Local 275, Laborers International Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 279 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION 279
Local 275, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO; and Painters District Council
No. 20 of Westchester and Putnam Counties, New
York, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and
Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO; and Local
55, Bricklayers , Masons and Plasterers Interna-
tional Union of America , AFL-CIO and S. B.
Apartments, Inc. Cases 2-CP-484 and 2-CB-5281
February 28, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On June 25 , 1973, Administrative Law Judge
James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding . Thereafter , Respondents and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings, ' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order,2 except
as modified below.
As set forth more fully in the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision , Respondents at a prejob confer-
ence with the Employer attempted to organize the
Employer's operation . Following the conference,
Respondents picketed for 108 days between Novem-
ber 1, 1972, and March 17, 1973. During the first 28
days, the picket signs read as follows:
Notice to General Public-The General Contrac-
tor doing carpentry work on this job does not
have a signed collective bargaining contract with
Local 323-Carpenters.
This is in no way meant to encourage employees
of any employer to refuse to perform services
whatsoever.-7
The picket signs were then changed to read as
follows:
1 Respondents ' exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge 's credibility
findings as to the testimony of witnesses who appeared only in a proceeding
under Sec . 10(1) of the LMRA in a Federal district court are without merit.
The district court transcript was by stipulation made a part of the record
before the Administrative Law Judge The Administrative Law Judge's
credibility findings are consistent with the credibility findings of the district
court, 357 F Supp. 1178 (1973), and the findings of the court of appeals, 479
F.2d 1033 (1973), which heard the case on appeal.
2 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently used the plural "projects"
To the Public
Workers on this job for S & B Construction
Company do not receive wages and working
conditions as good as Local 275 Laborers,
International Union.
This sign is not directed to any Employer or to
any Employee on this job.4
1. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
findings that Respondents violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by mass picketing, threatening employees
with bodily injury, preventing an employee from
leaving the jobsite, and interfering with deliveries.
2. The Administrative Law Judge found that an
objective of Respondents' picketing since November
1 was to force or require the Employer to recognize
or bargain with Respondents as the collective-bar-
gaining representatives of the Employer's employees;
that the entire 108 days of picketing had an
informational purpose within the ambit of the second
proviso of Section 8(b)(7)(C), despite the change in
the picket sign format to an area standards message
after the first 28 days of picketing; but that the
proviso afforded Respondents no defense because an
effect of the picketing was to interfere with deliveries
to the Employer and that Respondents violated
Section 8(b)(7)(C).
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
Respondents' picketing at all times was for the
recognitional objective proscribed by 8(b)(7)(C), but
we need not reach the question of whether Respon-
dents' picketing had a sufficient impact on the
Employer's operations to constitute an "effect"
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C). Contrary to
the Administrative Law Judge, we find the change in
the signs' format to an area standards message to be
significant because area standards picketing is not
informational picketing protected by the second
proviso. The Administrative Law Judge incorrectly
relied on United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners, Local Union No. 2064, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO (Westra Construction, Inc.).5 to
find that an area standards message of a picket sign
falls within the intendment of the second proviso.
The Board, in that case, at page 885, footnote 17,
clearly stated that "the exemption of the [second]
proviso, in any event, would not be applicable after
in pars 1(a) and (b) of his recommended Order, rather than the singular
form . We hereby correct both words to read "project "
3 Similar signs were occasionally earned protesting the lack of a contract
with the Laborers Union and the Masons Union.
4 Similar signs were occasionally tamed protesting the inferior working
conditions of employees for "S & B Construction Company" as compared
to employees working under contracts with the Painters Union, the
Carpenters Union, the Masons Union, and the Roofers Union.
5 175 NLRB 88I.
209 NLRB No. 45
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the signs were changed . . . to so-called area
standards signs."
The Board in International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union No. 113, AFL-CIO (I. C.G.
Electric, Inc.)a also held that a picket sign protest
against "substandard" working conditions, with a
recognitional object is not encompassed within the
language or purport of the second proviso protecting
picketing for the purpose of advising the public "that
an employer does not employ members of , or have a
contract with, a labor organization."
We find, accordingly , that the Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act by picketing for more
than 30 days for the purpose of securing recognition
without filing an election petition.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified , and hereby orders that Respondents, Local
275, Laborers International Union of North Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO; and Painters District Council No. 20
of Westchester and Putnam Counties , New York,
Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhang-
ers of America , AFL-CIO; and Local 55 , Bricklay-
ers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of
America, AFL-CIO, their officers , agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order, as modified below:
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) and
reletter the remaining paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice
to the Regional Director for Region 2, for posting by
S. B. Apartments Inc., and James A . Klein, Inc., if
they are willing , at all places where notices to their
employees are customarily posted."
2. Substitute the attached notices 7 for those of
the Administrative Law Judge.
6 142 NLRB 1418.
r The attached notices correct the Administrative Law Judge 's inadvert-
ent error by substituting "project" for "projects."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees
working on or delivering to the construction
project of S. B. Apartments, Inc., and James A.
Klein, Inc., by obstructing their entry to or
departure from the project. by threats of trouble
at the project, by threats of bodily harm, or by
mass picketing in such manner as to cause them
to fear bodily harm from entering , leaving, or
working on the project.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, coerce, or restrain such employees in the
exercise of their rights under the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL Nor picket or cause to be picketed S.
B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., for
an object of forcing or requiring them or other
employers on their project to recognize or bargain
with us as the representative of their employees,
or forcing or requiring such employees to accept
or select us as their bargaining representative in
violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
LOCAL 275, LABORERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26
Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Tele-
phone 212-264-0306.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees
working on or delivering to the construction
project of S. B. Apartments, Inc., and James A.
Klein, Inc., by obstructing their entry to or
departure from the project, by threats of trouble
at the project, by threats of bodily harm, or by
mass picketing in such manner as to cause them
to fear bodily harm from entering, leaving, or
working on the project.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, coerce, or restrain such employees in the
exercise of their rights under the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed S.
B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., for
an object of forcing or requiring them or other
employers on their project to recognize or bargain
with us as the representative of their employees,
or forcing or requiring such employees to accept
or select us as their bargaining representative in
violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
PAINTERS DISTRICT
COUNCIL No. 20 OF
WESTCHESTER AND
PUTNAM COUNTIES, NEW
YORK , BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS , DECORATORS
AND PAPERHANGERS OF
AMERICA , AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26
Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Tele-
phone 212-264-0306.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees
working on or delivering to the construction
project of S. B. Apartments, Iiic., and James A.
