Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 5

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 339 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 5 339
(d) All production and maintenance employees excluding any craft
units heretofore certified by the National Labor Relations Board
(such as electricians, carpenters, and bricklayers), employees in vot-
ing groups (a) through (c), and all supervisory, technical and clerical
employees, gatemen, office clerical employees, guards, and watchmen
as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in any of voting groups (a) through
(c) select the union seeking that group as a separate unit, those em-
ployees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a
separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the
elections is hereby instructed to issue a certification of representation
to such union for such voting group, which the Board under the
circumstances finds to be an appropriate unit for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. If a majority in all the foregoing voting groups
vote for separate representation, and if a majority in voting group
(d) vote for Metal Workers, Mine-Mill, or for the Steelworkers, the
union winning the election shall be certified as the representative of
the employees in such group, which under these circumstances the
Board finds to be an appropriate unit.
However, if the majority of the employees in voting groups (a),
(-b), or (c) do not vote for the union which is seeking to represent
them in a separate unit, their ballots shall be pooled with those for
group (d).18 If a majority in the pooled group vote for Metal
Workers, Mine-Mill, or the Steelworkers, the winning union shall be
certified as the representative of employees in the pooled group, which
under those circumstances the Board finds to be an appropriate unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH, concurring :
I concur in the result.
'a If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner: The votes for
the labor organizations seeking separate units in any of the groups shall be counted as
valid votes but neither for nor against the labor organizations seeking to represent the
production and maintenance unit. All other votes are to be accorded their face value.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 5,
AFL-CIO and Jack C . Stemnock , Robert A. Stemnock and
Alex Stemnock , a Partnership , d/b/a Bethel Electric. Case No.
6-CC-300. March 16, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 1, 1963, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
146 NLRB No. 41.
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a
supporting brief, and an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
-this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision,' the exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications indicated herein?
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications :
1. The first paragraph of the Recommended Order is amended by
substituting the following paragraph :
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to 'Section
10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
ent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No.
5, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and
assigns, shall :
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a) of the Recommended
Order and the corresponding language in the Notice to be posted :
Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual em-
ployed by A. Loreti & Son, Copper Plumbing Company, Henry J.
1 The Trial Examiner's Decision contains certain inadvertences which are hereby cor-
rected, (a) Bethel Electric had no contractual arrangement with McBride Sign Company
or Sign Crafters Company, and (b) the plumbers and the sheet metal employees on the
construction site were not employed by the same subcontractor, but were employees of
Copper Plumbing and Henry J. 'Cooper, respectively.
2In adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent's conduct was in
violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (1) and (ii) (B) of the Act, Members Fanning and Brown do
not regard as controlling the circumstance that the Respondent picketed the jobsite at a
time when Bethel's employees were not physically present at the exact time of picketing
Dietz did not directly employ any employees on the project involved. Accordingly, we
all agree that the Respondent's threat to Dietz to picket the project to force Dietz to cease
doing business with Bethel Electric, which was an object of Respondent's other unlawful
conduct herein, was violative of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B), as found by the Trial Examiner,
but not of Section 8(b) (4)i(i) (B). Respondent's "hot cargo" agreement with Dietz is, of
course, no defense to its conduct herein. Orange Belt Distract Council of Painters #48,
et at. (Calhoun Drywall Company), 139 NLRB 383, 385, remanded on other grounds,
328 F. 2d 534 (C.A.D.C.).
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 5 341
Cooper, and McBride Sign Company, or any other employer other
than Bethel Electric, to engage in a strike or refusal in the
course of his employment to perform any services, where an
object thereof is to force or require Ivan A. Dietz Lumber, or
any other employer, to cease doing business with Bethel Electric.
3. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b) of the Recommended
Order and the corresponding language in the notice to be posted :
Threatening, coercing, or restraining Ivan A. Dietz Lumber,
A. Loreti & Son, Copper Plumbing Company, Henry J. Cooper,
and McBride Sign Company, or any other employer, where an
object thereof is to force or require Yvan A. Dietz Lumber, or any
other employer, to cease doing business with Bethel Electric.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , 29 U.S .C., Sec . 151, et seq ., herein called the Act.
