Lathers Local Union No. 252, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 550 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees concerning their member-
ship in and activities on behalf of Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No.
728, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that the plant will close should they
engage in activities on behalf of labor organization.
WE WILL NOT warn our employees that they cannot discuss union matters
or solicit on behalf of a labor organization at any time on the Company's
property.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees because
of their membership in or activity on behalf of Truck Drivers and Helpers
Local Union No. 728, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization, to form, join, or
assist Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 728, or any other organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their Own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective-bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer James H. Lyons immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and will make him whole for any loss he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
GREAT DANE TRAILERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify James H. Lyons if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act,
as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30323,
Telephone 526-5741.
Lathers Local Union No. 252, AFL-CIO; and Electric Workers
Local Union No. 477, AFL-CIO (I. C. Minium) and Interstate
Employers Association; and I. C. Minium
Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477, AFL-CIO and Electric
Air Conditioning Company. Cases 31-CC-11 (formerly Case
21-CC-826) and 12 (formerly Case 21-CC-836). June 16, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 15, 1965, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Decision in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that Respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
159 NLRB No. 42.
LATHERS LOCAL UNION NO. 252, AFL-CIO 551
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The Gen-
eral Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions,
cross-exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondents Lathers Local 252
and IBEW Local 477 by their separate conduct had independently
violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) and that as both Unions had acted
pursuant to a joint venture with Carpenters Local 944, they were
also responsible for the Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) viola-
tions of the Act by the Carpenters.
We find it unnecessary to decide whether both Respondents are
responsible for the conduct of Carpenters. Here, both Respondents
engaged in (i) and (ii) conduct.' The question concerns the object
of their conduct. Since neither Respondent had any independent
objective of its own in engaging in such conduct, both plainly were
cooperating with, furthering the objectives of, the Carpenters. As
set forth more fully in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the objectives
of Carpenters Local 944 were (1) to require I. C. Minium to enter
into a contract containing various clauses which the Board found
unlawful in Quality Builders Inc. (Los Angeles Building cC Con-
struction Trades Council), 153 NLRB 383; (2) to force I. C. Minium
to cease doing business with subcontractor Fredricksen; and (3) to
force other subcontractors not to do business with I. C. Minium in
order to compel I. C. Minium to cease doing business with Fredrick-
sen. Consequently, we find that Respondents Lathers Local 252 and
IBEW Local 477 had the same objectives as Carpenters Local 944
' Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the conduct of Lathers Local 252, through its
business agent, Bill Hahs, in ordering an apprentice lather to leave the job, and the
conduct of IBEW Local 477, through its business agent, Phillip Dowse, in inducing elec-
tricians to leave the San Bernardino job, was proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (1) of the
Act. Moreover, since both Respondents by their conduct effectively induced a work
stoppage against neutral employers, their conduct necessarily had the effect of restraining
and coercing neutral employers within the meaning of clause (ii) of Section 8(b)(4) of
the Act. Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company, Incorporated (Local 370, Plumbers),
157 NLRB 20. Additionally, we find merit in the General Counsel's exception to the
failure of the Trial Examiner to find violative of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) the conduct of
IBEW Local 477 in informing a neutral subcontractor that its employees who were mem-
bers of the IBEW would be fined if they crossed the picket lines established by the
Carpenters. Interstate Employers Association (Carpenters Local Union No. 944), 159
NLRB 563, issued the same day as the instant case.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that they, on the basis of their separate conduct, violated Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the Act.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
MEMBER BROWN took no part in the above Decision and Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with the General Counsel , Lathers Local Union No. 252,
AFL-CIO (herein called Local 252), Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477,
AFL-CIO (herein called Local 477), and I. C. Minium (herein called Minium)
represented by counsel , was heard before Trial Examiner Howard Myers at Los
Angeles, California , on a consolidated amended complaint of the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel l and
the Board ), dated April 16, 1965,2 and Respondent 's answer to the consolidated
amended complaint .3 The consolidated amended complaint , based upon a charge
and two amended charges (Case 21-CC-826), jointly filed on December 22, 1964,
January 27, and February 24, 1965, respectively , by Interstate Employees Asso-
ciation (herein called Interstate ) and I . C. Minium (herein called Minium) and
upon an additional charge in Case 21 -CC-836 which was duly filed on Febru-
ary 26, 1955, by Minium , alleged in substance that Local 252 and Local 477 each
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i ), (ii)(A) and (B) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , from time to time, herein called the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case 4 and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
I. C. Minium is a licensed general building construction contractor operating in
the San Bernardino, California, area. During the 12-month period immediately
preceding the issuance of the consolidated amended complaint herein, Minium,
in the course and conduct of his business purchased goods worth in excess of
$50,000 from points located outside the State of California.