Klein, Inc.. by obstructing their entry to or
departure from the project, by threats of trouble
at the project, by threats of bodily harm, or by
mass picketing in such manner as to cause them
to fear bodily harm from entering, leaving, or
working on the project.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
I The complaints herein originally named Local 323, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the first named
Respondent At the hearing, upon a motion of the Charging Party joined in
by the General Counsel, that organization was dismissed as a Respondent
Accordingly, the caption herein is amended to delete its name
2 By stipulation the record here includes , inter alia, evidence before Hon
Lawrence W Pierce, District Judge. United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, in a proceeding under Sec. 10(1) of the Act
styled Danielson v Local 323, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
281
with, coerce, or restrain such employees in the
exercise of their rights under the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed S.
B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., for
an object of forcing or requiring them or other
employers on their project to recognize or bargain
with us as the representative of their employees,
or forcing or requiring such employees to accept
or select us as their bargaining representative in
violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
LOCAL 55 , BRICKLAYERS,
MASONS AND PLASTERERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26
Federal Plaza , New York, New York 10007, Tele-
phone 212-264-0306.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge:
These consolidated proceedings under Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act), were
tried before me in New York City on April 2 and 3, 1973.
The complaint i in Case 2-CP-484, issued February 27,
1973, and alleging violations of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the
Act, was founded on charges initially filed January 10 and
amended January 22. The complaint in Case 2-CB-5281,
issued February 28 and alleging violations of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, was founded on charges filed
January 19. Respondents, answering each complaint,
denied the alleged unfair labor practices. By order of
March 6 the Regional Director for Region 2 consolidated
the cases.
Upon the entire record,2 my observation of the witness-
of America, AFL-CIO, et a!., 73 Civ 425, heard February 15, 16. 20, 22, and
23, 1973 The court's opinion is reported at 357 F Supp. 1178.
After the close of the hearing before me the Charging Party moved to
reopen the record and receive in evidence a copy of an unverified transcript
of a tape recording purportedly taken during a meeting on October 31, 1972,
and a copy of a pretrial affidavit of James A Klein in which a transcript of
a tape recording is referred to. Because the proferred evidence does not
appear to be newly discovered and appears to have been available at the
time of the hearing before me, I deem the offer untimely and accordingly
(Continued)
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
es, and consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Business of the Employer
The Charging Party , S. B. Apartments , Inc. (herein S.
B.), is a New York corporation with offices in Poughkeep-
sie, New York . It is the owner and developer of real estate
in the village of Cold Spring , Putnam County , New York.
The site is an unfenced square, approximately 500 feet on
each side , and bounded on two sides by public streets
affording access at most points . The construction project
involved in the present matter is located on that property
and consists of the construction of 63 garden type
apartment units in 7 buildings . S. B. has no employees
working at the project.
James A. Klein, Inc. (herein Klein), also a New York
corporation , has its principal office at the same location as
S. B. It is engaged as a general contractor in the building
construction industry and at times material to the present
matter has been the general contractor for, and has had
employees working at, the construction of the apartments
on the above-described property in Cold Spring owned by
S. B. Klein annually receives at its jobsites in the State of
New York building materials valued in excess of $50,000
from Miron Lumber Company, a supplier in the State of
New York which receives the materials directly from
outside the State.
The complaints allege , and the answers deny, that S. B.
and Klein are affiliated businesses with common officers,
ownership, directors , and operators ; that they constitute a
single integrated business enterprise with a commonly
formulated and administered labor policy ; and that as an
integrated business enterprise they are an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act . The evidence establishes these
allegations beyond question , and I so find . Carpenters
Local No. 2133, etc., 151 NLRB 1370, 1379 ; Siemons
Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZA1IONS INVOLVED
Each of the Respondents is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. They are
individually referred to hereinafter as follows: Local 275,
Laborers ' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, as the Laborers ; Painters District Council No.
20 of Westchester and Putnam Counties , New York,
Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of
America , AFL-CIO , as the Painters ; Local 55, Bricklayers,
Masons and Plasterers International Union of America,
AFL-CIO, as the Masons . Collectively they are referred to
as the Unions or Respondents.
Each represents employees engaged in its respective craft
in and around the area in which the construction project
involved here is located . None is certified as the represent-
ative of employees of, or has collective-bargaining agree-
ments with, S. B. or Klein or any of Klein 's subcontractors
on the project . No petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the
Act involving employees of S. B. or Klein or any of its
subcontractors has been filed with the Board. Further, no
charges of unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act have been filed against S . B. or Klein.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Overview
This case involves 108 days of picketing of the project
between November 1, 1972, and March 17, 1973. For the
first 28 days the picket sign legends were in the language of
the second proviso of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. After
that the legends used were what is commonly called area
standard language . The key issue is the object of the
picketing. Other questions are the effect of the picketing on
deliveries and whether the Unions changed their purpose.
Also, it is alleged that pickets on 4 days in December
engaged in coercive conduct contrary to Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act.
At the hearing I reserved ruling on Respondent 's motion
to dismiss the complaints for failure to establish a prima
facie violation . I now deny that motion for the reasons set
out hereinafter.
B. The October 31 Meeting
Klein started working on the Cold Spring project in mid-
October 1972 . About October 10 Walter Booth, the
Laborers business manager , having learned of the forth-
coming project , made a telephone call to Klein 's office
requesting a prejob conference . Not receiving a reply to his
message , he called on Russell Wright , Klein's job superin-
tendent at the site , and asked him to set up a meeting
between the general contractor and representatives of the
building trades unions. Wright arranged the meeting for
October 31 . Booth then contacted representatives of other
building trades to be present.
The prejob conference convened at or about 9:30 a.m.
on October 31 in Klein's office trailer on the jobsite. James
Klein , president of both Klein and S . B., and Russell
Wright , the job superintendent , were present on behalf of
Klein and S. B. Respondent Laborers was represented by
Booth and Lee Cordi, its secretary ; Respondent Painters
by Fred Schrimpe , one of its business representatives; and
Respondent Masons by Jack Giacchini, one of its business
representatives . Representatives of other building trade
locals, not parties to the present proceeding , also partici-
pated . These included Dominic Papo representing Local
323 of the Carpenters ; Jerry Eggleston representing Local
127 of the Operating Engineers ; Otto Revellese represent-
ing Local 456 of the Teamsters; and John Hickey (who
arrived later) representing a local of the Plumbers.