Bethel Electric , a partnership comprised of Jack C . Stemnock , Robert A. Stem-
nock , and Alex Stemnock , on April 4 , 1963, filed a charge against International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No . 5, AFL-CIO, herein sometimes
called the Union or Local No . 5, in which it was asserted that the Union or its
agents were engaging in or had engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of some of the provisions of Section 8 (b) of the Act.
On April 30, 1963 , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
on behalf of the Board , by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, issued a
complaint and notice of hearing against the Respondent herein , the Union, alleging
that the Union , by its officers, agents, and representatives, engaged in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) of the Act.
On or about May 13, 1963 , the Respondent filed timely answer to the allegations
of the complaint , effectively denying the asserted violations of the Act , and setting
forth certain affirmative defenses , mentioned below.
Pursuant to notice, and on the issues framed by the complaint and the answer
thereto, this case came on to be heard before Trial Examiner Arthur E . Reyman
at Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , on June 10, 1963 . At the hearing, counsel for the
General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent appeared on behalf of their re-
spective clients. At the hearing each party was afforded opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, present pertinent evidence, make oral
argument , and to file written briefs and proposed findings and conclusions , or both.
Briefs filed on behalf of each of the parties have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The Charging Party, Bethel Electric , at all times material hereto, has had its
sole office and place of business in Bethel Park , Pennsylvania, where it was and is
engaged in the electrical contracting business . During the 12-month period im-
mediately preceding April 1, 1963, Bethel Electric purchased and received materials
and supplies valued at $51 ,738.73, from various suppliers who, themselves, pur-
chased and received said materials directly from manufacturers located outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . In connection with the construction of a Mc-
Donald Carry Out Restaurant in Bethel Park , Pennsylvania , McBride Sign Com-
pany has a contract to install an electric sign constructed by Sign Crafters Company,
Evansville, Indiana, having a value of $9,600, which sign was shipped directly from
the State of Indiana to the above-mentioned construction job in Bethel Park. Also
in connection with the construction of the McDonald Carry Out Restaurant in
Bethel Park , various other . secondary employers have contracts to install material,
including exhaust fans , ventilators and ceramic tile, received directly from outside
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , having is total of $2 ,896.28 . Bethel Electric
has at all times material herein , and is now, engaged in commerce and in an industry
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Ivan A. Dietz is, and during the times material hereto was, a general contractor
in the building and construction industry, maintaining his principal place of busi-
ness in Uniontown , Pennsylvania, and is currently engaged as general contractor in
the construction of the McDonald Carry Out Restaurant , in Bethel Park, Pennsyl-
vania. In connection with the construction of this food stand, Dietz has sub-
contracted all the work on said food stand to various subcontractors , including,
among others, A. Loreti & Son , Copper Plumbing Company, Henry J . Cooper, and
McBride Sign Company, and in addition thereto has subcontracted the electrical
work on such project to Bethel Electric . All of the aforenamed subcontractors
maintain their principal offices and places of business in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and are persons (within the meaning of the Act) engaged in the
building and construction industry, and industry affecting commerce.
In connection with the tabove-described construction , McBride Sign Company,
as stated, has a contract to install an electrical sign constructed by Sign Crafters
Company of Evansville, Indiana, such installation to be made under the terms of the
contract between it and Bethel Electric.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The essential facts in this case are not measurably in dispute, insofar as the
main issues may be concerned . Preliminarily , there should be noted the existence
of a standard collective-bargaining agreement , effective during the times mentioned
herein, between members of the Building and Construction Trades Council of
Pittsburgh and Vicinity, affiliated with the AFL-CIO (of which Local No. 5 is
a member ) and Ivan A. Dietz, General Contractors , which provides in part:
2. The Employer further agrees that he will restrict subcontract work at
the site of the construction , alteration, painting , or repair of a building, struc-
ture, or other work .to subcontractors who are under contractual relations with
the appropriate respective unions which are affiliated with the Council.
