Glaziers Local No. 513

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 461 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

GLAZIERS LOCAL NO. 513 461
Glaziers & Glassworkers Local No. 513 and Linclay TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
Corporation of America. Case 14-CC-630
June 23, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On March 2, 1971, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision together with a supporting
brief.
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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Glaziers & Glassworkers Local No. 513, St.
Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's recommended Order.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN, Trial Examiner: This case was heard
in St. Louis, Missouri, on January 12, 1971, pursuant to a
charge duly filed and served,' and a complaint issued on
November 24, 1970. The complaint presents questions as to
whether the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B) of the Act. In its answer, duly filed, the Respond-
ent denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair
labor practices.
All parties appeared at the hearing with counsel and were
given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence and to
argue orally. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the
Respondent Union made a short closing statement. The other
parties waived oral argument. On February 16, 1971, both the
General Counsel and the Charging Party submitted briefs to
the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation
of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Linclay Corporation of America, herein Linclay, the
Charging Party, is a Missouri corporation engaged in busi-
ness as a general contractor, with its principal office in the
City of Maryland Heights, Missouri. During the year ending
July 1, 1970, a representative period, Linclay purchased and
had delivered to its construction sites in Missouri, building
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which came to Linclay
directly from points located outside the State of Missouri.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, herein PPG, is a Penn-
sylvania corporation doing business in Missouri and in many
other States throughout the United States. It was engaged, at
all times material herein, in the manufacture, sale, and distri-
bution of glass, paint, and related products. During the year
ending July 1, 1970, a representative period, PPG purchased
and had delivered to its place of business in St. Louis, Mis-
souri, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which
came to PPG directly from points located outside the State
of Missouri.
Maplewood Mill, herein Maplewood, is a Missouri corpo-
ration, with an office and place of business in Maplewood,
Missouri, where it is engaged in the sale and distribution of
overhead doors and related products. During the year ending
July 1, 1970, a representative period, Maplewood purchased
and had delivered, to its aforesaid place of business, overhead
doors valued in excess of $50,000 which came to Maplewood
directly from the plant of the Raynor Corporation, an Illinois
corporation, herein called Raynor, located in Dixon, Illinois.
Upon the foregoing facts, as to which all counsel stipulated
at the hearing, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that
Linclay, PPG and Maplewood are, and have been, employers
engaged in commerce, or in industries affecting commerce as
defined in the Act.
' We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondent,
through its agents Brown and Bernsen violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (B)
of the Act. Local 349, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Dade Sound and Controls), 149 NLRB 430, 434. However, we
do not rely or base any inference on the Respondent's failure to notify
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company that it was free to impose disciplinary
action on Bernsen or any other employee. There is no contention by Re-
spondent that its conduct in this case was motivated by a work preservation
object.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Glaziers & Glassworkers Local No. 513, herein called
Union, or Local 513, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act.
' The charge was filed on October 30, 1970.
191 NLRB No. 90
462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background and Sequence of Events
In the fall of 1970, Linclay, as the general contractor, was
engaged in the completion of a large Western Auto Distribut-
ing Center on a 13-acre tract in the vicinity of O'Fallon,
Missouri (hereinafter referred to as the O'Fallon site, or
Western Auto job).' Linclay had numerous subcontractors
engaged at the scene. One, PPG, had a subcontract to furnish
all the store fronts and perform all the necessary glass and
glazing work thereon. Maplewood, another subcontractor,
was responsible for the installation of certain overhead doors
on the truck entrances to the Western Auto building. The
doors had been secured by Maplewood from the Raynor
plant in Dixon, Illinois, and each had several glass windows,
all of which had been preglazed at the factory.
On October 7, 1970,' Maplewood had installed about 25
percent of the Raynor doors and all of the doors needed for
completion of the contract were on the site and ready for
installation. That same day, PPG sent a glazing crew to
commence installation of the store front windows. At this
same time, Linclay had carpenters and general laborers at
work on the jobsite. Before the PPG employees arrived on the
job, a business agent for Local 513 complained that Maple-
wood was using material that had preglazed sash. After PPG
began its glazing work, the union steward for PPG voiced a
similar complaint.