Upon the foregoing facts, I find, in line with established Board authority that
Minium is engaged in, and during all times material was engaged in, a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
that his operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the assertion of
jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 252 and Local 477 are labor organizations admitting to membership
employees of Minium.
i This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing
a On the same day, April S6, 1965, the then acting Regional Director for Region 21,
who for and on behalf of the General Counsel, issued the consolidated complaint, also
issued an order, by virtue of Sections 102 17 and 102 33 of the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, Series 8, as amended, consolidating for the purpose of hearing, Cases 21-CC-826
and 836. The complaint dated February 25, 1965, issued in Case 21-CC-826, was amended
by the aforesaid order of consolidation In accordance with the allegations of the con-
solidated complaint. Respondent's answer to the complaint in Case 21-CC-826 was duly
filed on March 2, 1965
8 Respondent's answer to the consolidated complaint, which denies the commission of
the unfair labor practices alleged, was served upon the parties at the opening of the hearing.
d Pursuant to a written stipulation which was received in evidence without objection,
the record in the injunction proceeding, in Civil Case 65-162 H.W. Ralph E Kennedy,
etc v. Carpenters Local No. 944, etc, Lathers Local Union No. 252, and Electrical
Workers Local Union No. 477, now pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California-Central Division, was Introduced and received in evidence
and said record was made part of the record In the instant proceeding
After the close of the hearing the General Counsel and Respondents' counsel each filed
a brief Said briefs have been carefully considered.
LATHERS LOCAL UNION NO. 252, AFL-CIO 553
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statement
The questions to be here resolved are:
1. Whether Carpenters Local Union 944 (herein called Carpenters ) and Dis-
trict Council of Carpenters of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties ( herein
called the Council ) engaged in picketing for the purpose of forcing or requiring
Minium to enter into a contract prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act and to
cause neutral employers engaged in business with Minium to cease doing business
with Minium.
2. Whether Local 252, in furtherance and support of the above referred to
objects of the Carpenters and the Council , in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)
of the Act, induced or encouraged an employee of a neutral employer to refuse
to perform services for his employer.
3. Whether Local 252 should be held responsible for the alleged unlawful con-
duct of the Carpenters and the Council , and therefore be held to have violated
Section 8 (b)(4)(i), (ii)(A) and (B).
4. Whether Local 477, in furtherance and support of the above alleged unlaw-
ful Carpenters ' and the Council 's objectives , in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (r)
and (u ) (B) of the Act, threatened and coerced neutral employers and induced and
encouraged employees of neutral employers.
5. Whether Local 477 should be held responsible for the above alleged unlaw-
ful conduct of the Carpenters and the Council and therefore be held to have vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(1), (ii)(A) and (B).
During all times material Minium was engaged-as a general contractor-in
the construction of an office building on D Street, located in San Bernardino, Cali-
fornia ( herein referred to as the D Street job), and in the construction of a shop-
ping center located in Rialto, California (herein referred to as the Rialto job).
The plastering and lathing subcontractor on the D Street job was Sam Finley
(herein called Finley ), the heating and electrical subcontractor was Electric Air
Conditioning Company ( herein called Electric Air), the carpenter subcontractor was
Fredricksen and Shaeffer ( herein called Fredricksen ), the masonry subcontractor
was Chester McCabe (herein called McCabe ), and the roofing subcontractor was
E. J. Jure ( herein called Jure ). All of the aforesaid subcontractors , except Fred-
ricksen , are, and during all times material were, signatories to labor agreements
with appropriate AFL-CIO building trades unions.
The evidence with respect to Local 252 is found solely in the Federal court
proceedings (Kennedy v. Carpenters, etc., et al., Civil Case 6565-162 H .W.). The
evidence with respect to Local 252 centers around two specific activities ; viz, actual
picketing by Local 252 and purported unlawful inducements and encourgement of
an employee.
The evidence with respect to Local 477 stems from telephone calls between
Charles Geyer, an official of Local 477, and Irving Kuechler, an official of Electric
Air wherein the former advised the latter that if the Electric Air electricians, who
were Local 477 members, crossed the picket line established by the Council at
the D Street job, said Electric Air employees would be fined by Local 477.
B. The pertinent facts 5
On or about December 16, 1964, Vern Rippetoe , the Council 's executive secre-
tary and former business agent of Carpenters Local 944 ( herein called Carpenters),
6 In the light of my observation of the conduct and deportment at the healing of all
the persons who testified in the instant proceeding , and alter a very careful scrutiny of
the entire record, all of which has been carefully read and parts of which have been
reread and rechecked several times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties
with respect to the credibility problems here involved , of the fact that in many instances
testimony was given regarding events which took place months prior to the opening of the
hearing , and of the fact that very strong feelings have been generated by the circumstances
of this case , coupled with the fact that it would unnecessarily protract this Decision to
summarize all the testimony or to spell out fully the confusion and inconsistencies therein,
the following is a composite picture of all the factual issues involved and the conclusions
based thereon. The parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions , findings, and
conclusions herein , the record as a whole has been carefully considered , relevant cases
have been studied ; and each contention advanced has been weighed, even though riot
specifically discussed
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accompanied by Westmoreland, a business agent of the Cement Finishers Union,
visited the D Street job. There, Rippetoe queried Ralph Fredricksen of the firm
of Fredricksen and Schaeffer, the D Street job carpenters subcontractor, about his
union status.6 After concluding his conversation with Fredricksen, Rippetoe, still
accompanied by Westmoreland, went to where Minium was standing at the job-
site, and asked Minium for the names of his subcontractors, which Minium sup-
plied. Rippetoe, during his 10 or 15 minutes conversation with Minium, asked
the latter to sign the then existing Carpenters' agreement. Minium refused to sign
the contract, stating that he "was in it once and he felt he was doing better this
way." Rippetoe then asked Minium to sign the Building Trades Agreement then
in effect, adding that "the other trades were getting concerned because [Minium]
was hiring nonunion subcontractors." 7
The day following the above referred to Fredricksen-Rippetoe conversation,
Rippetoe telephoned James R. Farris, the Carpenters' business agent, to ask whether
he" knew, that "Fredricksen is on the job"; when Farris replied in the affirmative,
adding, "But they are members no more," Rippetoe said, "You better check your
books"; and after doing as Rippetoe had suggested, Farris informed Rippetoe that
"They had been suspended for non-payment of dues."
