Local 370, United Assn. of Journeymen, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 20 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In dissenting from the original decision not to determine this dis-
pute, I observed that not only was the dispute of long standing, but
that it was incumbent upon the Board to make a proper determination
of it. The facts related by the majority herein buttress that position;
they disclose that the Employers were and are not bound to submit
this longstanding and continuing dispute to the Joint Board, and
both the Employers and Riggers apparently were careful to avoid
doing so. This attitude can, on the evidence now before us, be ex-
pected to persist, thereby undercutting a principal reason for the
Board's original refusal to determine the dispute, namely, the hope
that the Joint Board would provide a channel for resolution of this
dispute. Consequently, I see little hope for labor peace in this area
unless this Board undertakes a proper consideration of this case. This
Board, it appears from the evidence offered on remand, is the only
forum which presently can make an effective decision.
For the above reasons and in accordance with the terms of the
remand, I would recommend to the court that it return the case to the
Board for a determination of the dispute and an award in accordance
therewith.
Local 370, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO and Baughan Plumbing and Heating
Company, Incorporated . Case No. 7-CC-306. February 21,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 29, 1965, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial
Examiner further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
an exception to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
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 Trial
157 NLRB No. 2.
LOCAL 370, UNITED ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 21
Examiner's Decision, the exception, brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, with the following addition and
modification.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent violated Section
8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees
to engage in a work stoppage, with an object of forcing or requiring
their employer, Baughan Plumbing and Heating Co.,' to cease doing
business with Gladwin County, Michigan, in order to force or require
said County to cease doing business with Schierbeek Construction
Company. The record supports this conclusion and no exception has
been taken thereto.
The Trial Examiner further concluded, however, that, as Respond-
ent neither engaged in picketing nor directly threatened Baughan, its
conduct was not violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. We
find merit in the General Counsel's exception to this latter holding.
As more fully set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, McCullum,
an admitted agent of Respondent, on discovering that Secord, a mem-
ber of Respondent Union and an employee of Baughan, was working
on a project picketed by another labor organization,2 contacted
Secord, reminding him of the obligation of union members to honor all
picket lines. As a result of this conversation, Secord and an apprentice,
who had been working on the project on travel permits issued by
Respondent, did not work at that location between June 21 and
July 13, 1965. The General Counsel contends that, since Respondent
effectively induced the work stoppage against Baughan, a neutral
employer, Respondent's conduct necessarily had the effect of restrain-
ing and coercing Baughan. We agree. The Board has consistently
held that a strike or work stoppage against a neutral employer con-
stitutes restraint and coercion of such employer within the meaning
of clause (ii) of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act.' Accordingly, we find,
contrary to the Trial Examiner, that by effectively inducing the work
stoppages against Baughan, for a proscribed objective, Respondent
violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act.
I Referred to herein as Baughan.
9 The project in question involved the construction of a sheriff department and jail for
Gladwin County , Michigan. The county awarded separate contracts in connection with
this job to Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company and Peter Schierbeek Construction
Company. The picketing was conducted by a bricklayers local, which is not a party to
the instant proceeding, and was directed solely against Schierbeek , a nonunion contractor,
in protest of Schierbeek 's employment of bricklayers at less than union scale
8 See, e g., Local Union 825, International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO (Carleton Brothers Company ), 131 NLRB 452, 453; Local Union 825, International
'Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO ( Nichols Electric Company), 138 NLRB 540,
543; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 313, AFL-CIO (Janes
Julian, Inc.), 147- NLRB 137, 142, international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO ( L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modification:
[1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b) :
[" (b) Threatening, coercing, and restraining Baughan Plumbing
and Heating Company, Incorporated, with an object of forcing or
requiring Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company, Incorporated,
to cease doing business with Gladwin County, Michigan, in order
to force or require Gladwin County, Michigan, to cease doing busi-
ness with Peter Schierbeek, d/b/a Peter Schierbeek Construction
Company."
