Local 69, United Association of Journeyman, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 1465 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOCAL 69, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 1465
business has been and still is under $500,000, and it would not meet
the test for invoking the Board's discretionary standard for the asser-
tion of jurisdiction over retail enterprises.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that the Board
would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer because the allegations
submitted herein do not establish that the Employer's operations meet
the Board's standard for asserting jurisdiction over retail enterprises.
MEMBER ZAGORIA took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Local 69, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO and Bellezza Company, Inc. Case No. 22-
CD-93. June 14, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on April 9, 1964, by Bellezza Company, Inc.,
herein called the Company, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 22, issued ,% com-
plaint on December 8, 1964, against Local 69, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus-
try of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. In substance, the complaint alleges that the Respondent
violated the Act by engaging in picketing activities with an object of
forcing or requiring the Company to assign the work of installing
nonmetallic outside sanitary and stormsewers to employees represented
by the Respondent, rather than to employees represented by Local
472, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Laborers. The
Respondent filed an answer to the complaint, denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
On March 3, 1965, the parties entered into a stipulation submitting
the proceeding directly to the Board for the issuance of findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and a Decision and Order. It was agreed that
the entire record in this case shall consist of : the transcript of testimony
and exhibits in the prior Section 10 (k) proceeding; 1 the formal papers
IOn November 9, 1964 , in a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k), the Board issued
its Decision and Determination of Dispute ( 149 NLRB 675 ), in which the Board con-
cluded that employees of the Company represented by the Laborers were entitled to
perform the work in dispute
152 NLRB No. 154.
1466 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the instant proceeding and the transcript of testimony, and related
exhibits of William J. Cour in Local 300, United Association of Jour-
neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe fitting Industry,
,etc. (D'Annunzio Bros., Inc.,) 152 NLRB 707. The parties waived
a hearing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance of a Trial Exam-.
iner's Decision. On March 11, 1965, the Board issued an order approv-
ing the stipulation and transferred the case to itself. Thereafter, a
brief was filed by the Respondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Brown and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in the case,2 the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Bellezza Company, Inc., with its principal office located in Jersey
City, New Jersey, is engaged in the business of performing general
excavation, sewer, paving, and other construction work throughout
the State of New Jersey. During the past year, the Company per-
formed construction services valued in excess of $50,000 for the city of-
Jersey City, which is constructing a general maintenance facility and
garage at a cost of more than $3 million of which more than $1 mil-
lion was derived from a grant by the Federal Government pursuant to'
its Home and Housing Finance Administration program. The Com-
pany is a prime contractor in connection with this construction in the,
amount of $715, 645.
The Respondent concedes, and we find, that the Company is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act;
and we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert,
jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Respondent and the Laborers are labor organizations within_
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Jersey City awarded the Company a contract for the construction,
of service roads, paving, and the installation of cement pipe for out-
side sanitary and sewer lines in connection with the city's development
program. In December 1963, the Company commenced the pipe instal-
2 As the record and the Respondent's brief adequately present the issues and the positions
of the parties, we hereby deny the Respondent's and Company's requests for oral argument.
LOCAL 69, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 1467
lation, assigning all such work to employees represented by the Labor-
ers, who have a collective-bargaining agreement with the Company.
During the latter part of February 1964, Peter Zampella, the Respond-
ent's business manager, appeared at the jobsite several times and
requested Anthony Bellezza, the Company's construction superintend-
ent, to reassign the sewer pipe work to employees represented by the
Respondent. These requests were refused by the Company, which has
never employed members of the Respondent and has no collective-bar-
gaining contract with the Respondent. After further unsuccessful
attempts to persuade the Company, which included meetings with offi-
cials of the city of Jersey City, the Respondent engaged in picketing
activities at the work project between April 3 and 30, 1964, for the
admitted purpose of compelling the Company to reassign the disputed
work. As a result of the picketing, employees of the Company, other
than those engaged in pipework, and employees of other employers
doing business on the project, refused to cross the picket line. The
picketing ceased after the Respondent, in a proceeding for an injunc-
tion before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Civil No. 408-64, entered into a stipulation in which it agreed to cease
picketing until the matter was finally resolved by the Board.