Later that day, Rippetoe and Farris held "a policy conference ," and "decided
that with the conditions on the job and the attitude [sic] of the job, that we would
advertise to the general public that it was not up to standards that prevailed in
jobs in the area."
Without making any examination or investigation, except that he had ascertained
that neither Minium nor Fredricksen's firm had not made any contribution to the
Carpenters' pension plan or to the Carpenters' vacation, health and welfare fund
in accordance with the terms of the Carpenters' then existing area collective-
bargaining agreement, Rippetoe authorized the placing of pickets at the D Street
job, even though, as Rippetoe testified in the Federal court injunction proceeding
that job was picketed "because [Rippetoe] found out that Fredricksen was not a
member of [Carpenters] nor had a contract with the [Carpenters]."
On December 18, a picket line was established at the D Street job,8 because, to
quote from the testimony Rippetoe gave in the Federal court injunction proceeding,
"I found out he was not a member of the Union and there was no contribution being
paid" by him or on his behalf. The legend appearing on the signs the pickets
carried read:
Carpentry Employees of I. C. Minium Work Under
Substandard Conditions and Substandard Wages,
Carpenters Local No. 944; District Council of
Carpenters, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
On December 18, Fredricksen and his partner left the jobsite without finishing
the job for which they had contracted.
On the day the pickets arrived, the employees of McCabe, the masonry sub-
contractor, left the job and Minium had to hire some men to complete the masonry
work. Electric Air's employees also left the job the day the pickets arrived and
Minium had to hire some men to do some "rough electrical" work.
On December 21, Minimum telephoned Rippetoe and requested that the pickets
be removed. Rippetoe refused to do so adding, "They were informational walk-
ers, and they were not pickets." Rippetoe then asked Minium to sign the Carpen-
ters' agreement or the Building Trades Agreement. Minium replied that he did not
want to sign any labor agreement because he did not have any construction
employees.
On or about December 23, Minium telephoned Rippetoe and, after discussing
"about ways of removing the pickets," requested copies of the Carpenters' agree-
ment and the Building Trades Agreement.
At Rippetoe's direction, Brooks, Rippetoe's assistant, delivered to Minium copies
of the two requested agreements. At the time of the presentation of the afore-
6 The firm of Fredricksen and Schaeffer has no employees Ralph Fredricksen and his
partner Schaeffer perform all the work. Fredricksen dropped his membership in the
Carpenters Union in 1962
7 At that time, Minium had no carpenters in his employ . In fact, Minium , at all times
material had no construction employees at all.
8 After the picketing had commenced, Rippetoe notified all the craft unions affiliated
with the Council that the D Street job was being picketed.
LATHERS LOCAL UNION NO. 252, AFL-C10 555
mentioned documents, the following transpired, according to Minium's uncontra-
dicted and credited testimony:
When he (Brooks) came he asked me if I was going to sign the documents at
that time, and he got the documents out and handed them to me, and I looked
at them, and I said, "I would like to have time to read them before I sign
them." At that time he said, "Well, if you are not going to sign them now
we will have to mark these sample copies," and he wrote it on there in his
handwriting, "Sample copies," and gave them to me.
Minium further testified, without contradiction, and I find, that on this occasion
Brooks told him that if he signed the agreements the pickets would be removed.
On January 6, 1965, Carpenters extended its picketing to Minium's Rialto job,
because as Rippetoe testified, there was "a new building going up under the same
conditions that was prevailing on the D Street job." 9 The pickets at the Rialto job
carried signs, which bore the same legend as those displayed at the D Street job.10
Ortega's employees started working on the Rialto job on January 3.
On January 6, four of Oitega's six employees walked off the job when the
Carpenters' pickets appeared at the jobsite and the concrete supplier with whom
Ortega did business could not make deliveries because the supplier's truckdrivers
respected the Carpenters' picket line. Ortega and Minium then contacted other
concrete suppliers but they too refused to accept any orders because they had been
informed of the Carpenters' picket line.
On or about January 28, with the aid of some 100 men supplied by an employers'
association , Ortega, despite the fact that about 30 persons were then picketing the
Rialto job, was able to pour sufficient concrete to complete his end of the Rialto
cement contract."
C. The picketing activities of Local 252
Tommy Miner, a Local 252 member and an employee of Finley, the plastering
and lathing subcontractor on the D Street job, testified, and I find, that he was
working on the D Street job on December 18; that on that day, shortly after he had
started to work, he noticed the job was being picketed; that shortly thereafter Bill
Hahs, the business agent of his union, came to where he was working and told him
to pack up his "tools and take off at noon"; 12 that he continued to work until noon;
at noon he picked up his tools and left the jobsite, even though there was work for
him to do; that he telephoned Hahs at his home that evening and asked if the
Minium dispute had been settled and, if so, could he return to the job; that Hahs
replied in the negative; that either in the aforesaid telephone conversation or in a
conversation he had with Hahs the following evening, he asked Hahs whether the
D Street picket line "was a recognized picket line"; and that Hahs replied, "Some
we recognize and some we don't, but this one we recognize."
