Millwrights Local Union No. 1102

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 1305 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION NO. 1102 1305
ics, tire inspectors , photographers , janitors, maintenance men, and opera-
tions clerical employees , but excluding office clerical employees , confidential
employees , guards, watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY,
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 6617 Federal
Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, Telephone No. 228-4722.
Millwrights Local Union No. 1102, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and Dobson Heavy
Haul, Inc. Case No. 7-CC-298. December 6,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed by Dobson Heavy Haul, The., hereinafter called
Dobson, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board,
by the Acting Regional Director for Region 7, issued a complaint
against Millwrights Local Union No. 11.02, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter 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) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. The Respondent filed an answer to the complaint deny-
ing the conm-i.ission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Copies of the
charge, complaint and notice of hearing, and answer were duly served
upon the parties.
On various dates between July 16 and 22, 1965, all parties to this
proceeding executed a stipulation of facts and joined in a motion to
transfer this proceeding directly to the Board for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and decision. The motion, which was filed on
July 23, 1965, states, in substance, that the parties agreed to waive a
hearing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance of a Trial Examiner's
Decision, and that the charge, complaint, answer, and further stipula-
tions set forth in the stipulation of facts constitute the entire record
in this case.
On July 27, 1965, the Board approved the stipulations and granted
the parties' motion to transfer the case to the Board. Briefs were
thereafter filed by the General Counsel, Dobson, and the Respondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
155 NLRB No. 126.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL--LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. COMMERCE
Dobson is engaged at Bag- City, Michigan, and vicinity in the business
of moving and erecting machinery and other industrial equipment.
During the -year ended December 31, 1964, Dobson rendered services
in excess of $50,000 to Dow Chemical Company, hereinafter called
Dow, of Midland, Michigan.
Dow, a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business
located at Midland, Michigan, is engaged in the business of manu-
facturing industrial chemical products. During the year ending
December 31, 1964, Dow shipped products valued in excess of $1 million
from its place of business within the State of Michigan directly to
points outside the State of Michigan. The complaint alleges, the
stipulation admits, and we find, that Dobson and Dow are engaged in
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
The following named construction industry employers are engaged
in an industry affecting commerce and, within a 12-month period, were
each under contract or purchase order valued in excess of 550,000 to
Dow at its Midland, Michigan, plant: -
Browne-Morse Company
Collinson Construction Co.
Blaw-Knox Construction Co.
Austin Construction Co.
Phoenix Sprinkler Company
John E. Green Plumbing and
Heating Company
J. R. Heineman and Sons,
Inc.
R. C. Hendrick & Sons, Inc.
Southeastern Electric, Inc.
Gerace Construction Co.
Cherne Contracting Corpora-
tion
Kaighin-Hughes-Paulin, Inc.
Corrigan Company
Nooter Corp.
Butler Fabricators & Erectors
Co.
Bay Welding & Machine Co.
Dorr Oliver Co.
Bechtel Corp.
Consolidated Construction Co.
Beloit Company
North American Drilling Co.
Kaufmann Plumbing and
Heating Co. -
United Engineers
Hollinger & Company, Inc.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent, Millwrights Local No. 1102, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is, and at all mate-
rial times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION N O. 1 1 0 2. 1307
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
The facts, as stipulated, show that during the time material herein,
Dobson, the -primary employer, was in contract with, and employed
members of, Riggers Local No. 575, International Association of
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter called Riggers. At the time of the instant dispute, Dobson
and 24 other construction contractors were performing various kinds
of construction work for Dow at Dow's plant located in Midland,
Michigan. Dobson's work, which consisted of moving, setting, anchor-
ing, and aligning machinery, was being performed by its rigger
employees. All of the employees of these various contractors, including
Dobson's, used the same gate entrance, known as Clock House 11, to
enter and leave Dow's property. On April 26, 1965, the Respondent
authorized and established a picket line at the Clock House 11
entrance. The picketing, which toot- place only at Clock House. 11
and which continued throughout the day and until 4 p.m. on the
following day, was conducted by members of the Respondent under
the supervision and direction of Respondent's business agent, Jack
Linn. The pickets carried signs reading :
Dobson Heavy Haul Performing Millwrights Work At Sub-
standard Millwrights Wage And Fringe Bene-fit Rates. Mill-
wrights Local 1102 We Are. Not Asking For Recognition Or
Bargaining Rights.
