Operating Engineers Local 12

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 928 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Operating Engineers Local 12; Ventura Building and
Construction Trades Council; Steamfitters Local
250, United Association of Journeymen &
Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting -Industry
of United States and Canada; Teamsters Local
186, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America; Ventura County District Council of
Carpenters and Van Construction Co. Case
31-CC-146
June 23, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On July 31, 1968, Trial Examiner William E.
Spencer issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions to the
Decision and supporting briefs, and the General
Counsel and Charging Party filed exceptions and
supporting briefs. The Respondents filed answering
briefs.
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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner' s Decision , the exceptions , briefs, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.'
We disagree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion
that Respondent Operating Engineers Local 12
violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). The Trial Examiner
found that Minor, a representative of the Engineers,
accompanied Rose, a representative of Ventura
Building and Construction Trades Council, on a
visit to Wells, owner of General Ready Mix, Inc.
During this visit, Rose made statements to Wells
which, the Trial Examiner properly found,
constituted a threat to Wells, made for the purpose
'Member Zagora would also find that Respondent Steamfitters, by its
agent Lee Wood' s threats to Frank Davis , Phillips' district production
superintendent , violated Sec. 8(bX4XiiXB).
176 NLRB No. 125
of causing the latter to cease doing business with
Van Construction Co., the Charging Party in this
proceeding. The Trial Examiner also implicated
Minor in this threat, stating:
[I]t is obvious, I think, that whether or not
[Minor] overheard the actual remarks made by
Rose to Wells, he knew what Rose's purpose was
in talking to Wells, and acquiesced in, if he did
not actually participate in, Rose's statements to
Wells.
We believe that the evidence as to Minor's known
participation in the threat made to Wells is
insufficient to sustain the Trial Examiner's
speculation. Minor had a legitimate reason for
visiting Wells (a dispute over delinquent fringe
benefits), and he discussed the matter with Wells
before he left the premises. Wells himself testified
that his only conversation with Minor related to
these fringe benefits. Minor testified without.
contradiction that he had also talked to Wells about
the disputed fringe benefits on a previous occasion
and that he was not present when Rose and Wells
had the conversation in which the threat was made.
We agree with Respondent Engineers that the
evidence does not support an assumption that,
merely because the visit was a joint one, Rose and
Minor were acting in concert with regard to the
unlawful threat made by Rose. Accordingly, we
shall not adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion that
Respondent Engineers engaged in unlawful conduct
or his recommendation that Engineers be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and orders that Respondents,
Ventura Building and Construction Trades Council
and Teamsters Local 186, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein
modified:
1. Delete from the first line of the second
paragraph of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order the word "Engineers."
2. Delete from the notice to all members attached
to the Trial Examiner's Decision all references to
the "Operating Engineers Local 12."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM E. SPENCER , Trial Examiner : Pursuant to a
charge filed January 19 , 1968, and an amended charge
filed February 7, 1968, in Case 31-CC-146 by Van
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 12 929
Construction Co., hereinafter Van; and a charge in Case
31-CC-151 filed February 27, 1968, by the same party, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
the latter hereinafter the Board, issued his complaint in
Case 31-CC-146 dated March 6, 1968, and an amended
complaint pursuant to an order consolidating Cases
31-CC-146 and 31-CC-151, dated March 28, 1968,
alleging in substance that the Respondents in furtherance
of their labor dispute with Van picketed the La Conchita,
California, construction project on which Van was
engaged along with other employers, with an object of
causing certain employers, neutral in Respondents' dispute
with Van, to cease doing business with Van, thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXB ) of. the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. The Respondents in their duly
filed answers denied the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice a hearing was held before me at
Ventura, California, on April 15, 16, 1968, with all parties
participating. At the outset of the hearing the General
Counsel moved to sever Cases 3l-CC-15l and 31-CC-146
and thereafter to proceed solely with Case 3l-CC-146, on
the ground that an informal settlement, approved by the
Board' s Regional Director, had been reached in Case
31-CC-151. There being no objection to the motion it was
granted. Accordingly, Case 31-CC-151 has been deleted
from the title of this proceeding and no further reference
will be made to it.
