Plasterers' Protective and Benevolent Society

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 1608 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, .I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Union, is a labor organization within the meaning, of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily reducing the working hours of Kleensang, Vyhildal, and
Gaek, as found above, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in'-an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing employees in exercising the
rights guaranteed - them by Section 7 of the Act, including a reduction in the
working hours of Kleensang , Vyhildal, and Gaek, for engaging in union activities,
the creation of the impression of surveillance , and interrogations and threats,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair - labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Journeymen Plasterers ' Protective and Benevolent Society of
Chicago , Local No. 5, AFL-CIO ( Royal-Rin Builders, Inc.;
Imperial Carpentry , Inc.) and Howard Rynberk
Journeymen Plasterers ' Protective and Benevolent Society of
Chicago, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO (Royal-Rin Builders, Inc.;
Imperial Carpentry, Inc.) and United Construction & Trades
Union Local #102
Journeymen Plasterers ' Protective and Benevolent Society of
Chicago, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO ( Royal-Rin Builders, Inc.;
Imperial Carpentry, Inc.) and Howard Rynberk . Cases Nos.
13-CC-487,13-CC-487-0, and 13-CC-520. June 7,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 15, 1966, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed
an answering -brief. -
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection- with these cases to a
three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning
and Jenkins]. _
158 NLRB No. 143.
PLASTERERS' PROTECTIVE 'AND 'BENEVOLENT' SOCIETY 1609
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 and briefs, and the entire. record
in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 20, 1965, Howard Rynberk, President of Royal-Rin Builders, Inc.,
referred to herein as Royal-Rin, filed charges in Case No. 13-CC-487 against
Journeymen Plasterers' Protective and Benevolent Society of Chicago, Local No. 5,
AFL-CIO, referred to herein as Respondent, alleging violation of Section
8(b)(4)(1) and (ii) (B) of the Act. On January 25, 1965, United Construction
and Trades Union Local #102, referred to herein as Local #102, filed similar
charges in Case No. 13-CC-487-2 against Respondent. Thereafter, on or about
April 29, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 13 approved settlement agree-
ments between Royal-Rin, Local 102, and Respondent disposing of the charges
previously filed without issuance of a formal order. On June 28, 1965, Rynberk
filed charges in Case No. 13-CC-520 against Respondent alleging further viola-
tion of the same section. On or about August 27, the Regional Director with-
drew his approval of the aforesaid settlement agreements, and on September 15,
he issued a consolidated complaint alleging violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii) (B) of the Act. Respondent in its answer denies the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
A hearing on the consolidated complaint was held before Trial Examiner
David S. Davidson in Chicago, Illinois, on December 8, 1965. At the close of
the hearing oral argument was waived, and the parties were given leave to file
briefs, which were filed by the General Counsel and Respondent.'
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Royal-Rin is an Illinois corporation with its principal office at 12545 South
Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged as a general contractor in the
construction of residential buildings in the Chicago area. During the calendar
year 1965, Royal-Rin and its subcontractors have been engaged in the construc-
tion of residential apartment buildings located at 1443 West 123d Street and at
12517-27 South Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Among the subcontractors
engaged by Royal-Rin on this construction were Albert Cheeks and G. W. Grady,
a partnership d/b/a C & G Plastering Service, herein referred to as C & G, Com-
mercial Carpentry, Inc., and Vincent Page d/b/a Normal Plumbing Company.2
Imperial Carpentry, Inc., and Commercial Carpentry, Inc., are also Illinois
corporations with the same principal office as Royal-Rin. The stock of Royal-Rin,
Imperial, and Commercial is jointly owned by Howard Rynberk and his wife, and
all three corporations have the same officers. Rynberk, their president, makes
basic management decisions for the three corporations. In particular, he deter-
mines what employees to hire and fire, lets subcontracts, purchases materials, and
'After the close of the hearing, the General Counsel filed a motion to correct transcript
to which no opposition has been received. I have received the motion in evidence as Trial
Examiner's Exhibit 1 and order that the transcript be corrected 'as requested. I also note
the failure of the transcript to reflect the receipt of General Counsel's Exhibit 2 which was
received at the hearing.
