Metropolitan District Council of Phila., Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 646 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees may. communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , Fourth
Floor, The 1-20 • Building, 120 Delaware Avenue; Buffalo, New York, Telephone
No. TL 6-1782, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provision.
Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity of
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, and its affiliated Local Unions and Charles B. Mahin
Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity of
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, and its affiliated Local Unions , and said Council's
Officer, Robert H. Gray, Secretary -Treasurer, and Representa-
tives Charles L. Boyer, Edward Kane and Edward Goldstein
and Charles B. Mahin and National Woodwork Manufacturers
Association . Cases Nos. 4-CL+'-9 and 4-CC-258. November 12,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 7, 1964, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. He
also found that Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal
of these allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charging
Party, and the Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and sup-
porting briefs.
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 1 [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 entire
record in the case, including the Decision, the exceptions, and the
briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondents, Metro-
'Charging Parties' request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, the excep-
tions , and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
149 NLRB No. 65.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILA., ETC . 647
politan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and
its affiliated Local Unions, their officers, agents, successors, assigns,
and representatives, including Robert H. Gray and Charles L.
Boyer, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recom-
mended Order.
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting in part :
I dissent from the majority opinion to the extent that it finds a
violation of Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act.
As found by the Trial Examiner and my colleagues, Respondent
District Council and general contractors Nason, McDonnell, and
Driscoll were parties to contracts containing the same lawful work-
protection clause designed to protect and preserve certain cutting and
fitting work on doors which the jobsite carpenters covered thereby
normally performed. In the face of this contractual provision, the
general contractors subcontracted the millwork on doors thereby de-
priving the jobsite carpenters of this cutting and fitting work.
Respondents invoked the "will not handle" clause and refused to
hang these precut and prefit doors. It is found by the Trial Examiner
and my colleagues that this action was not aimed at the precut, prefit
millwork, but was solely directed at the loss of the cutting and fitting
work which would otherwise be performed by the jobsite carpenters.
Yet, the majority opinion is holding that Respondents thereby vio-
lated Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act.
That conclusion is thought by my colleagues to follow from their
subsidiary finding that Nason, McDonnell, and Driscoll were power-
less to control the assignment of the cutting and fitting work. But,
as I have heretofore pointed out,2 this is faulty reasoning for it
makes the incidental factor of the extent to which an employer could
satisfy a union's demands the determinative factor in ascertaining a
union's objective in a given case. I believe that all the circumstances,
including, of course, the factor of control, need to be considered in
determining a union's objective in these cases; and the total picture
in the instant matter, as has already been shown, is that of action
taken pursuant to a lawful contract 3 to protect the job opportunities
2 See my dissenting opinion in Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council , United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO et at. (Cardinal Industries , Inc.),
144 NLRB 91
3 In the words of the Trial Examiner , the pertinent contractual provision " is not con-
cerned with the nature of the employer with whom the contractor does business nor with
the employment conditions of other employers or employees , nor does it attempt to control
such other employers or employees The provision guards against encroachments on the
cutting out and fitting work of the contract unit employees who have performed that work
in the past . Its purpose is plainly to, regulate the relations between the general con-
tractor and his own employees and to ' protect a legitimate economic interest of the em-
ployees by preserving their unit work " See Service and Maintenance Employees ' Union
Local No. 399 (Sal Efron, d/b/a Superior Souvenir Book Company ), 148 NLRB 1033.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees covered by the contract.4 Such activity is certainly not
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (B).
4 This is as true of the action taken against Nason , McDonnell , and Driscoll as it is of
the identical action taken with respect to Frouge , which my colleagues are finding was
lawful solely because Frouge had control over the assignment of work in dispute.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges filed on June 13 , 1963, by Charles B. Mahin , an individual,
and by Charles B. Mahin and National Woodwork Manufacturers Association,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , by the Regional
Director for Region 4, Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , issued his amended consolidated
complaint , dated October 4 , 1963, against the Metropolitan District Council of
Philadelphia and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America , AFL-CIO, herein called District Council , against the District Council's
affiliated Local Unions , herein called the Affiliated Locals and against the District
Council 's Secretary-treasurer Robert H . Gray and Representative Charles L. Boyer,
Edward Kane , and Edward Goldstein . With respect to the unfair labor practices,
said complaint alleges, in substance , that Respondents District Council and the
Local Unions have entered into, maintained , implemented , and enforced collective-
bargaining agreements with certain named employers in violation of Section 8(e)
of the Act, and that all Respondents have engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )(A) and ( B) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act. In its
duly filed answer , Respondents denied the unfair labor practice allegations.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin
in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , on October 16 through 18, 1963 . All parties were
represented , participated in the hearing, and were given full opportunity to be
heard, examine and cross -examine witnesses , introduce relevant evidence, argue
orally, and file briefs. Respondents ' motion to dismiss all allegations in the com-
plaint, made at the close of the hearing and upon which I reserved ruling, is
hereby granted in part and denied in part in accordance with the findings and
conclusions hereinafter made. On December 9, 1963, all parties filed briefs, which
I have fully considered.
Upon the entire record 1 in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED AND THEIR BUSINESS
General Building Contractors Association , Inc., herein called GBCA , a Pennsyl-
vania nonprofit corporation , with its office and principal place of business in Phila-
delphia, has at all times material herein engaged in joint group collective bargain-
ing for its employer-members who are engaged in the building and construction
of schools , hospitals , factories , and other structures in the Philadelphia , Pennsylvania,
area.
John J . McDonnell , Inc., herein called McDonnell , a Pennsylvania corporation
and a member of GBCA, is engaged in the business of a general contractor
with its principal place of business in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania . In 1963 McDon-
nell was general contractor for the construction of the North Junior High School
in West Chester, Pennsylvania . The parties stipulated that , if called, witnesses
would testify that McDonnell purchased and received on this job materials from
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania valued in excess of $50,000.
Nason and Cullen , Inc., herein called Nason , a Pennsylvania corporation and
a member of GBCA, is engaged in the business of a general contractor with
its principal place of business in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . In 1963 Nason was
the general contractor for the construction of the St. Aloysius Academy for Boys
at Bryn Mawr , Pennsylvania . The parties stipulated that , if called, witnesses would
testify that Nason purchased and received on this job materials from outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania valued in excess of $ 50,000.