[2.'Add the following immediately after the indented paragraph
therein :
[WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, or coerce Baughan Plumbing
and Heating Company, Incorporated, with an object of forcing
or requiring Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company, Incor-
porated, to cease doing business with Gladwin County, Michigan,
in order to force or require Gladwin County, Michigan, to cease
doing business with Peter Schierbeek, d/b/a Peter Schierbeek
Construction Company.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed June 23, 1965 ,1 by Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company,
Incorporated , hereinafter called Baughan , the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board , by and through the Regional Director for Region 7 of the
Board, issued a complaint on July 30 against Local 370, United Association of Jour-
neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Respondent. The complaint, in
essence , alleges that Respondent has induced and encouraged individuals employed
by Baughan to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on goods , articles,
materials , or commodities , or to perform services , and has threatened, coerced, and
restrained Baughan, and other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affect-
ing commerce , with an object of forcing or requiring Baughan to cease doing business
with other persons. It is further alleged that Respondent , by engaging in such con-
duct, committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii ) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act.
Respondent duly filed an answer in which it denied substantially all the allegations
of the complaint , or disclaimed knowledge thereof, except that it admitted that it
was a labor organization , that one Walter McCollum was its business agent who
acted on its behalf, and that at all times material, it had a collective -bargaining
agreement with Baughan covering certain of the latter 's employees , including
plumbers.
The issues presented for decision are: (1 ) Whether the Board has jurisdiction of
this matter ; and (2 ) whether or not Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged, and,
if so, whether such constitutes a violation of the aforesaid sections of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Robert Cohn in
Flint, Michigan , on September 24 in which all parties were afforded full opportunity
to be heard , to introduce evidence, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , to pre-
sent oral argument , and to file briefs. Counsel for the General Counsel and counsel
1 All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1965 unless designated otherwise.
LOCAL 370, UNITED ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 23
for the Respondent engaged in oral argument at the close of the hearing; a post-
hearing brief has been received from counsel for the General Counsel, which has
been carefully considered.2
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor while testifying, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. COMMERCE
The alleged unfair labor practices occurred during the construction of a jail by
and for Gladwin County, Michigan, in which Peter Schierbeek, d/b/a Peter Schier-
beek Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as Schierbeek, is the general
contractor 3 and Baughan is a mechanical contractor, supplying plumbing and related
services. Unlike the customary situation in the construction industry, however, in
this case Baughan is not a subcontractor to Schierbeek, but is in contractual relations
solely with the county for its obligations to the project.
Schierbeek testified his company carried on its construction of commercial and
residential buildings within the State of Michigan and that during the year 1964 it
purchased and had shipped directly into Michigan from points outside the State,
goods and materials valued in excess of $60,000. If fully credited, this testimony
would be sufficient evidence of interstate activity to warrant the Board's assertion of
jurisdiction.4 However, Schierbeek was quite vague on cross-examination as to the
source of these materials, and no records were introduced to support these conten-
tions. But it is unnecessary to rely solely on this testimony, since Baughan testified
credibly that during a similar period his interstate business totaled in excess of
$300,000, and the Board has ruled that in these types of cases, if necessary, it will
consider ". . . for jurisdictional purposes not only the operations of the primary
employer, but also the operations of any secondary employers to the extent that the
latter are affected by the conduct involved." 5 The value of Baughan's contract at
the Gladwin County project is $55,555. Moreover, in the recent Kisner case,6 the
Board, in discussing the legislative history of the 1959 amendments to the Act, noted
the intent of Congress to "close the various loopholes in the Taft-Hartley ban against
secondary boycotts" and broaden the coverage of such provisions. The Board said
that hereafter it would construe broadly the language "'engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce' which appears in Section 8(b)(4) in order to fulfill
the manifest congressional purpose to give the widest coverage to secondary boycott
provisions." 7
In light of all of the foregoing I find and conclude that the interstate operations
of the above-named employers are sufficient in themselves under the Reilly 8 and
McAllister Transfer 9 doctrine to warrant the Board's assertion of jurisdiction in this
case and that, in addition, the construction project involved herein is a part of the
building and construction industry which is an "industry affecting commerce" within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4). Therefore, I will recommend that the Board assert
jurisdiction in this matter.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Local 370, United Asso-
ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2 Attached to his brief and served upon all other parties on October 18, was a motion
by General Counsel to correct the transcript of proceedings in certain respects. Such
proposed corrections, being primarily grammatical in nature, appear in conformity with
my recollection of the statements made at the hearing and, having received no objection
to the motion by Respondent, the motion is hereby granted.
8 The complaint was amended at the hearing to reflect that Schierbeek is a sole pro-
prietorship rather than a corporation.
Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81
6Marie T. Reilly, d/b/a Reilly Cartage Company, 110 NLRB 1742, 1744
e Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 299, AFL-CIO et ai.