The glaziers for PPG remained at work until noon on
October 9, when they left the job to attend a meeting called
by the PPG management. The next working day they did not
report for duty and thereafter they did not return to work
until the General Counsel secured an injunction against the
Respondent from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri. The employees of Maplewood
and Linclay, however, remained at work throughout this
period. While the glaziers refused to work on the O'Fallon
job, Linclay had to reschedule the work being done by its
employees and those of the other contractors. Wooden frames
were constructed in the store front openings and covered with
polyethylene in order to protect the interiors from the
weather and from other sources of damage while Linclay and
its other subcontractors proceeded with the rest of the work
in the area while they awaited resumption of the glazing by
PPG. In the meantime, whereas the glaziers employed by
PPG refused to work on the O'Fallon job, they worked at
another site in the St. Louis metropolitan area where PPG
had a glazing contract for Linclay.
The Respondent conceded that at no time material herein
did the Respondent have any dispute with either Linclay or
PPG.
B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii)
(B) of the Act; Contentions of the Parties. Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law in Connection Therewith
The General Counsel alleged that on about October 12,
and thereafter, the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B) of the Act in that it engaged in, and induced and
encouraged individuals employed by PPG to engage 'in, a
strike or refusal to perform services for PPG at the O'Fallon
jobsite, objects of which acts and conduct being (1) to force
and require Linclay to cease doing business with Maplewood;
(2) to force and require PPG to cease doing business with
Linclay; and (3) to force and require Maplewood to cease
2 Erwin D. Roesler, manager of construction for Linclay, testified that
this was a $3,500,000 project.
' All dates hereinafter are for 1970, unless specifically noted otherwise.
doing business with Raynor. All of these allegations are de-
nied by the Respondent. To the facts in connection with these
issues we will now turn.
First to be resolved is the status of Jack Bernsen, shop
steward for the glaziers in the employ of PPG." The Respond-
ent conceded that until about November 18,5 Bernsen was the
duly appointed shop steward for its members who were work-
ing for PPG. The Union denied, however, that in this office,
Bernsen was acting as its agent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act.
The collective-bargaining agreement between the Re-
spondent and PPG, in effect from November 1, 1968, until
October 31, 1971, has the following provision relevant to the
agency issue:
ARTICLE XXII
Shop Steward
The Company agrees to the right of the Union to
select a Shop Steward. The Shop Steward shall be se-
lected from among the employees of the Company, and
shall be a working Steward. The Steward shall be an
agent of the Union in the absence of the Business Repre-
sentative. The duty of the Shop Steward shall be to en-
force the provisions of this agreement. An employer can-
not discharge a Shop Steward without permission of a
joint conference committee consisting of two representa-
tives of the Employer and two representatives of the
Union. [Emphasis supplied.]
Each Employer will be notified by the Union as to who
the Shop Steward will be in that Employers Shop. At no
time will the Union appoint the last Glazier employed at
[sic] Shop Steward, except at shops there is only one
Glazier employee.
Ronald Brown, business agent for Local 513, testified that
any grievances arising on a job are referred to the steward first
and that it is the responsibility of the latter to resolve them,
if possible. In the event that the steward's efforts are unsuc-
cessful the matter is passed on to the business agent. Brown
further testified that:
. the steward more or less acts as the [business] agent
in the absence of the [business] agent and tries to settle
all grievances ... by himself, instead of involving the
whole union.
According to Brown, the executive board of the Union, se-
lects the steward for a shop and can remove him at any time.
From both the language of article XXII in the collective-
bargaining contract, quoted above, and from Brown's tes-
timony, it is clear that in the absence of Business Agent
Brown, the shop steward was an agent of the Union as to any
problems which the members wished to bring up on the job.
Since the steward also had to be a member of the employer's
workforce, by the very fact it was insured that he would be
present with the rest of the glaziers most of the time, in
contrast with the necessarily limited and infrequent visits to
ajobsite which the Union's business agent could make. Under
these circumstances, it is apparent that at all such times as the
business agent was not on the job, the steward was the
Union's representative and, as such, an agent of the Respond-
ent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 2067
(Batterman Construction, Inc.), 166 NLRB 532, 540; Sheet
The status of Ronald Brown, business agent for Local 513, was not in
dispute. In its answer, the Respondent conceded that at all times material
herein, Brown was its agent within the meaning of the Act.