L. F. Driscoll Company, herein called Driscoll , is a Pennsylvania corporation
engaged in the business of a general contractor with its principal place of business
in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . In 1963 Driscoll was the general contractor on
1 Obvious errors In the typewritten transcript of testimony are noted and corrected.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILA., ETC. 649
a job for the Coatesville Hospital in Coatesville, Pennsylvania. The parties stipulat-
ed that , if called , witnesses would testify that Driscoll purchased and received
on this job materials from outside the State of Pennsylvania valued in excess of
$50,000.
Frouge Corporation, herein called Frouge, is a Delaware corporation engaged
in the business of a general contractor with its main office in Bridgeport , Connecti-
cut. In 1963 Frouge was the general contractor for the construction of the
Capehart Housing Project in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The parties stipulated
that, if called, witnesses would testify that Frouge purchased and received on this
job materials from outside the State of Pennsylvania valued in excess of $50,000.
Hardwood Products Corporation, herein called Hardwood is a Wisconsin corpora-
tion engaged in the manufacture of doors and related products with its principal
place of business in Neenah, Wisconsin. Oxford Plastic Products Co., herein called
Oxford, is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture of doors and
related products with its principal place of business in Oxford, Pennsylvania.
Mohawk Flush Doors, Inc., herein called Mohawk, is an Indiana corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture of doors and related products with its principal place of
business in Sunbury, Pennsylvania. The parties stipulated that, if called, witnesses
would testify that in 1962 Hardwood shipped products valued in excess of $2,000,000
to parties outside the State of Wisconsin , that during the 12 months preceding
the instant hearing Oxford shipped products valued in excess of $70,000 to parties
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that during 1962 Mohawk shipped
goods valued at $100,000 to parties outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Upon the above undisputed facts, I find that McDonnell, Nason, Driscoll, Frouge,
Hardwood, Oxford, and Mohawk are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b) (4) of the Act.
II. THE RESPONDENTS
Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity of the United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, herein called District Coun-
cil, is admitted to be, as I find , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
The complaint also alleges , and the answer denies, that the District Council's
affiliated Local Unions, herein called the Affiliated Locals, are also labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. For the reasons hereinafter
set forth , I find that the Affiliated Locals are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that at all times material herein
Robert H. Gray has been secretary-treasurer and an officer and agent of the
District Council , and that Charles L. Boyer, Edward Kane, and Edward Goldstein
have each been representatives and agents of District Council . I find that, at all
times material herein , Gray, Boyer, Kane, and Goldstein have been agents of the
District Council within the meaning of Sections 2(13) and 8 (b) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the issues
The relevant facts are not in dispute. A "blank" or "blind" door is one which
has not been cut for the hardware or fitted for the hinges. Before such a "blank"
door can be hung, it would have to be mortised for the knob, routed for the
hinges, and bevelled to make it fit between the jambs. A prefit or precut or
premachined door is one on which this work of fitting for the hardware and
cutting for installation has already been performed prior to the arrival of the
door on the jobsite. The carpenters employed on the jobsite by contractors operat-
ing under union contracts, acting upon instructions from the District Council
and its agents , refused to hang prefit or precut or premachined doors because
of the claim that to do so would violate a working rule known as rule 17.
The issues litigated in this proceeding are (1) whether rule 17 in a current
collective-bargaining agreement is violative of Section 8(e) of the Act, (2) whether
the conduct of the District Council and its agents in connection with the refusal
of carpenters to work on prefit or precut or premachined doors at four specified
jobsites was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) and (B) of the Act,
and (3 ) whether the Affiliated Locals are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Rule 17 of the contract
As previously noted, the General Building Contractors Association engages
in joint group collective bargaining for and on behalf of its employer-members;
Nason & Cullen, Inc., and John J. McDonnell, Inc., are Philadelphia area general
contractors who are members of GBCA and who employ carpenters. On May 1,
1960, GBCA and the District Council executed a collective-bargaining agreement
which was renewed or extended , with modifications not here material , on or about
May 1, 1963, for a period of 2 years. L. F. Driscoll Company is also a Philadel-
phia area general contractor who employs carpenters but is not a member of
GBCA. On September 1, 1961, Driscoll and the District Council executed a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement which was renewed or extended , with modifications not
here material, on or about May 1, 1963, for a period of 2 years. All the foregoing
contracts contain rule 17 which reads as follows:
Rule 17. No employee shall work on any job on which cabinet work,
fixtures, millwork, sash doors, trim or other detailed millwork is used unless
the same is Union-made and bears the Union Label of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America. No member of this District Council
will handle material coming from a mill where cutting out and fitting has
been done for butts, locks, letter plates, or hardware of any description, nor
any doors or transoms which have been fitted prior to being furnished on
job, including base, chair, rail, picture moulding, which has been previously
fitted. This section to exempt partition work furnished in sections.
Frouge Corporation is a general contractor located in Bridgeport, Connecti-
cut. Frouge employs carpenters and has a collective-bargaining contract with
the Carpenters' International Union. Under the terms of this agreement, Frouge
is to abide by all the local rules and regulations of the area in which it worked.
C. Conduct involved at four specific jobsites 2
1. The Nason-Cullen incident on the St. Aloysius Academy job
After submitting bids based on plans and specifications, Nason received the
contract on May 23, 1962, from the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart
of Mary, for the construction of a new school building for St. Aloysius Academy
for Boys in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. The specifications provided, among other
things, that certain doors be Formica covered "Ambas-A-Doors," as manufactured
by Oxford Plastic Products Co., of Oxford, Pennsylvania, and that they be prefit,
precut, and ready to hang upon arrival on the job. Nason subcontracted all the
millwork for this job, including the doors, to T. W. Hammonds & Bro., which,
in turn, procured the doors from the Oxford Plastics Co.
These doors, about 170 in number and bearing a union label, were delivered
to the St. Aloysius jobsite in the latter part of May and first part of June 1963.
After some of the doors had been delivered to the jobsite in May, Charles
Boyer, the representative of the District Council, approached Walter Nason, Jr.,
vice president of Nason; remarked that he understood they had prefit doors on
the job; and stated that the carpenters on the jobsite would not hang them because
they were prefit doors. Nason replied that he would like to discuss it at a future
date. At that time Nason was not quite ready for the work of hanging doors
but soon would be.