As a result, 900 employees employed by the various neutral contractors
refused to cross the picket line and did not enter Clock House. 11 or
Dow property on April 26 and 27.
Meanwhile, at some time prior to the commencement of or during
the picketing on April 26, 1965, Linn stated to Dobson's president that
Dobson's riggers were performing millwrights' work and demanded
that Dobson pay its employees the Millwrights' rates 1 for the work
involved.
Early on the morning of April 27, Dow closed Clock House 11 to
all Dobson employees, posted signs to this effect- at this entrance, and
provided another gate, clearly marked by signs and sufficiently removed
from Clock house 11 to prevent confusion as to its use, for the sole
use of Dobson's employees, which they thereafter used. Some time
between 6:310 and 7 :60 a.ln. on this same day, Linn, Respondent's
business agent, was informed of the foregoing events, and given the
location of the newly posted gate, and was also told that only Dobson's
employees were using this new gate and were not using Clock House
1 The Respondent 's wages and fringe benefits were established by a collective-bargaining
agreement concluded with employers other than Dobson and were generally higher than
those established in the Riggers ' contract with Dobson.
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11. Although Linn immediately sought advice from the Respond-
ent's attorney as to the legal effect of this change of circumstances,
the Respondent, nevertheless, continued to picket only at Clock House
11, and again the 900 employees employed by the neutral constructors
refused to cross the picket line and enter the Dow property. Although
Linn did not receive his requested legal ads=ice, picketing finally ceased
at 4 p.m. when Dobson agreed to pay its riggers the Millwrights'
wages and fringe benefits as demanded by Linn.
B. Contentions of the parties
The General Counsel and Dobson contend that, on April 27, the
Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Moore D? -Y
Dock 2 by picketing the neutral employers' entrance to Dow's property,
known as Clock House 11, which Dobson's employees did not use
and thereby violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act
because the Respondent's picketing in pursuance of its primary dis-
pute with Dobson induced and encouraged the neutral employees of the
24 other contractors to engage in a work stoppage, and threatened and
coerced Dow and the 24 neutral employers in either case with an object
of forcing or requiring Dow to cease doing business with Dobson .9
These parties also contend that even assuming that the Respondent
may have engaged in area standards or publicity picketing, the
Respondent, nevertheless, is not relieved of its obligation to. reduce
or minimize the impact of its picketing on neutrals, as required
by Moore Dry Dock.
The Respondent does not dispute its responsibility for the picketing.
Its position is that its picketing was for the lawful object of com-
pelling payment of the -Alillwrights' area rate. and thereby protect
its area standards. More specifically, the. Respondent contends that
this object, which was lawful on April 26, remained unchanged on
April 27, that its failure to picket the gate reserved for Dobson's
employees occurred only because of a delay in obtaining legal advice
sought because of the. changed circumstances, that this delay did not
transform the picket line's object or legal status, and that, in effect,
these circumstances do not offend the principles enunciated in Moore
Dry Dock because the standards established for common-situs picket:
ing set forth in that, case are not to be mechanically adopted in all
common-sites picketing cases, but are, merely tests to be applied flexi-
bly and realistically to the circumstances of the particular case.
2Smilors' Unson of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547, 549.
The particular requirement which the General Counsel and Dobson assert that the Respond-
ent did not observe is that directing that the picketing be limited to places reasonably
close to the location of the situs of the dispute.
3 All parties agree that the Respondent complied with Moore Dry Dock when it picketed
Clock House 11 on April 26 because this entrance was then used by both Dobson's em-
ployees and the employees of the neutral contractors.