' On that date, the Union removed Bersen as its steward and appointed
Jerry DeBold, another employee, to act in that capacity.
GLAZIERS LOCAL NO. 513 463
Metal Workers International Association, Local 299, AFL-
CIO (W. F Kisner, et al.), 134 NLRB 1202, 1210-11; Com-
bustion Engineering, Inc., 130 NLRB 184, 200, enfd. sub
nom., N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermak-
ers, Local 83, 321 F.2d 807, 810-811 (C.A. 8).
Erwin D. Roesler, manager of construction for Linclay,
testified that a day or two before PPG began work on the
O'Fallon job, Business Agent Brown telephoned to ask
whether Roesler realized that the overhead doors being in-
stalled at the jobsite were preglazed. According to Roesler,
after he acknowledged that he had no knowledge of this
matter, Brown told him that the sash work on those doors
"was glaziers' work and that the glaziers should have the
glazing of these doors." Roesler testified that he told Brown
that the doors had been glazed out of State and that, insofar
as he understood the jurisdictional rules of Brown's Interna-
tional Union, Local 513 had no claim to performing the
glazing work on the doors. According to Roesler, the conver-
sation was concluded when Brown stated that he wanted to
contact Maplewood about the matter and asked that Roesler
provide him the name and telephone number of the job fore-
man for that company.
On October 7, PPG started on the O'Fallon job. According
to Russell' G. Kelly, glazing superintendent for PPG, the
initial crew consisted of three glaziers. These were Jack
Bernsen , the shop steward, James Williams, and Charles
Wade. Kelly testified that, in addition to being the union
steward, Bernsen was "in charge of the job" for PPG. He
explained that although Bernsen received no extra compensa-
tion for this responsibility, the latter was the one on whom
he relied to lay out the work involved and give the other
members of the crew the proper assignments.
According to Kelly, on the afternoon of October 8,
Bernsen telephoned him to ask what he knew about the over-
head doors that Maplewood was installing at the O'Fallon
site, and why there was no union label on the preglazed sash.
Kelly testified that Bernsen stated that he planned to talk
with Business Agent Brown about the matter, and that he, in
turn, urged that Bernsen do so, telling him at the time that
he (Kelly) was confident that Bernsen would find that what-
ever problem the steward envisaged could be resolved. At the
hearing Kelly testified that when he himself learned that
Maplewood had preglazed doors on the jobsite he realized
that PPG would have some problem with its glaziers because
he knew from past experience that they would refuse to work
on a job where preglazed work was being installed.
Kelly credibly testified that on the afternoon of October 8
he also received a telephone call from Business Agent Brown
who stated that he had "to find out if they (the overhead
doors) are union glazed" and who told Kelly that "we have
to get this straightened out." According to Kelly, he assured
Brown that whatever problem the business agent envisaged
could be "straightened out." Kelly testified that in conclud-
ing their conversation, Brown stated "That either he'd find
out about the preglazed sash or ... he would have to get off
the job."
On October 9, a Friday, PPG worked at the O'Fallon site
in the morning, but that afternoon Superintendent Kelly
called all the glaziers back to the shop for a meeting on safety.
Bernsen testified that while at this meeting he was asked by
one of the other glaziers whether he was on the O'Fallon job,
and, after answering in the affirmative, he volunteered the
comment that "I am not going to be there any more, though."
Bernsen testified that when his coworker then inquired as to
the reason for this statement he told him that it was because
"I saw some preglazed sash out there and I wasn 't going to
work on it myself." Other glaziers heard Bernsen talking
about this issue at the Safety meeting. James Whitelaw, a PPG
employee who was present that day and who subsequently
refused to work on the O'Fallon job, testified that he first
learned that preglazed sash was being used in the construc-
tion of the Western Auto warehouse when he heard Bernsen
talking about it at this safety meeting.
Bernsen, a member of the Union for 22 years, stated at the
hearing "I don't like to work on preglazed job." On cross-
examination and when asked about certain testimony he had
given at the injunction hearing in the Federal District Court,
he conceded that the last time he had worked on a job where
there were preglazed doors had been some 15 years earlier.