(S M. Krasner ( deceased ), et al. d/b/a Kisner and Sons ), 131 NLRB 1196.
7131 NLRB at 1198-1199. The Board concluded and found that ". . . the building
and construction industry is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)."
s Reilly Cartage Co., supra.
g International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc, Local 544, et al. (Mc Allister Transfer,
Inc.), 110 NLRB 1769.
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue
The sole issue on the merits is whether or not Respondent induced or encouraged
any of its members to cease work on the Gladwin jail project; threatened, coerced, or
restrained any person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce,
all for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)( B).io
B. Sequence of events
Schierbeek, a general contractor who normally employs nonunion labor, received
the Gladwin County jail contract in March, and began construction in April. For
the project, Schierbeek employed carpenters, cementmasons and brickmasons, for a
total of approximately 30 employees. In April the business agent of the Bricklayers
local in the area requested of Schierbeek that the latter utilize union labor on the
project, but Schierbeek advised that he already had enough bricklayers. Whereupon,
around May 1, the Bricklayers established a picket line about the project, the "picket
line" consisting, at all times material, of one picket who stationed himself at the
entrance to the project.
Baughan, a mechanical contractor in Flint, Michigan, received the contract to fur-
nish plumbing, heating, pipefitting, and the like, to the Gladwin County project.
Baughan is a union contractor having been in contractual relations, through an asso-
ciation, with Respondent for a number of years. The Gladwin County project, how-
ever, is outside the jurisdiction of Respondent; accordingly, Baughan looked to Local
85 of the Plumbers Union (who apparently had jurisdiction of Gladwin County) to
furnish mechanics for the job. The first employee assigned by Baughan to the Glad-
win County project through Local 85 refused to cross the picket line. This was in
May.
On or about June 14, Baughan arranged to send one of his employees (Mel
Secord) from Flint up to the project, which was located approximately 110 miles
away." Secord, with apprentice Doug Clark, worked at the Gladwin County project
for a week, through Friday, June 18. When he returned home that afternoon, Secord
found a letter waiting for him from Walt McCullum, business agent of Respondent.
The letter requested Secord to get in touch with McCullum as soon as possible.
Secord called McCullum the following Monday morning at approximately 8:15 a.m.,
at the latter's office. The substance of that telephone conversation represents the
crux of the issue in this case.
According to Secord's version, McCullum asked him if he was planning on going
back to work at Gladwin and if there was a picket on the job. Secord answered
affirmatively to both questions; whereupon, McCullum asked if Secord had crossed
the picket line. The latter said "No, that [he] had come in on a side street, on a
side entrance; and [McCullum] said that at no time should we ever cross a picket
line without our business agent being with us." McCullum further advised that if
io This section states:
Sec. 8(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or
its agents-
(4) (1) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any
person engaged in commerce or in an Industry affecting commerce to engage in,
a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, proc-
ess, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services ; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain
any person engaged In commerce or in an Industry affecting commerce, where In
either case an object thereof is:. . .
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, trans-
porting, orotherwise dealing In the products of any other producer, processor,
or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing
or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organiza-
tion as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has
been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of
section 9: Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be con-
strued to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or
primary picketing;
ll Secord, a member of Respondent, received a travel card to work in the jurisdiction
of Local 85.
LOCAL 370, UNITED ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 25
Secord continued to cross it that he would be "called down before our people." Secord
testified that he would contact his office , meaning Baughan, and McCullum said that
he could find Secord another job if the latter was worried about that.12
McCullum's version of the telephone conversation-at least the first part thereof-
is substantially similar to Secord's. McCullum testified that after Secord admitted
working at Gladwin and that a picket line existed , Secord said that he was not cross-
ing the picket line but going around through the fence the backway. Whereupon,
McCullum told him that "it is against the policy of all good union members not to
cross the picket line or to work behind one." McCullum denied telling Secord that
if he continued to work that he would be brought before some board or something
to that effect.