Upon the entire record made in Case 31-CC-146, my
observation of witnesses, and consideration of briefs filed
with me by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and
the Respondents respectively, I make the following:
Findings of Fact
platform presently being constructed by Phillips.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Operating Engineers Local 12 (Engineers); Ventura
Building and Construction Trades Council (Ventura);
Steamfitters Local 250, United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of United States and Canada (Steamfitters);
Teamsters Local 186, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (Teamsters); and Ventura County District
Council of Carpenters (Carpenters), respectively are, and
at all material times herein have been, labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Picketing
Van, a general contractor for the oil industry was, at all
material times, a party to a contract with Phillips, by the
terms of which Van was to construct a crude oil
production terminal for Phillips at La Conchita,
California. The some 75 employees of Van working on the
La Conchita job were covered by an agreement between
Van and United Mine Workers, District 50.
On January 16, 1968, Ventura, by a motion carried by
a voice vote of its members, sanctioned an informational
picket line by its affiliated unions, including all the
Respondent unions herein except Steamfitters, because of
Van's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages, fringe
benefits, etc.
Picketing of Van on the La Conchita job began on
January 18, when pickets appeared at the front or main
gate to the project, bearing signs which read:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
(a) Van, a California corporation with its office located
at Saticoy, California, is engaged as a general contractor
for the oil industry. In the course and conduct of its
business operations, Van annually performs services
valued in excess of $50,000 for oil companies within the
State of California, each of which have gross annual
revenues in excess of $500,000 and annually ship products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly outside the State of
California
(b) At all times material , Phillips Petroleum Company,
herein called Phillips, engaged in the exploration,
production, and sales of petroleum products nationwide
and worldwide.
(c) At all times material, General Ready Mix Inc.,
herein called General, and Livingston Graham Ventura
Inc., herein called Livingston, with their offices located in
Santa Paula, California, have been engaged in business as
concrete suppliers in the building and construction
industry.
(d) At all times material herein, Hooker Co. of Santa
Paula, herein called Hooker, with its office located in
Santa Paula, California, has been engaged in business as a
manufacturer of asphalt paving materials in the building
and construction industry.
(e) At all times material herein, Van has a contract
with Phillips valued in excess of $300,000 for the
construction of a crude oil production terminal for Phillips
at La Conchita, California, herein called the project. The
project is to receive crude oil from an off-shore oil well
VAN
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
NOT PAYING PREVAILING
WAGES AND BENEFITS
OR WORKING CONDITIONS
OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL 12
SANCTIONED BY THE
VENTURA BUILDING
& CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL
After about 2 weeks of picketing the text of the picket
signs was changed to substitute VENTURA COUNTY
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS for that of
LOCAL 12, but in all other respects remained the same.
After two more weeks of picketing TEAMSTERS
LOCAL 186 was substituted as the name of the picketing
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union.
On February 19, Phillips installed a sign at a rear gate
to the La Conchita project, apparently not previously in
general use , which read:
NOW WORKING ON SITE
THIS GATE FOR THE FOLLOWING
COMPANIES ONLY
OTHERS USE THE MAIN GATE
(followed a listing of four companies other than Van,
together with the crafts involved in the work of the said
four companies.)
Commencing on February 19, pickets bearing the same
picket signs used at the main or entrance gate , with the
name of TEAMSTERS LOCAL 186 appearing thereon,
appeared at the rear gate and continued picketing the said
gate until March 5, when a second sign was attached to
the rear gate reading:
USE OF THIS GATE
PROHIBITED
FOR
VAN CONSTRUCTION CO.
ITS EMPLOYEES. ITS SUPPLIERS
AND ITS DELIVERY MEN.
There was no picketing at this rear gate after the above
sign was attached to it . Picketing at the main gate
continued until March 11, 1968, when it ceased pursuant
to a temporary injunction granted in a Federal District
Court.
Commencing on March 15, and continuing to date,
there has been picketing at the main gate with signs
reading:
VAN
CONSTRUCTION CO.
UNFAIR FAILS TO
MEET CARPENTERS
AREA STANDARDS,
WAGES AND FRINGES
VENTURA COUNTY
DISTRICT COUNCIL
OF CARPENTERS.