The complaint alleges in substance that Local No. 5 violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i)
and (ii )( B) "by picketing and other inducement and encouragement to individuals
employed by various employers" at the construction of the McDonald Food Stand
in Bethel Park, to cease performing services for "the respective employers"; and
also threatened , coerced , and restrained various employers engaged in work at this
jobsite with an object to force , either directly or indirectly , said employers to cease
doing business with Bethel Electric. The complaint further sets forth that Bethel
Electric, the primary employer , was picketed by Local No . 5 or its representatives
or agents with the object of forcing and requiring Dietz "and other persons" to
cease using, selling , handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of
or to cease doing business with Bethel Electric; and to force other subcontractors
of Dietz, including A. Loreti & Son , Copper Plumbing Company, Henry J. Cooper,
and McBride Sign Company "and other persons" to cease doing business with
Dietz, the general contractor , in order "to force or require Dietz to cease doing
business with Bethel."
The Respondent , in its answer to the complaint , admits that on or about April 2,
1963, Local No . 5, authorized and stationed two men carrying picket signs at the
construction project site, but denies that it "has induced and encouraged " the em-
ployees of Loreti and the other subcontractors then engaged on the job or "any
other persons" engaged in commerce to cease or refrain from performing services
for their respective employers . In its answer Respondent sets forth and avers that
the legend on the picket sign carried by the said pickets read specifically that "it is
not intended by this picket line to induce or encourage the employees of any
employer to engage in a strike or concerted work stoppage ." Further, in its answer,
the Respondent-
denies that on or about March 26, 1963, or at any time theretofore or
thereafter , the Respondent . . . threatened , coerced or restrained . Dietz,
Loreti . . . or any other persons . by threatening to picket, and picketing
such persons if they continued to do business with Dietz and Bethel.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 5 343
On the contrary, Respondent avers, that through its representative, the Respondent
called to the attention of Dietz and his representative the fact that on October 28,
1960, Dietz had executed-
an Agreement with the Building and Construction Trades Council of Pittsburgh
and Vicinity, AFL-CIO . . . which Agreement was then and there in full
force and effect... .
Respondent avers further in its answer that: it called to the attention of Dietz and
his representative that Bethel Electric was not under contractual relations with
the Respondent; the Respondent is is union affiliated with the Council; it urged,
appealed to, and attempted to persuade Dietz and his representative to fulfill the
obligations that Dietz had undertaken to perform under the said Agreement; it
informed Dietz and his representative that if Dietz continued to breach the terms
of the said Agreement, Respondent would station informational pickets at the
construction job site who would advertise the fact that the electrical work on the
job was being performed under substandard wages and working conditions. The
Respondent in its answer denied it communicated in any manner with Loreti or any
other subcontractor, and denies that it threatened or is threatening any subcontractor
of Dietz or any other persons if they continue to do business with Dietz or Bethel
Electric. It was stipulated or agreed to among parties during the course of the
hearing that the placard carried by the pickets was approximately 24 by 36 inches in
size; that the words "we protest" were in red letters on a black background and
that all of the language therein contained was as follows:
WE PROTEST:
The Electrical Work on this job is being done under sub-
standard wages and conditions. It is not intended by this
picket line to induce or encourage employees of any employer
to engage in a strike or work stoppages.
I.B.E.W. Local 5, AFL-CIO
The Picketing
Clarence T. Dietz, general manager of Ivan A. Dietz, testified to the existence
of the contract in which Dietz as general contractor subcontracted the certain
work, above mentioned; and he confirmed the testimony later given by other
witnesses that the contract of Bethel Electric, a subcontractor, is limited to the
electrical work within the building under construction.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Clarence T. Dietz, Bethel Electric
began work on March 26, 1963; that on that day Henry Wolff, assistant business
agent of Local No. 5 called him on the telephone and informed him, Dietz, that
there was a "non-union" electrical contractor on the job and called the attention
of Dietz to the agreement between the Building Trades Council and Dietz to hire
only union subcontractors. Dietz informed Wolff at this time that he was not
aware of the fact that Bethel Electric was nonunion, but would "check into it."