The following Monday, October 12, was a paid holiday for
the members of Local 513 and no work was performed that
day. Kelly testified that he notified Bernsen and Williams that
they were to return to the O'Fallon job when work was
resumed on the morning of October 13. According to Kelly,
soon thereafter, Bernsen telephoned to ask whether anything
had been "straightened out"6 as to the overhead doors which
Maplewood was installing. Kelly testified that after telling
Bernsen that there had been no further discussion with Busi-
ness Agent Brown since the preceding Thursday, Shop Stew-
ard Bemsen told him "Either get it straightened out or I am
going to have to get off the job."
On October 13, neither Bemsen or Williams reported for
work at the O'Fallon site. Bernsen testified that the night
before he telephoned Business Agent Brown, told him that he
was not going to work on the O'Fallon job any more and
inquired as to whether there was any other work which he
could have. Brown thereupon assigned him to another con-
struction project in the area which was described in the
record as the Venture Store job. Bernsen testified that there-
after, in discussing the subject with Williams, his coworker,
he stated that he was not going to do any further work on the
O'Fallon job and that Williams could "do what you want."
Brown testified that in his conversation with Bernsen' he told
the steward "You should work on it [the O'Fallon job] but
it is up to you." Brown further testified that Williams called
him that same evening to inquire about the glazing on the
Maplewood doors and that he also urged Williams to go back
to work on the O'Fallon job, but that he concluded their
conversation with the comment "Of course, it is up to you
whether you do or not.... "
Kelly credibly testified that on the afternoon of October 13
he talked with Bernsen as to why he had not reported for duty
on the O'Fallon job. The steward at first told the superinten-
dent that he was sick, but later acknowledged that he had
been working at another construction project that day. Ac-
cording to Kelly, he then told Bernsen that he wanted to
assign him back to the O'Fallon job for work the following
morning, but the latter thereupon declared that he would
refuse to go there again.
Subsequent to October 13, Kelly was unable to induce any
of his glaziers, all of whom were members of Local 513, to
work on the O'Fallon project, until after entry of the injunc-
tive decree. In a conversation with Business Agent Brown on
October 13, Kelly told him that the glaziers were refusing to
work on the O'Fallon job. Brown testified that when Kelly
told him in this discussion that the crew had walked off the
job he was unable to understand why and could only suggest
that Kelly assign some other men to the O'Fallon site.
Kelly made no attempt to assign anyone to the Western
Auto job for 2 or 3 weeks. Then he scheduled employees
Harry' Weber and Donald Gerken to work there. Both
6 The quotation is from Kelly's credited testimony.
' According to Brown, he had this telephone conversation with Bernsen
one evening during the period October 9 to 13, but he could not fix the
precise date of their discussion.
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
refused to go. About a week later, Kelly assigned two other
glaziers, James Whitelaw and Lester Jackson, but they like-
wise declined. At the hearing Whitelaw testified that he
refused to go to the Western Auto job because he would not
"work on a job with preglazed sash on it." Both Whitelaw
and Jackson had been at the PPG safety meeting on October
9, at which time Steward Bernsen had announced that he was
not returning to the O'Fallon job because preglazed sash was
being used on the site. As found earlier, Whitelaw conceded
that he had heard the foregoing remarks by Bernsen. White-
law had been a member of Local 513 for 8 years. He testified
that during that period he had worked with preglazed sash
on only one occasion.'
Kelly testified that after Whitelaw and Jackson refused to
work at the O'Fallon site, he talked with "just about all of
them [the glaziers]" working for PPG, but that he was unable
to find anyone who would work there. In fact, as noted ear-
lier, no glaziers returned to the Western Auto job until after
the entry of the injunction on November 25.
In a telegram dated November 13, Business Agent Brown
sent the following message to Bernsen and the other 14 galzi-
ers in the employ of PPG:
IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH SIGNED COLLECTIVE BAR-
GAINING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH PPG INDUSTRIES,
GLAZIERS AND GLASS WORKERS LOCAL UNION 513 IS
INSTRUCTING YOU TO REPORT AND PERFORM SERVICES
AT THE WESTERN AUTO ST CHARLES CENTER, O'FAL-
LON, MO., CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LINCLAY CORP OF
AMERICA GENERAL CONTRACTOR, PPG INDUSTRIES,
SUBCONTRACTOR, IF AND WHEN YOU ARE ASSIGNED TO
THIS PROJECT
As is evident from a reading of the above, the text of this
telegram did not caution the members that the Union would
discipline them in any manner should they continue to refuse
to perform services for PPG, nor did it refer in any manner
to the fact that the Union might be sued because of their
conduct. As found earlier, on the next Monday after the
Union sent the preceding message to the PPG employees,
Superintendent Kelly sought to dispatch union members
Whitelaw and Jackson to the O'Fallon job, but both declined
to go.