After Booth made the introductions he asked Klein how
he was going to run the job. Klein then launched into a 15-
minute discourse setting forth how he operated and his
philosophy of doing business . In the words of Booth he
said , " I will explain my job and I will explain my situation.
I'm new in this area. I have worked up (in ) Dutchess
deny the motion . I have marked the motion, with the transcript of the tape
and the affidavit attached , as ALI Exh 1, rejected
LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION 283
County. I do some of my work. I sub most of my work out.
I sub my work out to a contractor for the price and I award
him the work whether he is union or nonunion. . . I have
some employees with me for approximately 5 years. We
have a profit-sharing plan and my employees are paid by
the merit system." Klein also indicated he was a member of
a contractors association known as A. B. C. and that he
awarded his subcontracts to the lowest bidder. According
to Booth, Klein also said, "I have worked in Poughkeepsie.
We have had union and nonunion contractors, nonunion
and union men working side by side."
A discussion ensued during which Hickey, the Plumbers'
representative, joined the group. Although there is some
disagreement as to who said what during the discussion,
there is no real dispute about what happened at this
meeting. The union representatives were of one mind in
that they disagreed with Klein's idea of using both union
and nonunion men on the job. The collective position of
the unions, to which there was no overt dissent, was that
the job should be an all-union job. Booth testified that
Hickey stated, "Mr. Klein, the Building Trades here in
Putnam County have a philosophy that when we work, we
work 100 percent union." According to Booth, Hickey also
said something to the effect that the whole intention of the
meeting was to organize the job. None of the other union
representatives said anything contrary to Hickey's remarks.
The General Counsel contends that no one asked Klein
what wages he paid. The testimony of Respondents'
witnesses support this position. However, James Klein
testified, "Mr. Hickey asked me if we pay a prevailing
wage and how we pay our people, and I explained to him
that most of the things were subcontracted out and that we
had our own men do a lot of the other work." Thus Klein
actually did not answer the question. He also recalled,
"They also asked-I believe it was Mr. Hickey again asked
what benefits we had, and I explained to him that we had a
profit-sharing type of plan where our employees who have
been with us for a certain period of time share in the
profits, so much of their salary a year." Hickey offered to
provide him a list of union plumbing subcontractors.
No one else asked Klein what wages he paid. In fact no
further inquiry respecting the actual wages paid on the job
was made until March 19, 1973, 2 days after the picketing
stopped. Booth testified that on October 31 after hearing
from Klein how he ran his jobs he took it for granted that
he was not paying the area standard wage. Throughout the
picketing which began on the next day, none of Respon-
dents' representatives knew specifically what wages were
being paid on the job by Klein or any of the subcontrac-
tors. At the October 31 meeting they did learn that Klein
did not have contracts with any of them and that the
masonry subcontractor, Bruce Wright, did not have a
contract with the Masons.
According to Booth after the prejob conference had been
in progress for about a half hour the secretary of the
Laborers, Lee Cordi, said, "we are not going to do nothing
with this gentleman, we might as well leave." The meeting
then broke up. Booth admitted that this closing comment
of Cordi meant that the unions were not getting anywhere
because Klein was not going to sign contracts with them.
Also subsequent to the meeting Fred Schrimpe, the
representative of the Painters, reported to his superiors
that, "he thought that Mr. Klein had a very definite anti-
union attitude and felt we would never get recognition
from him."
C. The November Picketing
On the morning of November 1, the day following the
prejob conference, picketing began at the jobsite. It
continued thereafter on most weekdays and without
substantial interruption until March 17, 1973. In all there
was picketing on 108 different days, and at the time of the
hearing herein on April 3, 1973, Respondents planned to
resume picketing that day. No picketing occurred on
Sundays and holidays and usually none on Saturdays,
although Saturday work was frequently performed on the
job. There were no pickets on November 14 because of the
weather . Throughout the picketing Booth , the Laborers
representative , was in charge and was present every day.
The initial picketing which began on November 1 was
with signs which asserted that the general contractor on the
job did not have an agreement with the Carpenters. The
sign read as follows:
Notice to General Public-The General Contractor
doing carpentry work on this job does not have a
signed collective bargaining contract with Local
323-Carpenters
This sign is in no way meant to encourage employees
of any employer to refuse to perform any services
whatsoever.
Beginning November 6 a similar sign was carried protest-
ing the lack of an agreement with the Laborers. The
undenied testimony of Job Superintendent Russell Wright
indicates that the signs used regularly included one from
the Laborers and that signs of the Carpenters as well as the
Masons appeared from time to time in November. I so
find.
The picketing which began November 1 continued in
that same manner with the same type signs through
November 28. Apart from the Carpenters who are not now
a Respondent, the participants in the picketing included
members of the Laborers and on unspecified occasions the
Masons. There is no evidence that during November
members or representatives of the Painters participated in
the picketing or that signs were carved on behalf of the
Painters. In an affidavit given on December 13 Russell
Wright indicated that the picketing which had begun
November 1 was carried on "with the name of one of the
various Unions" which participated in the October 31
conference. Although the Painters was represented at the
conference Wright's testimony is not sufficiently specific to
warrant an inference that Painters signs were used in the
picketing, particularly in view of countervailing evidence
that use of such signs was not authorized.
On November 3 at the regular monthly meeting for
members of the Laborers, Booth in speaking about Klein
stated to the membership, "That this man does not want to
be organized." Booth testified that by this he meant that,
"He (Klein) didn't want to sign a contract and that was it."
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As Booth pointed out in his testimony, that is exactly what
the picket signs advertised. He also testified that he did not
then know exactly what wages Klein paid.
Considering the events through November there is little
doubt that at least one object of the picketing, and in fact
the principal object, was recognition of the Carpenters,
Laborers, and Masons. The purpose of all the unions,
including the Respondents, who met with Klein on
October 31 was to learn how he was going to operate the
job, to whom he intended to subcontract various types of
work, and if possible to obtain recognition and collective-
bargaining agreements covering all work to be performed
on the project. Thus recognition was one of the initial
purposes of all participating unions. This object was then
carried forward by the picketing which began the next day
with signs protesting that the general contractor did not
have a signed collective-bargaining agreement . The lan-
guage of the picket signs "clearly implies a recognition and
bargaining object." Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel
and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union of Long Beach and Orange County; Culinary Alliance
Local No. 681 (Crown Cafeteria), 135 NLRB 1183, 1185.