According to the testimony of Dennis Baughan, vice president of Baughan Heating
and Plumbing Company, Secord came into his office on Monday morning and told
him that he could not go back to work on the project because his business agent had
informed him that "he was not allowed to work on that project because there was a
picket there and if [Baughan] could not reassign him to another job that he [Mc-
Cullum] would reassign him with another contractor." 13
Secord accordingly advised Clark, the apprentice, that Monday morning they were
not going to work on the Gladwin project, and were being assigned by Baughan to
work at a local church construction job. They worked at this job from June 21 to
July 13. During this period of time there were apparently some negotiations among
interested parties taking place regarding the Gladwin County job, the exact nature of
which is undisclosed in the record. In any event, on or about July 13, Baughan
received word that it was permissible to send the men back to the Gladwin County
project. He then contacted Secord who, in turn, contacted McCullum. According
to Secord, McCullum advised that he [McCullum] would not tell him to cross the
picket line and that he would not tell him not to cross the picket line, but that if
Secord went up there it would be strictly on his own responsibility. Thereafter
Secord, Clark, and a laborer resumed work on the Gladwin County job, and have
worked there continuously to the time of the hearing, although the project was being
continually picketed by the Bricklayers local from May until the date of the
hearing 14
C. Analysis and concluding findings
As previously noted , resolution of the principal issue in this case rests substantially
upon what was said in the conversation between Secord and McCullum on Monday,
June 21, which is another way of saying that it is necessary to determine the credi-
bility of the two witnesses. As is often the case, this particular facet of a Trial
Examiner's duty is the most difficult. In the instant proceeding, and based upon
demeanor considerations alone, neither individual was impressive as a witness. Both
were unduly hesitant in answering pointed questions and, on cross -examination,
neither appeared to be entirely candid in response . In addition to demeanor consid-
erations, of course, Secord's testimony at the hearing was directly impeached on a
material point by his prehearing affidavit. Under the circumstances, I am unable
to accord sufficient weight to his testimony to base a finding that McCullum threat-
ened him by stating words to the effect that if he continued to cross the picket line he
would be brought before a board of the Union.15 Therefore, I proceed to analyze
the case based upon McCullum's testimony that, in the conversation, he merely
'a Secoid, in a prehearing affidavit, testified that, in this conversation, McCullum "never
told [him] to refuse to cross a picket line " This was directly contrary to his testimony
at the hearing on cross-examination where he stated:
Q. Did he ever tell you point blank not to cross the picket line for an order,
don't cross that picket line?
A. Well, he should-we should never cross it. He said I should never cross it, we
should always honor a picket line regardless of what it was for.
Q. That's still not responsive to my question Did he tell you not to cross the
picket line at the Gladwin job"
A. I would say yes, he told me not to cross the picket line.
l3It is recognized that the foregoing testimony is hearsay. It was admitted into
evidence subject to being connected through the testimony of Secord However, the
latter was not interrogated specifically as to the contents of that conversation ; accord-
ingly, it is given little weight in my analysis and conclusion.
"The picketing at all tames referred to the alleged fact that Schierbeek did not main-
tain area standards ; Baughan was at no time mentioned on the legend of the picket sign.
There is no connection-either financial or proprietory-between Baughan and Schierbeek.
15 McCullum categorically denied making such a statement
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reminded Secord that it was against the policy of all good union members to cross a
picket line or to work behind one. This apparently had the desired effect upon
Secord who refused to work at the Gladwin project for approximately 3 weeks until
some sort of an agreement had been reached among the parties and his business agent
had advised him that he [the business agent] was not going to tell him to-or not
to-cross the picket line, but that he should use his own judgment in the matter.
Respondent argues that Secord, being a good union member who was not accus-
tomed to crossing picket lines anyway, could hardly have been induced or encouraged
to refuse to cross the line by the language of McCullum, who merely reminded him
of his obligation. I disagree. The fact of the matter is that Secord believed, prior
to June 21, that it was not an obligation of union members to refuse to honor all
picket lines. He felt in a rather undefined and unarticulated way that if the picket
line was not directed to his local or to the Plumbers Union that it was probably all
right to cross it-or at least it was all right to work on the project if one did not
have to cross the line but could enter the premises through an entrance which was
not picketed. Thus McCullum's "reminder" did more than simply refresh Secord's
memory as to the obligations of a union member, it substantially added to them-
particularly with respect to the labor dispute at the Gladwin project where he was
working. In short, I find that the statements here, like those involving Starr and
Hanson in the Northeastern Washington-Northern Idaho Building and Construction
Trades Council case,16 ". . . went beyond mere expression of neutrality and their
purpose and effect was to induce employees of secondary employers to cease work-
ing." 17 Thus I find that by the conversation on Monday, June 21, McCullum in-
duced and encouraged Secord [and through him, Clark] to cease work or to perform
services in the course of their employment for Baughan, who is engaged in an indus-
try affecting commerce.