Miner further testified, and I find, that on December 24, he visited the D Street
job and saw no pickets there, that he thereupon telephoned Hahs and told him that
there were no pickets at the jobsite and then asked Hahs if the dispute had been
On or about February 25, during the pendency of the Federal court injunction pro-
ceedings , the legend displayed at the D Stieet and Rialto jobs appearing on the picket
signs were changed to read* "We Protest Management Violence Carpenters Local 944.
District Council of Carpenters , San Bernardino Counties." Rippetoe made the change,
with the Carpenters' counsel assistance, after a carpenter working at either the D Street
job or the Rialto job had been hurt and had to be hospitalized.
10 Rippetoe testified , and I find, that he , personally , made no investigation regarding the
conditions which existed at the Rialto job prior to the establishment of the picket line,
that he replied solely on what information Farris had given him about the conditions when
he, on behalf of the Council , authorized the extension of the picketing to the Rialto job;
and that Farris had reported , when Farris requested permission to extend the picketing
to the Rialto job that he had "found two or three members of his working on the founda-
tion forms . . . working for the person that wasn't paying in contributions." The person
referred to by Rlppetoe was Martin Ortega, the Rialto job cement subcontractor who
commenced working on said job on January 3.
u Phillip Dowse, the business representative of Local 477, and Bill Hahs, a business
agent of Local 252, also picketed that day.
12 Not only was Hahs aware of the picket line at the time he told Miner to leave the
job at noon on December 18, but he had advance information that a picket line was to be
placed at the D Street job by the Carpenters because he was present at a Council meeting
held on December 17, at which it was decided to picket the D Street job.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
settled; that Hahs replied that the dispute had not been settled, adding that "one
of the guys from the concrete union was supposed to be out there"; that he, while
working at the D Street job that day, December 24, did not see any picket line;
that the following day was Christmas Day and hence he did not attempt to work;
and that when he went to the D Street job on December 26, he saw pickets there
and therefore he did not attempt to go to work.13
D. The picketing activities of Local 477
Irving R. Kuechler testified without contradiction and I find that: He is the
owner of Electric Air, the electrical subcontractor on the D Street job; in fulfilling
the two D Street job contracts which amounted in excess of $19,000, for the heat-
ing, air conditioning, electrical wiring, and lighting, he employed sheet metal
mechanics and electricians; his electricians were members of Local 477; on Decem-
ber 17, 1964, he was unsuccessful in reaching Charles Geyer, the business repre-
sentative of Local 497, on the telephone; he called Geyer because his job foreman
had advised him that his electricians and sheet metal mechanics working on the D
Street job would not cross the picket line; later that day, Geyer returned his call;
during the course of the conversation which ensued he asked Geyer if the D Street
job picket line was an authorized or recognized picket line; Geyer said he "would
check it out"; Geyer again telephoned him and said that the aforementioned picket
line was authorized and recognized; and the following conversation then ensued:
Q. Did you say anything in response to that answer?
A. Well, we had three jobs under pickets and we were carrying on various
conversations from day to day as to the progress of the jobs and the status in
each case was that it was,a recognized picket line, authorized.
Q. Did you ask his permission to send men there?
A. Yes. I am trying to recall now. He didn't prevent men, I mean he
stated he wouldn't prevent men from crossing the picket line, that would be up
to the men to cross the picket line, but in one case, since we had three jobs
picketed, one was being picketed by the plumbers and two were being picketed
by the carpenters, I raised the question why the carpenters were working
behind the plumbers' picket line, and yet the electricians had to recognize the
carpenters' picket line.
He said he would have to check into that.
So I hadn't-a day or two later there he called me, or I called him, I don't
recall what it was, because the pressure was pretty great with three jobs, I
mean we had no place to put our men, and when he called back, he said the
carpenters shouldn't be working up there, in essence, and he stated they were
going to take disciplinary action against the carpenters, not the electrical
workers, but some of them.
I said, "Would disciplinary action be taken against our men if they crossed
the line?"
He said "Yes."
Q. What men were you referring to?
A. The electricians.
Q. The electricians?
A. Yes.
s s + s a s s
Q. Was there any discussion about your electricians being out of work then,
between you and Mr. Geyer?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. What did you say and what did he say to you?
A. I says, "If these picket lines keep up, I am going to have to lay some
electricans off because we don't have the work."
His comment to that was that they had worked enough this year and it
wouldn't hurt them any.
13 It is significant to note that at the time Hahs ordered Miner to cease work he did not
advise Miner that if he continued to work he would be violating the constitution of Local
252 and hence would be subject to a fine or some other disciplinary action. Moreover, not
only did Hahs himself picket the D Street job but he also gave four Local 252 members
picket signs with instructions, "To walk up and down in front [of the D Street job] and
display the signs " Furthermore, Local 252 paid each of the aforementioned four mem-
bers $10 per day for carrying picket signs given to Hahs by Rippetoe
LATHERS LOCAL UNION NO. 252, AFL-CIO 557
Kuechler further testified without contradiction and I find, that: Up to the time
he testified in the Federal court injunction proceedings 14 he had not been able
to finish the D Street job work for which he had contracted; on that day, Febru-
ary 16, he hired some men to report for work at the D Street job because the
wording of the sign carried by the person displaying it at the jobsite did not
seem in indicate that the job was being picketed, so he instructed his electrical
foreman to put the newly hired men to work; and the men hired that morning
refused to work because they considered the person carrying the sign to be a
picket.
