Local 1065, United Brotherhood of Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 901 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

LOCAL 1065 , UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 901
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
CONTINENTAL Bus SYSTEM INC. D/B/A CONTINENTAL
ROCKY MOUNTAIN LINES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 609 Rail-
way Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Street, Denver, Colorado, Telephone
Number, Keystone 4-4151, Extension 513, if they have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Local Union No. 1065, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and Willamette General Con-
tractors Association and C. J. Hansen Company. Cases Nos.
36-CC-87-1 and 36-CC-87-2. September 25, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 21, 1962, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his
Intermediate 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 take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a motion to re-
open the record and the General Counsel filed a motion in opposition
thereto.' The Respondent also filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report, a supporting brief, and a request for oral argument.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
'By its motion to reopen the record , the Respondent seeks to introduce certain evi-
dence which it alleges would establish that its picketing was conducted for the purpose of
forcing Mills Construction Company to submit to an arbitration under the terms of its
contract with Respondent . Even If It could be said that Respondent sought arbitration,
its picketing to force Mills to an arbitration and in this manner compel Mills to cease
doing business with Largent under the contract 's hot cargo clause, we would still find
Respondent had violated the Act. Construction , Production cf Maintenance Laborers
Union Local 383, AFL-CIO , et at. ( Colson and Stevens Construction Co., Inc ), 137 NLRB
1650 The motion is denied.
2 Because, in our opinion , the record, exceptions, motions, and brief adequately set forth
the issues and positions of the parties, this request is hereby denied.
138 NLRB No. 94.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c),
of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
Respondent, Local Union No. 1065, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, repre-
sentatives, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist 4 engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any
individual employed by C. J. Hansen Company, M. L. Mills Con-
struction Company, Lloyd L. Bartlett, or any other employer, to en-
gage in, a strike or 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,
or to threaten, coerce, or restrain Mills, Hansen, Bartlett, Gladow,,
or any other employer, or person where an object thereof is to force
or require Mills or any other employer or person to cease doing busi-
ness with Jack L. Largent or any other subcontractors not in com-
pliance with the requirements or conditions contained in the Respond-
ent's contract with Willamette General Contractors Association.
2. Take the folowing affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at Respondent's business offices and meeting halls copies
of the notice attached marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region,
shall, after having been duly signed by an authorized representative
of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
3 As the record indicates there were no employees of Gladow employed on the jobsite
during the course of Respondent 's picketing , we find that Respondent did not violate
subsection ( 1) of Section 8(b) (4) with respect to the Gladow employees . Our order is
modified accordingly.
'Member Fanning would frame the Order in the same scope as recommended by the
Trial Examiner, and thus limit the effect of the cease-and-desist provisions to the named
neutral employers and "any contractor-member of the Association ," rather than "any
other employer." In his opinion , there is no record evidence that Respondent has any
contracts with any other employers containing a similar subcontractor clause, or that
the Respondent has engaged in the conduct , here found illegal, against any other employer.
See his dissenting opinion in W. D. Don Thomas Construction Company, 130 NLRB 1289,
enfd. as modified 300 F. 2d 649 (C.A. 9) ; and see also his separate view in Bakery
Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No . 484 (Clifford L . Aksland, d/b/a Sunri8e
Transportation), 337 NLRB 987, footnote 10
5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, 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."
LOCAL 1065, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 903
(b) Sign and mail to said Regional Director sufficient copies of said
notice, for posting, by Mills, Hansen, Bartlett, and Gladow, if will-
ing, at all locations where notices to their respective employees are
customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, AND MEM-
BERS AND TO EMPLOYEES OF M. L. MILLS CONSTRUCTION COM-
PANY, C. J. HANSEN COMPANY, LLOYD L. BARTLETT, AND WESLEY
E. GLADOW
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, you are hereby notified that :
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage anyone em-
ployed by M. L. Mills Construction Company, C. J. Hansen
Company, or Lloyd L. Bartlett, or any other employer, to engage
in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment, to perform
services, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring said
Mills or any other employer to cease doing business with Jack
L. Largent or any other subcontractor who does not meet the re-
quirements or conditions of our contract with Willamette Gen-
eral Contractors Association.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Mills, Hansen, Bart-
lett, Gladow, or any other employer, where an object thereof is
forcing or requiring said Mills or any other employer to cease
doing business with said Largent or any other subcontractor not
in compliance with the requirements or conditions contained in
our contract with Willamette General Contractors Association.
