Union thereafter picketed the
shopping center for a few hours, at a time when no glass
contractors were working there.
Both Shainberg and Powell testified that Russell's
threats of damage to the premises had been made in the
form of a reference to "playing marbles," with the clear
implication of damage to the glass caused by marbles
While Russell denied having made any such threats, the
'The General Counsel and Respondents specify as one of the issues in
the case whether there is a continuing " labor dispute" between them
However, as the Charging Party observes, Section 8 (ax4xuXB ) of the Act
does not include the existence of a "labor dispute" as a necessary element
in the unfair labor practice then defined It thus is unnecessary to
determine whether Respondents and Tennessee Glass are presently engaged
in a "labor dispute " as defined in the Act
Examiner credits Shainberg's and Powell's testimony.10
Respondents' picketing of the two locations was admitted
Although the picket signs apparently were limited to
"area standards" information, and the picketing was thus
lawful, the fact of the picketing, directed against
Tennessee Glass, attests Respondents' continuing
antagonism toward that company
The Union bylaw here involved was adopted in January
1968, about 2 months before Wells' collective-bargaining
agreement was to expire. Respondent Union was then
under the restraint of a Board order prohibiting its
threatening, coercing, or restraining Wells with the object
of forcing him not to do business with Tennessee Glass
The new bylaw, which, as previously noted, was applied
only to Wells, was a potent means of bringing pressure on
him as a means of damaging Tennessee Glass In the
absence of any credible justification for the bylaw as a
means of serving the legitimate needs or goals of the
Union or its members, the inference is inescapable that it
was adopted as a means of achieving a result which the
Board had prohibited the Union from achieving through
discipline of Wells as a Union member." Unable to
proceed against Wells as a member of the Union,
Respondents devised the bylaw as a means of reaching
him as a contractor. By application of the bylaws,
Respondents denied Wells a union contract. Without a
contract, Wells was unable to secure employees because
Union members were subject to disciplinary action if they
worked for glazing contractors not having contracts with
the Union
On all the evidence, the Examiner finds that, as alleged
in the complaint, Respondents have threatened, restrained,
and coerced Wells with the object of forcing him to cease
doing business with Tennessee Glass
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Glaziers' & Glassworkers ' Local 1184
of the International Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators
and Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO, and its agent C.
W. Russell have violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act
by adopting an amendment to said Union's bylaws on
January 13, 1968, and thereafter , pursuant to said bylaw,
terminating the Union ' s collective-bargaining agreement
with Gyndel E Wells, d /b/a Pete Wells Glazing
Contractor, and refusing to negotiate a renewal
agreement , with the result that union members refused to
work for Wells, all with the object of forcing Wells to
cease doing business with Tennessee Glass Company,
incorporated
2. The aforesaid conduct constitutes an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
"The Examiner further finds, however , that the General Counsel did not
establish that actual damage to the glass had been done by Respondents
"Respondents' brief says "The testimony of C W Russell revealed the
true purpose of the amendment On several prior occasions members of the
Union had suffered loss of wages because persons in a class of which Wells
is a member could not meet their obligations This class is made up of
persons who operate as independent contractors out of their homes
No record references are provided and there is no evidence to support the
quoted statement On the contrary , Russell unequivocally conceded that no
union member had ever had any difficulty collecting his pay from Wells
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
The General Counsel requests primarily an order
prohibiting Respondents from applying the bylaw
amendment to Wells so as to deny him a
collective-bargaining agreement and, consequently, the
right to employ members of Respondent Union. The
evidence clearly establishes the General Counsel's right to
such a remedy as a minimum
The General Counsel disclaims any request for an order
setting the bylaw aside in toto His brief says
With respect to the remedy, the General Counsel does
not contend that the bylaw amendment is, per se,
unlawful Accordingly, Counsel for the General Counsel
does not seek any order which would require the
outright rescission of the bylaw amendment .
The Examiner is unable to accept the General Counsel's
position as to the limited nature of the remedy At the
hearing, the General Counsel stated his position that the
bylaw was "pretextuous . both in adoption and
application." At the opening of the hearing, he said he
proposed to -
establish that the Union's adoption of the bylaw
amendment to Wells constituted an effort on the part of
the Union to retaliate against Wells because of his
continuing business relationship with Tennessee Glass
[Emphasis supplied.]
The circumstances and reasons for adoption of the bylaw
amendment were then fully litigated, with Respondent
Russell testifying as to the reason for adoption of the
bylaw both when called by the General Counsel pursuant
to rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
on direct examination when called by Respondent's
counsel At the hearing, the General Counsel said
we are not specifically attacking the bylaw, as
such. We recognize that there are legitimate
circumstances where a bylaw such as this may be
appropriate and in the interest of the union
However, the record fails to establish the existence of any
such circumstances If the Union has experienced, or in
the future encounters difficulty because of financially
irresponsible contractors, it may, of course, take
appropriate remedial or preventative measures . But the
bylaw here in question was not adopted for such purpose
and is not designed to remedy any such situation.
Since the evidence establishes that the bylaw
amendment was adopted solely for the unlawful purpose
of affecting Wells' business because he was dealing with
Tennessee Glass, it was invalid ab mltio As it is written
in general terms, with no provision for selective
application or waiver in individual cases, there is no
apparent way in which the bylaw amendment might be left
in effect yet inapplicable to Wells, who does not meet the
standards there prescribed." In short, the Examiner
believes that the record in this case requires that the bylaw
amendment be set aside in its entirety because it was
improperly adopted to achieve an impermissible object
Respondents' conduct in the present case appears to be
a direct violation of the Board's order in Cases 26-CC-97
"No salutary result would be achieved by ordering nondiscriminatory
application of the bylaw Such order might result only in other contractors'
being denied contracts On the other hand , to grant General Counsel's
request that Respondents be prohibited only from applying the bylaw to
Wells would be to encourage selective enforcement of bylaws in disregard
of their terms
and 26-CC-99, 164 NLRB No. 19 Because of the
persistent and repetitive nature of Respondents' attempts
to impose a secondary boycott on Tennessee Glass, the
Examiner will recommend a broad cease-and-desist order.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended
that Glaziers' & Glassworkers' Local Union 1184,
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of
America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, representatives,
successors, and assigns (including, specifically, C. W.
Russell), shall.
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Requiring that members not work for Gyndel W.
Wells, d/b/a Pete Wells Glazing Contractor, at any of his
job locations
(b) Enforcing as to Wells or any other employer a
bylaw amendment of January 13, 1968, assertedly
preventing the Union from entering into a contractual
relationship with any contractor who fails to meet the
standards for "a qualified Contractor" set forth therein,
or
(c) In any other manner or by any other means
threatening, coercing, or restraining Wells or any other
person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting
commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require
Wells, or any other person, to cease using, selling,
handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the
products of, or to cease doing business with, Tennessee
Glass Company, Incorporated
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the amendment to article II of the
Respondent Union's bylaws which was adopted on
January 13, 1968.
(b) Post at Respondent Union's offices and meeting
halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ""
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for the Region 26, shall, after having been duly
signed by Respondent C. W Russell, business
representative of Respondent Union, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
Respondents for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places where notices to members are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken to
assure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by other material.
(c) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the
Regional Director for the Region 26 for posting by Wells
and Tennessee Glass, if willing, at all locations upon their
premises where notices to employees are customarily
posted
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith "
"In the event that the 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 is enforced by a decree of the 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 be 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 Respondent
has taken to-comply herewith "
GLAZIERS' & GLASSWORKERS ' LOCAL 1184
APPENDIX
NOTICE- TO ALL . MEMBERS OF GLAZIERS' &
GLASSWORKERS ' LOCAL UNION 1184 , BROTHERHOOD
OF PAINTERS , DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF
AMERICA, 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
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
We hereby rescind the amendment of article II of the
Union's bylaws which was adopted on January 13,
1968.
WE WILL NOT enforce or in any manner give effect
to the amendment of article II of the Union ' s bylaws
which was adopted on January 13, 1968. More
particularly , we will not refuse to negotiate and execute
a collective - bargaining agreement with Gyndel W.
Wells, d/b/a Pete Wells Glazing Contractor, or any
other employer because of his failure to meet the
standards of "a qualified Contractor " as set forth in
that bylaw amendment
WE WILL NOT prohibit or discourage any member of
1233
the Union from working for Wells or any other person
with the object of forcing such person to cease doing
business with Tennessee Glass Company, Incorporated
GLAZIERS' &
GLASSWORKERS' LOCAL
UNION 1184,
BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS , DECORATORS
AND PAPERHANGERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
By
C. W. Russell (Business Representative)
Dated
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 provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.