The Respondent concedes, and we find, that its picketing activities
induced or encouraged employees of the Company and other employ-
ers to engage in a work stoppage and was for the purpose of forcing
or requiring the Company to reassign the disputed work to employees
represented by the Respondent. The foregoing conduct is proscribed
by Section 8 (b) (4) (i) (D) of the Act. We also find that the picketing
and the resulting work stoppages threatened, restrained, or coerced the
employer within the meaning of subsection (ii) of Section 8 (b) (4) (D).
The Respondent's defense herein, as argued in its brief, is in the nature
of a request for reconsideration of the Board's Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute issued in the Section 10 (k) proceeding. We have
examined the arguments in support of this position, including the addi-
tional evidence which was stipulated by the parties, and find nothing
therein which was not previously considered by the Board. We per-
ceive no reason for disturbing the prior Decision and Determination
of Dispute.
In the circumstances, we conclude that Respondent's picketing activ-
ities violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act .3
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occur-
ring in connection with the operations of the Companies herein
S See Local 1291, International Longshoremen 's Association, et al. ( Pennsylvania Sugar
Division, National Sugar Refining Company ), 142 NLRB 257, 259, enfd. 332 F. 2d 559
(C.A. 3).
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
involved, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (D) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of
the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent and the Laborers are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By its picketing with an object to force or require the Company to
assign the work of installing nonmetallic outside sanitary and storm-
sewers to employees represented by the Respondent rather than to
employees represented by the Laborers, the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (D) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are -unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondent, Local 69, United Association of Journeymen and Appren-
tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO, Jersey City, New Jersey, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
individuals employed by Bellezza Company, Inc., or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage
in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu-
facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on materials,
or to perform any service; and from threatening, coercing, or restrain-
ing the aforesaid employers or persons; where an object in either case
is to force or require Bellezza Company, Inc., to assign the Work of
installing nonmetallic outside sanitary and stormsewers to employees
represented by the Respondent rather than to employees represented
by Local 472, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common
Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO.
LOCAL 69, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 1469
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in Jersey City, New
Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 22,
shall, after being duly signed by the Union's representative, be posted
by the Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director
for Region 22 for posting by Bellezza Company, Inc., the Company
willing, at all locations where notices to its employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
s In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the w ords "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
To ALL OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the purposes of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage individuals
employed by Bellezza Company, Inc., or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a
strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu-
facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on mate-
rials, or to perform any services; or threaten, coerce, or restrain the
aforesaid employers or persons; where an object in either case is
to force or require Bellezza Company, Inc., to assign the work of
installing nonmetallic outside sanitary and stormsewers to
employees represented by this Union, rather than to employees
represented by Local 472, International Hod Carriers, Building
and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO.
LOCAL 69, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE-
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 614 National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New
Jersey, Telephone No. Market 4-3088, if they have any questions con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Valley Gold Dairies , Inc.; John Edward Price , Attorney for
Valley Gold Dairies , Inc. and Chauffeurs , Teamsters and Help-
ers Local Union No. 492, affiliated with the International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America. Cases Nos. 28-CA-1019, 28-CA-1041, 28-CA-1052,
28-CA-1067, and 28-CA-1068. June 14, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 21, 1964, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. He also found that the Respondents had not engaged in
certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended the dis-
missal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respond-
ents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner as modified below.'
' We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent's interrogation of employees through
its counsel, Attorneys Price and Sears, exceeded lawful bounds and that the Respondent
Company has thereby violated Section 8(a) (1) by the conduct of its agents. We dis-
agree, however, with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that by such conduct, Attorney
Price, who is also named as a Respondent, exceeded the bounds of mere advocacy and
that he was "purposely aiding the employer in contravening the statute," and thereby
committed a separate individual violation of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
complaint as to Respondent Price.
152 NLRB No. 153.