LOCAL UNION No. 1065, UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 327 Logal Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle 4, Washington,
Telephone Number, Mutual 2-3300, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on January 2, 1962 , by C. J. Hansen Company and by
Willamette General Contractors Association , for member M. L. Mills Construction
Company, and amended charges filed by both on January 10, 1962, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , on behalf of the Board , on February
19, 1962, issued a complaint against Local Union No . 1065, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) ( B) and Section 2(6)
and (7 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151,
et seq., herein called the Act.
The substance of the complaint is that the Respondent protested to a general
contractor constructing a building that one of his subcontractors had no contract with
the Respondent , that the subcontractor did not furnish all the requirements and
conditions provided for in a contract binding on the Respondent and the general
contractor , and that the said subcontractor had nonunion labor ; that Respondent
demanded the removal of said subcontractor , and that , upon refusal of the general
contractor to do so, the Respondent posted a picket before the construction project
with a sign stating that the general contractor was in violation of agreement with the
Respondent ; and that the Respondent thereby induced and encouraged employees of
the general contractor and his subcontractors to strike or refuse to perform services.
The Respondent 's answer, after making certain admissions and denials , including an
admission that it picketed as alleged , in substance pleaded that a provision in the
contract between the Respondent and the general contractor required settlement of
disputes by a "Joint Conference Board " ( composed of representatives to be named by
each party ), that when the aforesaid dispute arose under the contract , the Respond-
ent called for a meeting of the Joint Conference Board but that the general con-
tractor, by its agent, refused to comply with the request . Although not stated in
the answer , the Respondent , at the hearing and in its brief , took the position that it
had engaged in picketing , not to compel the removal of the subcontractor, but to
compel the contractor to submit to arbitration by the said Joint Board .
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Salem , Oregon , on March 20, 1962,
before Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway . The General Counsel and the
Respondent were represented by counsel and the Respondent 's business agent also
entered an appearance . Full opportunity was afforded the parties to adduce evi-
dence and to examine and cross -examine witnesses . At the close of the General
Counsel 's case , the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
any work stoppage that occurred , occurred for some reason other than the Respond-
ent's act . The motion was denied . At the close of the hearing, the Respondent
again made a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure of proof generally and
in individual issues and because the issue is moot . Ruling was reserved and the
motion of the Respondent to dismiss is now denied for the reasons hereinafter set
forth . The General Counsel made the usual stereotype motion to amend the com-
plaint to conform to the proof in minor matters and, there being no opposition, the
motion was granted.
From my observation of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Willamette General Contractors Association, herein called the Association, an
Oregon corporation , with its principal office in Salem , Oregon , is an association of
employers engaged in the vicinity of Salem as general contractors in the building
and construction industry and is organized and exists for the purpose , among others,
of negotiating and entering into collective-bargaining contracts on behalf of its
employer-members ( including M. L. Mills Construction Company, herein called
Mills) with the collective-bargaining representatives of their employees , including
the Respondent . In the course and conduct of their operations during the past year,
the Association 's employer-members collectively purchased and received goods, mate-
rials, and supplies, shipped directly from outside the State of Oregon to Salem and
vicinity , valued at more than $ 50,000.
Jack L. Largent, doing business as Jack L. Largent Construction Company, herein
called Largent , is engaged in Salem, Oregon , as a roofing and lathing contractor.
In the past year , in the conduct of his business , he bought from local suppliers lath
LOCAL 1065, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 905
of a value in excess of $50,000, which lath was shipped to such suppliers directly
from points outside the State of Oregon.
Mills, an employer-member of the Association, is engaged at Salem, Oregon, as
a general contractor in the building and construction industry, an industry recog-
nized by the Board as affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.' During
the fall of 1961 and continuing into 1962, Mills was engaged as a general contractor
in the construction of a 30-unit apartment house at Salem, Oregon. Mills sub-
contracted plumbing on said project to C. J. Hansen Company, herein called Hansen,
and also subcontracted shingle roofing work to Largent, electrical work to Lloyd
L. Bartlett, and sheet metal work to Wesley E. Gladow. Mills employs men who
are members of the Respondent. Hansen, Bartlett, and Gladow employ plumbers,
electricians, and sheet metal workers, respectively, who are members of building
trades unions affiliated with AFL-CIO. Largent employs men who are not members
of a labor organization, Mills, Hansen, Bartlett, Gladow, and Largent are employers
within the meaning of the Act, and all are engaged in contract work in an industry
affecting commerce.