William Farless testified and I find that: He is a member of a sister local of
Local 477 and is Electric Air's superintendent; on Friday, February 19, 1965, he
dispatched two electricians 15 to the D Street job; he was at the aforementioned
jobsite when the Carpenters' pickets arrived that day at or about 9.30 a.m.; during
the 15 or 20 minutes the job was being picketed the two electricians continued
working; on Monday, February 22, he dispatched six electricians 16 to the D Street
job; the following day, February 23, he dispatched three electricians to the afore-
said job; 17 he arrived at said jobsite about 8:30 a.m. that day, February 23;
Frank Harrison told him that Phillip Dowse, the business representative of Local
477, was on the jobsite; he saw Dowse on the jobsite, but did not speak to him;
he left the job about 15 or 20 minutes later to oversee another job Electric Air
was performing; when he telephoned his office later that day, he was informed
that the Electric Air D Street job electricians were not working but were standing
around outside the building; he immediately informed his superior, Raymond L.
Stelk, the manager of the electrical division of Electric Air, "The men had worked
for a while and then decided not to work, top pull off and come into the shop"; he
dispatched electricians to the D Street job on February 24, and they worked until
the pickets arrived and then the electricians left the jobsite; and on February 25,
the Federal court, in Civil Case 65-162 H.W., granted an injunction and thereafter
the picketing ceased.
Stelk 18 testified and I find that upon arriving at Electric Air's office about 11
a.m. on February 23, Kuechler told him that the Electric Air men had walked off
the D Street job; he then asked Farless if, in fact, the men had walked off the job;
when Farless answered in the affirmative, he immediately telephoned Dowse and
when he asked Dowse, "What was going on at the Minium job." Dowse replied,
"I don't know"; and that when he said to Dowse, "Something must be going on,
the men were working this morning and I understand that you were at the job
and shortly after you left, the men . [and] I want to know what you said
to the men," Dowse replied, "I said nothing to the men. I am not going to say
anything to you"; and that the conversation concluded when he remarked to
Dowse, "This is getting ridiculous and was getting expensive as far as we were
concerned."
Richard Hardy testified, without contradiction and I find, that he is, and at all
times material was, a member of Local 477 and that on Friday, February 19, he
was dispatched by Electric Air to the D Street job and worked that afternoon;
on February 22, he arrived at the aforesaid job about 8:15 a.m.; there were no
pickets at the jobsite when he arrived; Roushan also worked that day, at the D
Street job; pickets arrived at the jobsite about 10 a.m.; after conferring with Rous-
han, he telephoned Jack Carney, a Local 477 business agent, and when he asked
Carney whether the picket line was "legal," the latter replied in the affirmative;
when he asked "if the men would be fined if they worked behind the picket line,"
Carney replied, "I don't think you have anything to worry about there"; he and
Roushan thereupon returned to their work; when he returned to the D Street job
on February 23, about 8:15 a.m. he saw no one picketing the job; about 15 min-
utes later some pickets arrived, thereupon he and five employees "started talking
about what we should do"; the men decided he should call the union hall for
instructions; he called the hall and spoke to Dowse; when he asked for instructions
whether the men should work or not, Dowse said that he would not advise them
11 February 16, 1965.
u Richard Hardy and Sam Roushan (also referred to In the record as Russo)
18Hardy (also referred to in the record as Harding), Roushan, Frank Harrison, Jimmy
Ringo, Lawrence Packard, and Drott.
17 Hardy, Frank Harrison, and Roushan.
19 SteIk's responsibilities Include procuring electrical contracts for Electric Air and then
expediting and carrying them out.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what to do, adding, that the men had "to make up [their] own minds"; at the
conclusion of his conversation with Dowse he reported to the men the substance
thereof; Dowse later came to the jobsite and that Dowse apparently talked to
Packard; and about 30 minutes after Dowse left the jobsite, the electricians walked
off the job.
Lawrence Packard testified, and I find, that he is, and during all times material
has been, a Local 477 member; he had been dispatched by Electric Air to the D
Street job shortly before noon on February 22; when he and Drott reported to the
job, he saw no pickets at the jobsite and therefore worked the balance of the day;
when he and about six or seven other Electric Air electricians reported to the D
Street job the following day, February 23, he did not see any pickets there; about
9:30 that morning he was informed by a coworker that a Carpenter picket was
at the jobsite; later that morning, Dowse appeared at the jobsite, he and Dowse
had a conversation in which Dowse asked him if he knew that the job was being
picketed and he replied in the negative; when Dowse asked him how many men
were on the job, he replied, seven electricians and a doorhanger; when he asked
Dowse what he and his coworkers should do "if the picket line is put back on,"
Dowse replied, "Well, use your own judgment to what to do," that each worker
should "decide what to do and do it; after Dowse had left the jobsite, he told
Roushan what Dowse had said; and all the electricians on the job quit working
about an hour after Dowse had left the jobsite.
E. Concluding findings
The entire record in the case, as epitomized above, clearly establishes that the
object of the above described picketing was (1) to force or require Minium to
enter into a contract prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act and (2) to force or
require Finley, Electric Air, McCabe, Jure, and Ortega to cease doing business
with Minium.
Although the wording of the Carpenters' picket signs complies with the stand-
ard language required for picket signs which inform the public of substandard
conditions existing on a particular job, the words on the sign are not the only
indicia of intent which the Board utilizes in determining whether the picketing is
protected or proscribed. N.L.R.B. v. Local 182, Teamsters (Woodward Motors),
314 F:2d 53 (C.A. 2). In the instant case, the picketing not only violated the
fundamental criteria for unlawful common situs picket under Moore Dry Dock
Company (Sailors Union of the Pacific AFL), 92 NLRB 547, 549, but the credited
evidence discloses that the Carpenters' intent was to force Minium to enter into
a contract prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act. In this connection, the credited
evidence shows that although the Carpenters' real dispute was with Fredricksen
on the D Street job and Ortega on the Rialto job, it named only Minium on their
picket signs. Also in the case of Fredricksen, although he left the job after picket-
ing commenced and did not return to the job at all, picketing still continued.
The Carpenters' disregard for the Moore Dry Dock criteria shows its intent to
appeal to employees of neutral employers to leave the picketed site forcing their
employers to cease doing business with Minium in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act.
Picketing to obtain a contract containing a hot cargo clause which is permitted
by the construction industry proviso to Section 8(e) of the Act does not contravene
8(b)(4) (A) if done in the manner prescribed by Moore Dry Dock, supra. See
Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council (Centlivre Village
Apartments), 148 NLRB 854. Construction Production & Maintenance Labor-
ers Union, Local 383 v. N.L.R.B., 323 F.2d 422 (C.A. 9).
In the instant case, however, the Carpenters demanded that Minium sign the
Building Trades Agreement which contained certain unlawful provisions. Under
the recent case of Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council et at.
(Quality Builders, Inc.), 153 NLRB 383, the Board passed on the question of
whether these particular paragraphs of the contract in question are protected by
the construction industry proviso to Section 8(e). In that case the Board held that
these clauses are not legitimate work presentation clauses, but are secondary in
scope and within the ambit of Section 8(e), and hence picketing to obtain such
an agreement constiutes a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A).
In Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks Union, Local 1017 v. N.L.R.B., 249 F.2d
591, 597-598 (C.A. 9), the court found that having acted pursuant to a joint ven-
ture, Respondents were responsible for the unfair labor practices committed by
the other joint venturers. In that case, the court held one union responsible for
LATHERS LOCAL UNION NO. 252 , AFL-CIO 559
the unfair labor practices committed by another union where (1) it was the official
policy of the union to support the picketing of the other union; (2) where the
union participated in meetings with the second union concerning the picketing; (3)
where the union, through its agents, participated in picketing on behalf of the
other union, even for a short time; and (4) where the union approved the picket
line in the presence of employees of neutral employers and members of the union.
In sum, these acts convinced the court that the nonpicketing union was conducting
itself in such a way as to show that it was acting in support and furtherance of the
wrongful objectives of the second union , therefore, the union was responsible for
the unfair labor practices of the union it had aided. Applying the above criteria
to the instant case, it should be noted that Local 252, through its official repre-
sentative at the Council meeting, approved the Carpenters' picket line on behalf of
the Local 252 following the establishment of the picket line on the job. Local
252's agent, Hahs, pulled an employee employed by a neutral contractor off the
job, causing the neutral employer to cease working at the D Street site. Later,
Local 252 furnished members to carry the Carpenters' picket signs at its own
expense for the purpose of aiding the Carpenters in their unlawful objectives.
Finally, Hahs participated in the picketing of the Rialto job on January 28.
In this context, the conduct of Hahs must be viewed. Knowing that there was
supposed to be a picket line on the D Street job, and having approved the picketing
of the Carpenters the day before he went there, it is more logical that when Hahs
told Miner to leave the job and did not state any reason for his conduct at this
time, Hahs was acting in support of the Carpenters' objectives. This" conclusion is
strengthened by the fact that Hahs never told Miner that he had pulled him from
the job because he was an apprentice who was working without the supervision of
a journeyman. On the contrary, in response to an inquiry by Miner's employer
that evening as to,why Hahs had demanded Miner leave the D Street job, Hahs
stated that he did not demand that Miner leave the job but request that he leave
the job because of violence which had occurred on the picket line of a job where
some of his men had worked behind the line. Moreover, in the several conversa-
tions which took place between Hahs and Miner, Miner asked Hahs whether the
Union and Minium had settled the dispute so he could return to work, and whether
the picket line was a legal picket line. On only one occasion did Hahs mention
that he didn't want Miner to work on the job because he was an apprentice. How-
ever, even at that time Hahs never told Miner that he had pulled him from the job
because he was working without a journeyman.
From the above facts it is clear that an objective of Hahs' conduct was to induce
or encourage Miner to refuse to perform services for his employer for objectives
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4). See Gilmore Construction Company (Interna-
tional Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local
No. 1140), 127 NLRB 541, enfd. 285 F.2d 397 (C.A. 8). Local 252's conduct
therefore constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act and thus
acting in furtherance and support of the Carpenters, Local 252 also violated Section
8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the Act.
Uncontroverted and credited testimony discloses that shortly after the picketing at
the D Street job began, Electric Air contacted Local 477 to find out whether the
Carpenters' picket line was recognized by it. Geyer informed Electric Air that the
picket line was authorized and recognized and that the Local 477 would fine any
Electric Air employee who was a member of Local 477 if they worked behind the
picket line. Dowse testified that Local 477 could have sent pickets if it so desired
to the job after the picket line was established to aid the Carpenters and he also
admitted participating in the picketing at the Rialto job on January 28.
Dowse and Carney also informed employees of Electric Air that the picket line
was a legal picket line and recognized by the Local 477. Finally, as a member of
the Council, Local 477 would directly benefit if its conduct aided the Carpenters
and the Council in obtaining the demand agreements from Minium. Under
these circumstances, Local 477 acted in furtherance and support of the objectives
of the Carpenters and the Council and, therefore, is responsible for the unfair labor
practices committed by these labor organizations. Retail Fruit Clerks v. N.L.R.B.,
supra. Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Furniture Workers, Local
309), 81 NLRB 886.
Specifically, in support of the objectives of the Carpenters, Local 477 stated that
it would be its official policy to discipline members who worked for Electric Air
behind the picket line at the D Street job.ls
29 Cf. Speed-Line Manufacturing, Inc. (Aabeatoa Workers), 137 NLRB 1410
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In addition , Dowse went to the D Street job on February 23 , and orally induced
and encouraged employees of Electric Air to refuse to perform services for Electric
Air at the picketed site in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i )(B) of the Act . In sup-
port of this conclusion , the record shows that Electric Air had sent employees to
work at the site on February 19, 22, and 23 , and that although there were pickets
on the job and the union business agents in telephone conversations had told the
men to use their own judgment as to whether to stay or leave, the men continued
to work on the picketed job until Dowse appeared on the jobsite in person.
Although the Respondents had told the men that the picket line was legal and
recognized by their respective organizations , these facts did not seem to bother the
men until Dowse appeared on the jobsite in person . While Dowse states that his
presence on the job was due to the fact that he had received a telephone call from
an unidentified employee that the picket was not the job, and he wanted to investi-
gate this report, Dowse knew that picketing on the D Street job was intermittent and
the fact that there was no picket at the time of the telephone call in question did
not mean that it was permanently removed. Geyer's earlier threat to take discipli-
nary action against any man working behind the Carpenters' picket line clearly
establishes that the picketing had for this purpose the forcing of the neutral employ-
ers here involved to cease doing business with Minium.
The Board has held that where a union business agent calls attention to the fact
that there is a picket line on a job, this may be sufficient to constitute inducement
or encouragement of neutral employees for prescribed objectives within the mean-
ing of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act and in the context of other conduct justify
a remedial order against the offending union . See Keith Riggs Plumbing and Heat-
ing Corporation (Local Union No. 741, Plumbers), 137 NLRB 1125, 1139.
The Board in Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Building & Construction Trades
Council, AFL-CIO (Rampsey-Waite Co., Inc.), 151 NLRB 547, found that a union
violated Section 8(b) (4) (i ) (B) where the employees were not troubled about work-
ing behind a picket line until the business agent appeared on the job . There was
no testimony that the employees acted under any sort of instruction from the busi-
ness agent, but the circumstances showed that the union agent must have been satis-
fied that explicit direction by him was unnecessary because the employees immedi-
ately ceased to work behind the picket line.
In light of the Keith-Riggs and Rampsey-Waite Co., Inc., cases, supra, the facts
in the instant case show that the Local 477 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act.
Since Local 477 is responsible for the conduct of the Carpenters and the Council
as well as their own unfair labor practices, Local 477 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i),
(ii) (A) and (B) of the Act.
Upon the record as a whole I am convinced, and find, that by the foregoing acts
and conduct of Local 252 and of Local 477, they have, and each of them has,
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i),
(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of I. C. Minium described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead and have led to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Local 252 and Local 477 have, and each of them has, engaged
in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii)(A) and (B) of
the Act, I shall recommend that they, and each of them, take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by Respondents are
of such a character and scope that in order to insure the employees of Minium,
Electric Air, Finley, Jure, Fredricksen, McCabe, Ortega, or any employer coming
within the respective jurisdictional areas of Respondents, of their full rights guaran-
teed them by the Act, it will be recommended that Respondents, and each of them,
be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner restraining or coercing said
employees.
LATHERS LOCAL UNION NO. 252, AFL-CIO 561
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in"
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'
1. Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of Section, 2(5)
of the Act.
2. I. C. Minium is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
,(7) of the Act. Electric Air, Finley, Fredricksen, McCabe, Jure, and Ortega are,,
engaged in the building and construction industry . All of the aforementioned
employees are engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
3. The Carpenters and the Council, at all times material, have been engaged in
picketing with the object of forcing or requiring Minium to enter into a contract
prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act and to cause or require Finley, Electric Air,
Fredricksen, McCabe, Jure, and Ortega to cease doing business with Minium.
4. By engaging in the aforementioned acts and conduct in furtherance and sup-
port of the aforementioned objectives of the Carpenters and of the Council, Local
252 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (4) (1), (u)(A) and (B) oftheAct.