In a letter dated November 19, Business Agent Brown
informed PPG that employee Jerry DeBold had been ap-
pointed the Union's steward for the glaziers at PPG. At the
hearing, Brown testified that the executive board of Local 513
removed Bernsen because he would not follow "our instruc-
tions."' Brown, however, did not elaborate on how Bernsen
had failed to follow any instructions of Local 513 which
would have encouraged its members to work at the O'Fallon
jobsite. Article XXII of the collective-bargaining agreement
between PPG and Local 513 specifically provides that a stew-
ard may be discharged only with the permission of a joint
conference committee made up of equal representatives of
both the Union and the Employer. Superintendent Kelly tes-
tified, credibly, that no one from Local 513 ever informed him
that the Union would support an employer demand that
Bernsen be dismissed. Bernsen, of course, as found above, had
refused to work on the O'Fallon project on October 13 and
at all times thereafter. Nevertheless, over a month elapsed
8 This one instance had occurred at what was known in the record as the
Lustre-Lite job. According to Business Agent Brown, on that job a dispute
arose as to certain preglazing that had been done on the materials being
used, and the Union made a demand for the work Brown testified that the
dispute was settled after the employer acquiesced in the Union's demand
that the glazing work in question be done at the jobsite
' The quotation is from Brown's testimony.
before Local 513 removed him as steward, allegedly for fail-
ure to follow the Union's instructions.
On October 30, Linclay filed the charge which initiated the
present proceeding. Thereafter the General Counsel filed a
petition in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri for an injunction against Local 513 pursuant to
Section 10(1) of the act. On November 19, that Court issued
an order directing that the Union appear for a hearing on
November 25 and show cause why it should not be enjoined
as the General Counsel prayed in the aforesaid petition. In
view of the foregoing chronology, it is the conclusion of the
Trial Examiner that the issuance of the Court's order to show
cause had more to do with the Union's announcement of
Bernsen's removal than any alleged failure on Bernsen's part
to follow instructions from Local 513.
Even before the PPG glaziers arrived on the O'Fallon site,
Business Agent Brown contacted Roesler, construction
manager for Linclay, to protest that, the Raynor doors which
Maplewood was then installing were preglazed and to assert
that"... this was the glaziers' work and ... the glaziers
should have the glazing of these doors." For approximately
2% days, on and after October 7, and until noon on October
9, the Respondent's members worked on the Western Auto
job. Then, at the safety meeting which PPG held for its
glaziers on the afternoon of the latter date, Shop Steward
Bernsen discussed the use of preglazed sash on the O'Fallon-
job with his coworkers and announced that because of this
fact he would not work there any longer. This conduct on
Bernsen's part was followed on October 13, the next working
day, by his refusal to report for duty at the Western Auto site.
Thereafter, and until the entry of the aforementioned Federal
Court order, neither Bernsen nor any other glazier in the
employ of PPG would accept an assignment to work on the
Western Auto site. When Superintendent Kelly protested to
Business Agent Brown that the employees were refusing to
work on this job, the latter professed an inability to under-
stand this development. Although Brown testified that he
thereafter told Bernsen that he should report for any work
that PPG assigned him even from his own testimony, it ap-
pears that Brown also told the steward that the decision as
to what to do was "up to him." Moreover, when Bernsen
refused to work for Superintendent Kelly on October 13,
Brown not only made no effort to penalize him for this action,
he promptly found other work for Bernsen at the Venture
Store, another construction project. Under its contract with
Local 513, PPG could not discharge or discipline Bernsen for
failure to comply with the orders of Superintendent Kelly
unless the Union concurred. It was undenied that no one
from Local 513 ever advised Kelly that he was free to disci-
pline Bernsen for his refusal to perform his assigned duties on
the O'Fallon job.