The Respondent does not argue the jurisdiction of the Board and I find, on the
basis of the last-cited cases, that the Board has jurisdiction and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent is a labor organization admitting to membership, and represent-
ing in collective bargaining with the Association, employees employed by members
of the Association, including Mills.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Respondent's contract
On July 13, 1959, the Association, on behalf of its employer-members, including
Mills, entered into a collective-bargaining contract with Oregon State Council of
Carpenters, acting on behalf of the Respondent and other constituent locals and
representing employees of employer-members of the Association for the purpose
of collective bargaining. This contract was effective for 3 years from April 1. 1959.
It contained a provision that no contractor covered by the terms of this contract should
subcontract any work to a subcontractor who did not establish for his employees all
requirements and conditions set forth in said contract.
B. The dispute and the picketing
In early December 1961 Largent started putting shakes on the roof of the afore-
mentioned apartment building. When the Respondent's business representative,
Ralph Myers, was visiting the work, he asked Largent's foreman, Bill Henry, what
contractor was doing the work. Henry named his employer. Myers then asked
how the roofers were being paid. Henry answered that they were being paid by
the square. Payment by the square was not the method of payment called for by
the aforementioned contract (which required payment by the hour) and, the
Respondent contended, violated the provision that the work would not be subcon-
tracted to a subcontractor who did not establish for his employees all requirements
and conditions set forth in the contract.
On December 5 or 6, 1961, Myers telephoned Mills and asked why Mills had
nonunion shinglers on the job.2 Mills answered that he did not know whether or
not they were nonunion and that Largent was the only one available to do that
work. Myers said that Mills could have used his own employees to put the shakes
on. Mills said that his own men did not want that work. Myers told him that
the "Carpenters [Respondent] claim shingling." Mills said that he already had a
contract with Largent. Myers said, according to Mills, "Well, we'll have to see
what we can do."
'Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. €99, AFL-CIO,
et al. ( S. M. Kisner and Sons ), 131 NLRB 1196; International Union of Operating Engi-
neers , Local 571 (Layne-Western Company), 133 NLRB 208
2 The findings as to what was said in this conversation are based on Mills' testimony.
Myers testified only that he asked Mills the name of the roofing subcontractor, that Mills
said he did not remember it, and that he, himself, told Mills it was Largent. Although
that may have been a part of the conversation, I cannot believe that Myers would have
telephoned only to tell Mills the name of the roofing subcontractor.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On December 6, 1961, Myers wrote a letter addressed to George Hann, executive
secretary of the Oregon State Council of Carpenters, herein called State Council,
informing Hann that Mills was in a joint venture with a Ralph Eyre of the firm of
Elfstrom & Eyre, who were signatories to the "Carpenters Short Form Agreement,"
that "They" had subcontracted the material and laying of the wooden roof shakes
to "a contractor who does not qualify" under the provisions of the aforementioned
1959-62 agreement and that Mills had failed to abide by another provision of said
agreement in regard to "new job hires." He closed by requesting the State Council
to take steps to set up a joint conference board to arbitrate these problems. Under
the same date, Hann wrote to Alfred (Pat) Blair, executive secretary of the Associa-
tion, enclosing a copy of Myers' letter and asking for a meeting (of the Joint Board)
as soon as the Association had selected its representatives.
Blair did not reply until December 21. Among other things, Blair in his answer-
ing letter of that date stated that Largent was low bidder, that Largent was properly
awarded the job, and that Mills and Mills' joint venturer intended to honor that
award. He further stated that it was not within the Association's "rights under
the law to require" Largent to sign a labor agreement, and that to apply the union-
security provision of the agreement to Largent would be a violation of the Act.