Thereafter Dietz talked to Playford Mathews, his general superintendent or fore-
man, told him about the conversation with Wolff, and then communicated with
Robert Stemnock of Bethel Electric to inquire whether or not Wolff's report as to
Bethel's being nonunion was correct. Dietz said further that he requested Robert
Stemnock not to do any more work on the job until the situation was straightened
out. Further, according to Dietz, Robert Stemnock told him that he remembered
Stemnock saying that his men wanted into the Union and would join the Union.
Thereafter Clarence T. Dietz talked to Wolff on the telephone on March 27, again
on March 28, and then again on the following Monday, April 1. In the last conversa-
tion prior to April 1, he said,
he [Wolff] told me that Bethel Electric had been back on the job, which
I told him I had no recollection of, or did not know that they had been on the
job since my previous conversation with Mr. Wolff; and that if he would
call me at the office around 5:30, on Monday, that date would have been .
April 1, a Monday, that I would have some information from Mr. Wolff, which
he did. He called me and told me that if we did not get Bethel Electric off
the job, that he was going to have to put pickets on. I told him- Bethel would
not be back on the job until we had got this straightened out. That was the
end of our conversation on Monday.
Employees of Bethel Electric did not work on Friday, March 29, having left
work at 12 noon on the previous day. Bethel Electric employees did work on
Saturday, March 30, and Monday, April 1, when no other trade union employees
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performed any work on the, construction job. On Monday , April 1 , Wolff again
requested Dietz to have Bethel Electric taken off the job, to which Dietz agreed,
and thereupon Wolff agreed to have no picket placed on or near the jobsite. On
April 2, Bethel Electric performed no work on the job but, on that day, Wolff came
to the job and told Foreman Mathews that he understood that Bethel Electric had
performed work over the weekend and that there would be pickets on the job the
following morning . Wolff also told Mathews that if Bethel Electric performed any
more work .it would be necessary to have it taken out "in order to have it done by
union contractors."
As shown by the pleadings and by the uncontradicted testimony of witnesses in
this case, on the morning of April 3, 1963, three plumbers employed by a subcon-
tractor and the sheet metal employees employed by the same subcontractor were
at work on the job, even though pickets at that time were on the premises where
the construction was being performed . It also is clear within the record herein
that Wolff appeared at the job, approached the plumbers ' helpers and spoke to
them and they immediately ceased work; it is clear enough, too, that Wolff approached
a sheet metal employee, spoke to him, and that the employee later stopped work
and left the job.
Employees of McBride Company, who were to supply the outside electrical ad-
vertising for the Company on this day , appeared on the job to erect arches and
perimeter arches and perimeter lighting which had been delivered to the jobsite by
truck from Kentucky ; the truck, still loaded , was at the site when Wolff was said
to have engaged the truckdriver in conversation and, according to the testimony
of Robert Stemnock , he observed a truckdriver accompanied by Wolff go to a
telephone , and that when he returned from his office in an hour or so the McBride
sign truck was there, but that no work after the telephone call or his return was
performed by employees of McBride on that day. The construction and erection of
the sign was not started until after picketing was halted on approximately April 19.
During the interval, the sign material had been returned to storage in Pittsburgh.
As noted, picketing continued for some 2 or 3 weeks during which there was no
work whatsoever performed on the job. According to the testimony of Foreman
Mathews, no work was performed on the jobsite by -any subcontractor after April 3.