With respect to the object of such inducement or encouragement, I have found
that, unlike the usual and ordinary situation in the construction industry, Baughan
is not a subcontractor of Schierbeek but both have their contracts directly with the
county of Gladwin. Thus it might be argued that an object of Respondent's conduct
could not have been to force or require Baughan to cease doing business with Schier-
beek. However to allow this deviation in contractual relationship to thwart the
remedying of a statutory violation would be to exult form over substance. I am
convinced and find that an object of Respondent's conduct hereinabove found was to
force or require Baughan to cease doing business with Gladwin County in order to
force or require the county to cease doing business with Schierbeek until the latter
reached a settlement with the Bricklayers' local.18
I have found no substantial evidence in the record to support the allegation that
Respondent has threatened, coerced, or restrained persons engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4). In
my opinion, while McCullum's statements to Secord constituted inducement and
encouragement to cease work, they did not rise to a threat or coercion. General
Counsel's reliance upon Northwestern Construction, supra, is misplaced.19 There the
Board found that it was the respondent's picketing which was designed to enmesh
neutral employers in a dispute of no concern to them, thereby restraining and
coercing said secondary employers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B); here, of
course, Respondent engaged in no such picketing. Therefore, I will recommend that
the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in section HI, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Schierbeek and Baughan described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
19 Northeastern Washington-Northern Idaho Building and Construction Trades Council,
et al. (Northwestern Construction of Washington, Inc.), 152 NLRB 975.
17 Ibid.
is See, e.g., Construction Labor Union No. 405, et al. (Korckof Plumbing and Heating
Co.), 149 NLRB 1158.
29 General Counsel's brief, p. 6.
LOCAL 370, UNITED ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 27
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative
action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Peter Schierbeek, d/b/a Peter Schierbeek Construction Company and Baughan
Plumbing and Heating Company, Incorporated, are engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section
8(b)(4) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Baughan to engage in a
strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services with an
object of forcing or requiring Baughan to cease doing business with Gladwin County,
Michigan, in order to force or require said county to cease doing business with
Schierbeek Construction Company, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)
of the Act.
4. Respondent has not violated the Act in any manner alleged in the complaint
other than that found in the above paragraph.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, I shall recommend that Respondent, Local 370, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, representatives,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging individuals employed by
Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company, Incorporated, to engage in a strike or a
refusal in the course of their employment to perform services with an object of
forcing or requiring Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company, Incorporated, to
cease doing business with Gladwin County, Michigan, in order to force or require
Gladwin County, Michigan, to cease doing business with Peter Schierbeek, d/b/a
Peter Schierbeek Construction Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A." 20 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of
the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained 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.
(b) Upon request of the Regional Director of Region 7, Respondent shall supply
him with a sufficient number of signed copies of said notice for posting by Baughan
Plumbing and Heating Company, Incorporated, if it desires to do so, at its place of
business.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply therewith.21
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed to the extent that it
alleges violations of the Act other than that found hereinabove.
In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
211n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the said Regional Director of Region 7, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply therewith."
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 370, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Baughan
Plumbing and Heating Company, Incorporated, to engage in a strike or refusal
in the course of their employment to perform any services where an object
thereof is to force or require Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company, Incor-
porated, to cease doing business with Gladwin County, Michigan , in order to
force or require Gladwin County, Michigan , to cease doing business with Peter
Schierbeek , d/b/a Peter Schierbeek Construction Company.
LOCAL 370, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPREN-
TICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard , Detroit, Michigan , Telephone No. 226-3244.
Fruehauf Corporation, d/b/a Hobbs Trailer Division , Fruehauf
Corporation and International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 16-RC-3956. Febru-
ary 21, 1966
DECISION ON REVIEW
On September 10, 1965, the Acting Regional Director for Region 16
issued the attached Decision and Direction of Election, in which he
denied the Petitioner's request for a single election covering the em-
ployees at the Employer's Cleburne, Texas, plant, where there has
never been a contractual relationship with any union, and at its Fort
Worth plant, where the Petitioner herein has had a 10-year contrac-
tual relationship with the Employer. However, he directed a self-
determination election among the employees at the Cleburne plant to
determine whether they desire to be merged with the employees cur-
rently represented by the Petitioner at Fort Worth. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a
timely request for review alleging that the Acting Regional Director
erred in denying an election in the multiplant unit. The Employer
157 NLRB No. 4.