On Thursday, December 28, 1961, the Respondent posted a picket at the entrance
to Mills' apartment house construction project after the employees there were on
the job. The picket carried a sign bearing the legend: "MILLS CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY IS IN VIOLATION OF AGREEMENT WITH CARPENTERS
LOCAL 1065." Some of Mills' workmen, including Leon Schiedemann,3 a work-
ing carpenter foreman, went out and asked the picket why he was there. He an-
swered that he did not know. Schiedemann and another carpenter telephoned the
Respondent to make inquiry of Myers, but Myers was not there. Schiedemann
left word for Myers to telephone but did not hear from him. On the morning of
December 29, the picket was at the building site before the workmen arrived. Upon
seeing the picket there, three of Mills' employees went to the union hall to see Myers.
The office was locked, however, and they returned and went to work. On January
2, 1962, the next regular workday, about 10:30 a.m., Paul Wallace, one of Mills'
carpenters, telephoned Myers and asked about the picket. Myers told Wallace
that the picket was there to advertise the fact that Mills was unfair to the Respond-
ent. Wallace asked if "we were supposed to be working." Myers told him he
could not answer at that time but, if Wallace would call him at home that evening,
he might be able to help Wallace. That night, Schiedemann and Wallace both
telephoned Myers. Wallace testified, without contradiction, that, in answer to his
call that night, Myers told him that the picket was legal, that it was in protest
of a breach of agreement by Mills, and that the Respondent had a right to call the
men off the job but that the men would have to use their own judgment as to
whether or not to leave the job. Wallace asked if they would be subject to a
fine if they continued to work. Myers said that that would have to be decided at a
meeting by a majority of the members.
On December 28, James Brown, an employee of C. J. Hansen Company, the
plumbing subcontractor for the aforesaid construction project, upon seeing the picket
when he arrived to work there, returned to Hansen's shop and told his general fore-
man that there was a picket at the place where he was supposed to work. The
foreman, Robert Hansen, sent Brown to another job and then went to the Mills'
construction site himself. There, he asked the picket if he were an official AFL
picket. The picket said that he did not know, that Hansen should telephone Myers.
Hansen attempted to do so, but Myers was not in. He then telephoned the business
agent for the Plumbers union, who said he would investigate. On two occasions,
thereafter, Hansen sent men to work at the Mills' construction site but, on seeing
the picket, the men would return to the shoo Hansen testified that he talked to
his business agent several times "to find out the circumstances of the picket, because
we were told that the man was not a picket . . . but was merely advertising the fact
that there was a violation of the contract " Hansen did not explain what difference
it would make if the picket were merely advertising a violation of contract. I infer,
however, that, in the trade, a picket's presence normally constitutes a warning to
unionmen not to go to work behind the picket line. After Hansen had some further
communication with the business agent for the plumbers, the latter sent Hansen a
man who would work despite the presence of the sign carrier or picket.
s This is the spelling shown in the record as given by the witness when he was asked
to spell his name . My memory and my notes were that the witness had spelled his
name Scheidemann, which is a more likely spelling of the name However, no motion
was made to correct the record.
LOCAL 1065, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 907
Lloyd Bartlett, an electrical contractor, had two employees working on Mills'
construction project on December 28 at the time the picket arrived. These em-
ployees finished the day, but on December 29, 1961, when they went to work and
saw the picket, they did not go to work but called Bartlett. Bartlett told them
he would call Jack Schiller, the business agent for the Electricians union. He did
so and asked Schiller what his instructions were. Schiller said that he had none
to give. Bartlett told Schiller that other trades were working there. Schiller said
that they were going to be "awfully sick" before they got through. After that con-
versation, Bartlett called his men to return and not work at Mills' project. Later,
however, because other trades were working, the electricians returned and finished
their work.
Wesley Gladow was subcontractor for the sheet metal work on Mills' construc-
tion project. Mills asked Gladow to commence work on January 2, 1962. Gladow
sent his shop foreman there to measure for work. The foreman returned to tell
Gladow that there was a picket there and that he had not done the work assigned.
Gladow called the business agent for the sheet metal union (a man named Wester-
gard) and asked if the aforesaid picket was "legal" and of the sheet metal workers
had to honor it. Westergard told him it was legal and had to be honored. After
learning that other trades were working, Gladow called Westergard again to men-
tion this fact. Westergard gave him the same answer, according to Gladow.