According to the testimony of Robert Stemnock , which I find to be uncontradicted
in full substance , pickets displayed their placards each day at the jobsite for approxi-
mately 2 or 3 weeks after the last day that the electricians employed by Bethel
Electric worked on April 3.1
The facts disclose that Bethel Electric was the only nonunion subcontractor on
this construction project , and the statements made by Business Agent Wolff to Dietz
and Superintendent Mathews show that the controversy was based or was caused
because of the presence of Bethel Electric on the job and the installation by it of
the inside wiring. Although there were minor differences between Dietz and Local
No. 5 in regard to the obligations undertaken by Dietz under its agreement with
the Union , it is clear enough that the real dispute was with Bethel Electric and
that Bethel Electric is the primary employer. Orange Belt District Council of
Painters #48, et al. (Calhoun Drywall Company ), 139 NLRB 383 ; John E. Martin,
et al., doing business as Sound Shingle Co., 101 NLRB 1159 ; International Long-
shoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO, et al. (Board of Harbor Commissioners), 137
NLRB 1178 , 1183. In the last cited case, the Board wrote:
It is apparent, therefore , that, in secondary boycott cases , the crucial question
is not the relationship between the striking employees and the struck employer,
but rather whether the struck employer is the employer with whom the union
has its primary dispute.
Here, I find that the picketing was at a primary jobsite, and , as I have stated, that
the dispute was between Local No. 5 and Bethel Electric.
Even though the dispute here, as I have found , is based upon the facts surrounding
the objections made by Local No. 5 to Bethel Electric doing any work whatsoever
on the job, the fact remains that the dispute between Local No. 5 and Bethel Electric
did affect and now affects the general contractor and the other subcontractors.
The evidence forces the fact to be that the union business representative, in his
conversations with Clarence Dietz, proves that Foreman Mathews indicated that the
cause of his (Wolff's ) threat to picket the jobsite was the fact that Bethel was a
1 About 2 weeks after the inception of picketing the National Labor Relations Board
filed a petition for an injunction whereupon a stipulation was entered into under which
Local No 5 agreed that it would not engage in any further picketing , pending the dis-
position of this proceeding before the Board.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 5 345
nonunion subcontractor, in the sense that Bethel Electric did not employ members
of Local No. 5. The fact that work remained to be done on April 3, after the
union business representatives spoke to employees engaged in plumbing and sheet
metal work, and that they left the job, together with the additional fact that the
truckdrivers who delivered the outside electrical equipment by (truck did not unload
their trucks, but that the signs or equipment were put into storage, is conclusive
evidence that Local No. 5's representative extended his protest made to Dietz and
Mathews to active affirmative action resulting in a work stoppage on the whole
construction project.
It is contended on behalf of Local No. 5 that the Union was merely engaged in
informational picketing. Great stress is placed on the clause on its pickets' sign
stating that it did not mtend to induce or encourage a work stoppage. The proof,
however, is in direct conflict with these contentions. On the morning that the
picketing started (April 3), three plumbers' helpers and one sheet metal worker,
employees respectively of the subcontractors for plumbing and sheet metal work,
did apparently take the slogan on the picket sign at its face value and began to
work. However, after the union representative spoke to them they ceased work.
Business Agent Wolff testified at the hearing, but did not contradict the testimony
with respect to this conduct of his on the morning of April 3. Nor did he contradict
the statement of Mathews that the job would be picketed and shut down because
Bethel Electric had been working on the job in violation of the agreement between
Dietz and the Trades Council. In, all the circumstances, I find that Local No. 5,
through its Business Agent Wolff, induced or encouraged the • employees of the
secondary employers to cease work.
There is testimony in the record by witnesses called by the Respondent who acted
as pickets on and after April 3, to the effect that picket patrols operated only when
the employees at Bethel Electric were on the job. The pleadings and the weight of
the testimony to opposite effect is corroborated by testimony of two of the partners
of Bethel Electric. I think that the General Counsel is correct when he says that
the corroborated testimony to the effect that Bethel Electric did not perform any
work after April 3, taken in connection with the admission by the witnesses of the
Respondent that they did patrol the picket sites at 'the jobsite, together with the
activities of Wolff, clearly shows that the picketing was not particularly restricted
only to the times when Bethel Electric was on the job. Actually the work done by
Bethel Electric employees prior to noon on the day of April 3, was done before the
pickets were put on patrol.