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAIr UNION NO. 11-02 1309
C. Conclusion
It is clear that the Respondent, in pursuance'of a primary dispute
with Dobson, may lawfully picket Dobson at Dow's premises, a common
work situs, provided the picketing complies with the Moore Dry Dock
standards. These standards, of course, are not mechanically applied,
but are flexibly used as "aids in determining the underlying question"
of whether Section 8 (b) (4) has been violated 4 and are as hilly applica-
ble to area standards or publicity picketing as to any other picketing
arisi ng out of the labor disputes Of course, the- totality of a union's
conduct in a gi:-er situation may well disclose a real purpose to enmesh
neutrals in a dispute, despite literal compliance with the Moore Dry
Dock staindards.6
Applying these- principles to the matter at hard, it is clear that, on
April 2'1, 1965, the Respondent did not comply fully with the 31, core
Drn41 Dock standards and all the events of that day indicate an unlawful
picketing object.
We fsnd no merit in Respondent's contention that the picketing
was not. unlawful because it sought- only to compel payment of its area
wages. The nature of its dispute with Dobson does not, of course,
make it lawful to use means for its resolution which are proscribed by
Section 8(b) (4) (B). Considering the totality of the Respondent's
conduct, it is manifest. that the Respondent's picketing at the Clock
House 11 entrance on April 21- was not addressed to Dobson or Dobson's
employees but was, instead, directed at employers and employees not
parties to the dispute for a real purpose of eiuneshing these neutrals
in the Respondent's dispute with Dobson.7 The record shows that the
Respondent had full knowledge, very early in the morning of April 27,
that a separate entrance had been provided for, and was being used
by, Dobson's employees only, and that the Respondent nevertheless
continued to picket only at Clock House 11, the entrance reserved for
neutrals , and did not picket the entranee reserved for Dobson's employ-
ees. Alt rough Dobson's employees entered the plant, approximately
909 employees employed by neutral contractors honored the picket
line and did not enter Dow's premises. Clearly, the Respondent's
picketing on this day was not. conducted so as to minimize its impact
*International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union- 861 (Plavehe Electric,
Inc.), 135 NLRB 250, 255.
Local 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc.), supra; International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron .Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local No. 193 (Com-
bastion Associates, Inc.). 144 NLRB 1206.
6 Highway Truckdr.vers and Helpers , Local No. 107, international Brotherhood of Team-
sters, etc. (Riss d Company, Inc.), 130 NLRB 943, enfd. 300 F. 2d 317 (C.A. 3).
7 Orange Belt District Council of Painters No. 48, AFL-CIO ( Calhoun Drywall Com-
pany ), 154 NLRB 997. Cf. Local No. 2222, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (American Oil Company ), 152 NLRB
853.
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.on neutrals 8 and substantially departed from the. Moore Dry Dock
standards of permissible common-situs picketing. We find that this
picketing had the. purpose and effect of inducing employees of the
neutral contractors to refuse to perform their work, thereby coercing
and restraining those neutral contractors, all for an object of forcing
or requiring Dow to cease doing business with Dobson. Accordingly,
we conclude that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4) (1) and
(ii) (B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations as described in section I,
above, have a close, intinnate, 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 of
commerce.
V. THE RIIM RDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and
that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Dobson and Dow are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) or Section 8(b) (4) of the Act.
2. Millwrights Local Union No. 1102, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing Dow's premises with an object of forcing or requir-
ing Dow -to cease doing business with Dobson , the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) 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, Millwrights Local Union No. 1102, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
sInternational Association of Machinists , Local Lodge 889, AFL-CIO, et al. (Freeman
Construction Company ), 120 NLRB 753, 761.
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL NION NO. -1102 1311
1. Cease and desist from engaging in or inducing or encouraging
individuals employed by Dow Chemical Company, Browne-Morse
Company, Collinson Construction Co., Bla-w-Knox Construction Co.,
Austin Construction Co., Phoenix Sprinkler Company, John E. Green
Plumbing and Heating Company, J. R. Heineman and Sons, Inc.,
R. C. Hendrick & Sons, inc., Southeastern Electric, Inc., Gerace
Construction Co., Cherne Contracting Corporation, Kaighin-Hughes-
Paulin, Inc., Corrigan Company, Nooter Corp., Butler Fabricators
& Erectors Co., Bay Welding & Machine Co., Dorr Oliver Co., Bechtel
Corp., Consolidated Construction Co., Beloit Company, North Ameri-
can Drilling Co., Kaufmann Plumbing and Heating Co., United
Engineers, Hollinger & Company, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, other than Dobson
Heavy Haul, Inc., to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of
their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on materials, or to perform any services; and from
threatening, coercing, or restraining the aforesaid employers or persona
other than Dobson, where an object in-either case is to force or require;
Dow to cease doing business with Dobson.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in Detroit, Michi-
gan, copies of the attached notice marked ` Appendix." 9 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 7,
shall, after being duly signed by the Unions- representative, be posted
by the Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, inconspicuous places, including
all places where not-ices 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 7 for posting by Dow, Browne-Morse Company, Collinson
Construction Co., Blaw-Knox Construction Co., Austin Construction
Co., Phoenix Sprinkler Company, John E. Green -Plumbing and Heat-
ing Company, J. R. Heineman and Sons, Inc., R. C. Hendrick & Sons,
Inc., Southeastern Electric, Inc., Gerace Construction Co., Cherne
Contracting Corporation, Kaighin-Hughes-Paulin, Inc., Corrigan
Company, Nooter Corp., Butler Fabricators & Erectors Co., Bay
W `elding & Machine Co., Dorr Oliver Co., Bechtel Corp., Consolidated
Construction Co., Beloit Company, North American Drilling Co.,
9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a tinted States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the 'words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kaufmann PiLunbing and Heating Co., United Engineers, and Hol-
linger & Company, Inc., these companies willing, at all locations, where
notices to their respective employees are customarily posted
(c) Notify the Regional-Director for Region 7, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL OUR MEMBERS AND ALL E3MPLOYEES
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 boat :
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage individuals
employed by Dow Chemical Company, Browne-Morse Company,
Collinson Construction Co., Blaw-Knox Construction Co., Austin
Construction Co., Phoenix Sprinkler Company, John E. Green
Plumbing and Heating Company, J. R. Heineman and Sons, Inc.,
R. C. Hendrick & Sons, Inc., Southeastern Electric, Inc.,.Ge-race
Construction Co., Cherne Contracting Corporation, Kaighin-
Hughes-Paulin, Inc., Corrigan Company, Nooter Corp., Butler
Fabricators & Erectors Co.,-Bay Welding & Machine Co., Dorr
Oliver Co., Bechtel Corp., Consolidated Construction Co., Beloit
Company, North American Drilling Co., Kaufmann Plumbing
and Heating Co., United Engineers, Hollinger & Company, Inc.,
or any other employer other than Dobson Heavy Haul, Inc., to
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment,
to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to
perform any services; or threaten, coerce, or restrain the afore-
said employers or persons other than Dobson, where an object in
either case is to force or require Dow to -cease doing business with
Dobson.
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION No. 1102, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
BETTS BAKING COMPANY 1313
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit Michi-
gan, Telephone No. 226-3200, if they have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Betts Baking Company and William D. Parkhurst . Case No. 17-
CA-2629. December 6,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 3, 1965, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed with respect thereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support
thereof, and Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations pct,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman
McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has re-viewed 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, the cross-exceptions, and the
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with
the following addition :
The Trial Examiner found it unnecessary to determine whether or
not the. Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by instituting
a retirement plan just after the union organizational drive began.
lie do not agree. that a resolution of this issue is unnecessary. In mnid-
September 1964, Respondent became aware that its transport drillers
were engaging in organizational activities. in late September, Betts,
Respondent's president, asked driver Brown what would be gained if
the Union were successful. Brown suggested that the drivers desired
a retirement plan. On October 1, such a plan was instituted and
shortly thereafter Betts stated to driver Fuller '`... the boys have
their retirement plan, their raises ... that is all I am going to do, that
155 NLRB No. 124.