Business Agent Brown conceded that the Union claims the
right to do all glazing at a jobsite and when an employer
resists this claim, the Union customarily protests and at times
this includes a refusal on the part of the members to perform
any work until an adjustment is made. Superintendent Kelly
testified that when he learned about the presence of preglazed
sash on the O'Fallon job he knew from past experience that
the glaziers "would refuse to work the job.... "
At one point during the hearing, Brown testified that in a
conversation with Kelly on about October 13 or 14, he told
the superintendent that he could not understand why the
glaziers had walked off the Western Auto site. This statement
is incredible. Even before PPG arrived at the jobsite, Brown
had served notice on Roesler, Linclay's superintendent, that
Local 513 would make an issue of the fact that Maplewood,
as a subcontractor, was using preglazed sash. Promptly there-
after Shop Steward Bernsen proceeded to demonstrate con-
GLAZIERS LOCAL NO. 513 465
cern about the same matter. Later, at the safety meeting for
the PPG glaziers, Bernsen discussed the problem with his
coworkers and declared that because of the preglazed sash on
the Western Auto site he himself would do no further work
there. Steward Bernsen's declaration to this effect was notice
enough to the others present as to what a loyal union member
should do.'° By this conduct and by his subsequent refusal on
October 13 to accept an assignment to the O'Fallon job,
Bernsen was putting into effect the very action which Busi-
ness Agent Brown had threatened when on October 8 he told
Superintendent Kelly that the "problem" of the preglazed
sash on the Western Auto site would have to be "straightened
out" or "he would have to get off the job."
Business Agent Brown testified that on about October 13,
Attorney Levine, counsel for the Union, advised Brown that
he would have to tell the men "they have to go on that job
or we are in trouble." Notwithstanding this advice, Brown
allowed a full month to elapse without taking any concrete
steps to terminate the work stoppage. Then, on November 13
he sent telegrams to the PPG employees urging that they
return to work and on November 19 he notified PPG that the
Union had replaced Bernsen as the steward. Most significant
in this chronology is the fact that on the last mentioned date
the Respondent was served with a District Court order to
show cause as to why the General Counsel's petition for
injunctive relief should not be granted. From this it is appar-
ent that only the likelihood of a Federal Court order caused
the Respondent to put forth any effort at getting its members
back on the O'Fallon job. Even then, on the basis of the
findings set forth above, it is the conclusion of the Trial
Examiner that the telegrams which Brown sent to the PPG
employees and the Union's subsequent removal of Bernsen as
its steward were "meaningless except to give the appearance
of compliance with the Act." Local 1016, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters & Joiners (Booher Lumber Co., Inc.) 117
NLRB 1739, 1748, enfd. as to this point, 273 F.2d 686 (C.A.
2).
As the Union's agent on the jobsite, Bernsen had a duty to
remonstrate with any employee who threatened to walk off
the job for one of the proscribed objectives. Combustion Engi-
neering, Inc., 130 NLRB 184, 200, enfd. sub nom., N.L.R.B.
v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 83, 321
F.2d 807, 810-811 (C.A. 8). Far from doing that, Bernsen, by
his acts and conduct, led the way for his coworkers and fellow
members to engage in a strike. Local No. 789 International
Hod Carriers, etc. (Doyle and Russell), 125 NLRB 571, 573.
Thereafter the Respondent manifested its acquiescence and
approval of Bernsen's strike activity by referring its shop
steward to another job when he announced that he would not
work on the O'Fallon project for PPG. Millwrights Local
1102, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners (Dobson
Heavy Haul Inc.), 152 NLRB 217, 218. enfd. 403 F.2d 219
(C.A.6).11
In view of the foregoing findings, the Trial Examiner con-
cludes that the Respondent was well aware that its members
were refusing to perform services for PPG and that it ac-
quiesced in and ratified this strike action . On this record, it
is likewise clear that amont the objects of this conduct were:
(1) to force PPG to cease doing business with Linclay because
the latter had subcontracted the installation of preglazed
overhead doors to Maplewood ; (2) to force Linclay to cease
doing business with Maplewood because Maplewood was in-
stalling the doors ; and (3) to force Maplewood to cease doing
business with Raynor , the manufacturer of the preglazed
doors. Under these circumstances , and in the light of the
findings set forth above, the Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that, since about October 13, 1970, the Respondent
engaged in and induced and encouraged its members to en-
gage in a refusal to perform services and restrained and co-
erced Linclay, PPG, and Maplewood for the purpose of forc-
ing or requiring one person in commerce to cease doing
business with other persons in commerce , and that the Re-
spondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. PPG, Linclay, and Maplewood are, and at all times
material herein have been, engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent, Local 513, is a labor organization, and
Ronald Brown and Jack Bernsen were, at all times material,
its agents within the meaning of the Act.