Thereafter, but sometime prior to the middle of June, Nason asked Job Steward
Coleson to hang the doors. Coleson replied that as of that time he had been
directed not to hang them and therefore could not ask the men to hang them. At
Nason's request, Coleson agreed to call Boyer to find out what further decision
had been made about the doors. The next day, Coleson reported to Nason that
Boyer had reiterated the position that the carpenters would refuse to hang the
doors and that Boyer had directed him (Coleson) not to hang the doors.
Thereafter, about the middle of June, when Nason was ready to hang the
doors, Nason telephoned to Boyer and inquired if a decision had been made about
the doors. Boyer replied that the carpenters would not hang the doors because
of rule 17 in the agreement between the District Council and GBCA. Boyer
read or summarized over the telephone the second sentence of rule 17 dealing
2 The findings in this section are based on admissions , exhibits, and credited testimony
which are admitted or undisputed.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILA., ETC. 651
with prefitting, and then stated that his objection was that the hanging of
the doors would be in violation of the contract between the Carpenters union
and GBCA because they were prefit doors.
Respondent's answer admits that the District Council and Boyer "did direct
Nason's employees not to install precut and prefitted doors."
2. The McDonnell incident on the North Junior High School job
After submitting bids based on plans and specifications, McDonnell entered into
a contract on May 10, 1962, with the West Chester Area Joint School Authority
for the construction of the North Junior High School in West Chester, Pennsylva-
nia. The specifications provided, among other things, that certain doors, about
235 in number, be prefit and prefinished. McDonnell subcontracted the millwork
for this job, including the doors to John A. Yohn Co., which, in turn, procured
the doors from the Hardwood Products Corporation of Neenah, Wisconsin.
About May 13, 1963, the doors, bearing the label of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, began to arrive on the jobsite. On May 23
after about 15 doors had been hung, Boyer telephoned Daniel McDonnell treas-
urer of McDonnell; advised that the jobsite carpenters would not be permitted
to handle the doors because they were in violation of rule 17; and stated that
he was telling the jobsite carpenters that afternoon not to hang the doors. In
response to McDonnell's query as to what could be done about it, Boyer suggested
that McDonnell get in touch with Gray, the treasurer and business manager
of the District Council.
McDonnell immediately telephoned Gray and related Boyer's conversation. Gray
replied that Boyer's position was correct and that the carpenters on the job would
no longer hang the precut doors as it was in violation of rule 17 to use such
doors. In reply to McDonnell's query as to what they could do under the circum-
stances, Gray suggested that one of McDonnell's carpenters on the jobsite be
timed on a "blank" or "blind" door to determine how long it would take to
cut, fit, and hang such a door.3 Gray added that the carpenters would then
hang the precut, prefitted doors supplied by Hardwood if McDonnell would pay
them for the amount of time it would have taken them to hang the doors if
they had been "blank." McDonnell noted that that would involve additional money
for his company and that they were operating on a fixed-price contract. Gray
replied that he did not care whether the additional money was paid by the contractor,
the architect, or the owner. McDonnell did not agree to accept Gray's suggestion.
Respondents' answer admits that the District Council, Boyer, and Gray "directed
McDonnell's carpenter employees not to install precut and prefitted doors."
3. The Driscoll incident on the Coatesville Hospital job
Pursuant to bids based on plans and specifications, Driscoll entered into a contract
on June 28, 1962, with the Coatesville Hospital of Coatesville, Pennsylvania, for
alterations and additions to the Coatesville Hospital. The specifications specified
the type of doors to be used and provided that they be prefitted and prefinished.
Driscoll subcontracted the millwork, including the doors, to Boyertown Planing
Mill Co., which, in turn, procured the doors from Hardwood Products Corporation
of Neenah, Wisconsin.
The doors, about 170 in number and bearing the label of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, began to arrive on the jobsite on May 22,
1963. The next day Boyer telephoned John Brown, Driscoll's vice president;
informed him that Driscoll had prefit, prefinished doors on the Coatesville
project; and stated that the jobsite carpenters would not be allowed to hang them
because it would be in violation of the agreement. In response to Brown's query
as to what would happen if "we hang the doors anyhow," Boyer replied that
"then the job will be struck."
At Boyer's suggestion, Brown telephoned Gray and stated that the carpenters
refused to hang the doors. Gray replied that no carpenters from now on would
hang prefinished or prefit doors.
Upon being advised of Brown's conversations with the union officials, Edward
Driscoll, secretary of Driscoll, telephoned Gray and asked why the carpenters were
not allowed to hang the doors. Gray replied that the doors were not being
hung because the Company was in violation of rule 17 in that the doors had
'Before the "blank" door could be hung, it would have to be mortised for the knob,
routed for the hinges, and beveled to make it fit between the jambs.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been factory precut for size and hardware . Later that afternoon or the next moin-
ing, Driscoll again telephoned Gray and asked what Gray suggested should
be done with the doors which had already been delivered on the jobsite. Gray
replied that Driscoll could either send the doors back or, as he had suggested
to McDonnell , could have them hung by paying the carpenters for the amount
of time it would have taken them to perform the work of cutting out and fitting
the doors on the jobsite. In a subsequent telephone conversation, Driscoll agreed
to the latter suggestion . Arrangements were then made to have one of
Driscoll's carpenters cut, fit, and hang a "blank" door to determine the amount
of time that this operation consumed . It was determined that it took the jobsite
carpenter 1 hour to perform the cutting and fitting operations which had been
performed by Hardwood. Thereafter, in accordance with this agreement, all the
doors supplied by Hardwood were hung by Driscoll's carpenters. The work of
hanging the doors had been delayed only a few days.
4. The Frouge incident on the Naval Capehart Housing Project
Frouge Corporation entered into a contract with the United States Navy under
which Frouge became the general contractor for the construction of the Capehart
Housing Project in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Work on this job began in July
1962. The Government's specifications for this job with reference to the type
of doors required set forth the standards to be followed. However, neither the
specifications nor Frouge's contract with the Navy required the doors to be precut
or prefitted or premachined. The job called for 3,600 doors. On January 18,
1963, Frouge contracted for the purchase of these doors with Baldwin Lumber
Company, Inc., which in turn, procured the doors from the Mohawk Flush Doors,
Inc., of Sunbury, Pennsylvania. Although Project Manager Green admitted that
under the specifications, "blank" or "blind" doors could have been ordered so
long as they conformed to United States standards, Frouge nevertheless specified.
that the doors be premachined for butts and locks because of a belief that such
doors would speed up matters on such a large project.
About May 20, 1963, after the second shipment of premachined doors had
been received on the jobsite, Edward Kane and Edward Goldstein, representatives
of the District Council, talked to Project Manager Green and President Frouge
on the jobsite. Kane or Goldstein brought up the subject of the doors and
stated that, according to their bylaws, the contractor was not permitted to have
these premachined doors on the job and that their men (the carpenters employed
by Frouge) were not allowed to work on them according to the bylaws. Frouge
and Green were shown the bylaws and were read rule 17.4 Kane related the arrange-
ment which had been made with Driscoll for hanging the prefit or precut doors
by paying the carpenters for the time it would have taken them to do the fitting
and cutting on the jobsite. However, Frouge decided to use "blank" doors which
could be fitted and cut by his carpenters on the jobsite. At that time there were
already about 665 premachined doors on the job. As these had already been
varnished, Green had them shipped to Frouge in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Frouge
then changed the order to "blank" doors and the 3,600 doors which ultimately
came to the jobsite were also produced by Mohawk Flush Doors, Inc. All the
fitting and cutting out was then done by Frouge's carpenters on the jobsite It
took a carpenter about 8 minutes on one door to do the routing, mortising,
and bevelling necessary to get it ready for hanging None of the 3,600 doors,
on which the jobsite carpenters worked, bore a union label.
D. The Affiliated Locals 5
The contract between the GBCA and the District Council states in the "Articles
of Agreement" that it is made with the District Council, "acting for and on
behalf of itself and of all of the Local Unions of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, located and having jurisdiction in the counties
of Philadelphia , Delaware, Montgomery, Chester and Bucks , in the commonwealth
of Pennsylvania ... and of their present and future members.... .
* Rule 17 in the bylaws is the same as rule 17 in the GBCA and Driscoll contracts, but
has the following added to the last sentence : "and is not applicable to metal doors, tran-
soms, or to any of the above-mentioned items that bear the label of the Brotherhood "
G The findings in this section are based on Respondents ' contracts and the testimony of
Robert Gray, secretary-treasurer of the District Council.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILA., ETC. 653
There are 27 Locals in the 5-county area to which the contract refers, which
are affiliated with the District Council. Each carpenter belongs to a Local. Each
Local has its own officers elected by its members. Delegates from the 27 Locals,
elected by the membership of each Local, comprise the District Council, which
meets twice a month. Only four of the Locals,G known as specialty Locals whose
members do not perform carpentry work on construction jobs in the five-county
area, are permitted by the District Council to have their own business agents. The
remaining 23 Locals are serviced by 11 business agents who work directly under
Robert Gray, the secretary-treasurer and business manager of the District Council,
and whose functions are to police the jobs and to see that the contracts are
adhered to.
Before the District Council had been chartered, each Local had a separate charter
and was autonomous. When the Locals increased greatly in number, a charter
for the District Council was issued and all the Locals affiliated with the District
Council. The District Council then took over the functions, which it has continued
to carry on, of negotiating contracts, processing grievances, and administering
the contracts which cover the individual members of the several Locals. Each
Local no longer has any autonomy except to have its own officers and to elect
delegates to the District Council. The members of each Local meet in local
union halls to pay their dues and to discuss job problems 7 for their delegate
to report at meetings of the District Council for action by the District Council.
Each Local files an LMI report with the Bureau of Labor Management Reports
of the Department of Labor, as required of all labor organizations by Section
201 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended
on June 30, 1960.
E. The contentions of the parties
1. The General Counsel's contentions
The General Counsel contends that rule 17 in its entirety violates Section 8(e);
that the first sentence clearly violates Section 8(e); and that the second sentence,
even if viewed separately, is also unlawful. He argues the rule 17 prescribes
only what the employees will not do, that it anticipates work to be performed
by persons other than the employees of the immediate employer and thereby consents
in advance to a boycott of the materials which the union will not handle, and
that it reaches outside the job and touches others that have no contractual relation-
ship with the District Council. He also contends that the proviso to Section 8(e)
is not applicable because he claims that the rule does not refer to work to be per-
formed at the jobsite.
With respect to the 8(b)(4) allegations, the General Counsel contends that
the primary employers are the door manufacturers, that the secondary employers
are the four general contractors, and Respondents' refusal to hang the prefit,
precut, or premachined doors constitutes an unlawful product boycott. He points
out that a product boycott has a prohibited object of forcing any employer to
cease using the products of another employer and is therefore unlawful even
if Respondents had no dispute with the door manufacturers or evidenced no direct
intent to have the general contractors cease doing business with the door manufac-
turers. In addition, the General Counsel contends, three of the general contractors
had no control over the assignment of the cutting out and fitting work to the
jobsite carpenters on the jobs in question because the specifications required the
use of precut or prefit doors, and therefore could not have granted Respondents'
requests without ceasing to do business with the mill suppliers. It is clear therefore,
the General Counsel further argues, that Respondents were not protecting work
which the contractors did not have to give them but that Respondents' prime
target was the precut or prefit doors and all those who used them.
He also contends that the Affiliated Locals are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and are proper Respondents in this case.
2. The Charging Party's contentions
The contentions of the Charging Party are, in substance, similar to those of
the General Counsel. With respect to rule 17, he contends that the controlling
oThese are (1) a Resilient Floor Local, whose-members work only on tile on resilient
floors, (2) a Wharf and Dock Builders Local, whose members are engaged in the policing
and driving of piles on the waterfront, (3) a Custom Furniture and Drapery Workers
Local, whose members put up Venetian blinds and drapes, and (4) a Millwright Local,
whose members do nothing but millwright work.
7 The carpenters on any one specific job may be members of different Locals.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
factor is not its form but its effect. Thus, he argues that the force and effect
of rule 17 is to require the contracting employer to stop handling the product
of another employer or to cease doing business with another employer, and therefore
Respondents' lawful objective of preserving work for the jobsite carpenters cannot
save the rule from being violative of Section 8 (e).
With respect to the 8(b)(4)(B) allegations, the Charging Party disagrees
with the General Counsel on the significance to be accorded to the factor of
work control. He takes the position that the factor of local work control should
not be accorded any significance in a product boycott situation such, as he claims,
is present in this case, contending that such a boycott is unlawful whether or
not there is control over the assignment of the work in question.
3. The Respondents' contentions
While contending that the first sentence of rule 17 has not been enforced
for many years, Respondents concede that the first sentence is proscribed by
Section 8(e) and that by renewing and extending the contracts Respondents
"entered into" a contract violative of Section 8(e) to that extent. However,
Respondents further contend that the second sentence of rule 17 is not unlawful.
