Glaziers & Glassworkers Local #1621

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

GL.AZIERS AND) G(LASSWORKERS L.OCAI - 1621
Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 1621, af-
filiated with International Brotherhood of Painters
and Allied Trades and Alameda Glass and Mirror
Co., Inc. Case 32-CB 19 (formerly 20 CB-4357)
June 12, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENEL.I.O, MURPIIY, AND TRUIESI)AI.
Upon a charge filed on April 26, 1977.' by Ala-
meda Glass and Mirror Co., Inc., the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region 20, issued a complaint
and notice of hearing on May 27, alleging that Re-
spondent Glaziers and Glassworkers, Local Union
No. 1621, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Painters and Allied Trades, had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Respondent timely filed an answer to the
complaint, denying the commission of unfair labor
practices.
On October 10, Respondent, Charging Party, and
General Counsel entered into a stipulation in which
they agreed that the formal papers filed in this pro-
ceeding and the facts contained in the stipulation, to-
gether with the exhibits attached thereto, constitute
the entire record in this case. The parties further
stipulated that they waived their right to a hearing
before an administrative law judge and the issuance
of an administrative law judge's decision and recom-
mended order. On October 17, based upon the fore-
going stipulation, the parties filed a motion to transfer
the proceeding directly to the Board for decision.
On December 2, the Board issued an order grant-
ing the motion, approving the stipulation and trans-
ferring the proceeding to the Board. Subsequently,
General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs with the
Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having accepted transfer of this proceeding to it,
the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF TIF EMPLOYER
Alameda Glass and Mirror Co., Inc., herein called
Alameda, is a California corporation which. at all
I All dates herein are in 1977, unless ltherwise indicated.
times material herein, has been engaged in the retail
and nonretail sale and installation of glass, mirrors.
auto glass. and related products, and has maintained
an office and place of business in San Jose, California.
During calendar year 1976. in the course and conduct
of its business operations, Alameda purchased and
received goods valued in excess of $50,000 from sup-
pliers located inside the State of California. which
suppliers had purchased and received said goods from
suppliers located outside the State of California. Ac-
cordingly, we find that Alameda is, and has been at
all times material herein, an employer engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. 11 I. LABOR (ORGANIZ.A ION INVOI.\ I:I)
Respondent Glaziers and Glassworkers Local
Union No. 1621, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Painters and Allied Trades is, and has been
at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II1. ItIE AI..E(iE) t'NFAIR ABR PRA('II( IS
A. Backgroutnd and Facts
During earl, 1977, R. D. Martin & Sons (herein
called Martin), a general contractor, was engaged in
the construction of a roller skating rink in San Jose.
California, referred to herein as the project, Martin
subcontracted the glass and mirror installation work
on the project to Alameda on or about March 2. Dur-
ing this period, Martin was engaged in a labor dispute
with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Local 316 (herein called Carpenters). In
furtherance of this dispute, the Carpenters picketed
Martin at the project on March II and 12, and
March 14 through March 30. The Carpenters also
struck Martin, and both the strike and the picketing
was sanctioned by the Santa Clara, San Benito and
Santa Cruz Counties, Building and Construction
Trades Council, AFL-CIO.
During this period, Martin maintained an entrance
gate at the southeastern corner of the project (pri-
mary gate) for the use of its own employees and sup-
pliers. Martin also maintained an entrance gate at the
southwestern corner of the project (neutral gate) for
the use of employees and suppliers of other firms. in-
cluding Alameda. A sign at the primary gate directed
the employees and suppliers of firms other than Mar-
tin to use the neutral gate. while a sign at the neutral
gate directed the employees and suppliers of Martin
to use the primary gate. Employees of Martin did not
242 NLRB No. 134
1011
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
use the neutral gate for entrance to or exit from the
project. Neither Respondent nor the Carpenters had a
labor dispute with Alameda during this time.
On March I I and 12, the Carpenters picketed both
the primary and neutral gates to the project. From
March 14 through March 30, however, the Carpen-
ters picketed only the primary gate.2 On March 30, at
approximately 8:30 a.m., Vincent Ginestra and Leon-
ard Bentley, employees of Alameda and members of
Respondent, entered the project through the neutral
gate and went to work. Later that morning, William
Brown, a business representative of Respondent, en-
tered the project and observed Ginestra and Bentley
at work. Brown left the project shortly thereafter
without speaking to either man.
By separate letters dated the same day, March 30,
Ginestra and Bentley were notified that Brown had
preferred charges against them, alleging that they had
violated Respondent's bylaws and trade rules by
working at the project on March 30 while members of
the Carpenters were picketing.3 Ginestra and Bentley
did not receive the letters until after they had com-
pleted work on the project. On April 12, Ginestra and
Bentley appeared separately before a meeting of Re-
spondent's executive board, and each denied that he
was guilty of the charges. On April 18, by separate
letters, Respondent informed Ginestra and Bentley
that the executive board had found them guilty as
charged, and had assessed them fines of $300 each.
The letters further stated that they were required to
pay the fines immediately, or that they would be sus-
pended from membership in Respondent and in the
Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. Ginestra
and Bentley paid the fines.
Alameda is a member of the United Glass Dealers
Association (UGDA), an association of employers
engaged in the business of wholesale and retail sales
and installation of glass, mirrors, auto glass, and re-
lated products. UGDA exists, among other things, for
the purpose of collective-bargaining on behalf of its
members as a multiemployer bargaining unit. Ala-
meda, as a member of UGDA, and Respondent are
parties to a collective-bargaining agreement effective,
by its terms, from July 1, 1976, to June 30, 1979.
Article 34 of that contract states, in part,
There shall be no stoppage of work either by
strike or lockout by the parties hereto .... The
Employer agrees with the Union that the Union
2 Subsequently, the General Counsel and the Carpenters entered into an
informal settlement agreement, containing a nonadmission clause, which
provided for the cessation of the Carpenters' picketing of the project.
I Specifically, Ginestra and Bentley were charged with violating art. 6 of
the By-Laws and Trade Rules, which concerns generally the objects of Re-
spondent, and art. 32, sec. 13, which states, in pertinent part, "Members shall
not pass or work behind a picket line recognized b) the Building Trades
Council . . in areas where work is being performed."
will not be held legally liable or responsible for
the refusal of any member of the Union to cross
through or work behind a picket line of another
Union authorized by the Building and Construc-
tion Trades Council . . . of the area involved.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel takes the position that Re-
spondent's finding of Ginestra and Bentley violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A), because it restrained and coerced
neutral employees of a neutral employer, Alameda, to
participate in secondary boycott activity.
Respondent asserts that the fines imposed upon the
two employees did not violate the Act, because the
Carpenters' picket line at the project was neither en-
joined nor declared illegal, because the no-strike
clause of its labor contract with Alameda did not pro-
hibit sympathy strikes, and because, in any event, the
discipline was privileged by the proviso to Section
8(b)(1)(A).
C. Discussion and Conclusions
Recently, in J. A. Stewart Construction Co.,4 we
were confronted with nearly an identical factual situ-
ation to that presented here. In Stewart, respondent
unions, a district council, and a local disciplined three
of their members because they worked for neutral
employers at a common situs while respondent local
was engaged in a primary dispute with another em-
ployer. There, as here, there was no finding that the
picket line directed against the primary employer was
unlawful. We held that union discipline in such cir-
cumstances violates Section 8(b)(l)(A), and is not
sheltered by the proviso to that section, because it
"not only frustrates the policy reflected in the second-
ary boycott provisions of the Act, which forbid labor
organizations from enmeshing neutral employers in
primary labor disputes, but, if alleged, would also re-
quire a finding of unlawful secondary boycott ac-
tivity." 5
Finally, whether the no-strike provision of Respon-
dent's collective-bargaining agreement with Alameda
prohibits sympathy strikes is irrelevant, because the
issue before us in this case involves not the right of
employees to engage in a sympathy strike, but the
validity of Respondent's discipline of members for re-
fusing to take part in activity not countenanced by
the statute.
We conclude, therefore, on the authority of our
holding in Stewart, that Respondent unlawfully fined
Ginestra and Bentley for working for a neutral em-
4 242 NLRB 585 (1979).
Id
1012
GLAZIERS AND GLASSWORKERS LOCAL :r1621
ployer at a common situs, thereby inducing or en-
couraging employees of a neutral employer to refuse
to perform services, with the natural and apparent
object of causing the neutral employer to cease doing
business with a primary employer.6
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order that it cease
and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act. We
shall, among other things, order that Respondent re-
scind the disciplinary action taken against Vincent
Ginestra and Leonard Bentley, and that it refund to
them any moneys held on account of fines assessed,
with interest, in the manner prescribed in Florida
Steel Corporation.7
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
and upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Alameda Glass and Mirror Co., Inc., is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Glaziers and Glassworkers Local
Union No. 1621, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Painters and Allied Trades, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By imposing internal union discipline upon Vin-
cent Ginestra and Leonard Bentley, as described
herein, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
6 It makes no difference that the union discipline was imposed upon Gines-
tra and Bentley after the) had completed work on the project. As we said in
Stewart, quoting from an earlier case, "The 'cease doing business' element of
Sec. 8bX4XB) embraces prospective as well as existing business relation-
ships, and does not require that the company-party to the primary dispute
even be known at the time of the union conduct in question." SI. op., p. 8.
7 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing d Healing Company,
138 NLRB 716 (1962).
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Gla-
ziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 1621, affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Painters and
Allied Trades, San Jose, California, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Charging, trying, fining, or otherwise disciplin-
ing, Vincent Ginestra, Leonard Bentley, or any of its
members, in order to induce or encourage them to
withhold their services from a neutral employer with
an object of forcing or requiring the neutral employer
to cease doing business with a primary employer.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the disciplinary action taken against
Vincent Ginestra and Leonard Bentley, in order to
induce or encourage them to withhold their services
from a neutral employer with an object of forcing or
requiring the neutral employer to cease doing busi-
ness with a primary employer, and expunge from its
records any reference to that discipline.
(b) Refund to Vincent Ginestra and Leonard Bent-
ley any moneys held on account of fines assessed
against them in connection with the aforesaid disci-
plinary action, with interest, as set forth in the section
of the Decision herein entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 32, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Sign and return to said Regional Director suffi-
cient copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
I 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
1013
I)C('ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dix" for posting by Alameda Glass and Mirror Co.,
Inc., if willing, in conspicious places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 32, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPEN[)IX
N()(oi 1 I) EMPI.OYEES AND MIMBIRS
PosJII) BY ORDER 01-F I'l
NAIIO()NAL LABOR RELA IIONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
W. wIlL, NO ( charge, try, fine, or otherwise
discipline Vincent Ginestra, Leonard Bentley, or
any of our members, in order to induce or en-
courage them to withhold their services from a
neutral employer with an object of forcing or re-
quiring the neutral employer to cease doing busi-
ness with a primary employer.
Wi WIl.l N in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of'
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of' the Act.
WlI 'wii.. rescind the disciplinary action taken
by us against Vincent Ginestra and Leonard
Bentley, in order to induce or encourage them to
withhold their services from a neutral employer
with an object of forcing or requiring the neutral
employer to cease doing business with a primary
employer, and \v wuI. expunge from our rec-
ords any reference to that discipline.
WI: W11i. refund to Vincent Ginestra and
Leonard Bentley any moneys held on account of
fines assessed against them in connection with
the aforesaid disciplinary action. with interest.
GI.AZIIRs AN) GI AVSSW()RK RS Lo( Al
UNION N(). 1621, AFFII.IAIL D Wl iI INIIIR-
NA I IONAI. BRO() I IIRI)()I) 01 PAIN I RS AND
A i.it.) TRAI)ltS
1014