Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 737 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

LOS ANGELES BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES, ETC . 737.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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
Relations Act, as amended , I hereby notify my employees that:
I WILL NOT threaten my employees that I will shut down my plant in the event
the Union wins the scheduled election.
I WILL NOT imply to my employees that their union activities are under
surveillance.
I WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
my employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form , join, or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
All of my employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of any labor organization.
W. C. FORD, D/B/A GENERAL TIRE AND TREAD Co.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , Transit
Building, Fourth and Vine Streets , Cincinnati , Ohio, Telephone No. 381 -1420, if
they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council; and
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local No . 398 [Stockton Plumbing Co.;
and N . Evasaviac and K . J. Swisher ] and Jones and Jones,
Inc., and Interstate Employers, Inc. Case No. 21-CC-602.
April 9, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On August 20, 1963, the Board issued a Decision and Order I in
the above-entitled proceeding, in which it found that the Respondents
had violated Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the Act. The
Board there concluded that the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Building Contractors Association of California, herein
called the Association, and various labor organizations contained a
clause which was within the scope of Section 8 (e) of the Act; and that
while said clause related to the contracting or subcontracting of work
at the construction site and therefore may have been exempt under
the first proviso to Section 8(e), the Respondents' picketing to compel.
Swisher, a member of the Association, to enforce said clause against
Stockton, a nonunion subcontractor at the construction site, was
1144 NLRB 49.
146 NLRB No. 89.
738 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nevertheless for an object of compelling Swisher "to enter into" an
agreement prohibited by Section 8(b) (4) (A), and also for an object
of compelling Swisher to cease doing business with Stockton within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (B).
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board, having further considered the matter, concludes that
while the Respondents' above-described conduct violated Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, said conduct was not unlawful
under Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act. We find initially
that since the above clause related to the contracting or subcontracting
of work to be done at the construction site, it was within the purview
of the first proviso to Section 8(e) of the Act; consequently, it was
not unlawful for the parties voluntarily to include such a clause in
their agreement. We also adhere to our finding that by picketing to en-
force said clause against a specific nonunion subcontractor, the Re-
spondents engaged in conduct with a cease-doing-business object, in
violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) 2 However, for the rea-
sons stated below, we are now of the view that this conduct was not
for an object of forcing Swisher "to enter into" an agreement unlaw-
ful under Section 8(e) within the meaning of subsection (A) of
Section 8(b) (4).
In concluding in the Decision and Order herein that the Respond-
ents' conduct was for an object prohibited by subsection (A), the
Board relied on Hillbro Newspaper Printing Company, Division of
Hearst Publishing Company, Inc. (Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9,
J.T.U.) s There, the Board held that coercive conduct by a union to
compel an employer "to live up" and thus to reaffirm an unlawful hot-
cargo agreement was also for an object of compelling the employer to
"enter into" a hot-cargo agreement within the meaning of subsection
(A). However, the Hillbro case, unlike the case before us, involved a
clause which was not within the purview of the first proviso to Sec-
tion 8 ( e) and was therefore, under Section 8(e), unlawful, unen-
forceable, and void. In that factual context, the Board concluded
that the reaffirmation of a hot-cargo clause was also an "entering into"
within the meaning of Section 8(e) and 8(b) (4) (A) since "from the
standpoint of the public policy evidenced by the statute and the
legislative history, a reaffirmation of an old hot-cargo clause or the
execution of a new hot-cargo clause is equally bad." This reasoning
is inapplicable to the situation where, as here, the hot-cargo clause
involved is within the purview of the first proviso to Section 8(e),
8 Nichols Electric Company, 138 NLRB 540, enforcement refused on other grounds,
326 F. 2d 213 (C.A. 3).
8135 NLRB 1132 ( Memlbers Fanning and Brown dissenting ), enfd , 311 F. 2d 121
(C.A.D.C.).
CONSOLIDATED WELDING & ENGINEERING COMPANY 739
since, in such case, the original voluntary execution of the clause was
entirely lawful .4 Because the clause herein was lawfully entered into,
neither the statutory language nor its policy requires the conclusion
that a reaffirmation of such clause is unlawful under Section 8(e) and
8(b) (4) (A).6 We accordingly find that, by picketing to enforce the
disputed clause, the Respondents violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (B) but did not also violate subsection (A) thereof.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Decision and Order in this case be,
and it hereby is, amended in the following manner :
(1) Delete Conclusion of Law No. 3 and renumber the other con-
clusions of law accordingly.
(2) Add at the end of Conclusions of Law the following paragraph :
5. The Respondents have not committed unfair labor practices
under Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act.
(3) Delete the following language from paragraph 1 of the Order:
(1) to force or require K. J. Swisher to enter into, enforce, abide
by, or reaffirm, any agreement which is prohibited by Section
8(e) or (2).
(4) Delete the following language from the notice in the paragraph
beginning with "WE WILL NOT" :
(1) to force or require said K. J. Swisher to enter into any
agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e), or to force or
require said K. J. Swisher to enforce, abide by, or reaffirm such
agreement, or (2).
' See also the language of the 'Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which, in
enforcing the Board ' s order in Hillbro, said : "To seek to give it [the hot-cargo clause] life
is in substance to seek to have it agreed to, which is no different in substance from seeking
to have it entered into." Thus , the court 's opinion also proceeded from the fact that the
original entering into was unlawful . This reasoning is therefore inapplicable where, as
here, the parties lawfully agreed to the clause in the first place.
5lnternational Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 1 2, AFL-CIO (B. R. Schedell
Contractor, Inc.), 145 NLRB 351.
Consolidated Welding & Engineering Company and Inter-
national Union , United Automobile , Aerospace, and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No.
13-CA-5386. April 10, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 12, 1963, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
146 NLRB No. 92.