Therefore, I find that Union Agent Wolff threatened Dietz with a work stoppage,
where an object thereof was to force Dietz to cease doing business with Bethel
Electric unless the latter complied with the demands of Local No. 5 to assign the
inside electrical wiring work on the construction project to its members. This
threat, having an unlawful object, constituted a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (B) of the Act. The Bert: Company, 143 NLRB 872. .
Concluding Findings
The Respondent asserts, and I agree, that the complaint in substance charges
that (1) the Respondent induced and encouraged employees of the various sub-
contractors on the job to engage in a strike or a refusal to perform services for
their respective employers, the object being to force or require Dietz to cease doing
business with Bethel; and (2) the Respondent threatened to coerce and restrain
various persons engaged in commerce where an object thereof was to force or require
the said persons to cease doing business with other persons, or to force Dietz to
cease doing business with Bethel Electric. Upon complete examination of this
record, I believe the General Counsel has fully sustained the allegations presented
by him in his complaint; it follows, that the denials set out by the Respondent in
answer to the complaint and the affirmative defenses contained therein, must be
considered as insufficient to meet the proof presented in support of the allegations
of the complaint.
In applying what I understand to be the law to the facts as found by me herein,
consideration has been given to the following cases: Local 1291, International Long-
shoremen's Association and International Longshoremen's Association (Pennsyl-
vania Sugar Division, National Sugar Refining Company), 142 NLRB 257;
Cuyahoga, Lake, Geauga and Ashtabula Counties Carpenters District Council United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (The Bert! Company), 143
NLRB 872; Cleveland Construction Corp., 134 NLRB 586; International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Local 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc.), 142 NLRB 1106; Houston
Building and Construction Trades Council (Claude Everett Construction Cam-
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pany ), 136 NLRB 321 ; Calumet Contractors Association , et at., 133 NLRB 512;
Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 299, et al. (S. M.
Kisner, et al., d/b/a S. M . Kisner and Sons ), 131 NLRB 1196 ; and the Moore Dry
Dock Company case, 92 NLRB 547, together with other cases cited by counsel in
brief and cases cited in footnotes to the cases considered . (At the request of counsel
for the Respondent , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
et at. (Franklin Electric Construction Company, et al.), 121 NLRB 143, has been
read and considered.)
In his brief, counsel for the General Counsel has urged the application of United
Marine Division, Local 333, International Longshoremen 's Association (Independ-
ent), et al. (New York Shipping Association ), 107 NLRB 686, to this case and
refers to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Local 1976,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters , etc. (Sand Door & Plywood Co.), 357 U.S. 93,
in connection with a "hot cargo" provision of the Act as applying in this particular
case and has discussed the legislative history of Section 8 (e). Unless the Respond-
ent was specifically charged in the complaint with an unfair labor practice arising
under Section 8(e), by causing the refusal of truckdrivers to complete delivery of
electric signs to the jobsite here mentioned, I am not required to pass upon a ques-
tion of violation of Section 8(e).
I find that the Respondent , Local No. 5, by picketing , induced employees of the
various secondary employers on the jobsite for the construction of the McDonald
Food Stand at Bethel Park , to cease work , and did threaten Dietz and its several
subcontractors , secondary employers , on the job, with an object of forcing said
employers and persons to cease doing business with Bethel Electric and in so doing
violated Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii) (B ) of the Act.