Disagreeing with the General Counsel's assertion that rule 17 cannot be divided
into sentences but must be treated as a whole, Respondents emphasize that the
second sentence is entirely separate from, and wholly unrelated to, the first sentence,
that they deal with different subjects, that they impose separate and distinct duties,
and that they provide for different remedies for their breach.8
With respect to the second sentence of rule 17, Respondents argue that it
constitutes a laymans effort to preserve for construction site carpenters the cutting
and fitting of millwork, work which, it is argued, has been traditionally assigned
to and performed by them. Respondents arrive at this interpretation by the
following reasoning: The sentence states that the carpenters will not "handle
material" arriving on a jobsite if such material has been cut out and fitted
prior to being brought onto the jobsite. The result of this provision is that
when millwork which is not precut or prefit arrives on the job, the work of
cutting and fitting the millwork will necessarily be done by the jobsite carpen-
ters. Thus, by stating what the jobsite carpenters will not do, the second sentence
of rule 17 clearly assigns to these carpenters the tasks of cutting out and
fitting the millwork. This, it is pointed out, has been the District Councils
consistent interpretation of the second sentence of rule 17 throughout its exist-
ence. As so interpreted, it is contended, the second sentence constitutes a valid
work-protection clause even though it may impinge on the general contractors
freedom to do business with another person.
With respect to the 8(b) (4) (A) allegation, Respondents contend that that
section was not violated because, they argue, the District Councils objection
to the installation of the doors in question by the jobsite carpenters wasnot
directed at enforcing the first sentence of rule 17 (which they concede is unlawful)
but was based solely on the fact that the doors were precut and prefitted and
therefore their installation would violate the second sentence of rule 17 (which
they contended is lawful).
With respect to the 8(b) (4) (B) allegations, Respondents contend that they
were not engaged in a product boycott, that they had no dispute with the
mill suppliers or door manufacturers, that their sole dispute was with the four
general building contractors who, they argue, are the primary employers, and
that they were willing to, and in one case did, violate rule 17 and install doors
upon payment to the jobsite carpenters of the wages lost in not performing
the work of cutting and fitting. No violations have been established, Respondents
contend, because their sole object in refusing to install, the precut or prefit doors
was the preservation of the work and earnings of the members of the bargaining
unit represented by the District Council, that they sought to accomplish this
object by enforcing the second sentence of rule 17 against subcontracting such
work, and that this is a lawful object.
With respect to the General Counsel's contentions that the building contractors
did not have "control" over the assignment of the cutting out and fitting work
because they had to follow the architect's specifications, Respondents answer as
follows: In the first place, it was the owners of the buildings who "controlled"
8 Thus, they point out that the remedy for the breach of the first sentence is a complete
work stoppage or strike of the entire job; whereas the remedy for breach of the second
sentence is merely to refrain from handling the precut or prefit millwork.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILA., ETC. 655
the assignment of the fitting and cutting work in the doors by having the
architects prepare specifications which assigned the work to the mill operators,
and the building owners are not engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce. Secondly, impossibility of performance has not been held to be a
defense where the impossibility results from the act of the party seeking to
avoid performance or to excuse nonperformance. That was the situation here
because the general contractors were the ones who entered into contracts with
the owners which made it impossible for the general contractors to live up
to the second sentence of rule 17 of their collective-bargaining agreement. Final-
ly, adherence to the "control" theory would unstabilize labor relations because
a contractor would be absolved of his contractual obligations to the union repre-
senting his employees simply by entering into an agreement with a third party
containing provisions inconsistent with his collective-bargaining agreement.
The Respondents further contend that the Affiliated Locals are not labor organi-
zations within the meaning of the Act and that, in any event, there was no
proper service of the complaint upon them.
F. Concluding findings
1. As to the Section 8(e) allegations
The complaint alleges that Respondents violated Section 8(e) 9 of the Act
by entering into contracts or agreements containing rule 17 and by maintaining
and enforcing said rule at all times thereafter. I agree with the Respondents
that rule 17 deals with two separate and unrelated subjects, imposing different
obligations and providing for different remedies for their breach. Thus, the
first sentence deals with the "Union Label" of the United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America. It requires all millwork on the job to bear such
label It makes it mandatory upon the employees to strike the entire job in
the event of a breach of this requirement. The second sentence deals with precut
and prefit millwork. It requires the employees to refuse to handle material which
has been precut or prefit at a mill prior to its arrival on the jobsite, but permits
them to continue to work on the job in all other respects. The two sentences
bear no relation to each other. I therefore agree that they should be treated
separately and in the same manner as if they had appeared in two separate
paragraphs or rules.
a. The "Union Label" sentence
Respondents concede, as they must, that this sentence is violative of Section
8(e) of the Act. The May 1963 renewals or extensions of the contracts or
agreements containing this provision of rule 17 constitute an "entering into
any contract or agreement" within the meaning of Section 8(e), as the Board
has held and as Respondents concede. Respondents have continued to maintain
the agreements containing this provision of rule 17. However, the record affirma-
tively shows that Respondents have not enforced this sentence during any time
cognizable by the complaint.10 And the General Counsel does not appear to
make any contrary contention. It is therefore obvious that Respondent District
Council has violated Section 8(e) of the Act only in the foregoing respect,
as said Respondent concedes.
The relevant agreements recite that they are made with the District Council
"acting for and on behalf of itself and of all of the Local Unions of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, located and having
jurisdiction" in the five-county area. The liability of the Affiliated Locals for
the Section 8(e) violation therefore depends on whether or not they are labor
°Insofar as herein pertinent, Section 8(e) makes it " . . an unfair labor practice for
any labor organization and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express
or implied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from
handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any
11other employer, or to cease doing business with any other person . . .
"The doors which were delivered to the jobsites of Nason bore a union label, but not a
carpenters union label, the doors which were delivered to the jobsite of Frouge bore no
union label at all. Yet, as previously found, the objection which the District Council made
to Nason was that the hanging of the doors would violate the contract because they were
prefit doors, and the Nason's carpenters continued to work on the pob Also, as previously
found, of the 3,600 doors which were cut out and fitted by Frouge's carpenters on the job-
site, none bore a union label of any kind.
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizations within the meaning of the Act. Section 2(5) defines a labor
organization as being any organization . . in which employees participate
and which exists for the purposes, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or conditions of work."" There is no question but that the Affiliated Locals
are organizations in which employees participate. It is equally clear to me from
all the evidence, as I further find, that they exist for the purpose, at least in
part, of dealing with employers concerning the aforestated subjects through
their elected delegates to the District Council and other representatives of the
District Council elected by such delegates. On facts almost identical with those
in the instant case, the Board found an Affiliated Local of the Ohio Valley
Carpenters' District Council to be a labor organization.12 I therefore find, in
agreement with the General Counsel and contrary to the contentions of the
Respondents, that the Affiliated Locals are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act and that in view of the relationship between them
and the District Council, as previously detailed, proper service of the complaint
was made upon the Affiliated Locals through the District Council.
I find that by their conduct in May 1963 in renewing or extending the agree-
ments which contained the "Union Label" sentence of rule 17 and in thereafter
maintaining said agreements with said sentence therein, Respondents District
Council and its Affiliated Local Unions have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (e) of the Act.
b. The "will not handle" sentence
As previously noted, Respondents contend that by stating what the carpenters
on the jobsite will not do (that is, they will not handle material on the jobsite
if such material has been cut out and fitted at a mill prior to its delivery
to the jobsite), the second sentence of rule 17 is a layman's effort contractually
to preserve for these outside or jobsite carpenters the tasks of cutting out and
fitting the millwork referred to in the sentence. On the other hand, the General
Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the second sentence constitutes
a consent in advance to a boycott of the material which the carpenters will
not handle and touches others who have no contractual relationship with
Respondents.
All work assignment or work-protection clauses, like all subcontracting clauses,
prima facie violate the statute. However, the Board has recognized that not
all such clauses, despite their "cease doing business" consequence, are within
the intendment of Section 8(e) of the Act.13 And whether a particular work assign-
ment or work-protection clause is violative of Section 8(e) because it may affect
relationships between the employer and subcontractors doing that work must
depend, as the Board has further recognized, upon the . the language
used, the intent of the parties and the scope of the restriction. . . :. Milk
Drivers and Dairy Employees Union, Local 546 etc., supra.
The agreement between the Respondents and the contractors covers a unit
of employees who perform "carpentry work" (article II). The tasks of "cutting
out and fitting" the material listed in the second sentence of rule 17 are obviously
tasks which are normally performed by carpenters. The record shows that there
have been occasions when millwork, including doors, came to a jobsite without
having been previously cut out and fitted, that the tasks of cutting out and
fitting such millwork, including doors, were considered by the contracting parties
to be unit work to be performed by the jobsite carpenters, and that the carpenters
on the jobsite did in fact perform those tasks on those occasions. The "will
n This definition is also included in the definition of a labor organization in Section 3(1)
of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended in June 1960
As previously noted, each of the Affiliated Locals filed the reports required of labor organi-
zations by Section 201 of that Act.
12 Peter Kiewit Sons' Co , 132 NLRB 295, 300-303. Although the Trial Examiner recom-
mended dismissal of the complaint on the merits, both the Carpenters' District Council and
the Affiliated Local involved filed vigorous exceptions to the Trial Examiner's findings that
the Local was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The Board affirmed
the Trial Examiner's findings on this issue without comment.
13 See, e.g., Milk Drivers and Dairk-Employees Union, Local 546, etc. ( Minnesota Milk
Company), 133 NLRB 1314, 1316, enfd. sub nom. Minnesota Milk Co. v. N.L.R.B., 314 F.
2d 761 (C.A. 8) ; Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, etc. (Cardinal Industries, Inc.),
136 NLRB 977, 985-986 and 144 NLRB 91.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILA., ETC. 657
not handle" sentence was the language used in an attempt to protect and preserve
this type of work for the jobsite carpenters. It is true, however, that the effect
of the "will not handle" provision would bring about a reduction or partial
cessation of business with the millwork suppliers whose carpenters also performed
the tasks of cutting out and fitting.
Robert Gray, secretary-treasurer of the District Council, credibly testified that
the tasks of cutting out and fitting millwork, including doors, have traditionally
been performed by the carpenters employed on the jobsite and that the District
Council has consistently interpreted this provision of rule 17 as a work assignment
or work-protection clause. He further credibly testified that he has always sought
to enforce this provision of rule 17 whenever violations were called to his attention
in order to protect the jobsite carpenters from being deprived of work and
wages which rightfully belonged to them.14 That the District Council's objection
was not aimed at the precut or prefit millwork but was solely directed at the
loss of the cutting out and fitting work which would otherwise be performed
by the jobsite carpenters, is clearly demonstrated by Gray's offer to McDonnell
and Driscoll to have the precut and prefit doors hung if they would pay the
jobsite carpenters for the amount of time it would have taken them to perform
the work of cutting out and fitting the doors on the jobsite and by the fact
that the jobsite carpenters did in fact hang the precut and prefit doors when
Driscoll agreed to this arrangement, all as previously found.
I am convinced and find that the tasks of cutting out and fitting millwork,
including doors, has, at least customarily, been performed by the carpenters
employed on the jobsite. Certainly, this provision of rule 17 is not concerned
with the nature of the employer with whom the contractor does business nor
with the employment conditions of other employers or employees, nor does it
attempt to control such other employers or employees. The provision guards
against encroachments on the cutting out and fitting work of the contract unit
employees who have performed that work in the past. Its purpose is plainly
to regulate the relations between the general contractor and his own employees
and to protect a legitimate economic interest of the employees by preserving
their unit work. Merely because it incidentally also affects other parties is no
basis for invalidating this provision.
I find that the second sentence of rule 17 is a lawful work -protection or
work-preservation provision and that Respondents have not violated Section 8(e)
of the Act by entering into agreements containing this provision and by thereafter
maintaining and enforcing this provision.
2. As to the 8(b) (4) (A) allegations
In order to sustain an allegation of an 8 (b) (4) (i) or (ii) (A) violation, the
General Counsel must show that an object of the proscribed conduct was
. forcing or requiring any employer . to enter into any agreement which
is prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act." It is clear, as previously found,
that an object of the District Council's conduct in directing the carpenters on
the four specific jobsites in question not to hang the precut or prefit or premachined
doors was to enforce that provision of rule 17 which states that no member
will handle precut or prefit doors.15 As I have previously found that an agreement
containing such a provision is not prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act, it
14 The record does show that there were some jobs where the jobsite carpenters did hang
precut or prefit doors , and that about one-third of the total number of doors shipped into
the Philadelphia area by Mohawk Flush Doors, Inc ., and United States Plywood Corpora-
tion were precut or prefit. Gray testified that he would not deny that there may have been
jobs where the jobsite carpenters did hang precut or prefit doors but explained that, with
only 11 Business agents to police 500 contracts , violations were not always detected or
timely reported.
15 In the case of Frouge , the representatives of the District Council referred Frouge to
rule 17 of the bylaws , which in this respect is identical with rule 17 In the contracts with
the other contractors , except that the following is added to the last sentence : "and is not
applicable to metal doors , transoms, or to any of the above mentioned items that bear the
label of the Brotherhood" It is obvious, however, that the District Council's objection
was based solely on the ground that the doors were premachined and not on the absence
of the label of the Brotherhood , as previously found. This is further verified by the fact
that the carpenters were permitted to do the work of cutting out, fitting, and hanging the
3,600 "blank" doors which had no union label of any kind, also as previously found.
770-076-65-vol. 149-43
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
follows, as I further find, that Respondents did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii ) (A) of the Act. I will accordingly recommend the dismissal of these
allegations.
3. As to the 8(b) (4) (B ) allegations
While it would appear at first blush that the same conclusions should be reached
with respect to the allegations of violations of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii) (B)
of the Act, controlling Board precedents dictate a different result with respect
to three of the general contractors , Nason, McDonnell, and Driscoll , because
they did not have control over the assignment of the work of cutting out
and fitting doors to the jobsite carpenters . 16 As the specifications required the
use of precut or prefit doors and the three contractors were required by contract
to follow the specifications absent the consent of the owners of the respective
projects to a change, the work of cutting out and fitting doors was thereby
assigned by the owners to the mill suppliers and the general contractors were
merely selected by the owners to carry out this predetermined assignment. The
specifications thus effectively deprived these three general contractors of control
of the assignment of this work and rule 17 of their contract therefore was
no longer applicable. They could not grant the District Council's request that
the work of cutting out and fitting doors be done on the jobsite, and were
powerless to settle the dispute, because that work was nonexistent . In these
circumstances , the effect which the District Council's conduct against the general
contractors was designed to produce was to force or require the respective owners
of the projects to reassign the disputed work to the general contractors by
agreeing to change the specifications so as to eliminate the requirement for
precut or prefit doors 17 and to compel the three general contractors to change
and reduce their contracts with their respective mill suppliers (T. W. Hammond
& Bro., John A. Yohn Co., and Boyertown Planing Mill Co.), and the latter
in turn with the door manufacturers ( Oxford Plastics Co. and Hardwood Products
Corporation ), from prefit and precut doors to "blank " or "blind." Thus, the
real targets of the District Council's conduct were the respective owners of
the three projects, the mill suppliers , and the door manufacturers . The three
general contractors , Nason , McDonnell , and Driscoll , were in these instances
the secondary targets against whom the pressure was directed in the form of
refusing to hang the precut and prefit doors in an effort to achieve the other
objectives.
Contrary to Respondents ' contentions , an objective of causing the kind of
disruption of existing business relationship hereinabove described , has been held
to constitute a "cease doing business" object within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.1s The fact that the District Council was also seeking
to enforce the "will ' not' handle " provision of rule 17 of its contract with the
three general contractors , a provision which I have previously found to be a
lawful work-protection or work-preservation clause, "does not make lawful conduct,
which in the absence of such a provision , is prohibited by statute , any more
than the then-lawful 'hot-cargo ' clause in the Sand Door case was a defense
to secondary boycott activity aimed at securing compliance therewith. Local
1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc. (Sand Door & Plywood Co.) V.
N.L.R.B. 357 U .S. 93." 19 Nor is there any merit to Respondents ' further contention
that it was the general contractors themselves who made it impossible to assign
10 Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, etc . ( Cardinal Industries, Inc.), 144 NLRB
91`;''iocal 5, United Association of Journeymen, etc.''(Arthur Venneri Company), 137
NLRB 828, 830-881, enfd. 321 F. 2d'366 (C.AD.C.).
17 Contrary to Respondents ' contentions , it is not essential to a finding of a violation of
Section 8 ( b) (4) (B) in this case that the project owners be engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce
18Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Tele-
phone Company ), 140 NLRB 729 , 730, enfd. 325 F 2d 5&1 ( CA. 2) ; see also Upholsterers
Frame & Bedding Workers, Tioin City Local No. 61, etc. (Minneapolis House Furnishing
Company ), 132 NLRB 40 , 447L45; Local 102, International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO ( Henry Rosenfeld, Inc.), 144 NLRB 1003; and Retail Clerks Union Local 770
at at (Food Employers Council, Inc ), 127 NLRB 1522.
19 Local 5 , United Association of Journeymen , etc., supra, at 831.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PIIILA., ETC. 659
the work to the jobsite carpenters by their conduct in accepting a contract
where the specifications called for precut or prefit doors. As the Court of Appeals
stated in Local 5 United Association of Journeymen, etc. (Arthur Venneri Co.)
v. N.L.R B., 321 F. 2d 366, 370, ". . that is beside the point, for a secondary
boycott is not justified, even when used as a retaliatory weapon." As for Respond-
ents' final argument that giving conclusive weight to the contractors' lack
of control over the assignment of the work will unstabilize labor relations between
the contractor and his employees who are covered by a collective- bargaining
agreement, that is an argument which must be addressed to the Board.
It is conceded, as the undisputed facts previously detailed plainly disclose, that
the District Council and its admitted agents, Boyer and Gray, directed the jobsite
carpenters on the projects of Nason, McDonnell, and Driscoll to cease and refrain
from hanging the precut and prefit doors. Thus, to that extent, they induced
and encouraged a work stoppage or a refusal to perform services by individuals
employed by persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) of the Act. The statements of Boyer
and Gray, as well as this work stoppage, also constitute conduct which threatened,
coerced, and restrained Nason, McDonnell, and Driscoll within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act.20 An object in each case was one prohibited
by Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, as previously found. I therefore find that
the District Council and its agents, Boyer and Gray, violated Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B) of the Act.21
There is no evidence that the Council and its agents were also acting as
agents of the Affiliated Locals in engaging in the unlawful conduct hereinabove
found. Nor is there any evidence that any representative or officer of the Affiliated
Locals engaged in said unlawful conduct or that they participated with the
District Council in a joint venture. Although the District Council is composed
of delegates elected by the Affiliated Locals, that alone does not create an agency
relationship between the Council and the Affiliated Locals. 22 I will therefore
recommend dismissal of these allegations as to the Affiliated Local Unions.
.IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Companies set forth 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that some Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I find no merit in Respond-
ents' contentions that no order should be recommended with respect to the
conceded violations of Section 8(e) of the Act because the General Counsel
has declined Respondents' offer to settle this part of the case on the basis of
Respondents' agreement not to enforce or enter into any agreement containing
the "Union Label" sentence of rule 17. Respondents do not contend that such
a settlement agreement would also have included their consent to a Board order,
which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act and to bar the resumption
of such and similar conduct.
20 Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, supra ; General Teamsters Local No. 324, etc.
(Curly's Dairy, Inc., et at ), 144 NLRB 836,'and cases cited therein.
211 find that the District Council and its agents, Kane and Goldstein, have not violated
these sections of the Act with respect to the fourth general contractor, Frouge. On this
project, the primary dispute was with Frouge because this contractor had control over the
assignment of the work of cutting out and fitting doors and therefore was in a position
to, as in fact he did, settle the dispute with the District Council by granting its request-to
assign that work to the carpenters on the jobsite.
,22 Pasco-Kennewick Building and Construction Trades Council (Cisco Construction Com-
pany ), 111. NLRB 1255, 1257.
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The following Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act: (a) Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia
and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, herein called District Council, and (b) its Affiliated Local Unions.
2. Robert H. Gray, secretary-treasurer of the Respondent District Council, and
District Council Representatives Charles L. Boyer, Edward Kane, and Edward
Goldstein are agents of Respondent District Council within the meaning of
Sections 2(13) and 8(b) of the Act.
3. Nason and Cullen, Inc., John J. McDonnell, Inc., L. F. Driscoll Company,
and Frouge Corporation are each engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4)
of the Act.
4. By entering into and maintaining an agreement containing the "Union
Label" sentence of working rule 17, Respondents District Council and its Affiliated
Local Unions have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(e) of the Act.
5. By instructing the carpenters employed by Nason, McDonnell, and Driscoll
to cease and refrain from hanging the prefit and precut doors and by the
conduct of Gray and Boyer, as set forth in section III, C, supra, Respondents
District Council and its agents, Gray and Boyer, have induced and encouraged
individuals employed by persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment
to perform services for their respective employers, and have threatened, restrained,
and coerced ' Nason, McDonnell, and Driscoll in each case with an object of
forcing or requiring the aforenamed employers to cease doing business with
their respective mill suppliers (T. W. Hammond & Bro., John A. Yohn Co.,
and Boyertown Planing Mill Co.), and forcing or requiring the said respective
mill suppliers to cease doing business with the door manufacturers (Oxford Plastics
Co. and Hardwood Products Corporation).
6. By the conduct set forth in the preceding paragraph, Respondents District
Council and its agents, Gray and Boyer, have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
-7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. Respondents District Council, its Affiliated Local Unions, and its agents,
Gray, Boyer, Kane, and Goldstein, have not engaged in any unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint but not herein found.
.RECOMMENDED ORDER
'Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the' National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that:
A. Respondents, Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity of
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and
its Affiliated Local Unions, their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:,
1. Cease and desist from entering into and maintaining any agreement contain-
ing the "Union Label" sentence of working rule 17, or any like or related
provision.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondents' business offices, meeting halls,
and all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A." 23 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
as 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."
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILA., ETC. 661
by the Regional Director for Region 4, shall, after being duly signed by Respond-
ents' authorized representatives, be posted by Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 4 signed copies of the
aforementioned notice for posting by L. F. Driscoll Company, Frouge Corpora-
tion, and by any employers in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area who are
members of the General Building Contractors Association which has a collective-
bargaining agreement with Respondents, if said Employers agree, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after being signed by Respondents, as
indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respond-
ents have taken to comply herewith.24
B. Respondent Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers,
representatives, successors, assigns, and agents, including Robert H. Gray and
Charles L. Boyer, shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging any individual employed
by Nason and Cullen, Inc., John J. McDonnell, Inc., L. F. Driscoll Company,
or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to
use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, and cease and
desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining any of the aforenamed employers
or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require any of the aforemen-
tioned employers or persons to cease doing business with mill suppliers, including
T. W. Hammond & Bro., John A. Yohn Co., and Boyertown Planing Mill Co., or
to force or require said mill suppliers to cease doing business with door manufac-
turers, including Oxford Plastics Co., and Hardwood Products Corporation.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondents' business offices, meeting halls,
and all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B." 25 Copies of said notice to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 4, shall, after being duly signed by the
representatives of Respondents, and by the individual Respondents herein, be posted
by said Respondents, as aforesaid, immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 4 signed copies of the
aforementioned notice for posting by each of the employers and persons mentioned
in paragraph A. supra, who are willing, in places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director, shall, after being signed by Respondents, as indicated, be forthwith
returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify said Regional Director in writing, within 20 days from the date
of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps Respondents
have taken to comply herewith.26
I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act by Respondents Edward Kane and Edward Goldstein, and
insofar as it alleges additional violations of the Act, not herein found, by all
remaining Respondents. _
ss In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
See footnote 23, supra.
See footnote 24, supra.
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE
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, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT enter into or maintain any agreement containing the "Union
Label" sentence of working rule 17, or any like or related provision.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA AND
VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
THE AFFILIATED LOCAL UNIONS,
Local Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of
posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 735-2612, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
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, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Nason
and Cullen, Inc., John J. McDonnell, Inc., L. F. Driscoll Company, or by
any other 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
handle , work on, or perform any services on, precut or prefit, millwork,
including precut or prefit doors, and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or
restrain any of the aforenamed employers or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case,
an object is to force or require any of the aforementioned employers or
persons to cease doing business with mill suppliers , including T. W. Ham-
mond & Bro., John A. Yohn Co., and Boyertown Planing Mill Co., or
to force or require said mill suppliers to cease doing business with door
manufacturers , including Oxford Plastics Co. and Hardwood Products
Corporation.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA AND
VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(ROBERT H. GRAY , Secretary-Treasurer)- -
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(CHARLES L . BOYER, Representative)
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, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia , Pennsylva-
nia, Telephone No. 735-2612, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.