Other evidence also buttresses this conclusion. For
example, Booth admitted that in addressing the member-
ship of his union he was calling their attention to the fact
that Klein did not have a contract. And finally, Booth
admitted that if Klein had either entered into collective-
bargaining agreements with the Unions or brought his
wages up to area standards, the picketing would have
stopped. Clearly, then, recognition was an object of the
participating unions during the November picketing.
D. The Later Picketing
In late November Booth met with representatives of the
Masons and other building trades unions to discuss the S.
B. project and the picketing. They concluded that they
were going to get nowhere with this particular job. They
altered the picket signs to advertise the absence of area
standards on the job. They formed what they referred to as
the "Area Standards Committee," with Booth as chairman,
to carry on the program, and decided to enlarge the
picketing by mass demonstrations as of December 1.
It is not clear from the record whether any representative
of the Painters participated in these deliberations. It does
not appear, however, that in late November or early
December Painters Representative Schrimpe sought in-
structions from his superior as to whether the Painters
would participate in the enlarged protest. Painters' execu-
tive secretary-treasurer, Arthur Colasanto, decided they
would participate by carrying the signs of other unions.
Members of the Painters participated in that manner
beginning in early December with Schrunpe in charge of
the Painters pickets. Although Colasanto testified that any
use of Painters signs at the site was unauthorized, contrary
to his instructions, and that none were prepared for this
dispute, I find, as noted later herein, that such signs were in
fact carried. I base this on the credited testimony of
witnesses who were on the site and saw them. Colasanto
was not there and Schrimpe did not testify.
It was about November 28, according to the testimony of
Booth, whom I credit in this respect, when the pickets
ceased using signs which protested that the general
contractor did not have collective-bargaining agreements
and began using signs protesting less than union conditions
on the job. The language of the new signs was as follows:
To the Public
Workers on this job for S . & B. Construction Co. do
not receive wages and working conditions as good as
Local 275 Laborers International Union.
This sign is not directed to any Employer or to any
Employee on this job.
On most days of picketing after the signs were changed,
signs on behalf of the Laborers were carried . Similar signs
were also carried on behalf of other unions, including other
Respondents, especially on days when large numbers of
pickets were demonstrating . Thus on December 1 the
picketing began early in the morning with between 30 and
35 pickets , over half of whom carried signs , some on behalf
of the Laborers and others on behalf of the Masons and of
the Painters as well as unions which are not Respondents
in the present matter such as Carpenters and Roofers.
Again on December 6 picketing began with between 20
and 30 pickets, the majority of whom carried signs on
behalf of these same unions. On December 11 signs were
carried on behalf of the Laborers and the Masons in
addition to the Carpenters and the Roofers.
The pattern of participation continued with participation
by members of all Respondent Unions , as well as a number
of other building trade unions , in accordance with a
preplanned schedule arranged between Booth and repre-
sentatives of the other unions . On those days when large
numbers of demonstrators were present (December 1, 6,
11, and 15) members and representatives of virtually all of
the building crafts including all of the Respondents
participated . I find this was an ongoing joint program in
which all of the Respondents participated both in planning
and execution , and for which all are responsible . N.L.R.B.
v. Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO,
387 F.2d 170, 175 (C.A. 2,1967); Retail Clerks Union Local
324 and Retail Clerks Union Local 770, etc. (Barker Bros.),
138 NLRB 478 , 485, enfd . sub nom. Barker Brothers
Corporation and Gold's Inc. v. N.LR. B., 328 F.2d 431 (C.A.
9, 1964).
Respondents contend that from the beginning the
picketing lacked a proscribed object and that especially
since November 28 the picketing was patently for the
purpose of protesting the lack of area standards, a
legitimate object . However, I have found above that the
November picketing was clearly for recognition and I find
that although the picket signs were changed, and thereafter
included a disclaimer that the signs were directed to
employers or employees on the job , recognition continued
to be an object.
Various circumstances indicate the continuation of this
object. First , although the language of the signs was
changed at the end of November , the picketing continued
without interruption and with no notification to the
employer of any change in purpose . Local 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Jack Pi-
coult), 144 NLRB 5, 8, enfd . 339 F.2d 600 (C.A. 2, 1964).
Another circumstance which arguably indicates the
LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
continued existence of the initial purpose of picketing is
the fact that even though new picket signs asserted that the
workers on the job did not receive wages and working
conditions as good as those required by the picketing
unions, the responsible union officials , including Booth
who was in charge of the picketing , were ignorant at that
time of the actual wages paid employees working on the
site . Even at the time of the hearing herein in April 1973,
Booth still did not know in fact what wages were paid.
Respondent offered evidence to show that Klein paid his
workers less than union scale. What he in fact paid,
however, is immaterial . The question here is the knowledge
possessed by responsible union officials . The extent of their
knowledge was that they did not know specifically what
wages were being paid but they assumed , based on their
extensive labor relations experience in the area, that a
contractor not signatory to their contracts would not be
meeting area standards . The comments of James Klein at
the October 31 meeting may well have fortified their belief.
Such reasoning on their part may have been reasonable
enough , but lack of specific knowledge about wages on the
job together with specific knowledge that the employers
were not under contract with the unions leaves Respon-
dents with a watered down contention that the failure to
pay area standards rather than failure to recognize
motivated their continued picketing. These circumstances
permit a modest inference that Respondents' purpose
continued to be recognition . Centralia Building and
Construction Trades Council v. N.L. R. B., 363 F.2d 699, 701
(C.A.D.C ., 1968).
In addition, certain conduct associated with the picket-
ing indicates presence of an organizational purpose rather
than only an appeal for public support . Thus, on some
occasions , particularly those days when Respondents
brought out large numbers of demonstrators , employees
working behind the picket line were called scab , or were
urged to leave the job , or were urged tojoin the union. See
San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board etc. (McDon-
ald's Systems of California, Inc.), 203 NLRB No. 103.
Other conduct in connection with the picketing, discussed
later herein, such as the blocking of entry, threats by
pickets directed to persons working on the site , and on two
occasions the cutting of telephone wires to Klein's trailer
and the slashing of tires on vehicles belonging to Klein or
to employees working on the site , was basically inconsis-
tent with a limited purpose of advertising the employer's
failure to meet area standards. All of this conduct was also
basically contradictory of the disclaimer on the picket signs
that they were not directed at employers or employees on
the job.