2 See footnote 13, infra.
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
formulates labor-relations policy for the three corporations.3 For at least 2 years,
Royal-Rin has subcontracted all its carpentry work to Imperial and Commercial,
and Imperial and Commercial have performed no work other than for Royal-Rin.
I find on the evidence before me that Royal-Rin, Commercial, and Imperial con-
stitute a single employer for purposes of determining whether jurisdiction should
be asserted herein. DeTray Plating Works, Inc., 155 NLRB 1353; Midwest News
Reel Theatres, Inc. (Chicago Theatrical Protective Union Local No. 2), 151
NLRB 857.
During the past calendar year all three corporations purchased lumber for use
on Royal-Rin construction projects in the following amounts respectively: Royal-
Rin, •$21,000;• Imperial, $19,000; and Commercial, $24,000. All lumber purchases
were from Hill-Behan Lumber Corporation and Continental Lumber Company.
The lumber consisted of yellow pine, spruce, Douglas-fir, ash, fir, plywood, and
composition board. The lumber originates, outside the State of Illinois and con-
stitutes indirect inflow to the three corporations.4 As the combined indirect inflow
of lumber to the three corporations, found herein to be a single employer, exceeds
$50,000, I find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein and that Royal-Rin, Imperial, Commercial, C & G Plastering Service, and
Normal Plumbing Company are employers engaged in commerce or in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act .5
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Journeymen Plasterers' Protective and Benevolent Society of Chicago, Local
No. 5, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. The Bishop Avenue picketing and'related conduct
In January 1965, Royal-Rin was engaged in the construction of the last build-
ing of a seven-apartment building project located at the corner of West 123d
Street and South Bishop Avenue, referred to herein as the Bishop Avenue site.
The project consisted of four 6-flat apartment buildings and three 16-flat buildings.
Imperial and C & G were subcontractors on the job. Imperial's employees were
represented by a local ' of the Carpenters Union, affiliated with the AFL-CIO.
'C & G did not have a contract with, and its employees were not represented by,
Respondent Local 5 or any other union affiliated with the AFL-CIO.
Early in January, John Boland, business representative of Respondent, and
admittedly its agent, visited the building at the Bishop Avenue site and learned
that C & G was performing plastering work in it. There were three plasterers
then working, Cheeks and Grady, the proprietors of C & G who were not mem-
bers of Local 5, and Bennett, a member of Local 5. Boland spoke with Cheeks
and Grady and urged them to become affiliated with Local 5. They replied that
they were not interested. Boland left the jobsite and went to Rynberk's office,
located a few blocks away on South Ashland Avenue. Boland left his business
card with Rynberk's secretary and a request that Rynberk call him.
Within a day or two, on January 4 or 5, Rynberk called Boland at home in the
evening. Boland informed Rynberk that Cheeks and Grady did not have an agree-
3 Imperial and Commercial have agreements with the Carpenters Union.
Theodore Coffin, president of Continental testified that 99 percent of the lumber sold
In the Chicago area originates in Southern or Western States, and specifically that the
yellow pine, Douglas-fir plywood, and composition board used on the South Ashland Ave-
nue job originated outside Illinois. Rynberk testified that all lumber used by the three
corporations came from out of State Coffin testified that Continental received all its lum-
ber directly from out of State, but that he did not know the suppliers from whom Hill-
Behan purchased the lumber it supplied to the three corporations, although of necessity
the lumber originated out of State because it does not grow, in Illinois In tbe,absence
of any evidence to the contrary, I find the evidence sufficient to establish that the lumber
purchased by the three corporations constituted indirect inflow within the meaning of the
Board 's jurisdictional standards. