Local 11

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 1084 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

-1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 11 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL, and Cuyahoga, Lake & Geauga & Ashtabula Counties
Carpenters ' District Council affiliated with United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, and Frank
Ailor, Business Agent and General Millivork Corporation
Local 11 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Amer,
ica, AFL, and Cuyahoga, Lake & Geauga & Ashtabula Counties
Carpenters ' District Council affiliated with United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America , AFL, and Frank
Ailor, Business Agent and Haskelite Manufacturing Corpora-
tion . Cases Nos. 8-CC-29 and 8-CC-31. August 26, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 30, 1954, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup-
porting brief. Pursuant to notice, oral argument was held on July
7, 1955, before the Board at Washington, D. C., in which all parties
-participated.
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, the oral argument, and the entire
-record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following excep-
tions, modifications, and additions :
1. The Respondents except to the Trial Examiner's recommendation
that it would effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert
jurisdiction herein. We find no merit in this exception. Under the
rule of Jamestown Builders Exchange,' in cases involving alleged vio-
lations of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), the Board looks first to the operations
of the primary employer. If these are sufficient, jurisdiction is asserted
without further inquiry. In Sand Door and Plywood Co. 2 we de-
cided that, in the case of an alleged product boycott, even in the ab-
sence of an active dispute between the union and the manufacturer of
'Truck Drivers Local Union No. 649, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL (Jamestown Builders Exchange , Inc.),
93 NLRB 386
a Local 1976, Unsted Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , et -at. (Sand
Door and Plywood Co.), 113 NLRB 1210.
113 NLRB No. 124.
LOCAL 11 1085
,the boycotted product, the manufacturer is a primary employer within
the meaning of the Jamestown rule. Accordingly, as the manufac-
turers here, General Millwork Corporation and Haskelite Manufactur-
ing Corporation, are primary employers, each of whom annually ships
outside the State in which their respective plants are located. goods
valued at more than $100,000, we agree with the Trial Examiner that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.'
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents induced
and encouraged employees of Decker and Calvey-Gunderman, carpen-
ter- subcontractors, to engage in a concerted refusal to hang the manu-
facturers' Hasco or Gemco prehung doors, contrary to the contention
of the Respondents. However, we rely particularly on Business Agent
Frank Ailor's statements of June 4 made directly to employees Ted
Thorn and John Bacho, the respective union stewards of the Decker
and Calvey-Gunderman crews, just prior to their going with him to
see Campbell, the general contractor's superintendent. Ailor told the
stewards that the label on the doors was not the Carpenters' label and
that "These doors are nonunion as far as we are concerned." In the
light of Ailor's testimony that the stewards knew the union working
rules, which prohibited union members from installing prehung or
nonunion doors, and his explanation that he "didn't have to say any-
thing about them," we think it clear that the purpose of Ailor's re-
marks was to invoke the union working rules and thus cause the em-
ployees to refuse to hang these doors. This conclusion is further forti-
fied by Ailor's statements to Campbell made in the presence of the
'stewards directly after Ailor spoke to the stewards. Ailor told Camp-
bell that "they" would not hang the Hasco doors because "it didn't have
the union label on that they recognize," and that "we won't hang
any,prehung door," referring to "our by-laws, where we dare not hang
'these particular doors."'4 Apart from the effect that these statements
had upon the stewards, they clearly revealed that Ailor's previous
statements, to the stewards were intended and calculated to induce and
encourage them to refuse to handle the prehung doors.
Furthermore, it is clear from conduct of the carpenters on the job
that Ailor's intention was so understood by the carpenter employees.
;Illustrative, is the incident occurring in the following month of Octo-
ber. At that time, a packaged home, including Hasco doors, was
shipped to the project, and the crew assigned to unload the truck,
which included Union Steward Bacho, unloaded all cargo except the
-doors. Eacho's explanation to Campbell for this conduct was the
'Joneslo,o Main Dtyiny Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481, Sand Door and Plywood Co.,
supra.
* Contrary to a contention of the Respondents , we see no reason to disturb the Trial
Examiner's finding that Ailor made these statements , as more fully set forth in the Inter-
mediate Report
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
significant one that "they wouldn't unload the doors because they were
not union doors." 5 '
Under all the circumstances, we conclude that Ailor induced and
encouraged employees of the carpenter subcontractors to engage in a
concerted refusal to handle Hasco and Gemco doors.6 However, we
find it unnecessary to decide whether, as the Trial Examiner found,
there was an actual refusal to hang the doors on June 4. To constitute
inducement in the statutory sense, it is not necessary that the union's
appeal succeed in producing a'strike or concerted refusal to work; it
is enough that the appeal was made with that purpose.? We also find
it -unnecessary to decide whether the union rules constituted induce-
ment and encouragement, except insofar as Ailor invoked them in
talking to the stewards or in their presence.
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner, for the reasons set forth in
the Intermediate Report, that objects of the Respondents' conduct were
to force or require Decker and Calvey-Gunderman to cease using
prehung doors," to force or require Erie Building Company, the gen-
eral contractors, to cease using and purchasing prehung doors, and to
force or require Scholz Homes, Inc., to cease -doing business with
.General Millwork Corporation and Haskelite Manufacturing Cor-
poration. As the Trial Examiner concluded, the Act proscribes
inducement or encouragement of a concerted refusal by employees
to perform work in the course of their employment for such objects
without regard to the presence or absence of active labor disputes
between the union and producers of the goods under union interdict .9
4. For the reasons indicated in the Intermediate Report, we agree
with the Trial Examiner that there were no contracts with " hoticargo`
55 While we find Bacho's conduct on this occasion to be evidence of the fact that Allor
induced and encouraged the carpenters on the project to refuse to handle the prehung
doors, we agree with the Respondents that Bache 's conduct does.not constitute a separate
instance of inducement and encouragement , contrary to the Trial Examiner's finding, We
base this conclusion on the fact that the Respondents had changed their policy with re-
spect to the , doors prior to this incident as a result of a settlement agreement reached in
a United States district court proceeding , and promptly took steps effectively to disavow
Bacho's conduct upon hearing of it, as detailed in the Intermediate Report.
'e We reject the Respondents ' contention that there was no inducement or encourage-
ment of a concerted refusal to handle the doors because Ailor's remarks were directed to
only a single employee of each of the subcontractors . Unlike the situation in Glaziers'
Union Local No. 27 (Joliet Contractors Association ). 99 NLRB 1391 , enfd. 202 F. 2d 606
(C. A. 7), on which the Respondents rely, each of the subcontractors here employed more
than one carpenter at the time of the inducement and encouragement. Moreover, here
the inducement and encouragement was directed at stewards who were charged with en-
forcing union rules and policies and would be reasonably expected to transmit, union, in-
structions to their fellow employees in fulfilling their duties as stewards.
7 Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et al. (The Grauman Company),
87 NLRB 755 , 759 enfd 193 F. 2d 421 (C. A. 10).
BAs neither Decker nor Calvey-Gunderman purchased the doors in question, we do not
adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding that an object of the Respondents was to force or re-
quire the subcontractors to cease purchasing doors from Scholz Homes , Inc., a distributor
of prefabricated homes. Scholz, who bought the doors from the manufacturers, sold them
to the general contractor who let contracts to the two subcontractors for their installation.
e Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' District Council, et al. (Sound Shingle Co), 101
NLRB 1159, enfd. 211 F . 2d 946 ( C. A. 9) ; Sand Door and Plywood Co., supra.
LOCAL 11 1087
clauses extant and that the doctrine of the Conway case 10 is therefore
inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. Moreover , even if, con-
trary to fact, the Respondents had contracts on June 4 with the sub-
cohtractors here which contained "hot cargo" type clauses , for the
reasons set forth in Sand Door and Plywood Co.," such contracts
would not remove the Respondents' conduct described above from the
proscription of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). For the same reasons, we agree
with the Trial Examiner that a finding of a violation of the Act is not
precluded here either by the fact that the subcontractors, as union
members, were obligated to observe union working rules or by the fact
that it, was the industry custom and practice in the area to hang
conventional doors.
ORDER
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 Respondents, Local 11, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, and Cuyahoga,
Lake & Geauga & Ashtabula Counties Carpenters' District Council
affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL, and their officers, representatives, successors , assigns,
and agents, including Respondent Frank Ailor, shall :
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging the employees of
Wilford Decker and Calvey-Gunderman, or any other employer, to
engage in a concerted refusal 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
for their employer, where an object thereof is to force or require Wil-
ford Decker, Calvey-Gunderman, Erie Building Company, and Scholz
Homes , Inc., or any other employers or persons, to cease using, han-
dling, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business
with, General Millwork Corporation, Haskelite Manufacturing Cor-
poration, or any other manufacturer or producer of prehung or
nonunion doors.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at the office of Respondent District Council in Cleveland,
Ohio, at any office Respondent Local 11 may have, and at the Erie
Building Company's office at the Hilliard Road project (Erie Build-
ing Company being willing), copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A.712 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
10 International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , Local 294 , AFL (Henry V. Rabouin, d/b/a Conway's Empress ), 87 NLRB 972,
at 981-983, affd 195 F. 2d 906 (C. A. 2).
11 supra.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap-
peals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the official representatives of the Respondents, including
Frank Ailor, be posted by Respondent District Council and Respond-
ent Local 'immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained 'by them
for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in coiispicu'ous
places, including all places where notices to union members and'notices
to employees on the Hilliard Road project are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondents to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material:
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region 'in' writing;
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what step's the Re-
spondents have taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER MURDOCH, dissenting :
This case is a companion', case to Sand Door and Plywood Co.,"
both of which were heard and considered by the Board at the same
time. To the extent that the majority relies upon its decision in that
case to find a violation here I have already stated my contrary' views
and conclusions in the former case. The facts in this case are some-
what different,from those in Sand Door and Plywood Co. These
differences, in my opinion, further illustrate the illogic and incorrect-
ness of the majority's position.
The majority finds that the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4)
(A) because Business Agent Ailor told two union stewards, employees,
respectively, of subcontractors Decker and Calvey-Gunderman, that
certain prehung doors were "nonunion." As union members - the
stewards knew that union bylaws forbade the installation of prehung
or nonunion doors and therefore, according to the majority, Ailor's
conduct induced and encouraged these employees to engage in a strike
or a concerted refusal to work for their employers. Again, as in the
Conway's,14 McAllister," Sand Door and Plywood 16 cases, the issue
here goes to the definition of the terms "strike" and "refusal to work."
Certainly, those terms cannot mean any and every cessation of work
by employees. If that were so, employees would be going on strike
when they left on their lunch hour.. It must mean, then, a concerted
cessation of work by employees contrary to the wishes of their em-
ployer, in other words disobedience by the withholding of services.
In Sand Door and Plywood Company, Chairman Farmer and Mem-
ber Leedom have taken the position that the protection of the public
'8 Local 1976 , Unsted Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, et at. (Sand
Door and Plywood Co ), 113 NLRB 1210
1*International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and'Helper8 of
America, Local 294, AFL (Henry V. Rabouin, d/b/a Conway 's Empress ), 87 NLRB 972,
affd. 195 F. 2d 906 (C. A 2).
'LInternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousement and Helpers of
America, Local No. 554 , et at. (McAllister Transfer, Inc.), 110 NLRB 1769
16 Supra.
LOCAL 11 1089
under the statute requires them to find such "disobedience," by em-
ployees, who are induced not to handle nonunion material, even though
their employer has by contract granted them permission to engage in
such conduct. It seems to me that Congress had no intention at all of
shielding the public from such permissive acts. Senator Taft, who is
quoted in footnote 21 of the majority's decision in Sand Door and Ply-
wood Co., stated clearly that Section 8 (b) (4) (A) was intended to
eliminate "hundreds and thousands of strikes" [emphasis supplied]
against employers who had no dispute with their employees. Public
policy, under this section of the Act aims at preventing a disruption
in the peaceful relationship between an employer and his employees.
It does not require this Board to dictate to a neutral employer whether
he shall or shall not require his employees to work on nonunion prod-
ucts. Certainly, Section 8 (b) (4) (A) was not designed by Congress
to promote the sale of General Millwork or Haskelite doors or, in-
deed, of any nonunion product. It was designed to protect neutral
employers and the public from strikes. The question in this 'case,
then, as it was in the cases cited above, is whether the stewards' refusal
to install prehung doors would be a strike or a concerted refusal to
work either for Decker or Calvey-Gunderman or both.
The record shows that Wilford Decker, Thomas Calvey, and the
latter's partner, Gunderman, were themselves union members. Like
the stewards, they were aware of their union's bylaws and they under-
stood that they were required as a condition of union membership not
to use prehung or nonunion doors. At no time have these employers
ever indicated that they desired to be free of this commitment or that
they had any intention of giving up their union membership or of
violating their agreement with the union not to use prehung doors on
the job site. Indeed, Wilford Decker and Thomas Calvey appeared
before the Trial Examiner in this very case as witnesses called by and
on behalf of the Respondents. These employers testified specifically
that they at all times intended to comply with their obligation not to
install prehung doors. They adhered to this position despite vigorous
cross-examination by the General Counsel. Nevertheless, in the face
of Decker's and Calvey's vehement protestations that they did not
want their employees to install prehung doors, the General Counsel
has alleged and the majority finds that' the latter would be engaged
in a strike against their employers if they complied with their em-
ployers' wishes. To establish a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) in
Sand Door and Plywood Co., the majority found that a foreman was
an agent of the union on the sole ground that he was a member of the
union and, as such, required to enforce union bylaws. What is the
status of Decker and Calvey-Gunderman in this case? They, too, are
union members. They too are required to enforce union bylaws. Why
are they not as much agents of the Union as the foreman in Sand Door
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Plywood? At least can it be found, as the majority does, that
their employees would be engaged in a strike if they refused to install
doors that their, employers had taken a solemn oath not to install?
This is a case in , which employers, employees, and the Union have
established a perfectly peaceful and satisfactory working relationship.
None of them are interested in installing prehung doors ; no disrup-
tion in their bargaining relationship is threatened; no dispute exists.
But 'the majority finds that this is not really so. The employees have
been induced to refuse to work, the majority concludes, on the ground,
that the statute demands that an agreement between an employer and
his employees be read as "disobedience of employees" if, absent the
agreement, such disobedience would exist. The decision of the ma-
jority serves only the interests of General Millwork and Haskelite
manufacturing companies. It does not serve the interests of Decker
and Calvey-Gunderman, whose interests the framers of this section
of the Act clearly intended to protect. Rather, it is opposed to the
interests of these employers, who had established a successful working
arrangement with the Union, joined its ranks, appeared on its behalf
in this case, and in every way indicated that the policy of the Union
against the installation of prehung doors was their policy and in their
interest as good union members. I cannot agree that public policy
requires the disruption of this relationship. I cannot agree that the
terms "strike" and "concerted refusal to work" under Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) means or was intended by Congress to mean a cessation from
such work as an employer neither wants nor requires his employees'
to perform.
For these reasons I dissent.
MEMBER PETERSON , dissenting :
I concur in the dissenting opinion of Member Murdock and, for the
reasons stated by him, I would dismiss the complaint.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 11 AND OF CUYAHOGA, LAKE &
GEAUGA & ASHTABULA COUNTIES CARPENTERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL
AFFILIATED WITH UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS
OF AMERICA, AFL; AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF WILFORD DECKER AND
CALVEY-GUNDERMAN CO.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of Wilford
Decker, Calvey-Gunderman, or any other employer, to engage
in a concerted refusal in the, course of their employment to use,,
LOCAL 11 1091
manufacture, process , transport, ' or otherwise handle or work
on any goods , articles , materials , or commodities or to perform
any services for their employers , where an object thereof is to
force or require Wilford Decker, Calvey- Gunderman , Erie Build-
ing Company, Scholz Homes , Inc., or any other employer, to
cease using, handling, or otherwise dealing in the products of,
or to cease doing business with, General Millwork Corporation,
Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation, or any other manufac-
turer of prehung or nonunion doors.
CUYAHOGA , LAKE & GEAUGA & ASHTABULA
COUNTIES CARPENTERS' DISTRICT COUN-
CIL, AFFILIATED WITH UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMER-
ICA, AFL,
Dated---------------- By-----------------=-------------------
(Representative) (Title)
LOCAL 11, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN-
TERS & JOINERS • OF AMERICA, AFL,
Dated--------- ------- By------=------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
Frank Ailor , Business Agent.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by General Millwork Corporation and Haskelite Manu-
facturing Corporation against Local 11 and Cuyahoga, Lake & Geauga & Ashtabula
Counties Carpenters' District Council, both affiliated with United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, and against Frank Ailor, business agent, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on September 22, 1954,
issued his order consolidating cases and notice of hearing, and also his amended com-
plaint in the consolidated case, alleging that Respondents, and each of them, had
engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4) (A) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleged in substance
that on and since June 4, 1954, through bylaws and working rules and giving instruc-
tions to employees of the subcontractors, Calvey-Gunderman Construction Company
and Wilford Decker, the Respondents and each of them have induced and en-
couraged said employees not to install, and thereby to engage in a concerted refusal
in the course of their employment, certain prehung doors (Gemco doors made by
General Millwork Corporation, and Hasco doors made by Haskelite Manufacturing
Corporation) on the jobsite of the contractor, Erie Building Company, an object
thereof being to force or require the'two subcontractors, the contractor, Scholz Homes,
Inc. (from whom the contractor bought the doors), and other employers, to cease
using, selling , handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of and/or
cease doing business with General Millwork Corporation and Haskelite Manufactur-
ing Corporation.
In their answers Respondents denied the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices.
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held October 11, 12, and 13, 1954, and a reopened
hearing November 15 and-16, 1954, in Cleveland, Ohio, before Alba B. Martin, the
duly designated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Respondents were rep-
resented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence relevant to the
-issues was afforded all parties. At the end of both hearings, decision was reserved
upon Respondents' motions to dismiss for want of proof. These motions are here-
by disposed of in accordance with the findings and conclusions made herein. The
,General Counsel made oral argument, and Respondents filed a brief, which has been
carefully considered. After the hearing the parties filed a stipulation making cer-
' tain corrections in the transcript. The transcript is hereby corrected as set forth in
the stipulation, which is included in the exhibit file as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 7.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
General Millwork Corporation was incorporated in Indiana in February 1954.
Since April 1, 1954, when it began manufacturing, it has been engaged at its only
factory in Marion, Indiana, in the business of manufacturing package door units
known as redi-hung (or prehung) door units called Gemco doors. During its first 6
months of operation, April 1 to September 30, 1954, its manufactured products were
valued at approximately $240,000, of which approximately 82 percent was shipped
outside of Indiana.
Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation, a New York corporation, for at least the
last 6 years has been engaged at its only plant, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the
manufacture and sale of various types of laminations and fabrications out of wood,
metal, and other materials. The total value of its sales during 1953 was about
$7,300,000, of which over $6,000,000 were shipped outside of Michigan. During the
first 6 months of 1954 the total value of its sales was approximately $3,542,000, of
which over $3,036,000 was shipped outside of Michigan. Among its products are
redi-hung or prehung doors called Hasko doors. During 1953, the value of Hasko
doors manufactured was approximately $201,300, of which approximately $189,194
were shipped otuside of Michigan. During the first 6 months of 1954, the value of
Hasko doors manufactured was approximately $106,520, of which approximately
$102,416 was shipped outside of Michigan.
Scholz Homes, Inc., an Ohio corporation chartered to manufacture prefabricated
homes, has been in existence since the fall of 1953. At its plant in Toledo, Ohio, it
assembles and ships the components-of prefabricated homes, including the rough
structure, windows, doors, finished material, interior wall material, roofing, glass-
basically everything except the plumbing, heating, electrical, and masonry work.
The materials going into the components come to it from the States of Washington,
Oregon, California, and New York, including Gemco doors from Indiana and Hasko
doors from Michigan. Its prefabricated home package, including the prehung doors,
sells for somewhere between $4,000 and $10,000. From April 1 to October 11, 1954,
the total value of the home packages sold by it was approximately 2i million dollars,
of which approximately 80 percent was shipped to points outside of Ohio.
On the above evidence it is held that General Millwork Corporation,' Haskelite
Manufacturing Corporation, and Scholz Homes, Inc., are each engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and that the volume of their interstate business is such
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this
proceeding.
Erie Building Company, an Ohio corporation engaged as a general contractor in
the building of single residences, since May 1954, has been constructing on Hilliard
Road, Rocky River, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland (called the Hilliard Road project),
homes prefabricated by Scholz Homes, Inc., including the prehung doors. Prior to
May 1954, some seven of these homes had been constructed in the vicinity by Erie's
predecessor corporation. By June 3, 1954, Erie was at work on some 12 to 15 houses
in the project, but only 1 was ready for the installation of the prehung doors, which
was a part of the finishing work. By October 11, 1954, construction had been started
on 22 houses.
The carpenter work on the Hilliard Road project was performed by employees of
Erie's subcontractors, Wilford Decker and Calvey-Gunderman, a partnership All
employees referred to herein, unless otherwise stated, were employees of Decker
and/or Calvey-Gunderman.
LOCAL 11
II. THE RESPONDENTS
1093
Local 11 and Cuyahoga , Lake & Geauga & Ashtabula Counties Carpenters' Dis-
trict Council (herein called Respondent District Council and the District Council),
both affiliated with United Brotherhood'of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL,
are both labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Frank
Ailor' is business agent of Local 11 and a delegate from Local 11 to Respondent
District Council.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondents' laws and rules, and the duties of business agents
All carpenters , including the foremen , on'the Hilliard Road project were members
of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL , referred to
herein as the United . In becoming a member each had taken an obligation to
abide by its constitution and laws, to observe its "local trade rules." At all times
herein pertinent Respondent District Council carried on its activities under the
constitution and laws of the United and under its own constitution and bylaws and'
working rules not inconsistent with those of the United.
The general laws'of the United provided that, "District Councils shall have the
power to make By-Laws , Working and Trade Rules for the government of the
Local Unions and the members of the United Brotherhood working in their dis-
tricts," and provided further that district councils had the power "to hold trial for
all violations by members or Local Unions and impose such penalties as they may
deem, the case requires . . The general laws provided for the regulation'and
control of the United 's union label , stating in pertinent part that, "It shall be the
duty of all District Councils, Local Unions and each member . . . to make it
generally known to the members of the Local Union that it is necessary to all
mill and shop members and the United Brotherhood that products made in fac-
tories, shops or mills where only members of the United Brotherhood are employed
should be installed by fellow-members. . . . Where owner or architect specifies
that union materials shall be used on any job or building , none other shall be handled
by'the membership or our Brotherhood , under penalty of suspension from the
United Brotherhood ." [Emphasis supplied.]
Under its own constitution and bylaws, one of the objects of Respondent District
Council was "to assist our members to procure employment ." Under its own con-
stitution and bylaws, Respondent District Council reserved unto itself "the power
to frame working and trade rules and other laws and rules, and the enforcement
of same for the benefit of the organization in this district . They [sic] shall have
the power to collect all fines levied by the Council for violations of the Laws-
trade and other rules-of the District ." A trial committee was established, which
had as its functions , "to try all charges of violation of the General Constitution and
Working or Trade Rules or the Constitution and By-Laws of this district. . .
Appeal from the trial committee was to Respondent District Council itself, and
"all fines imposed by the Trial Committee and approved by the District Council,
must be.paid within thirty days from date of notification."
Respondent District Council's constitution and bylaws provide further that "any
member who has violated any of the Trade Rules of this District Council . and
has been convicted of same shall not be eligible to hold office . . . in this Council,
nor shall he act as delegate thereto until the expiration of five years from date of
said conviction." '
Respondent District Council 's working rules for carpenters provided that:
It is the duty of each member to know these rules , to abide by them and to
assist in enforcing them. . . . Charges may be preferred against any member
who fails to perform this duty. . Any member refusing to show his Working
Card when called upon by the Business Agent or Shop Steward shall be sub-
ject to charges. . . No member of this district will be permitted to work
under a non -union foreman . . . . No member of any of the affiliated Locals
of this district shall work on any job or in any shop, mill, or factory with any
person who is employed in any of the branches or sub-divisions of the - carpen-
try industry unless such person is a member of the United . and in the
possession of the current Working Card . . Any member obstructing the
business agents or stewards in the lawful discharge of their duties or who stays
to work on any job or in any shop that is on strike shall be subjected to charges
and penalized. . . . Any superintendent , foremen, or steward allowing any-
one or instructing other than members of the United . . . to do any work
coming under the jurisdiction of the United . . . enumerated in our Trade
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Autonomy, upon being charged and found guilty, shall be fined as per recom-
mendation of the Trial Committee.... Any superintendent, foreman, or
steward complying and enforcing our Trade Jurisdiction shall receive the
united support of the Organization . . . Members knowing of any , viola-
tion of these rules are required to prefer charges before the District Council
and all violations will be tried by the Trial Committee of the District Council,
and any member found guilty of violating these rules shall be fined as per the
recommendation of the Trial Committee.
Rule 43 of Respondent District Council's working rules, the only rule referred
to by number by Respondent Ailor, as seen below, provided that, "Members known
as inside men, millmen , or shop -men . . . shall not cut or mortise for locks , strik-
ing plates , or hinges . or put on any hardware whatsoever on trim , movable
^yfixtures. . . . Neither shall they make . . . the cutting , making or grounding
of doors or window bucks, framing members, etc."
In the same booklet with its working rules, Respondent District Council set forth
.its jurisdictional claims over certain classifications of work , known as its "Trade
Autonomy." Among the work claimed was,
The installation of all interior and exterior . . . doors, transoms, thresholds
and windows. The setting of jambs, bucks.. . The installation of all wood
.. . casings, moulding.... The mortising and application of all hardware in
connection with our work. . . .
Local 11 has no separate working rules of its own, but is subject to those of
Respondent District Council.
Business agents of Respondent District Council are composed of delegates elected
from all local unions within its jurisdiction , including Respondent Local 11, the,
number of delegates from each local depending upon the number of memb ers` in
the local. Business agents are ex officio delegates to the District Council, except that
the District Council reserves unto itself "the right to judge the fitness of a member
as a delegate and reject the credentials of same for just cause. . . Any delegate
may be removed as a delegate, but only after he has been convicted of a violation
of Respondent District Council's Trade Rules or . . . By-Laws." Business agents
are under the supervision of the president of the District Council. They "must report
daily at the District Council office unless urgent business calls them elsewhere, and
must call the office for instructions at least once a day. Also must report all jobs
in his district. . . . They must endeavor to enforce Trade Rules in regards to hours
and wages and carry out all instructions given them by the officials of the District
Council. . . . If at any time this District Council or any Local Union affiliated
shall become convinced'said Business Agent is not faithfully performing his 'duty,
charges must immediately be preferred against him in writing. Said charges shall,
be taken by the District Council as a Committee of the Whole, and if found guilty
as charged, he may be fined, suspended from duty or removed from office, as the
District Council may decide." Respondent Ailor testified that it was his duty as
business agent "to uphold the rules of our organization , to assist the membership
in any way possible," and that a part of the duty was to enforce the working rules
of the District Council. Ailor testified also that it was the duty of the steward on
the job to see that "the working rules of the carpenters are lived up to."
B. The events of June and October 1954
On about June 3, 1954, Business Agent Frank Ailor, while at the Hilliard Road
project, noticed a door bearing a stamp, "Union Made," but which was not the Car-
penters' union label. This was a Hasco door. Taking the initiative Ailor went into
the project office and talked with David H. Jacobs, secretary-treasurer of Erie Build-
ing Company. He told Jacobs that the door had a union stamp but that it was not
the Carpenters' label.
Later that day Ailor made a long-distance telephone call to Grand Rapids, Mich-
igan, where Hasko doors were made, and was told by "the carpenters business agent"
there that "they [meaning Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation] have a company
union. That's not our union. They don't belong to the Brotherhood." The record
does not disclose Ailor's reply, or what, if any, course of action was discussed or
planned.
The next day, June 4, Ailor returned to the Hilliard Road project and had a dis-
cussion with Superintendent Orville Campbell of Erie Building Company and two
union stewards, Ted Thorn, a carpenter who worked for Wilford Decker, and John
Bacho, a carpenter who worked for Calvey-Gunderman. According to Campbell,
LOCAL 11 1095
the business agent and the two stewards called him over to a house where some of
the doors were stored, and pointing out the "union made" on a Hasco door Ailor
observed, in the presence of the two stewards, that "they would not recognize that
particular label and he pulled out of his pocket a card showing the type of label they
would recognize"-which the the United's label . According to Campbell, Ailor
said that "they would not recognize that particular door [the Hasco door], neither
would they hang that particular door . because it . didn't have the union
label on that they recognize." Campbell added that as they left the house Ailor stated
further, in the presence of the two stewards, that "we won't hang any pre-hung door.
We want to keep the work for our own carpenters." Campbell then asked Ailor
"whether he would give me that in w riting and we would give it to Scholz Homes,
Inc." Ailor replied that he would not, "because that would be held against him.•"
When Campbell replied that he could not go to, his boss with just Ailor's verbal
statement, the latter invited him over where he would show Campbell "our by-laws
where we dare not hang those particular doors.",
Ailor's version of the same incident was that he talked with the two stewards first,
and then talked alone with Campbell . To the two stewards he said , "this is not
our label . These doors are non-union as far as we are concerned ." Asked if he
said anything to the stewards about the working rules, Ailor replied, "No. . They
know the working rules. I didn't have to say anything about them." In substance
Ailor denied saying in the presence of the stewards that they would not hang any
prehung door and that they wanted to keep that work for their own carpenters.
Ailor admitted that Campbell asked him for a letter stating they would not hang
the doors because they were "not union," and testified that he refused such letter,
giving no reason for the refusal . Ailor testified that the reason why he refused
was that "if anything happened, it would be used as evidence against me that I gave
them a letter to that effect"-but that he did not give any such reason to Campbell.
As between Ailor and Campbell, the latter appeared to me to be the more
credible witness. Under all the circumstances of the case, Campbell's version of
the above conversation is credited. It is held that in the presence of the two stewards,
who were employees, Ailor said, in substance, that the carpenters on the job would
not "recognize" the "Union Made" label on the Hasco door, would not hang the
Hasco door, and would not install any prehung door because they wanted to keep
the work that went into a prehung door for the men on the jobsite. It is held in
addition that in the presence of the two stewards Ailor invited campbell to come
and see "our by-laws where we dare not hang those particular doors."
After Ailor's conversation with Campbell and the two stewards, probably the
same day, Campbell asked Wilford Decker's foreman if he would install the 2 re-
maining doors in the 1 house that was almost finished and lacked only these 2 doors
of, the normal 14 doors in the house. The foreman, Kenny Culek, said that they
would install these two doors and apparently the men did. But thereafter no other
prehung doors were installed.
During the ensuing days Ailor and David H. Jacobs had several telephone con-
versations, Jacobs asking what Erie could do to continue hanging the prehung
doors, and Ailor taking the position that just then he did not know, that Jacobs
should call back in a day or so. Finally Ailor told Jacobs that the latter "should
produce a letter from Scholz Homes,- Inc., stating that . Scholz Homes, would
no'longer ship nonunion made doors to our project . . . and on receipt of this letter
[Ailor] would authorize us to continue hanging these doors."
On June 21, 1954, Jacobs wrote to Donald Scholz, president of Scholz Homes,
Inc., requesting a letter to Local 11 saying no more doors without the proper union
label will be shipped.
On June 22, Scholz wrote Ailor in substance that he had canceled all orders for
I-Iasko doors and in the future would forward only Gemco doors, which he under-
stood bore the approved Carpenters' label.
About June 24 or 25, Jacobs again phoned Ailor, and upon learning that Ailor
had received the letter from Scholz, asked Ailor if Jacobs could now go ahead and
hang the doors. Ailor replied that he could not authorize it, and requested Jacobs
to call him back a short time later.
About 2 days later Jacobs again called Ailor and asked the same question. Ailor
replied that he could not authorize the hanging of the doors without something in
letter form or otherwise from his International office. Then Ailor asked Jacobs
if he was aware of rule 43 of the working rules and read rule 43 over the telephone
to Jacobs. According to Ailor's testimony they were then talking about Gemco
doors, and Ailor took the position that as the Gemco doors were prehung, rule 43
barred him from permitting their installation.
379288-56-vol 113-70
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to the undenied testimony of David H. Jacobs, a credible 'witness,
about every other day for the next 2 weeks he telephoned Ailor and asked him if
he could give Jacobs permission to continue hanging the ,prehung doors. Each
time Ailor replied that he could not.
On about July 6 or 7, Jacobs asked Foreman Kenny Culek "if he would hang
-the doors for me." Culek replied that he would not, that "I do not want my union
card pulled."
On June 28, Donald Scholz made a long-distance telephone call to Frank Ailor,
telling him that, "the reason we had shifted to Gemco doors was to satisfy his
original requirement of a door with a union label, hung by carpenters to agree with
the union working rules that so prescribed." Ailor replied in substance that there
was no proof that the Gemco door was hung by carpenters, and that he was merely
following union policy as it was laid down in the working rules-namely, that the
,working rules required that carpenters do this particular work on the doors. In
conclusion Ailor said that they were not going to allow the doors to be hung-re-
ferring to Gemco doors. This conversation was given by Scholz, a credible' witness,
although Ailor did not remember it. Scholz' testimony is credited.
Upon instruction from Jacobs in July, all prehung doors on hand were returned
to Scholz Homes, Inc., in Toledo, Ohio.
Since late June or early July all doors on the project have been made conven-
tionally. Doors, stock casings, stops, and hardware have been ordered. The
carpenters on the jobsite have blocked and set the jamb, trimmed the opening, cut
and planed the cases around the opening, fit the door to the sides of the opening,
mortised in the hinges, mortised in the lock or other hardware, and checked the
side plates, push plates, height plates, panic bolts, etc. Although prehung doors
had been hung in a few homes, the custom and practice in the Cleveland area had
long been that this work was performed on the jobsite rather than in a mill.
As a result of the refusal to hang the prehuung doors and the hanging of the doors
conventionally, according to the credited testimony of Jacobs, the inside or finishing
work on some 12 to 15 houses then under construction on the Hilliard Road project
was delayed-the net result being that the completion of these 12 to 15 houses was
delayed from 4 to 6 weeks.
In about September 1954, some prehung doors arrived at the Hilliard Road
project. The union steward, Ted Thorn, asked Superintendent Campbell of Erie
Building Company who had given him permission to have them shipped onto the
job. Campbell replied that he did not know. ,
On the early morning of October 13, 1954, just prior to the opening of the final
hearing day of the original hearing herein, at the Hilliard Road project the crew of
Calvey-Gunderman and three employees of Erie Building Company unloaded from a
truck all of a packaged home except the doors, which were Hasco doors. It was nor-
mal practice for the crew of the contractor who was going to erect the house to unload
it from the truck at or near the housesite, and on this occasion the three Erie employ-
ees were loaned to assist because muddy conditions necessitated longer manual carry-
ing of the packages. When Superintendent Campbell learned that the doors had not
been unloaded he asked John Bacho, the union steward for the Calvey-Gunderman
crew, "What about the doors?" In the presence of the Calvey-Gunderman crew of
about 4 men and 3 employees of Erie, John Bacho replied that they "wouldn't unload
the doors because they were not union doors."
A little later that morning when David H. Jacobs arrived and asked John Bacho
why he didn't unload the doors, Bacho replied that they did not bear the AFL label-'
meaning the United's label. As he said this the other members of the Calvey-
Gunderman crew were nearby-perhaps 40 to 50 feet away-but not necessarily
within hearing distance.
Late that morning the doors were made fast to the truck and'the truck drove away
with them, presumably back to Toledo. Since then no one has asked Scholz to
return them to the jobsite.
When that afternoon after the conclusion of the original hearing herein Counsel
for the General Counsel learned of this incident and apprised Respondent's at-
torney of it, he also pointed out that in view of an earlier stipulation entered into
between the parties in a matter in the United States District Court for-the Northern
District of Ohio with reference to the events in June, it might be necessary for the
General Counsel to take further action in the court proceedings. Then Respond-
ent's attorney contacted the president of Respondent District Council, who gave
instructions to Ailor to arrange a meeting the following morning with Jacobs and
the two subcontractors and "to instruct the contractors [meaning the subcontractors]
to instruct their foreman to use the doors." That is what Ailor did. He asked Jacobs
i
LOCAL 11 1097
for a meeting the following morning and to have Decker and Thomas Calvey, a
partner in Calvey-Gunderman, present.
At the meeting at the Hilliard Road project during the morning of October 14,
with Jacobs, Decker, and Calvey present, Ailor told Decker and Calvey to tell their
foremen to use the Hasko doors. Decker and Calvey said they would do so.
To be noted in this connection is that Ailor did not, insofar as the record discloses,
instruct the Union's stewards on the job, or the carpenters, all of whom were union
members and subject to the jurisdiction of Respondent District Council, to hang the
doors.
C. Respondents' contentions and my conclusions
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization or its agents to engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of any
em.
a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to . . . handle or
work on any goods . where an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requring any
employer . . . or other person to cease using . or otherwise dealing in
the products of any other producer ... or manufacturer, or to cease doing
business with any other person. [Emphasis supplied.]
Here the carpenters had installed some 12 of the prehung doors in 1 house prior
to Ailor's discovery that they did not bear the United label, and after he spoke in
the presence of the 2 stewards as he did, no more were installed-except the 2 doors
to finish the 1 house. According to the credited testimony of Superintendent
Campbell, who as superintendent of the job was presumably on the job every day,
i and certainly more often than the subcontractors and Ailor, a second house would
have been ready for installation of the prehung doors within a week after June
4, 1954, and 1 or 2 houses per week thereafter. Subcontractor Decker admitted
that one day, probably in June, the union steward among his employees, Ted Thom,
pointed out to him that the doors did not have the Carpenter's label. Thomas
Calvey, of subcontractor Calvey-Gunderman, admitted that the union steward among
his employees, and his foreman, told him one day that they were not supposed to
hang the doors until something was worked out.
1. Respondents contend that here there was no concerted refusal because Ailor
spoke in the presence of only one employee of each subcontractor. But the cir-
cumstances here differ from those in the Joliet case,' relied on by Respondents.
There, in the Ice incident and the Sears Roebuck incident, only one man was on
the job and refused to work. Here some 3 to 5 carpenters were working for each
subcontractor, all of whom refused to hang the prehung doors.
Under all the circumstances of this case, it is held that on June 4 and again on
October 13, 1954, the carpenters of the two subcontractors engaged in a concerted
refusal in the course of their employment to handle or work on the prehung doors.
2. (a) The question arises as to whether they were induced or encouraged to engage
in such concerted refusal, and if so, by whom and what. As found above, in the
presence of the steward-employees Business Agent Ailor stated that the men would
not recognize and would not hang the Hasco door, would not install any prehung
door, and referred to the bylaws to buttress their refusal-and thereafter no pre-
hung doors were installed (except the two). On these facts and on the entire record
in the case considered as a whole I find that Respondent Ailor induced and en-
couraged the employees of the two subcontractors to refuse to hang the doors, and
that as business agent he is responsible for such action.
(b) In substance Respondents contend there were no Gemco doors at the job-
site on June 4, and that for that reason there could have been no inducement or
encouragement of employees to engage in a refusal to hang Gemco doors on that
and the immediately succeeding days. Jacobs and Campbell both testified that
from the beginning both Hasko and Gemco doors were received in the house
packages from Scholz Homes, Inc. Campbell stated that the 2 doors installed in
the 1 house to complete it, on or shortly after June 4, were Gemco doors. Campbell
testified that when, on June 4, Ailor was talking to him in the presence of the two
steward-employees, they looked at both Hasco and Gemco doors, and it was there-
after that Ailor said they would hang no prehung doors. Although, as shown by
his letter to Ailor of June 22, Scholz had not heard that Gemco as well as Hasko
doors were unacceptable, this may have been because word of this fact had not
reached Jacobs, who requested the letter from Scholz. There is no proof that this
I Glaziers' Union Local No. 27, et at. (Joliet Contractors Association ), 99 NLRB 1391,
affd. 202 F. 2d 606 (C. A. 7).
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fact had been made clear to Jacobs. And some testimony suggests that even though
Ailor took the position June 4 that no prehung doors would be hung, thereafter he
had some doubt himself about Gemco doors, requested delays, and suggested that
the others get in touch with his International office. On the record as a whole I
hold that both Hasco and Gemco doors were on the jobsite on and after June 4,
1954, and that the inducement and encouragement related to'both kinds of doors.
(c) On October 13, 1954, Union Steward John Bacho, in the presence of about
4 employees of Calvey-Gunderman and 3 employees of Erie Building Company,
stated that the men would not unload the Hasco doors, "because they were not
union, doors" and he did not unload them himself. It is held that this was induce-
ment and, encouragement of-employees within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
of'the Act.
(d) As stated above, Ailor testified that his duties as business agent were "to uphold
the .rules of our organization, to assist the membership in any way possible," and
that apart-of his duty was to enforce the working rules of the District Council. He",t t'
testified further that on the day when he discovered that the doors being installed
did not carry the Carpenters' label, he was out at the Hilliard Road project on "just
a routine check, just performing my duty-stopped in there, that's all." He did
not testify that he was performing his' duty only for Local 11. Asked what he did
when he got out there, Ailor replied, "Oh, I just happened to walk through a house
looking for my steward and I ran across the door."
As seen above, as a business agent Ailor was under the supervision of the president
of the District Council, was required under ordinary circumstances to report daily
at the District Council office and/or to call the office for instructions at least once
a day, and was under duty to carry out all instructions given him by the officials
of the District Council. Upon being found guilty of not faithfully performing, his
duty 'by the District Council, he could--be removed from office by the. District
Council. - -
Upon the above evidence, and on the entire record considered as a whole, I hold-
that at all' times material herein Respondent District Council and Ailor had authority
to enforce the provisions of the District Council's constitution, bylaws, and working
rules, and that Ailor's actions and statements in reference to the prehung doors, as
outlined above, were made in the exercise of this authority, Respondent District
Council thereby being responsible for such actions and statements.
Now was the District Council also responsible for John Bacho' s statement and
action of October 13? Ailor testified that the duty of the union steward on the job,
is to see that "the working rules of the carpenters are lived up to." The working
rules themselves imposed penalties upon any members who obstructed the "business
agents or stewards- in the lawful, discharge of their duties"-meaning duties for the
Union'., The District Council's working rules provided further that any. steward
who allowed "anyone . to do any work coming under the jurisdiction of the
United . . ." could be fined. Upon this evidence, and on the entire record con-
sidered as a whole, I hold that Bacho's statement and action were made in the
exercise of his authority as a steward from the District Council, and that said
District Council is thereby responsible for such statement and action.
(e) Ailor having acted also as business agent for Local 11, and his actions and
statements having been within the scope of his authority as such business agent,
it is held that Local 11 as well as the District Council was responsible for his actions.
(f) The question arises as to whether the District Council's constitution, bylaws,
and working rules constituted inducement or encouragement concertedly to refuse
to hang the prehung doors. As seen above, rule 43 of the working rules provided
that millmen or shopmen should not perform the work disputed herein, the work
that went into the making of the prehung doors, and the "Trade Autonomy" reserved
such work to carpenters. Respondents interpreted this to mean carpenters working
on the jobsite. Respondent District Council's constitution and bylaws reserved
enforcement powers in the District Council itself, and provided sanctions to induce
observance. In the present situation, Ailor testified that he didn't need to say any-
thing about the working rules to the men, because they knew them-and, as set
forth in the constitutions and laws of the United and the District Council, they were
obligated both to know and to follow them. As has been seen above, on July 6 or 7,
Foreman Kenny Culek told Jacobs that he would not hang the doors, that "I do not
want my union card pulled." Earlier Ailor had referred to the bylaws and to the
lack of a union label, and later, on October 13, Steward Bacho referred to the lack
of an AFL label on the doors as the reason why the men would not unload them
from the truck. On the entire record considered as a whole, and in accordance with
LOCAL 11 1099
the court's decision in the Joliet Contractors case,2 I hold that Respondent District
Council's constitution, bylaws, working rules, and trade rules or trade autonomy,
as they were applied, constituted inducement or encouragement within the'meaning
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
3. The question arises as to whether an object of the concerted refusal to, handle
or--work on the prehung doors was to force any employer to cease using the doors or
to cease doing business with any other person. As has been seen, in his telephone
call to Grand Rapids, where the Hasco doors were made, Ailor learned from a fellow
business agent, in substance, that Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation had a com-
pany union because its union did not belong to the United . In his long-distance
telephone conversation with Scholz, Ailor told Scholz that there was no proof that
the Gemco door was made by carpenters. In his request that Jacobs should have
Scholz Homes, Inc., produce a letter, Ailor specified that the letter should state
that Scholz Homes, Inc., would no-longer ship nonunion doors to the project. On
this record it cannot be doubted that the target was the use of prehung doors; and
any and all who handled, used, or sold such doors -were the intended victims of the
Respondents' course of action. On the entire record considered as a whole it is
held that an object was to force the subcontractors and the contractor, Erie Building
Company, to cease using the prehung doors, and therefore to cease purchasing pre-
hung doors from Scholz Homes, Inc.; a further objective was to force Scholz Homes,
Inc., to cease including Hasco or Gemco doors in its prefabricated home package,
thereby forcing it to cease doing business with General Millwork Corporation and
Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation .3
4. All the elements of an 8 (b) (4) (A) violation being present-inducement,
refusal, and unlawful objective-we now turn to Respondents' principal defense, that
the Board's Conway 4 doctrine renders the Respondents' statements and actions not a
violation. Although the Board's recent McAllister 5 decision may render it unneces-
sary to treat such defense, considering it appears advisable in view of the separate
concurring and dissenting opinions.
In the geographical area covered by Respondent District Council, employment
conditions for carpenters are customarily established by a collective-bargaining
agreement between the District Council on the one hand and a number of employer
associations on the other, including the' Carpenter Contractors' Association of
Cleveland, Ohio, and the Building Trades Employers' Association and/or its members.
Prior to the summer of 1954, no such contract included any "hot cargo," "struck
work," or "unfair goods" clause. During that summer a contract was executed which
set forth the District Council's "Trade Autonomy" and provided that it should
apply. This contract provided that, "It is ... understood that the provisions of
this Agreement shall govern the employment of and the conditions, under which the
Union shall work in Cuyahoga, Lake, Geauga and Ashtabula Counties." As set
forth above, the "Trade Autonomy" included, in substance, the installation of
conventional doors on the jobsite.