B. Evidence of Unlawful Object
Aside from the picketing of the rear gate to the La
Conchita project between February 19 and March 5, there
were certain statements made by Victor Rose , a business
representative of Ventura ; Elbert H. Minor, Jr., a
representative of Engineers ; Arthur J. Bauerline, a
business agent of Teamsters; and Lee Wood, an agent of
Steamfitters , which the General Counsel contends
disclosed an unlawful object in the picketing of the La
Conchita project . The General Counsel further relies on a
document entitled "Resolution ," signed by Rose , adopted
by Ventura at its meeting of March 19, and sent to
Phillips by Rose on March 22, which included the
following paragraphs:
WHEREAS, it is essential to the Ventura County Building
and Construction Trades Council and the California
Building and Construction Trades Council that
continued subcontracts to Van Construction Company
of Phillips Petroleum cease as they are detrimental to
the best interests of the members of organized labor
because of said nonpayment of prevailing wages, fringe
benefits and working conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the California
Building and Construction Trades Council , together
with the California Federation of Labor, organize a
consumer boycott against Phillips Petroleum throughout
the State of California and throughout the United
States , if necessary , in an effort to correct the
conditions which are destroying the wages , fringe
benefits and working conditions that have been built up
over the years due to the struggle and privation on the
part of the members of the building Trades Unions in
the State of California.
(The Resolution also made reference to the fact that other
production terminals would be built in the area and that
Van, because of its alleged nonpayment of prevailing
wages , fringe benefits and working conditions, would
probably obtain substantial subcontracts on these
terminals.)
Coming now to statements and conduct alleged to show
unlawful motive.
On about January 23 Rose and Minor saw Ortho P.
Wells, owner -manager of General , at General ' s premises.
According to Wells , Rose asked Wells about his dealings
with Van , and when Wells said that he was selling
concrete to Van f.o.b. the plant and leasing some trucks
to Van, Rose said that Van was not "Union " and was not
paying the prevailing wage scale . He asked Wells not to
furnish trucks to Van. When Wells repeated that he was
not delivering the concrete to Van , that he would like to
continue selling concrete to Van f.o.b. the plant, Rose
said, "we don't want you to do it . If we have to send out
some letters to stop our boys from buying from you, well,
we'll do that, too," that he , Rose , could send a letter to
cement masons and stop the masons from buying from
General . According to Wells , shortly before Minor and
Rose left his premises , Minor brought up the subject of a
month ' s fringe benefits owed to a former Wells' employee.
It appears that Wells was in financial difficulties at the
time and had some tax problems . Admittedly , he owed the
fringe benefits in question . A few days later, Rose and
Minor again visited Wells. Rose asked Wells if he was
still selling concrete to Van and Wells replied in the
negative . As a matter of fact , Wells sold no concrete to
Van following the first visit of Rose and Minor . Prior to
the January 23 meeting , Rose had never called on Wells,
and Rose and Minor had never jointly called on Wells.
Rose and Minor admitted that they made joint visits to
Wells on about the dates testified to by Wells. According
to Minor , he made no mention of the stiuation with
respect to Van when talking to Wells on either occasion,
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 12 931
and overheard no conversation between Rose and Wells in
which that matter was discussed. Minor testified that his
conversations with Wells, outside the exchange of
pleasantries, were concerned solely with Wells'
delinquency in the payment of fringe benefits, and the
latter's tax and other difficulties. Rose testified that his
conversation with Wells on January 23 occurred after
Minor absented himself to confer with an employee of
another employer who occupied premises jointly with
Wells; that on noticing that a truck with Van lettering on
it had come into the yard, he asked Wells, "what was
going on "; Wells replied that he leased trucks to Van, that
he had received a call from a driver who had refused to
cross the picket line to deliver to Van, and inquired of
Rose what was happening, to which Rose replied that he
had not visited the picket line that day. Rose testified that
was all he recalled of the conversation with Wells.
Concerning his second visit, Rose testified that Minor said
he had seen an Internal Revenue notice in the paper and
had better see Wells before there was nothing left for him
to get, whereupon he, Rose, accompanied Minor on this
second visit to the Wells' premises. On meeting with
Wells, Minor said he would like to get his money on the
delinquent fringe benefits as soon as possible, and when
Minor broke off the conversation to see members of his
union who had just driven up, Wells said that one of his
lease trucks had broken down, and the other pulled back
to make local deliveries, and consequently he was not
supplying any more concrete to Van. Rose denied that he
made the statement attributed to him by Wells in which
he, Rose, in effect, threatened that if Wells continued to
sell concrete to Van he would stop the masons from
buying from Wells.
On the entire testimony and my observation of the
witnesses, I am convinced that the primary purpose of the
joint meeting of Rose and Minor with Wells on January
23, and again a few days later, was not to collect the
nominal sum owed by Wells on fringe benefits of a former
employee, but to stop Wells from supplying concrete to
Van. I credit Wells that in the first of these conversations,
Rose threatened that he could cause masons to cease
doing business with Wells if the latter continued to supply
concrete to Van, and that it was pursuant to this
conversation that Wells ceased doing business with Van.
Furthermore, while it appears that Minor may have
confined his remarks on both occasions to the matter of
Wells' delinquency in paying fringe benefits to a former
employee, it is obvious, I think, that whether or not he
overheard the actual remarks made by Rose to Wells, he
knew what Rose's purpose was in talking to Wells, and
acquiesced in, if he did not actually participate in, Rose's
statements to Wells. It is just not believable that these two
joint visits were made with no purpose in mind but to
collect the delinquent fringe benefits owed a single
employee, or that Minor was not well aware of pressures
to be applied by Rose to stop Wells from supplying
concrete to Van.
Other conversations involve Teamster representative
Bauerline . Dennis R. Powell , a dispatcher for Livingston,
a concrete supplier in the building and construction
industry, received a notice of sale of concrete to Van on
January 15, 1968. On January 16, Bauerline called at
Powell's office and asked Powell if he knew for a fact that
Van had the contract on the La Conchita job. When
Powell said he thought Van had the contract, Bauerline,
according to Powell, said it was not likely that Livingston
or anyone else would deliver to the job; that Van was not
signed with the Building Trades Council; that there would
be a sanctioned picket line if Van worked on the project.
Livingston, whose employees were covered by a Teamsters
contract, did not deliver to the job. On January 24,
Bauerline spoke to George Nottingham, division manager
of Hooker, on the telephone; told Nottingham that
Teamsters had a problem with Van at the project site;
that General was going to ship concrete to Van and for
this reason Teamsters would probably picket the single
entrance gate to premises occupied jointly by General,
Hooker and Asbury. Toward the close of the telephone
conversation, according to Nottingham, Bauerline
mentioned that General was behind in its fringe benefit
payments . Bauerline admitted that he had a conversation,
as testified to by Powell, in which he stated that if Van
got the La Conchita job it would be picketed. "And I'm
sure that I discussed it to some extent, what our problems
were concerning Van Construction," Bauerline testified.
He further testified concerning Teamsters' practice of
notifying employers with whom it had bargaining
contracts, of the existence or the possible existence of
picket lines.
Bauerline admitted that he had a telephone
conversation with Nottingham on or about January 24,
after an officer of Asbury, with whom he had previously
discussed the possible picketing of General, asked him to
repeat the conversation to Nottingham, with Asbury's
officer listening in. According to Bauerline , he stated in
his telephone conversations, that it might become
necessary for Teamsters to picket the common entrance
gate to the property jointly occupied by them and General
because of General's failure to pay amounts owed in
unpaid wages and unpaid benefits. He admitted that
during these conversations he had reason to "suspect" that
Wells was doing business with Van, and later testified that
he had received reports that General was delivering to the
La Conchitajobsite.
I credit Bauerlme that in his conversation with Powell,
he did no more than inform the latter of Teamsters'
intention to picket Van if Van got the contract on the La
Conchita job, and that it was customary to so inform
employers with whom it had bargaining agreements of
such matters. I do not regard his accompanying statement
that it was not likely that Livingston or anyone else would
deliver to the job if Van got the contract, as any more a
threat than the announcement of Teamsters' intention to
picket. Of course, it was hoped that the picketing would
stop all deliveries as long as Van was on the job. I believe
it is entirely legitimate for labor organizations to inform
employers with whom they have bargaining agreements, of
picketing, in force or projected. The three-way telephone
conversation in which Bauerline made his threat to picket
General is someting else, for as in the case of Rose and
Minor, I am convinced that it was to stop General from
doing business with Van, rather than General' s wage and
fringe benefit delinquincies , that occasioned the threat. I
credit Nottingham that it was only toward the close of the
telephone conversation , and after the threat to picket
General had been made , that Bauerline mentioned
General's failure to pay past wage and fringe benefits.
Finally, on about January 19, Wood, of the
Steamfitters, went to the office of Frank Davis, district
production superintendent for Phillips, and when Davis
said he understood "you're having some problems at La
Conchita," and asked Wood to "explain to me what you
think the problem is?" Wood said Phillips was doing
business with an unfair contractor: "You're doing business
with Van Construction Company. He does not pay
prevailing wages and does not have the fringe benefits that
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
our Union has worked so hard for over a great many of
years ." Davis further testified that Wood "reiterated
several times that we would need steelworkers , pipefitters,
and what have you; that Van did not have qualified people
to do this, and that we were not going to be able to do the
job without them "; that "They' re not going to be able to
do the work for you ." Wood did not testify.
It is clear from Davis' testimony that he invited Wood
to explain the situation with respect to Van, and that
Wood did . The only thing that could reasonably be
construed as a threat , was Wood ' s statement that Van did
not have qualified workers ; that Phillips would have to
look at Steamfitters and other unions for qualified
workers; and that because of the picketing these union
craftsmen and workers would not be available for work on
the project . If it was legitimate for Wood to mention the
fact of the picketing to Davis , and to give the reasons for
it - and I think it was , particularly since Davis asked for
it - I do not see how Wood' s explanation of the probable
consequences of the picketing in terms of union workmen
who normally would be expected to refuse to cross the
picket line , adds to the evidence of unlawful object in
picketing.
C. Concluding Findings
Informational , or area standards picketing is, and has
been lawful since the earliest decisions in the matter
following the demise of what is commonly called the
Eisenhower Board . Calumet Contractors Assn., 133
NLRB 512; Riggs Plumbing & Heating Contractors, 137
NLRB 1125. The text of the picket signs used at the La
Conchita project met all the requirements of approved
informational picketing , as did the picketing itself with the
exception , possibly , of the few days that the rear gate of
the project was picketed . The first sign erected at this rear
gate by implication excluded its use by Van, but there is
evidence that companies named in the sign continued on
occasion to use the main gate, and there was no sign at
the main gate relating to its use by Van , or otherwise.
Once a sign specifically excluding Van and its suppliers
appeared at this gate, all picketing of the gate ceased.'
While to me the first sign was clear enough in its
implications , apparently it was not to Respondents for
otherwise why did the picketing cease immediately upon
appearance of the second sign , and I believe it is
Respondent 's object , not mine , that we are getting at. In
all, I am not convinced that the incidence of picketing at
the rear gate for a short time established an unlawful
object in the picketing of the project.
As to the official action taken by Ventura in
sanctioning the picketing , it was limited to informational
picketing and except for the statements and conduct of its
agent, Rose , the matter would end there . I do not regard
its Resolution of March 19, transmitted to Phillips on
March 22, some 11 days after picketing sanctioned by
Ventura ceased pursuant to a temporary injunction, is
properly related to the picketing that actually occurred at
the La Conchita project or is acceptable evidence of an
unlawful object with respect to that picketing. There can
be no doubt that it is the hope if not the intention of all
informational picketing to bring the picketed employer to
terms or to put him out of business , and this is legitimate
under the decisions so long as the picketing is truly and
'There was a post-hearing , all-party stipulation, that picketing at the
rear gate ceased on March 5 , and the transcript of proceedings is corrected
to reflect this fact.
solely informational in character. " '[A]n object' in the
statute means something more than a hope or
expectation ."2 If the threat of a boycott contained in the
March 19 resolution is to be equated with the picketing
that ceased on March I1 for purposes of proving an
unlawful object in the latter , a labor organization acts at
the peril of having purely informational picketing declared
unlawful if it engages in other, unrelated methods to bring
an offending employer to heel , even though the picketing
has ceased due to a court order before the "other
methods" are brought into play.
Rose ' s statements and conduct on the two occasions
when he visited General in company with Minor did not
fall within the purview of Ventura's sanctioning of
informational picketing of La Conchita, but Rose was
acting with ostensible authority when he threatened Wells
with resprisals if the latter continued to do business with
Van and both Ventura and Engineers are bound by his
statements and conduct , Ventura because he was
Ventura 's agent and was ostensibly speaking for Ventura,
Engineers because Minor acted in concert with him and at
no time repudiated his threat . We are all familiar with the
rulings holding an employer responsible for the
unauthorized , unratified, statements of some
intermeddling supervisor . The same applies to Bauerline's
statements and conduct in threatening Hooker with a
picket at the only gate giving access to the property
Hooker shared with General and Asbury, because of his
information that General was supplying concrete to Van
on the La Conchita job. This was indirect pressure exerted
on General with the object of causing General to cease
doing business with Van. I do not find, however, that
Bauerline ' s further statements to Livingston or Wood's
solicited statements to Phillips, furnish additional evidence
of an unlawful object in the picketing , or constitute a
violation of Section 8 (b)(4)(iiXB).
As to the theory of a joint venture by which all the
Respondents are to be charged with an unlawful object in
their picketing because of statements and conduct of Rose
for Ventura , Bauerline for Teamsters, and Minor for
Engineers, none of the other Respondents participated in
the said conduct further than that they, with the exception
of Steamfitters, were affiliated with Ventura. I think the
joint venture embracing all of the Respondents began and
ended with the sanctioning of informational picketing and
the exchange of pickets bearing signs which were purely
informational in character . Consequently , I would not
hold Carpenters and Steamfitters individually for the
unauthorized and unratified statements and conduct of
Rose , Minor, and Bauerline in which they did not
participate and concerning which it has not been shown
that they had knowledge. If they had any direct interest in
the operations of General it was not shown. There is,
indeed, authority to the contrary but I believe that the
purposes and policies of the Act are adequately served by
restricting remedial measures to the actual wrongdoers,
and I shall make my recommendations accordingly.
While a finding of a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) is
found with respect to Respondents Teamsters, Engineers,
and Ventura, this does not carry with it the necessary
corollary that employees of neutral employers were
encouraged and induced to cease work by picketing that
had an object of causing their respective neutral employers
to cease doing doing business with Van. The illegal
pressure was exerted on General, without particular
'United Steel Workers of America v N L.R B, 294, F 2d 256, 259
(C.A.D.C.).
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 12 933
reference to the picketing, and it appears that at the time
of the picketing General had no employees, and it is not
shown that Hooker, through whom pressure on General
was exerted, had employees affected by the picketing. In
short, in my opinion this record does not support a finding
that the picketing of the La Conchita project which in and
of itself was solely informational in character, had the
reasonable effect of illegal inducement and encouragement
because of unlawful pressures exerted against General,
who had no employees, to cease doing business with Van.
Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of the
8(b)(4Xi)( B) allegations of the complaint.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
defaced, or covered with any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director aforesaid signed
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" for
posting by Hooker and General, if they so desire, at
places where they customarily post notices to their
employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.4
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety with respect to Steamfitters and Carpenters,
and that the allegation of 8(bx4Xi)(B) violations be
dismissed with respect to all Respondents.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Phillips, Van, Livingston, General, and Hooker are,
each of them, employers within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondents herein, and each of them, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By the statements and conduct set forth in Section
III, supra, Respondents Ventura, Engineers, and
Teamsters have restrained and coerced General and
Hooker with an object of forcing or requiring General to
cease doing business with Van.
4. By the aforesaid conduct, Respondents Ventura,
Engineers , and Teamsters, and each of them, have
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(bx4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondents Carpenters and Steamfitters have not
engaged in any of the alleged unfair labor practices.
7. Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor
practices violative of Section 8(b)(4)(IXB) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that
Respondents Ventura, Carpenters, and Teamsters, jointly
and severally, their respective officers, representatives,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or
restraining Hooker, General, or any other employer or
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require
General, or other said employer or person, to cease doing
business with Van.
Take the following affirmative action required to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their respective offices and meeting halls
wherever located copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondents' respective
authorized representatives, be posted by them immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
'In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is 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 "
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
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 jointly or severally threaten, coerce, or
restrain General Ready Mix Inc., Hooker Co. of Santa
Paula , California, or any other employer or persons
engaged in commerce or an industry affecting
commerce, with an object of forcing or requiring
General Ready Mix Inc., or other said employers or
persons to cease doing business with Van Construction
Co.
Dated By
OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL 12
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
VENTURA BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 186,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or covered by any other material. directly with the Board's Regional Office, 10th Floor,
If members have any question concerning this notice or Bartlett Building, 215 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles,
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate California, Telephone 688-5850.