5. By instructing , directing and appealing to persons employed by Finley to cease
work at the D Street jobsite , all with the object of forcing Finley to cease doing
business with Minium , Local 252 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) (B) of the Act.
6. By engaging in the aforementioned acts and conduct in furtherance and sup-
port of the objectives of the Carpenters and of the Council, Respondents have
engaged in and are engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b) (4) (i), (u) (A) and (B) of the Act.
7. By threatening and coercing Electric Air and by instructing, directing, and
appealing to individuals employed by Electric Air to cease work at the D Street
construction project with the object of forcing or requiring Electric Air to cease
doing business with Minium , Local 477, has engaged in and is. engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondents, Lathers Local Union No. 252, AFL-CIO, and Electrical Work-
ers Local Union No. 477, AFL-CIO, their respective officers, agents , and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of Electric Air, Fin-
ley, Fredricksen , McCabe, Jure, Ortega, or any other employer or person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the respective jurisdic-
tional areas of Respondents to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise handle or work
on any materials , goods, articles , or commodities , or to perform any services or
threatening , coercing, or restraining Electric Air, Finley, Fredricksen , McCabe,
Jure , Ortega, or any other employer or person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce within the respective jurisdictional areas of Respond-
ents, by strikes , threats of strikes, picketing , or otherwise , where in either case an
object thereof is to force or require I, C. Minium to enter into an agreement which
is prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act.
(b) Engaging in, or inducing , or encouraging the employees of Electric Air, Finley,
Fredricksen , McCabe, Jure , Ortega, or any other employer engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce within the respective jurisdictional areas of
Respondents , to engage , in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to
use, manufacture, process, articles , transport , or otherwise handle any materials,
goods, articles , products or commodities , or to perform any services or threaten,
coerce, or restrain Electric Air, Finley,, Fredricksen, McCabe, Jure, Ortega, or any
other employer engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within
243-084-67-vol. 15 9-3 7
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respective jurisdictional areas of Respondents by strikes, threats of strikes, or
picketing, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require said employ-
ers to cease doing business with I. C. Minium.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at their respective business offices and meeting
halls, including all places where notices to their respective members are customarily
posted,, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall, after being duly
signed by the respective authorized representative of Respondents, be posted by
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that
such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Deliver or mail signed copies of said notice to the Regional Director for
Region 31 (Los Angeles, California), for posting by Minium, Electric Air, Finley,
Fredricksen, McCabe, Jure, and Ortega, the said companies willing, at all locations
where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt by each Respondent of a copy of this Decision, what steps it has taken
to comply therewith 2I
' IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of
its receipt of this Decision, Respondents notify the said Regional Director, in writ-
ing, that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the Board issue an
order requiring Respondents, and each of them, to take the action aforesaid.
- 20 In the event that 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. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
m In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LATHERS LOCAL UNION No. 252, AFL-CIO
AND OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 477, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce or encourage employees of Electric Air
Conditioning Company, Sam Finley, Fredricksen and Shaeffer, Chester
McCabe, E. J. Jure, Martin Ortega, or any other employer engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce within our respective jurisdictional
areas, to engage in strikes, threats of strikes, picketing or otherwise, where an
object thereof or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu-
facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
products, materials, or commodities, or to perform any service, or threaten,
coerce, or restrain Electric Air Conditioning Company, Sam Finley, Fredrick-
sen and Shaeffer, Martin Ortega, Chester McCabe, E. J. Jure, or any other
employer within our respective jurisdictional areas, where in either case an
object thereof is to force or require I. C. Minium to enter into any agreement
which is prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage employees of Electric Air,
Finley, Fredricksen, McCabe, Ortega, Jure, or any other employer within our
respective jurisdictional areas, to engage in a strike, threats of strikes, picketing,
or otherwise, or a refusal in the course of their employment to use or handle
any materials or perform any services, or threaten, coerce, or restrain Electric
Air, Finley, Fredricksen, McCabe, Ortega, Jure, or any other employer within
our respective jurisdictional areas by a strike, threats of strikes, or picketing
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 944 563
where in either case an object thereof is to cause the aforementioned employers
to cease doing business with I. C. Minium.
LATHERS LOCAL UNION No. 252, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION, 477, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 17th
Floor, U.S. Post Office and Court House, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles,
California, Telephone 688-5840.
Carpenters Local Union No. 944; Bricklayers, Masons & Tile
Setters, International Union Local No. 20 ; Plumbers & Steam-
fitters Local No. 364; Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477;
and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 509 and Interstate
Employers Association ; and Ralph Duris
Carpenters Local Union No. 944; Bricklayers , Masons & Tile
Setters International Union Local No. 20 ; Plumbers & Steam-
fitters Local No. 364; Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477;
and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 509 and Interstate
Employers Association ; and Gulf Construction Company
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 364 and Interstate Employers
Association ; and Ralph Duris d/b/a Ralph Duris Plumbing.
Cases 31-CC-10-1 (formerly Case 21-CC-824-1), ?L (formerly Case
21-CC-884-2), and 31-CP-1 (formerly Case 21-CP 1593). June 16,
1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 17, 1965, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that
Respondents had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint, and recommended that such allegations be dis-
missed. Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting
159 NLRB No. 41.