The cuttings of wires and tires are not alleged as unfair
labor practices and I make no finding to that effect.
However, there is no question but that this damage
occurred to Klein and its employees on two different
occasions in December when large numbers of demonstra-
tors were on the scene. As these occurrences are reasonably
attributable to the presence of large numbers of demon-
strators brought there by Respondents to support their
dispute with Klein and S . B., I find Respondents are
responsible for the occurrences . N.L.R.B. v. Suffolk County
District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, supra at 175.
285
Even though Booth issued specific instructions restricting
picket line conduct , the natural and foreseeable conse-
quence of marshalling crowds of volunteer demonstrators
who understandably might harbor strong views about the
pending dispute , was that effective control might be
substantially diluted . It is not unreasonable , therefore, to
hold the sponsors responsible for the consequences.
Although Respondents contend that from the first the
picketing was for the lawful purpose of protesting the
absence of area standards on the job, such plainly was not
the case . As found earlier herein, an object proscribed by
Section 8(b)(7) of the Act was included . In the alternative
Respondents contend that picketing for a recognitional or
organizational object did not continue for an unreasonable
period of time because from late November on the purpose
of picketing lacked a proscribed object. Respondents point
to the new language of the signs beginning November 28,
to the identity of the sponsoring committee referred to by
them as the area standards committee (of which Booth was
chairman), to Respondents ' advertising campaign which
included distribution of leaflets at the site beginning
December 1 explaining the importance of maintaining area
standards in wages and working conditions and dissemina-
tion of similar news through the news media of newspa-
pers, radio, and television , and to the existence of
unemployment among the ranks of building trade employ-
ees in the area which would warrant a campaign against
undercutting area standards . As to this last point , it seems
to me equally inferrable that unemployment could moti-
vate interested labor organizations to seek recognition
from nonunion employers in order to obtain jobs for their
members. Considering all of these contentions , they still
are not sufficient, in my view, to dispell the inference based
upon the circumstances discussed above that proscribed
objects persisted after November. Local 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Jack Pi-
coult), supra.
A certain amount of balancing is involved in this
judgment. The statute neither prohibits all picketing for
recognitional or organizational objects nor on the other
hand does it totally sanction all publicity picketing. In
assessing Respondents' object here I note that their
campaign proceeded in an unbroken chain of events from
November 1 to March 17. There is no strong evidence that
the initial object of the earlier picketing ceased entirely at
the end of November. The change in the picket signs did
not automatically cancel out the recognition object.
Construction Shipyard etc., Local 1207 (Alfred S. Austin
Construction Co., Inc.), 141 NLRB 283, 285 ; United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local No. 2064, etc.
(Westra Construction, Inc.), 175 NLRB 881. No circum-
stance disassociates the picketing at one period from that
at another . Once the picketing campaign began , it rolled
on, albeit in varying forms. It would be illogical to excise
from one segment of this campaign what seems to me to
have been one of its essential motivations at its launching.
To do so would allow Respondents to firmly set the tone of
recognition or organization at the start, and then by a mere
change in emphasis in the campaign , continue to exert their
pressure in aid of the initial purposes while avoiding the
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
limitations on that pressure which Congress plainly
intended.
Nevertheless , this approach is not without its difficulties
here because in a sense the tail wags the dog. Here from the
time Respondents began asserting an area standard
purpose on their signs, they greatly enlarged the campaign,
in terms of number demonstrators participating and
publicity through the news media , over what it had been at
the beginning of November . Thus, the early campaign for
recognition was fairly modest while the campaign from
December 1 on, coincidental with the change in signs, was
a full blown publicity effort . Even so, it is not unreasonable
in the interest of rational administration of the Act to place
on Respondents the onus of taking steps to effectively
disassociate their claimed later objects from their estab-
lished earlier one. See Local 3, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, (Jack Picoult), supra.
Respondents argue that the absence of a proscribed
object from the very beginning is clear because the Unions
understood at the end of the October 31 meeting that Klein
did not want to be organized . While that difference of view
between management and the Unions serves to pinpoint
the dispute , it does not prove a purpose eschewing
recognition and organization in the campaign which
followed . On the contrary , such an argument assumes that
the Unions gave up their target of October 31 and adopted
a new one . That would not square with the fact , which I
find, based on Booth 's testimony and the record as a
whole, that Klein could at any time have resolved the
dispute by recognizing the Unions . See San Francisco Local
Joint Executive Board etc. (McDonald 's Systems of Califor-
nia, Inc.), supra.
E. The Conduct Related to Picketing
1. Events of December 1
The complaints allege, and the answers deny, that on
December 1 pickets blocked entrances and exits at the
jobsite and obstructed employees of Klein and others
endeavoring to enter or leave, and that thereby Respon-
dents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
In response to Booth's call to representatives of other
crafts for assistance in pursuance of the area standard
committee's plan to enlarge picketing, a large number of
demonstrators appeared on the site on December 1. When
picketing began early in the morning between 30 and 35
pickets were involved. By 9 a.m. the number had increased
to about 100. Many wore hard hats. Considerable verbal
inducement by those patrolling was directed to those
working on the job, including calls of "scab" and "a sure
way of going to heaven if you stay on this jobsite." About 9
a.m. one of Klein's carpenters reported to the job
superintendent that he was being snowballed as he worked.
Another reported that he was obstructed as he attempted
to leave the jobsite in his car. Another of Klein's
carpenters, Denis Chambers, testified credibly that in mid-
morning one of the pickets sought to interest hun and three
other carpenters in joining the Union. Chambers described
the incident as follows, "He, you know, like, asked if we
would like to be in a union or if we were to get into his
union, he could get us working like tomorrow or the next
day or something like this and we would have all the
benefits of the Union. It was generally a pretty good rap
for the Union." The conversation continued between the
picketer and one of the other carpenters. As Chambers
walked away from the conversation he heard a popping
noise, as if something had been cut, and observed a man
wearing a hard hat running in a crouched manner from
under the Klein office trailer which stood on the edge of
the site close to the street where pickets patrolled. It then
developed that the telephone wires to the trailer had been
cut. At about 11:30 in the morning the Klein carpenter
who had earlier reported being snowballed by pickets
reported to the job superintendent that the tires on his
automobile were slashed . At that point the job superin-
tendent shut the job down for the balance of the day.
As alleged I find the obstructing of an employee wishing
to leave was restraint and coercion within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act and that Respondents are
responsible therefore. At that time there were no well
defined entrances to the property. Access could be had
from virtually anywhere on the two adjoining streets.
Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that entrances
were blocked. But there was massing of large numbers of
union demonstrators on the streets adjoining the job which
afforded access to it. This massing of demonstrators, in the
context of the other events that day, amounted to restraint
and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(A).
United Mine Workers of America & District #6, U.M.W.
(Weriton Constr. Co.), 174 NLRB 344; Local 379, Building
Material & Excavators (Catalano Bros.), 175 NLRB 459. I
make no finding as to whether the balance of the conduct
noted above violates Section 8(b)(l)(A) because such was
not alleged in the complaints. I do, however, find this
conduct evidences a continuing object of recognition, and
also of organization , within the meaning of Section
8(b)(7)(C).
2. The events of December 6
The complaints also allege, and the answers deny,
blocking of entrances and obstructing of employees on
December 6 in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. The evidence shows that on
Wednesday, December 6 there was again a large number
of demonstrators at the site and some obstruction.
According to the credited testimony of Edgar Rebelo, a
mason employed by Klein, he and another Klein employ-
ee, Hank Cerza, on arriving for work, parked across the
street from the project. I infer from the fact that Rebelo
testified that this was on the second day of mass picketing
and the fact that it is admitted that the second day of mass
picketing occurred on December 6, that his testimony
relates to that day. The two employees reported to the
Klein trailer on the jobsite. Finding it locked, they started
back to their automobile, at which point numerous pickets
asked Rebelo if he was going home. Another, using
profane language, urged them to leave and also asked them
why they did not join the Union. Following this they left
the site and did not work that day.
Russell Wright, project superintendent , also testified that
when he saw the massing of pickets on December 6 he left
the job in an effort to head off other employees
LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
approaching and instruct them not to report to work. His
way was briefly obstructed as he tried to leave . One picket
told him , "Russ, we know you. If you're smart you'll keep
going ." About 12 to 14 Klein employees were scheduled
for work that day in addition to employees of subcontrac-
tors. According to Wright , the massing of pickets prevent-
ed employees as well as others from having free access to
the job . No work was performed that day.
When Wright returned to the job around 11 a.m. the
pickets had thinned out some . He discovered that the
telephone wires into Klein 's trailer on the job were again
cut and also that one tire on the trailer and two tires on a
back hoe had been slashed.
It cannot be said that entrances and exits were blocked
on December 6. There were no entrances proper to be
blocked . However even though Rebelo and Cerza were not
physically blocked when they left, I find that the massing
of demonstrators on adjoining streets affording access to
the site , taken in context with the other conduct that day,
was coercion and restraint of employees prohibited by
Section 8(b)(1)(A). United Mine Workers of America &
District #6, U.M. W. ( Weriton Constr. Co.), supra, Local
379, Building Material & Excavators (Catalano Bros.), supra.
I find also that the oral inducement of Rebelo and Cerzo,
the comments to Wright, and the slashing of wires and
tires, is all evidence tending to show continuing recogni-
tional and organizational objects contemplated by Section
8(b)(7)(C).
3. The events of December 9
The complaints allege , and the answers deny, that on
December 9 Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when
pickets threatened an employee on the job with bodily
injury.
James A. Reilly III, an employee of Bruce Wright, the
masonry subcontractor on the job , testified credibly that
during the morning of December 9 he was mixing cement
on the site at a point about 15 to 20 feet from the public
sidewalk . About a half dozen pickets patrolling nearby on
the street approached him and one spoke to him.
According to Reilly, "He told me I better watch out or I
might get a block along side my head."
This threat, which in the circumstances I find attributa-
ble to Respondents , violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). I also find
it to be further evidence that Respondents ' further
picketing was, in part at least , directed to.employees on the
job.
4. The events of December 11
a. The alleged threats
The complaints also allege, and the answers deny, that
on December 11 pickets threatened an employee of
masonry subcontractor Bruce Wright , thereby violating
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The evidence in support of this allegation consists of
additional credited testimony of James A. Reilly III, and
follows on his testimony respecting the events of December
9. According to Reilly, the same picket who spoke to him
on December 9 also spoke to him on the morning of
287
December 11 while he was working in about the same
location . At this time also the speaker was accompanied by
five or six other pickets . In the words of Reilly , "He told
me I had better stay home where I belonged or there might
be trouble out here ." As with the December 9 incident, I
find this to be a violation by Respondents of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and further evidence that the picketing contin-
ued to be directed , in part, at employees on the job.
b. The blocking of entrances
The complaints allege , and the answers deny , that on
December 11 (as on December 1 and 6 ) pickets blocked
access to the site and prevented employees from entering
or leaving. This is alleged to have violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and 8 (b)(7)(C) of the Act.
A laborer employed by Klein , one William LeMon,
testified that during the second week in December , which I
mfer was about December 11, his entry into the site while
driving a Klein dump truck was slightly delayed while he
waited for pickets to pass. While he was waiting one of the
pickets tried to persuade him not to work on the job and to
join the Union.
Although there were large numbers of pickets present on
December 11 I do not find the experience of LeMon to be
evidence of blocking of an entrance . From his testimony it
is clear that he only had to wait a very short time while the
pickets passed in front of his truck and there does not
appear to have been any effort to obstruct his way. The
testimony of LeMon , however, is further evidence that at
that time organizational activity continued in connection
with the picketing and that efforts were being made to
induce employees not to work . This supports the finding
made earlier herein that proscribed objects persisted past
November.
Although the evidence of LeMon is not sufficient to
establish that entrances and exits were blocked on
December 11, 1 find from other evidence that mass
picketing occurred on that day . I base this on the general
testimony of job superintendent Russell Wright in a
pretrial affidavit that on that day large numbers of pickets
were milling around and massing on the streets adjoining
the projects. The situation is illustrated by the incidents
involving the Miron Lumber truck discussed hereinafter. I
find that this conduct , rather than the incident involving
LeMon, establishes a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A).
c. The effect of picketing on deliveries
on December 11
The complaints allege , and the answers deny , that on two
occasions on December 11 pickets prevented a delivery by
a Miron Lumber Corporation truck, thereby violating
Section 8(b)(7)(C).
During the morning of December 11 a truck from Miron
Lumber Corporation , which regularly supplied materials to
the jobsite, approached the job . The Miron driver was
unable to drive into the project because his truck was
completely surrounded by a large number of pickets,
including pickets from all three of Respondent Unions,
who obstructed its way . As a result the driver drove off
without making the delivery . About a half hour later he
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
again returned. The same thing again happened and he
again drove off without making the delivery.