3. By inducing or encouraging individuals employed by
persons engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting
commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services,
and by coercing or restraining persons engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forc-
ing or requiring PPG to cease doing business with Linclay,
forcing or requiring Linclay to cease doing business with
Maplewood, and forcing or requiring Maplewood to cease
doing business with Raynor, Respondent has violated Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend
that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire
record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial
Examiner hereby issues the following recommended:
10 See, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local
2067 (Batterman Construction, Inc.), 166 NLRB 532, 540, where the Board
said.
A steward is the first union representative the members look to, and
the man from whom they take their cues insofar as union policy is
concerned, when a labor dispute arises on the job; he is expected to
know both their rights and responsibilities under the contract between
the union and their employer and their rights and responsibilities as
union members. This places the steward in a position where he carries
a duty both to the union and its members whom he serves and to the
contracting employer to exercise great care to see that he carries out
those duties in a manner commensurate with such responsibility.
11 See International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, CIO,
Local 6 (Sunset Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487, at 1508, where
the Board stated, `But the principal's consent, technically called authoriza-
ORDER12
Respondent, Glaziers & Glassworkers Local No. 513, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
tion or ratification, may be manifested by conduct, sometimes even passive
acquiescence, as well as words Authority to act as agent in a given manner
will be implied whenever the conduct of the principal is such as to show that
he actually intended to confer that authority.
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging individuals
employed by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, or by any
other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affect-
ing commerce , to engage in strikes or refusals in the course
of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods , articles, materials,
or commodities , or perform services; and from threatening,
coercing, or restraining Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company,
Linclay Corporation of America , Maplewood Mill, or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where, in either case, an object thereof is to force
or require Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company , or any other
person , to cease doing business with Linclay Corporation of
America, or to force or require Lmclay Corporation of
America to cease doing business with Maplewood Mill, or to
force or require Maplewood Mill to cease doing business with
Raynor Corporation.
(b) In any manner, or by any means, including picketing,
orders, directions , instructions , requests or appeals , however
given, made or imparted or by any like or related acts or
conduct, by permitting any such to remain in existence or
effect, engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual
employed by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company , or by any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his
employment to use, manufacture , process, transport, or oth-
erwise handle or work on any goods , articles, materials or
commodities or to perform any service , or in any manner or
by any means threatening, coercing or restraining Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company, Linclay Corporation of America, Ma-
plewood Mill, or any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce , where in either case an
object thereof is to force or require Linclay Corporation of
America to cease doing business with Maplewood Mill or to
force or require Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to cease
doing business with Linclay Corporation of America or to
force or require Maplewood Mill to cease doing business with
Raynor Corporation.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in Respondent's business office and meeting halls
in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix ." 13 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the
Regional Director for Region 14 for posting by each of the
employers named in the preceding paragraphs , if they be
willing, at all places where notices to their respective em-
ployees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.14
" In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in a strike, or induce or encour-
age individuals employed by Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company, or any other person engaged in commerce, or
in an industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike,
or a refusal in the course of their employment to use,
manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise handle or
work on any goods , materials, articles , or commodities,
or to perform any services , nor will we threaten, coerce,
or restrain the above-named Employer , or any other
person , where an object thereof , is to force or require
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to cease doing business
with Linclay Corporation of America , or to force or
require Linclay Corporation of America to cease doing
business with Maplewood Mill, or to force or require
Maplewood Mill to cease doing business with Raynor
Corporation.
GLAZIERS &
LOCAL No. 513
(Labor Organization)
Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by Dated By
the Respondent 's authorized representative , shall be posted
by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
" In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of
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 Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
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, 210
North 12th Boulevard , Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101,
Telephone 314-622-4167.