The Board's Conway doctrine is that Section 8 (b) (4) (A) does not prohibit an
"unfair goods" clause in a contract, through which the secondary employer consents
in advance that his employees may refuse to handle "unfair goods" of any employer
involved in a labor dispute with the Union; for in that situation the failure of the
employees of the secondary employer to handle the "unfair goods" of the primary
employer was not in a literal sense a "refusal" to work as those words are used in
Section 8 (b) (4) (A), nor was any such concerted insubordination contemplated by
the Union when it induced the employees to exercise their, contractual privilege.
For a number of reasons the contract in the present proceeding does not qualify as a
defense within the Conway doctrine.
2 Supra, footnote 1
6In substance Respondents urge that the objective of Respondents was enforcing com-
pliance with the United's and District Council's constitutions, bylaws, and trade and work-
ing rules. But where one or more proscribed objectives are present, it is not necessary
that they all be It is not required in order to sustain the charged violation, that the
"sole" object of the conduct be proscribed. N. L. R. B. v. Denver Building & Construction
Trades Council, 341 U. S. 675, 689 ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v.
N. L. R. B , 341 U. S. 694, 700; Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America v. N. L. R B., 341 U. S. 707, 713.
*International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, et at. (Henry V . Rabouin, d/b/a Conway's Express ), 87 NLRB 972 , affd. 195
F. 2d 906 (C A. 2).
6International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, at at. (McAllister Transfer , Inc.), 110 NLRB 1769.
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) No clause in the 1954 contract herein clearly gives this consent in advance
that employees may refuse to handle "unfair goods." At the most the "Trade
Autonomy" clauses stated that the disputed work should be performed by the local
carpenters; it did not say that the local carpenters could refuse to handle the work if
in fact it was performed, by others.
(b) The contract recites that it was "made and entered into this 6th day of July,
1954," and that it was signed on July 6, 1954. Although it was successor to a
contract which expired May 1, 1954, and although one or more of its provisions
were made effective as of that date, others of its provisions were made effective as
of other dates. It contained no clause that the entire contract was made retro-
active to or effective from May 1. It is concluded that during the events of June 1954,
herein, there was no contract between the District Council and the employer
associations.
(c) Although both partners in the partnership of Calvey-Gunderman were members
of the Home Builders Association of Greater Cleveland, they were not bound by
the provisions of the contract because said Association refused to sign the 1954
contract and was not therefore bound by it. The Home Builders Association had
participated in the 1954 negotiations only on a conditional basis. It considered that
the written draft presented to it for signature did not correspond with the under-
standing of the minds at the conclusion of the negotiations, and so it refused to sign.
Instead it presented to Respondent District Council for signature, its own draft of its
understanding of the provisions orally agreed upon. This draft the District Council
did not sign. The assistant director of The Home Builders Association testified that
his Association now has no contract with the District Council and that it operates
without any contract. It is held that at all times since May 1, 1954, there has been
no contract, written or oral, between The Home Builders Association of Greater
Cleveland and the District Council or Local 11.
(d) Subcontractor Decker and Contractor Erie Building Company were members
of no employer association that was a party to the 1954 contract, and so clearly
did not consent in advance that their employees could refuse to handle "unfair goods."
(e) Respondents urge that the subcontractors considered themselves bound by the
contract and that they "went along with" the contract. They were not, however,
bound by the contract (assuming, contrary to the above finding, that there was a
contract during the events in June 1954) and they did not "go along with" the con-
tract because of any legal obligation to do so. Further, both admitted that they
did not know the provisions of the contract until shortly before the original hearing
herein, which occurred in October.
(f) Respondents urge that the secondary employers, the subcontractors, by virtue
of their own membership in the United and by virtue of the customs and usages
of the trade in the Cleveland area, had in effect bound themselves in advance with
the Union, and that because of this agreement the matter falls within the Conway
doctrine. But the contract in the Conway case was a collective-bargaining contract
between employer and employee in that relationship, which is something quite dif-
ferent from the conditions and understandings with which men in a given trade band
themselves together in a voluntary trade organization. Further, both Decker and
Calvey testified in substance that they were not on the jobsite very much, and that
they did not instruct their employees not to install the prehung doors. The testimony
of each indicates that only after the refusal to hang the doors did he learn of the
refusal. The proof here is that the men refused to hang the doors not because of any
contractual relationship between the subcontractors and the several components of
the Union, and not because of custom and usage in the area, but because of their
own obligations of membership in the Carpenters' union, and pursuant to the induce-
ment and encouragement found herein.
5. Respondents contend that there was no labor dispute between the "Carpenters
Union" and either General Millwork Corporation or Haskelite Manufacturing Cor-
poration, and that any refusal here was privileged because it was allegedly against
primary employers. But as the Board found in Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers'
District Council, et al. (Sound Shingle Co.), 101 NLRB 1159, Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
did not contemplate the existence of an active dispute, over specific demands, be-
tween the union and the producer of the goods under union interdict. The Board's
order was enforced (211 F. 2d 149 (C. A. 9) ).
6. Under all the circumstances, on the basis of the entire record considered as a
whole, I conclude that the Respondents induced and encouraged employees of the
employers to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to
handle or work on goods where an object thereof was to force or require the em-
ployers, Erie Building Company and Scholz Homes, Inc., to cease using or otherwise
DARLINGTON VENEER COMPANY, INC. 1101
dealing in the products of General Millwork Corporation and Haskelite Manu-
facturing Corporation , in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the amended Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of General Millwork Corporation, Haskelite Manufacturing
Corporation, and Scholz Homes, Inc., 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 to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the
Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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. Local 11, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, and
Cuyahoga, Lake & Geauga & Ashtabula Counties Carpenters' District Council af-
filiated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Frank Ailor is
business agent of Respondent Local 11, and an agent of Respondent District Council
within the meaning of the Act.
2. By applying Respondent District Council's constitution, bylaws, working rules,
and trade rules or trade autonomy in such a manner as to induce and encourage, and
by otherwise inducing and encouraging, employees of Wilford Decker and Calvey-
Gunderman to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to
handle or hang Hasco and Gemco doors, an object thereof being to force and require
Wilford Decker, Calvey-Gunderman, Erie Building Company, and Scholz Homes,
Inc., to cease using or otherwise dealing in the products of General Millwork Cor-
poration and Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation, the Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Darlington Veneer Company, Inc. and Henry Hule
Darlington Veneer Company , Inc. and Plywood and Veneer
Workers Local Union No. 3043, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL
Darlington Veneer Company, Inc. and Plywood and Veneer
Workers Local Union No. 3043, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America , AFL. Cases Nos. 11-CA-788,
11-CA-785, and 11-CA-787. August 26, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 21, 1955, Trial Examiner David London issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
113 NLRB No. 125.