Booth, who was in charge of the picketing, testified that
on the second of these occasions he told the pickets that if
the driver wanted to go in he could go in and should not be
stopped and that a sergeant from the local sheriff's office
spoke with the driver who left shortly thereafter, and that
no one was obstructing the truck. The sergeant did not
testify. However, based on the collective testimony of
Russell Wright, Reuben Ashett (a laborer employed by
Klein) and Denis Chambers (a carpenter employed by
Klein) I find the Miron truck was stopped and the driver
was induced not to enter on two occasions on December
11. Whether these interruptions in deliveries were sufficient
to cause Section 8(b)(7)(C) to be violated, is treated later
herein.
5. The events of December 15
a. The blocking of entrances
Respecting December 15 the complaints allege the
blocking of entrances in the same manner as alleged to
have occurred on December 1, 6, and 11. The General
Counsel asserts, and Respondents deny, that such blocking
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. The
complaints also allege, and Respondents deny, that in
violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) the pickets prevented
deliveries to the jobsite by two suppliers, Gardner
Plumbing & Heating and Amenia Sand & Gravel, Inc.
The evidence establishes that early in the morning of
December 15 there were 30 to 40 pickets at the site. The
number later increased substantially. The parties agree that
December 15 was the last day of mass picketing.
The evidence respecting the blockage of entrances is also
offered with respect to the interference with the deliveries
from Gardner and Amenia. Gardner Plumbing & Heating
was one of the subcontractors on the job. About 9 a.m. on
December 15 Ralph Elmer, a plumber employed by
Gardner, together with a helper employed by Gardner,
arrived at the site in a Gardner truck loaded with supplies.
They proceeded without incident to the parking area of
Klein on the jobsite and conferred with Job Superintend-
ent Wright who directed them to unload their supplies at a
particular building and return the truck to the parking lot.
After unloading as directed Elmer endeavored to return
the Gardner truck to the parking lot. At the lot his way was
obstructed by a number of pickets who stood in front of
the truck and would not let him pass. One picket dared him
to run them over. After a delay of about 10 minutes the
police moved the obstructors away and he was able to
proceed. One of the pickets yelled at him, "1 will remember
your face"
A byproduct of this obstruction was that the concern
which supplied materials to Gardner thereafter refused to
deliver to the job while pickets were present and the hours
of Gardner's employees were changed so that they
remained on the site later in the afternoons until after the
pickets had left in order to receive deliveries.
Amema Sand & Gravel. Inc., was the principal supplier
of concrete to the site. About 10 a.m. on December 15 an
Amenia ready-mix truck arrived with a load. After being
directed to the end of the street to turn around, it was
directed by sheriff 's deputies to approach a temporary gate
they had arranged at the location where it was to unload.
As the truck approached a large number of pickets
obstructed the way and refused to move from the entrance.
Sheriff's deputies and local police proceeded to clear a way
for the truck, making some arrests , including Representa-
tive Giacchini of the Masons. The truck entered and made
its delivery after a delay estimated at between 5 and 8
minutes. There was much yelling . The pickets called the
truckdriver a scab, spoke in angry terms, and used
considerable profanity.
I find that the obstructing of the plumbing truck and the
concrete truck violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
that that conduct and the comments connected therewith
show a continuation of proscribed objects under Section
8(b)(7)(C).
6. The events of January 17
Sometime in January (the complaint alleges January 17)
Hudson Valley Block Co ., a supplier of building materials
to the jobsite , sent to the jobsite a loaded truck driven by
its employee Harry Butler. Seeing the pickets as he
approached the job, Butler pulled the truck over to the side
of the road. A group of three or four pickets came up to the
truck . One of them, wearing a picket sign with the name of
Local Union No. 456, spoke to Butler. Butler asked him if
he had a book. The picket showed him a union card and
then asked Butler for his book . Butler, a member of
Teamster Local 445, showed the picket his own union card.
The picket asked Butler if he would honor his picket line.
Butler said he would.
He then left his truck , with motor running , to telephone
his employer who told him that since the Teamsters Union
had not advised Hudson Valley about the picket line at the
jobsite , Butler should make the delivery . Butler then
returned to his truck and advised the pickets of what his
boss had said . Some of them commented that they ought to
block him in with other trucks. However, his way was not
obstructed. Although the keys to the truck were missing
and the cap for the fuel tank was hanging loose, the motor
was still running and he proceeded into the jobsite where
he made the delivery.
The General Counsel contends that this incident was an
interruption of deliveries evidencing a violation of Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. Since there was only a slight delay, I
find this was not an interruption of a delivery. It does,
however, evidence continued recognitional and organiza-
tional object.
F. Discussion
1. The object of picketing
Although this case has many similarities to Houston
Building and Construction Trades Council (Claude Everett
Construction Co.), 136 N LRB 321, in matters which seem to
me to be crucial , it differs . Thus, in Claude Everett the
union , prior to picketing , knew specifically that the
contractor's wage rates were lower than those negotiated in
the area. Here the Union did not possess such particular
LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
knowledge . Unlike Claude Everett, the Unions here sought
recognition prior to the picketing, and the initial picket
signs bore legends protesting the developer's lack of union
contracts . Subsequently the pickets , unlike those in Claude
Everett, and notwithstanding the contrary disclaimer on
the picket signs, sought to influence employees on the job
to join the Unions.
In Claude Everett the Board said (p. 323), "Thus, it is
clear , from the entire record, that the objective of the
Respondent 's picketing was to induce the Company to
raise its wage rates to the Union scale prevailing in the
area ." That really cannot be said here where the totality of
the record reveals a significant measure of recognitional
and organizational purpose throughout the period of
picketing , including during the time area standard signs
were carried . Even though during the area standard phase
Respondents made extensive efforts through the news
media and by leaflets to bung that message to the general
public and thereby put a new face on the campaign, the
recognitional and organizational objects persisted.
During the first month of picketing the picket sign
legends resembled the signs in Retail Clerks Union 324, etc.
(Barker Bros.), supra at 485 . But it is not clear here, as it
was there , that the picketing was for informational
purposes . Barker involved numerous retail stores in
contrast to the single construction site involved here. The
pickets in Barker were placed so as to appeal to the
consuming public . Here , although the pickets patrolled on
two public streets adjoining the project , there is little
evidence in the record that present or future members of
the consuming public (renters) were in the area or that
selling activity occurred there . No effort was made to
picket the offices of Klein or S. B . Thus, the picketing was
directed chiefly to those working on, or delivering to, the
site, notwithstanding the wording of the picket signs
indicating their message was directed to the general public.
Although the second phase picket signs in the present
matter differ from those in Barker, this case is like Barker
in that proscribed objects were present throughout the
campaign . Because of these objects this picketing, which
continued over thirty days without a representation
petition having been filed , was banned under Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act unless it was exempt under the second
proviso of the Section.
2. Application of the proviso
The initial signs were in the language of the proviso. If
Respondents had stayed with that format , the second
proviso would unquestionably have come into play. But
after November 28 they changed the wording to convey an
area standards message . With that small step did Respon-
dents move themselves beyond the protection of the
proviso? Such a result , it seems to me , would make no
sense. The mere sequence in which the signs were used
would thus have made the standards of both Claude Everett
and Barker Bros. inapplicable rather than indulging in such
technical legalisms, I find that the format of the picket
signs fall sufficiently within the intendment of the second
proviso to bring that part of the Section into play. See
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local Union
No. 2064 etc. (Westra Construction, Inc.), supra at 882.
3. Effect on deliveries
289
The legitimacy of the picketing turns, then , on its impact
on deliveries or services to the job. Considering that a
construction project is involved, I find that , under the
standards enunciated in Barker Bros., the picketing had
sufficient impact on the job through interference with
deliveries and services to the job to bring the picketing
under the exception of the proviso thereby depriving it of
protection . United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners,
Local Union No. 2064, etc. (Westra Construction, Inc.),
supra. Like most construction , this job was being executed
according to a work schedule which suffered as a result of
the picketing . Mass picketing occurred on four different
days in December . On the first of these occasions,
December 1, the job superintendent found it necessary to
shut down the job. That was his decision . There is no
evidence of specific deliveries or services not being
performed because of picketing . Again on December 6
many demonstrators were present during a substantial
portion of the morning and the job superintendent
instructed employees not to come on the job . No work was
performed that day although employees of the general
contractor as well as subcontractors were scheduled to
work. On December I1 blocking of entrance was only
temporary. But a delivery from a supplier of lumber was
twice interrupted and the delivery was not made. On
December 15 mass picketing again occurred . Entry to the
job of a ready mix truck supplying concrete to the masonry
subcontractor was blocked for seven or eight minutes while
sheriff's deputies cleared the way, making a half dozen
arrests in the process . On the same day a truck with
supplies for the plumbing subcontractor on the job was
blocked from entry for about ten minutes until police
could move the obstructing pickets out of the way. As a
result of this last incident the regular supplier of plumbing
supplies refused thereafter to deliver during regular
working hours while the pickets were present , necessitating
that employees of the plumbing subcontractor remain after
normal quitting time to recieve supplies . Finally in January
a delivery of cement blocks was delayed a short while by
pickets who persuaded the driver of the delivery truck not
to enter the job. However, after calling his boss and being
instructed to complete the delivery, he did so . Pickets
threatened to block his way, but actually did not.
In sum , the pickets patently had an effect on the
enterprise being picketed . Two efforts to deliver lumber
were thwarted . A delivery of concrete and another of
plumbing supplies were delayed and brought to completion
only after severe confrontations between pickets and
police. Thereafter delivery of plumbing supplies had to be
made after hours. I conclude that in these circumstances,
involving a single construction project, the exception to the
second proviso of Section 8(b)(7)(C) applies . United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local Union No.
2064, etc. (Westra Construction, Inc.), supra. In reaching this
conclusion I place some reliance on the fact that a
construction job is inherently more dependent on uninter-
rupted delivery of building materials than would be the
case with more consumer oriented businesses such as retail
stores. At the heart of Barker Bros. is the question , what do
the stoppages in deliveries and services do to the
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations, as distinguished from the sales, of the business
being picketed. Here, although the interruptions of
deliveries and services were relatively few, some were
severe confrontations involving police action, and all,
whether temporary or permanent, necessarily had signifi-
cant impact on this type of operation. Accordingly, I find
the picketing, being for proscribed objects, violated Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in unfair labor
practices, I recommend that each cease and desist
therefrom and take certain attirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act, including the posting as
provided hereinafter of the appropriate notice attached
hereto as Appendix.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of S. B.
and Klein described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. S. B. and Klein are an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2), engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and business activities affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Unions are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing the construction project of S. B. and
Klein in Cold Spring, New York, between November 1,
1972, and March 17, 1973, with an object of forcing or
requiring S. B. and Klein to recognize or bargain with
Respondents as collective-bargaining representatives of
employees working at that location, or with an object of
forcing or requiring such employees to accept or select
Respondent Unions as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentatives, despite the fact that Respondents have not been
certified as their representatives and no petition has been
filed under Section 9(c) of the Act within a reasonable
period of time, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the
Act
4. Respondents have restrained and coerced employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
by obstructing employees leaving the construction project
described above, by obstructing deliveries to the project,
and by threatening employees on the project with bodily
injury and with trouble at the project and have thereby
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
become its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes
ORDERS
Respondents, Local 275, Laborers International Umon
of North America, AFL-CIO; and Painters District
Council No. 20 of Westchester and Putnam Counties, New
York, New York, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and
Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO; and Local 55,
Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of
America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees working on or
delivering to projects of S. B. Apartment Inc., and James
A. Klein, Inc., by obstructing their entry or departure from
the project, by threats of trouble at the project or of bodily
harm, or by mass picketing in such manner as to cause
such employees to fear bodily harm from entering, leaving,
or working on the project.
(b) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, construction
projects of S. B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein,
Inc., where an object thereof is forcing or requiring
employers on those construction projects to recognize or
bargain with Respondents as representatives of their
employees, or forcing or requiring such employees to
accept or select Respondents as their collective-bargaining
representatives, in circumstances violative of Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing such employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at their business offices
and meeting halls, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted, copies of the appropriate
attached notice marked Appendix A, B, or C.4 Copies of
such notice on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 2, after being duly signed by authorized
representatives of Respondents, shall be posted by each of
said Union upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60
consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
+ In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgement of a
United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
LOCAL 275 , LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION 291
Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered , IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaints herein be
defaced, or covered by any other material . dismissed insofar as they allege violations of the Act not
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing , specifically found herein.
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.