Gladow never sent any men back to do the work.
During the course of a proceeding in the Federal district court for an injunc-
tion to prohibit the picketing, the Respondent agreed to remove the picket if the
Association proceeded with arbitration by a joint board. The picket was removed
on February 20, 1962. An arbitration hearing was conducted on March 13, 1962.4
C. Arguments and conclusions
The Respondent at the hearing moved that the complaint be dismissed as to the
charges of C. J. Hansen Company. The two amended charges-those of Hansen
and the Association-were identical in language. Because it was not clear whether
or not the Respondent was trying to have dismissed Case No. 36-CC-87-2 (which
is the number assigned to the Hansen charge) or was directing its motion to some
specific allegation of the complaint, and if so, which one or ones, I reserved ruling
on said motion. The allegations of the complaint would stand on their own,
regardless of whether or not they were based on both charges or only on one. The
identity of the Charging Party is not here important. It is not claimed by Respond-
ent that the allegations of the complaint fatally vary from the charges. Consequently,
as the charges both used the same language, no allegation of the complaint is based
on the charge filed by Hansen alone. In arguing the motion, the Respondent claimed
that the complaint could be dismissed as to Hansen because Hansen, among others,
is named in the complaint where it states: "The acts of Respondent . . . occurring
in connection with the operations of Association, Mills, Hansen and Largent .. .
have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among
the several states. . . If Hansen's name were deleted at this point, the complaint
still would not be affected as to any of the allegations in the gravamen of the com-
plaint. The same is true if Hansen's name were deleted from any other paragraph
of the complaint. The Respondent's motion to dismiss, on the ground stated, must
therefore, be denied.
Another ground upon which the Respondent based its motion to dismiss is that
the issues are moot. Neither the General Counsel, in opposition, nor the Respondent,
for the motion, in their briefs, advance any argument or cite any authorities concern-
ing this contention by the Respondent. However, it appears that precedents are
opposed to the Respondent's contention.5 Nothing in the record leads me to believe
4 As of the date of the hearing before me, March 20, 1962, no decision had been reached
therein. Counsel for Respondent in his brief relates that a decision was later made, and
"based on the fact that arbitration has now been completed," the Respondent has agreed
"to cease picketing Mills with respect to the charges heretofore alleged [by Respondent)
against Mills." In the absence of a stipulation of the parties as to matters occurring
subsequent to the hearing, I cannot take into account for any purpose new representations
of fact made for the first time in Respondent's brief.
5Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Armco Drainage
and Metal Products, Inc ), 120 NLRB 198; NLRB. v. Local Union No. 751, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, APL -CIO, et al (Mengel Company),
285 F. 2d 633 (C.A. 9); Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL, at al. (Sand Door & Plywood Co.) v. N.L.R B., 357 U.S. 93.
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that there is no longer any danger of a repetition of the unfair labor practices by
the Respondent even if at present the Respondent has ceased picketing. On the
contrary, I find that such a danger does exist. I find that the issues are not moot,
and I deny the Respondent's motion to dismiss on the grounds of mootness.
The Respondent's last ground for its motion to dismiss is "failure of proof of any
violation of the Act." This raises many questions. Subsections (i) and (ii) of
Section 8(b) (4) of the Act are both limited to cases in which one of several specific
objects of the labor organization's acts is shown to exist. In this case only one
object is contended by the General Counsel to have been applicable:
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, trans-
porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor,
or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person . .. .
On the facts here present, I assume that the object contended by the General Counsel
to exist could be reduced to the final alternative-"to cease doing business with any
other person," that is, to force or require Mills to cease doing business with Largent
or any other employer who does not give effect to all the provisions of the Respond-
ent's contract with the Association-provisions including not only those covering
the compensation and other conditions of work of employees but also those provi-
sions pertaining to the union shop and the requirement of membership in the
Respondent by employees not only of members of the Association but also of all
subcontractors.
Mills' own employees belonged to the Respondent and with respect to such em-
ployees Mills was apparently complying with the wages and working conditions
called for under the Respondent's contract. It is obvious from Myers' statements
to Mills that the Respondent was concerned primarily with the fact that Largent
was not a union contractor, for Myers stated that the Respondent claimed jurisdiction
of shingling, asked why Mills had nonunion shinglers on the job, and suggested that
Mills could have his own men do the work of roofing, implying that this should be
done rather than let Largent do the work. The situation here is quite similar to
that in Bangor Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO (Davison Construction Com-
pany, Inc.), 123 NLRB 484, in which the Board said that, under such circumstances
as have been related here, the dispute of the labor organization was obviously with
the nonunion subcontractor and that at least an object of that labor organization's
conduct was to force the contractor to terminate is contract with the subcontractor.
Another analogous case is Building & Construction Trades Council of the Boston
Metropolitan District, AFL-CIO, et al. (Apartment Building Realty Trust), 136
NLRB 1120, where the Board reached a like conclusion 6 and pointed out, further,
that, since the signs carried by pickets did not make it clear that the union's dispute
was with the nonunion subcontractors, the picketing was not conducted in con-
formity with the requirements for common situs picketing established in the Moore
Dry Dock case.? This is likewise true of the sign carried by the picket in this case.
The Respondent argues that its purpose in placing a picket at the construction site
was not to force Mills to cease doing business with Largent but only to cause Mills
and the Association to consent to arbitration and that this was made evident by the
fact that the Respondent removed the picket as soon as agreement for arbitration
was reached. Even if it be assumed that removal of the picket was prompted solely
by such agreement to arbitrate and not by the imminence of an injunction by the
Federal district court, in which court the agreement to remove the picket was
reached, the result would not be altered here. The decision of a joint board, even
if favorable to the Respondent, would not in itself effect compliance with the
Association's agreement to contract only with subcontractors who would comply
with the Respondent's employment rules and conditions, including its union-shop
provision. The proceeding before a joint board, then, was not an end to be attained
in itself but was a mere means toward reaching that end. However, on the facts,
I am not convinced that the picket would have been removed upon agreement to hold
a joint board meeting had it not been for the injunction proceeding in the Federal
district court The picket sign was significantly vague as to which contract provision
Mills had violated. The natural conclusion of anyone knowing the facts would be
that the Respondent was accusing Mills of being in violation of the subcontract
clause by contracting with a nonunion subcontractor-not that Mills was in violation
See also Butchers ' Union Local 563, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America, AFL-CIO (Huntington Meat Packing Company, d/b/a Oxford
Meat Co. ), 134 NLRB 136
7 Sailora' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 517.
LOCAL 1065, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 909
of an agreement to arbitrate . On all the evidence , then , I find that an object of the
Respondent's conduct was to compel Mills to cease doing business with Largent .8
The Respondent argues that if it was seeking to enforce the subcontract clause
of its contract with the Association , it should not be held to have committed an
unfair labor practice because the contract clause concerning subcontractors was not
illegal . However, whether or not the contract is valid, the Act prohibits the conduct
here resorted to by the Respondent to enforce its contract ; so the legality of the
contract is no defense .9
It is also argued by the Respondent that it did not have any contact with employees
of neutral employers and that therefore there was no inducement under Section
8(b) (4) (i ). Personal contact is not an element of inducement . The posting of
the picket, alone, constituted inducement or encouragement of employees of neutral
employers to refuse to perform services .1e In its brief , the Respondent contends that
"there is no evidence . . . that employees of Mills or other employers were coerced
or threatened by Respondent in the course of their employment ." This argument
confuses the provisions of subsection ( i) with those of ( ii) of Section 8(b)(4) of
the Act. However, even if the contention be limited to inducement of employees,
the Respondent would not be correct . As pointed out, the picketing , alone, is
inducement . If the Respondent has in mind that employees of Mills and certain
subcontractors did not stay off the job, that fact , even if true, would be immaterial.11
As stated by the Board in Dallas General Drivers , Warehousemen & Helpers, Local
No. 745, AFL-CIO (Associated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas, Inc.).12 "The fact
that the picketing was not successful in inducing a work stoppage or a refusal to
perform services is not controlling . The significance of such conduct [picketing] is
that it necessarily invites employees to make common cause with the strikers.13 And
this is so irrespective of the literal appeal of the legends on picket signs." In this
case, however, the picketing did induce employees of neutral employers not to per-
form services , as is evident in the case of certain of the employees of C. J. Hansen,
the plumbing subcontractor . That the picketing did not continue to have a deterrent
effect on all Hansen employees is not important . The Respondent points to the
fact that employees of Largent (Largent being the target for the Respondent's con-
duct ) did not cease to work. The vice in a secondary boycott is not that the employer
with whom a union has a dispute is directly affected; rather it is that neutral employ-
ers are affected although they have no concern in that dispute.
Asa matter of law, the Respondent 's conduct constituted threats, restraint, and
coercion toward Mills as well as Mills' subcontractors.14
8Bangor Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO (Davison Construction Company, Inc.),
123 NLRB 484, enfd. as modified 278 F. 2d 287 (C.A. 1).
9 Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, et al.
(Sand Door & Plywood Co.) v. N.L R B., 357 U.S. 93, 105-107; N.L.R B. v. International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO (Tri-County Assn. of Civil
Engineers), 293 F. 2d 319 (CA. 9) ; Painters Local Union No. 249, Brotherhood of
Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, 136 NLRB 176.
10 District Lodge No. 24, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (Industrial
Chrome Plating Co.), 121 NLRB 1298; Bangor Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO
(Davison Construction Company, Inc.), 123 NLRB 484.
11 N.L.R B. v. Laundry, Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers, Local 928 (Southern
Service Co.), 262 F. 2d 617 (C.A. 9).
118 NLRB 1251, 1253, enfd. 264 F. 2d 642 (CA. 5), cert. denied 361 US. 814.
See also District Lodge No. 24, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO
(Industrial Chrome Plating Co.), 121 NLRB 1298.
18 In some cases, it appears to be more than an invitation, for it appears that members
of unions other than the Respondent were subject to possible fine if they crossed the
Respondent's picket line. This, in fact, kept the employees of Wesley Gladow initially
from performing services at the construction site and kept Gladow from sending em-
ployees back again when Westergard, the business agent for the sheet metal workers,
confirmed that the employees of Gladow would be subject to fine if they crossed the picket
line of the Respondent.
14 Local #32, Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America (AFL-
CIO) ; et at. (Rawls Brothers Contractors, Inc ), 133 NLRB 1077; Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association, Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Siebler Heating & Air Condition-
ing, Inc.), 133 NLRB 650; Local Union #469 of the United Association of Journeymen &
Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States & Canada,
AFL-CIO (Hansberger Refrigeration & Electric Co.), 135 NLRB 492; Painters Local
Union No. 249 Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-
CIO (John J. Reich), 136 NLRB 176; Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
Local Union No. 299, AFL-CIO, et al. (S. M. Eisner and Sons), 131 NLRB 1196.
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent described in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the employers here involved set forth in sections
I and III, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and, such of them as have been found to be
unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Because of the existence
of the subcontractor clause in the Respondent's last contract and the absence of
any evidence of a change in such provision, there is a danger in the future that the
Respondent will engage in similar conduct violative of the Act in order to force
members of the Association to cease doing business with Largent or with other
subcontractors. I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent cease and desist
from engaging in or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Hansen,
Bartlett, Gladow, or by any other subcontractor, or by any member of the Associa-
tion (including Mills), engaged in construction work within the territorial jurisdic-
tion of the Respondent, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to perform services; and that it cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or
restraining Mills, Hansen, Bartlett, Gladow, or any member of the Association, or
any subcontractor with whom Mills or members of the Association may have con-
tracts for labor or materials and with whom the Respondent has no primary dispute
with the object of forcing or requiring Mills or members of the Association to cease
doing business with Largent or any other person with whom the Respondent has a
primary dispute.
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. Largent, Mills, Hansen, Bartlett, and Gladow are employers within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Largent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
3. Members of the Association (including Mills), Hansen, Bartlett, and Gladow
are individuals and persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) of the Act.
4. Local Union No. 1065, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
5. By inducing and encouraging employees of Mills, Hansen, Bartlett, and Gladow
at the aforesaid 30-unit apartment house project in Salem, Oregon, to engage in
a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, and by
threatening, coercing, and restraining Mills, Hansen, Bartlett, and Gladow with
an object of forcing Mills to cease doing business with Largent, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (B) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Pearson Corporation and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 1-CA-3663
and 1-CA-3676. September 25, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 8, 1962, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his Inter-
mediate Report, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
138 NLRB No. 100.