In the instant case, there is no doubt that , grounded upon the insistence that
the Respondent, Local No. 5, would not permit any employee of any subcontractor
of Dietz to work upon the job then under construction unless Bethel Electric was
barred from any participation of further participation therein that work on the job
was stopped . The actions of the business representative of the Respondent, Wolff,
clearly indicate an intention on the part of Local No . 5 to stop work on this con-
struction project unless Bethel Electric was fired by Dietz or, in other words, that
Dietz' contract with Bethel Electric on the subcontracting job to be done by Bethel
Electric was declared null and void and Local No . 5 members were allowed to come
in to do the job . I further find that as a result of the activities of the business agent
or representative of Local No . 5, construction work ceased through a withdrawal
of the employees of A. Loreti & Son, Copper Plumbing Company, Henry J . Cooper,
and McBride Sign Company , and that the contract to install an electric sign con-
structed for Bethel Electric could not be installed because of the activities of the
Respondent through its agent, Wolff.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities and conduct of the Respondent , Local No . 5, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, occurring in connection with the operations of Ivan
Dietz, a general contractor in the building and construction industry described in
section I , above , have a close , intimate , and substantial relation, to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States of the United States and lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free' flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii) (B ) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to remedy the
unfair labor practices and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Ivan Dietz , A. Loreti & Son, Copper Plumbing Company, Henry J. Cooper,
and McBride Sign Company and Bethel Electric (a partnership comprised of Jack
C. Stemnock, Robert A. Stemnock , and Alex Stemnock) are employers engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees of A. Loreti & Son, Copper Plumbing
Company, Henry J. Cooper, and McBride Sign Company to engage in strikes or
refusal in the course of their employment to perform services with the object of
forcing A. Loreti & Son, Copper Plumbing Company, Henry J. Cooper, and Mc-
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 5 347
Bride Sign Company to cease doing business with Dietz , the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections
8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By threatening , coercing , and restraining Ivan Dietz , A. Loreti & Son , Copper
Plumbing Company, Henry J. Cooper , and McBride Sign Company with an object
of requiring them to cease doing business with Bethel Electric, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii) (B ) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , it is recommended that the National Labor
Relations Board order that the Respondent herein , International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local No . 5, AFL-CIO, its officers , representatives , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in or inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Ivan Dietz,
A. Loreti & Son, Copper Plumbing Company, Henry J. Cooper , and McBride Sign
Company (hereinafter respectively called Dietz , Loreti , Plumbing, Cooper, and
McBride ), or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
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 to perform any services where an object thereof
is to force or require Dietz, Loreti , Plumbing, Cooper , and McBride , or any other
employer or person to cease doing business with Jack C. Stemnock , Robert A.
Stemnock , and Alex Stemnock , a partnership d/b/a Bethel Electric (hereinafter
called Bethel).
(b) Threatening , coercing , or restraining Dietz, Loreti, Plumbing , Cooper, and
McBride, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce , where an object is to force or require the aforementioned employers, or
any other person or persons, to cease doing business with Bethel Electric.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found is necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at the offices of the Respondent , its meeting halls,
and all places where notices to members are customarily posted , copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Sixth Region , shall , after being duly signed by authorized
representatives of the Respondent , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign nand mail sufficient copies to the Regional Director for the Sixth Region
for posting by each of the Employers named in the preceding paragraphs, where
willing, at all'places where notices customarily are posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region , in writing, within 10
days from the date of this Recommended Order , what steps the' Respondent has
taken to comply herewith .3
!!In the event this Recommended Order Is 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 . If the Board 's Order Is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" for the words "A Deci-
sion and Order."
3 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, In writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No . 5, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a 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, we hereby notify you that:
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage individuals employed by
Ivan Dietz , A. Loreti & Son , Copper Plumbing Company , Henry J . Cooper,
and McBride Sign Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce , to engage in, strikes or refusals in the
course of their employment to use, manufacture , process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, materials , articles, or commodities, or to
perform any services , where an object thereof is to force or require the
aforesaid employers or persons to cease doing business with Bethel Electric.
WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce, or restrain Ivan Dietz, A. Loreti & Son,
Copper Plumbing Company, Henry J. Copper , and McBride Sign Company,
or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where an object thereof is to force or require the aforesaid employers,
or any other employer or person , to cease doing business with Bethel Electric.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WoiucERs, LocAL No. 5, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------ ----- By--------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date of posting , and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 2107
Clark Building , 701-17 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania , Telephone No.
471-2977, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Weber Shoe Company and Boot and Shoe Workers Union, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 17-CA-2137. March 17, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 25,1963, Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed 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, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
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 entire
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision and the
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, In our opinion, the
record, including the exceptions and brief adequately presents the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties.
146 NLRB No. 40.