Napa & Solano Counties Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 98 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Napa and Solano Counties Building and Construction
Trades Council, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 180,
AFL-CIO and Bowers Building and Construction
Company
Napa and Solano Counties Building and Construction
Trades Council, AFL-CIO and Bowers Building
and Construction Company. Cases 20-CC-1170
and 20-CC-1178
November 7, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On July 19, 1972, Administrative Law Judge 1
Stanley Gilbert issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief; and the General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondents , Napa and Solano
Counties Building and Construction Trades Council,
AFL-CIO, and the United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America , Local No. 180,
AFL-CIO, their officers , agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order.
1 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
2 In sec. III, par. (b), of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge, in
summarizing the illegal conduct engaged in by the Respondent, inadvertent-
ly referred to the Respondents' restraint and coercion of subcontractor
Contempo as violative of Sec. 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. This inadvertence is
hereby corrected to read 8(b)(iiXB) of the Act
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT , Trial Examiner : Based on a charge
filed in Case 20-CC-1170 on November 1, 1971, as
amended on November 4, 1971, by Bowers Building and
Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as Bowers,
and a charge filed by said Company in Case 20 -CC-1178
on November 26, 1971, the consolidated complaint herein
was issued on December 21, 1971. The complaint alleges
that Napa and Solano Counties Building and Construction
Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 180,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Trades Council
and Carpenters, respectively , violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act . Respondents by their answer deny
certain of the material allegations of the complaint,
including the allegations that they engaged in conduct
violative of the Act.
Pursuant to a notice, a hearing was held in San
Francisco , California , on February 28 and 29 , 1972, before
me. On May 8, 1972 , briefs were received from the General
Counsel and Respondents which have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record ' in this proceeding and my
observation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESSES OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
HEREIN
At all times material herein, Bowers Building and
Construction Company, a Utah corporation, having a
business office in Salt Lake City, Utah, has been engaged
as a general contractor in the construction of church
buildings for the Latter Day Saints throughout the Western
United States, including a church building at Vacaville,
California, the jobsite involved in this proceeding. During
the past year, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, Bowers has purchased goods, supplies, and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which have been
shipped directly from one State of the United States to
another.
At all times material herein, John Coonley, d/b/a
Contempo Excavating Co., herein called Contempo, with a
place of business at Los Angeles, California, has been
engaged in the performance of excavation work for general
contractors.
At all times material herein, Vacaville Building and
Materials Co., herein called Vacaville Materials, has had
an office and plant in Vacaville, California, where it has
been engaged in the building and construction industry as
a supplier of ready-mix concrete to building contractors,
including Bowers.
At all times material herein, Bowers has been an
1 In addition to the transcript of the testimony and the exhibits
introduced during the course of the hearing, an exhibit numbered TX Exh I
was received in evidence, as set forth by an order issued by the Trial
Examiner dated April21, 1972.
NAPA & SOLANO COUNTIES BLDG. & CONSTR. TRADES COUNCIL 99
employer engaged in commerce and in an industry
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
At all times material herein, Contempo and Vacaville
Materials have each constituted an employer or person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
As is admitted by Respondents, Respondent Carpenters
has been a labor organization at all times material herein
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Although
Respondents deny the allegation, it is found, for the
reasons stated hereinbelow, that Respondent Trades
Council, as alleged, has been a labor organization at all
times material herein within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The only witnesses who were called were those called by
the General Counsel and the only evidence introduced in
the record was offered by the General Counsel.2 Thus, the
findings hereinbelow are based on the uncontradicted and
credited testimony of General Counsel's witnesses and the
exhibits received in evidence.
On or about October 20, 1971, Bowers commenced its
work as the general contractor on the aforesaid church site
in Vacaville. For the initial work, which included staking
out the site, building shacks and fences, and digging a
trench for the telephone lines, Bowers employed its own
workers in the job classifications of carpenters and
laborers. Said employees were not represented by any
labor union. Clarence Van Katwyk served as Bowers' job
superintendent and was primarily responsible for the
project on a day-to-day basis. His immediate supervisor
was Calvin Boswell, Bowers' project manager, whose office
is in Salt Lake City.
Bowers subcontracted the excavation work to Contempo
which Contempo began on or about October 22, 1971. On
or about the same time, Bowers entered into an agreement
with Vacaville Materials to supply concrete for the jobsite.
Contempo's excavation work was done by workers
employed by Contempo. It is not clear whether all or only
some of Contempo's said workers, during the time material
herein, were not represented by any labor organization .3
The concrete was to be hauled by Bowers' employees in
Bowers' trucks from Vacaville Materials' plant.
At the time Bowers' employees started placing stakes at
the jobsite, William Leshe came to the jobsite and, after
talking to some of said employees, approached Katwyk
and asked "if the company was union or what and who the
company was." He also asked Katwyk "was the job going
to be union." It appears that this conversation took place
prior to the time Contempo began its excavation work.
Several days later, Leshe and Gayle Collins visited the
2 At the end of the General Counsel's case-m-chief Respondents rested.
Respondents contend that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence certain of the material allegations in the
complaint. Respondents argue that the record will not support a finding that
Respondent Carpenters was responsible for the conduct alleged to be
violative of the Act or that Respondent Trades Council is a labor
jobsite and spoke with Katwyk. They introduced them-
selves and stated that they represented the Trades Council
and asked whether he had had any instructions from his
head office as to whether the job was going to be union or
nonunion. Katwyk credibly testified: "And they were also
mentioning about, you know, the union can get awful
rough; sugar in gas tanks and things." Katwyk told them
that he had called Boswell and that Boswell was coming to
the jobsite. Katwyk further credibly testified that the next
day when Leshe again came to the jobsite he asked him
whom he represented, and Leshe stated that he represented
"all the unions" and gave him his business card which
indicated that Leshe was a business representative of the
Carpenters.
On October 25, Boswell received a telephone call from
Leshe. Boswell's credited testimony with respect to their
conversation is as follows:
A. Mr. Leshe tole me that he represented the
Carpenters and Trades Council located in Vallejo,
California. He wanted to know what our intentions
were regarding a union at the Vacaville job. I told him
at that time that since he had asked for Mr. Bowers that
I would relay the information to Mr. Bowers and ask
Mr. Bowers to call him back if he so desired.
He did say in this conversation that he had to know
right away, because he had called a Trades Council
meeting of all Trades at 9:00 a.m. the following
morning.
About 10 o'clock that same morning, Katwyk came out
of his shack and observed Leshe, John Coonley, the owner
of Contempo, and some of Contempo's truckdrivers across
the street from the jobsite. He went up to them and asked
Coonley when he was going to get the "hole dug" to which
Coonley replied that Leshe had "pulled the men off the job
and stopped them from working." This was stated in
Leslie's presence and it does not appear that he denied
Coonley's statement. Katwyk further credibly testified as
follows:
A. That's when Coonley told Leshe, "I'm willing to
sign a contract. Where is the dotted line?" Leshe told
him, "We cannot have just one phase signed contract,
they all have to sign."
Shortly thereafter the Contempo truckdrivers left, and as a
result Contempo could not proceed with the excavation
work.
On October 26, Bowers posted signs at the two gates at
the jobsite. The one at the northwest or north gate
indicated that it was reserved for deliveries to, and
employees of, Bowers and the sign at the southwest or
south gate indicated that it was reserved for deliveries to,
and employees of, all subcontractors and companies other
than Bowers. It appears that employees of Bowers used the
north gate and Contempo employees used the south gate.
On October 27, there was a meeting at the jobsite
between Leshe, Katwyk, Coonley, Boswell, and another
organization within the meaning of the Act and subject to the proscriptions
of Sec. 8(bX4) of the Act.
3 It is possible to infer from statements made by Leshe on October 27,
noted hereinbelow, that the employees in the category of "operators" were
represented by one of the unions affiliated with the Trades Council
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bowers' project manager, John Schwantes. Boswell credi-
bly testified with respect to the meeting as follows:
A. . . . after introductions, I made the statement to
Mr. Leshe that I understood he had pulled the
operators off of our job, meaning the operators
working for Mr. Coonley. He made the statement to
me, "Yes, and they won't work until we have an
agreement with you." And we asked him what kind of
an agreement he wanted , and he said all he wanted us
to do was sign an agreement which is exactly what he
would ask any other contractor in the area to do.
We asked what kind of an agreement, he says, "I
have a new agreement which is not off the press yet,
but I have a copy of the old agreement." and he said he
would give it to us.
Leslie gave the- Bowers' representatives a copy of the
agreement to which he referred, the "Carpenters Master
Agreement" with an effective date of June 16, 1968. After
the meeting terminated, Leshe also gave Bowers ' represent-
atives a copy of the "Carpenters Memorandum Agree-
ment" which, in effect, was a short-form agreement by
which the signatories agreed to abide by the master
agreement.
In addition, Boswell credibly testified that, during the
course of the aforesaid meeting, Leshe told him that he was
president of the Trades Council and that he represented all
of the trades in that Council and also that he was a
business agent for the Carpenters. Further, Leshe stated to
him that if any of Bowers' employees worked on the
Vacaville job they would have to sign up with the "union."
Also, Boswell credibly testified to the following conversa-
tion during the meeting:
A. It was suggested that if we were to take our men
off from the construction site that perhaps Mr. Leshe
would let the construction, the excavating contractor,
continue with his work, and Mr. Leshe said, "No, if you
get your hole dug and some concrete in, then you can
thumb your nose at us and keep going. We have got to
keep you from getting started at all. Right now we have
the advantage."
Mr. Schwantes said, "You actually have a monop-
oly." and he said, "Yes, and we'd like to keep it that
way."
A. At the time that the conversation terminated,
we indicated to Mr. Leshe that we were not officers of
the corporation but we would take the agreement back
to Salt Lake City and discuss it with Mr. Bowers, and
he said to us that a phone call was all that was
necessary telling him that the agreement had been
signed and was in the mail and that he would release
the men on the job.
Q. What did he mean by the men on the job?
A. He would release the operators that had been
working for Mr. Coonley, so that they could go back to
their work.
On October 28, two pickets appeared at the jobsite, one
at each gate. Each carried a handwritten sign which read as
follows:
THIS JOB UNFAIR! To: Napa Solano Counties
Bldg & Const Trades . . . Council AFL-CIO .. .
The following day a sign bearing the same legend was
carried by each of the two pickets , but they were printed
rather than being handwritten . From that day forward and
for a period of 2 to 3 weeks , one picket stationed himself at
the south gate and the other stayed in a car with the picket
sign outside the window about midway between the two
gates (the distance between the two gates was approximate-
ly 275 feet) which was visible from both gates . After 2 or 3
weeks, picketing was conducted by one person stationed in
a car midway between the two gates . On December 6, a
picket was served with papers by a U.S. marshal, ostensibly
a temporary restraining order and the picket left. The
following day and for some time thereafter the picket was
stationed midway between the two gates in a car displaying
a sign reading as follows:
Bowers Const. Coin. Pays Bldg. Trades Wages &
Working Conditions Below Standards Established
By Bldg. Trades Union
On or about November 19, Vacaville Materials started
supplying concrete to Bowers. Richard Coffer, president of
Vacaville Materials, testified to what occurred on that date
as follows:
A. Yes, I think that was the first day we supplied
their truck with concrete. It came down to the plant the
first time and we loaded it and the truck went back,
then it returned for another load and at that time Mr.
Bill Leshe and Mr. Gayle Collins appeared on the job
along with two other craft agents, I didn't know who
they were.
Bill Leshe talked to me, after having first talked to
some of the drivers that were in the yard. He came to
me and he said, "Dick, we're in trouble, we've got a bad
job here and we are going to have to shut it down." I
said, "I've committed myself to supply them with
concrete if they use their own truck." He said, "Well,
we want you to stop. We don't want you to load the
truck." I said, "Bill, I have made a commitment to
these people and I load all types of trucks for all types
of people and all types of conveyances. I don't question
them as to what their affiliations are. I 'm a public
weigh master and I feel obligated to do this so long as
they agree to pay for the material. I feel that these
people come in that category and I've committed ..."
"Yeah, yeah," he said, "I know, I know, but we want
you to stop loading the truck." I said, "I've told you I
can't, I think I have to go ahead and load them."
So, with that, he went out in the yard and about that
time the Bowers truck returned to the yard for the
second load, and there was a young boy driving the
truck, and I didn't hear the conversation, but apparent-
ly Leshe and Collins had told the kid to get out of
there, don't load the truck. So the kid went back to the
Bowers job site and then Clarence Katwyk got on the
phone and he said, "What's the matter?" and I told
him, and he said, "I'm sending another man down with
the driver."
NAPA & SOLANO COUNTIES BLDG. & CONSTR . TRADES COUNCIL 101
So, the truck did come back and this time it came
back again with the original driver plus another man.
So, then Leslie and Collins said, "Let's get the hell
out of here before the cops come," so they left and we
loaded the truck.
Coffer further credibly testified that when he told Leslie
that he could not comply with the request that he not load
concrete in Bowers' trucks, Leslie replied:
Well, Dick, how much pressure could you stand from
some of your other contractor firms that you supply
concrete to?
William Martinelli, a truckdriver for Vacaville Materials,
credibly testified that on November 19, 1971, while he was
driving his truck past the Bowers jobslte he was stopped by
Leslie who asked him where Bowers was getting its cement
and that he told Leslie that Bowers was getting it from
Vacaville Materials. Martinelli credibly testified that Leslie
said, "you better tell the boss that he better batch him out
or he's going to go down there and close him out." (At the
time Martinelli was not carrying any materials to be
delivered to Bowers, but was on his way back to the
Vacaville Materials plant from another jobsite.) There is no
evidence or basis for assuming, however, that the threat
was relayed to management. It is inferred from his above
testimony and from his further testimony of the conduct of
Leslie and Collins that Leslie was asking Martinelli to
deliver a threat to Coffer that if he did not stop supplying
building material to Bowers that Respondents would close
down Vacaville Materials.
'Martinelli further credibly testified as follows:
A. Well, I went back to the plant and I was loading
up and Bill Leslie, Collins and two other guys come. I
don't know who they were.
They called me over and they told me, "You're not
going to let this guy load, are you?" "Why don't you go
fix him up where he can't load?" "Bust his arm, bust his
leg, something like that "
TRIAL EXAMINER: Who said this to you?
THE WITNESS: Collins. No way I'm going to do it,
they are going to put me in jail, he says, "That's all
right, we will bail you out and it won't bother your job
any, we'll make sure you won't lose your job." And, I
don't know... .
Q. (By Mr. Booth) What was your truck being
loaded for?
A. I was loading, I was going to another job site.
Where I come from where they stopped me.
TRIAL EXAMINER: They were referring to a Bowers
driver, is that it?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Booth) What did you do when the
conversation ended?
A. He told me not to move my truck.
Q. Not to move your truck?
TRIAL EXAMINER: Who told you not to move your
truck?
THE WITNESS: Collins.
4 On November 19, 1971, Respondents asked an employee of Vacaville
Materials to deliver a threat to said Company that it would close it down if
it did not stop supplying building materials to Bowers. Since it cannot be
found that the threat was communicated, it cannot be found that the threat
was violative of Sec 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act as alleged, there being no basis
TRIAL EXAMINER: He told you not to move your
truck?
THE WITNESS: Yeah. Told him I was moving it and I
was gone.
Based on the record, as a whole, and the above findings
of fact, in particular, it is concluded that both Respondents
(through the conduct of Leslie and Collins as their agents
and representatives) were , during the time material herein,
seeking to obtain from Bowers a collective-bargaining
contract with Respondent Carpenters; that this was the
only contract requested from any of the employers
involved herein; and that, therefore, the primary labor
dispute in this proceeding was with Bowers. It is further
concluded that the Respondents engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act for the
purpose of obtaining said contract from Bowers, which
conduct may be summarized as follows:
(a) Respondents caused Contempo employees to cease
working on October 25, 1971, in order to prevent
Contempo from continuing with its excavation work for
Bowers and by so doing forced Contempo to cease doing
business with Bowers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act.
(b) On October 27, 1971, Respondents restrained and
coerced Contempo in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of
the Act by Leslie's statement to Boswell in Coonley's
presence that Contempo's employees "won't work until we
have an agreement with you."
(c) Respondents were responsible for the picketing of the
Vacaville jobsite from October 28 to December 6, 1971,
which picketing was designed to induce and encourage
Contempo employees to withhold their services from
Contempo and to restrain and coerce Contempo with an
object of forcing Contempo to cease doing business with
Bowers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act. Sid Harvey, Inc., 189 NLRB No. 93.
(d) On November 19, 1971, Respondents threatened
Vacaville Materials with "pressure" from its customers
with an object of causing it to stop selling concrete to
Bowers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.4
(e) Also on November 19, 1971, Respondents attempted
to persuade an employee of Vacaville Materials to
withhold his services from Vacaville Materials in order to
put pressure on said Company to stop selling concrete to
Bowers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
There does not appear to be any merit in the defenses
raised by the Respondents. Following is,a consideration of
seven arguments which Respondents submit in their brief
as the basis for their claim that General Counsel has failed
to prove his case:
"1. The General Counsel failed to show that the
Building Trades Council is a labor organization." On the
contrary, the record clearly supports a finding that the
Trades Council is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act. It appears from its constitution
and bylaws that one of the objects of the Council is "to
organize into Craft Unions all branches of labor engaged
for finding that Vacaville Materials was, by said conduct, "threatened,
coerced or restrained ." However, said conduct clearly discloses the unlawful
object of Respondents' conduct with respect to Vacaville Materials and
Contempo . In any event , even if this incident were found to be violative of
the Act, it would not alter the remedy which will be proposed.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the construction of buildings." In view of the documents
filed by the Trades Council with the Department of Labor,
it is inferred that during the time material herein said
object remained an object of the Trades Council,5 and it is
evident from said documents and the record that Leshe
and Collins, as agents and representatives of the Trades
Council, did engage in the conduct hereinabove described
to accomplish the said object of the Trades Council, that of
organizing the employees of Bowers.
"2. The General Counsel failed to show that the dispute
involved herein was solely with Bowers Construction
Company." This contention is without merit, since it is
evident from the record that the primary dispute in which
Respondents were engaged was with Bowers. The substan-
tial evidence relating to the object of the conduct of Collins
and Leshe clearly discloses that it was to obtain a union
contract between Bowers and Respondent Carpenters.6
The record fails to support Respondents' contention that
there was a labor dispute with Contempo; on the contrary
it discloses that Contempo's offer to sign a collective-
bargaining agreement was rebuffed.
"3. The General Counsel failed to show that the
picketing was for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)."
For reasons stated hereinabove, this argument is without
merit, since it has been found that the purpose of the
picketing with signs bearing the following legend:
THIS JOB UNFAIR! To: Napa Solano Counties
Bldg & Const Trades . . . Council AFL-CIO ...
was for the purpose of forcing Contempo to cease doing
business with Bowers.?
"4. The General Counsel failed to overcome the clear
and unrebutted evidence that the only picketing involved
herein was conducted 100 feet from the nearest gate and
was `standards' picketing only." No purpose would be
served in passing upon the merits of this contention, since
it is addressed to the picketing with a "union standards"
sign and, as has been indicated, the issue with respect to
such picketing has not been considered. The picketing
which was found to be violative of the Act was clearly at,
or within sight of, the gate reserved for Contempo
employees and employees other than those of Bowers, and
the legend on the signs carried by the pickets made no
reference to union standards.
"5. The General Counsel has failed to show that the
picketing conducted herein was in any way conducted by
the Carpenters Union." This contention also is without
merit. It is true the picket signs did not bear the name of
the Carpenters Union, only the name of the Trades
Council. However, it is inferred that the picketing by the
Trades Council was done on behalf of the Carpenters and
as agent of the Carpenters, one of its affiliates.
"6. The General Counsel failed to show that the
statements made by Leshe were in any way attributable to,
or the responsibility of, the Building Trades Council." This
contention is expanded by the Trial Examiner to include
not only the statements made by Leshe but also his actions,
as well as the statements and actions of Collins, and it is
further expanded to include not only the Trades Council
but also the Carpenters. As has been found hereinabove,
the Trades Council was acting on behalf of and as agent of
the Carpenters. In addition, it is found Leshe was acting in
a dual capacity, as an official of both the Carpenters and
the Trades Council. The record clearly discloses that Leshe
was the business representative of the Carpenters. The
record is also clear that Leshe represented himself as
president of the Trades Council and as business represent-
ative of the Carpenters. The documents filed with the
Department of Labor indicate that he was president of the
Trades Council and it is inferred that he continued in that
position during the time material herein . As for Collins, the
record discloses that Collins represented himself as an
agent of the Trades Council and the documents filed with
the Department of Labor disclose that he was employed by
the Trades Council as business manager during the period
between July 1, 1970, and June 30, 1971. It is inferred from
the record that he continued in that capacity during the
time material herein. Although Collins was not directly
employed by the Carpenters, it is inferred that in his
capacity as an official of the Trades Council in carrying
out the object of the Trades Council he was also acting as
agent and representative of the Carpenters. Therefore, it is
concluded that the statements and actions engaged in by
both Leshe and Collins described hereinabove were made
by them as agents and representatives of both Respon-
dents.
"7. The General Counsel cannot rely solely upon
inferential evidence, but must prove his case! " While it is
true that many of the findings and conclusions in this
Decision are based on inference , it is the Trial Examiner's
opinion that the inferences relied on are amply justified by
the record.
5 The General Counsel correctly points out in his brief the following.
Respondents have suggested that the Constitution and Bylaws received
into evidence as part of TX Exhibit 1, having originally been filed in
1961 by the Solano Trades Council with the Secretary of Labor, are not
competent to prove what the Constitution and Bylaws of the Trades
Council were for the period herein involved A careful examination of
TX Ex. 1 shows that these Bylaws were revised and adopted by the
Solano Council in 1945 and amended by it in 1960, that the Solano
Council reported on September 4, 1971, that it had changed "in name
only" from the Solano Council to Napa-Solano Council. The Napa-
Solano Council is required by law to adopt a constitution and bylaws,
to file a copy thereof with the Secretary of Labor, and annually to
report any change in the information so filed (See Section 201(a), Title
II, Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959). In these
circumstances , it can only be concluded that the Constitution and
Bylaws currently on file with the Secretary of Labor for the Napa-
Solano Council constitute the most current version of such documents.
Such a conclusion is particularly warranted in view of the fact that
Respondents chose neither to challenge the authenticity of the TX Ex.
I nor to introduce contrary evidence.
6 There is no evidence that the Trades Council engaged in any unlawful
conduct on behalf of other craft unions affiliated with it.
7 There is testimony that, after the picketing with the above signs was
restrained by a court order, there was picketing with a sign referring to
"union standards ," and in his brief General Counsel argues that this
conduct was violative of the Act. There is no allegation in the complaint
that said subsequent picketing was violative of the Act and said issue was
not fully litigated. Therefore, no finding will be made with respect to the
picketing with a "union standards" sign. In any event, even if it were found
that the picketing with a "union standards" sign was violative of the Act,
such finding would not alter the remedy which will be proposed.
NAPA & SOLANO COUNTIES BLDG . & CONSTR . TRADES COUNCIL 103
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of Respondents set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with the
operations of the Employers described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondents have engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended
that Respondents be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
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. Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act on October 25, 1971, by succeeding in inducing
and encouraging employees of Contempo to withhold their
services from Contempo with an object of forcing and
requiring Contempo to cease doing business with Bowers.
2. Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act on October 27, 1971, by Leslie's statement in
Coonley's presence that Contempo employees "won't work
until we have an agreement with" Bowers, thereby
restraining and coercing Contempo.
3. Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act by picketing the Bowers' Vacavillejobsite between
October 28, and December 6, 1971, with an object of
forcing Contempo to cease doing business with Bowers.
4. Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act on November 19, 1971, by threatening Vacaville
Materials that they would cause "pressure" to be brought
on Vacaville Materials by its customers with an object of
forcing Vacaville Materials to cease doing business with
Bowers.
5. Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act
on November 19, 1971, by encouraging an employee of
Vacaville Materials to withhold his services from Vacaville
Materials with an object of forcing said Company to cease
doing business with Bowers.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:8
object thereof is to force or require Contempo Excavating
Co., or any other subcontractor of Bowers Building and
Construction Company, to cease doing business with it, in
pursuance of a labor dispute with said Company.
(b) Inducing and encouraging individuals employed by
Contempo Excavating Co., and Vacaville Building and
Materials Co., or by any other subcontractor or supplier of
Bowers Building and Construction Company, to withhold
their services from their respective employers where an
object thereof is to force or require said employers to cease
doing business with Bowers Building and Construction
Company, in pursuance of a labor dispute with said
Company.
(c) Threatening, restraining, or coercing Contempo
Excavating Co., Vacaville Building and Materials Co., or
any, other company, where an object thereof is to force or
require said Companies, or any other company, to cease
doing business with Bowers Building and Construction
Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in their respective business offices and meeting
halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by
official representatives of the Respondents, be posted by
the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
their members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondents have taken to comply
herewith.'°
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
iS In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to
comply herewith."
ORDER
Respondents, Napa and Solano Counties Building and
Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
No. 180, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing, causing to be picketed, or threatening to
picket Bowers Building and Construction Company's
Vacaville jobsite, or any of its other jobsites, where an
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or
threaten to picket Bowers Building and Construction
Company's Vacaville jobsite, or any of its other
jobsites, where an object thereof is to force or require
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Contempo Excavating Co., or any other subcontractor
of Bowers Building and Construction Company, to
cease doing business with it, in pursuance of a labor
dispute with said Company.
WE WILL NOT induce and encourage individuals
employed by Contempo Excavating Co. and Vacaville
Building and Materials Co., or any other subcontractor
or supplier of Bowers Building and Construction
Company, to withhold their services from their respec-
tive employers, where an object thereof is to force or
require said employers to cease doing business with
Bowers Building and Construction Company, in
pursuance of a labor dispute with said Company.
WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, or coerce Contempo
Excavating Co., Vacaville Building and Materials Co.,
or any other company, where an object thereof is to
force or require Contempo Excavating Co., Vacaville
Building and Materials Co., or any other company, to
cease doing business with Bowers Building and
Construction Company.
NAPA AND SOLANO
COUNTIES BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL No.
180, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 13018 Federal Building, Box
36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California
94102, Telephone 415-556-0335.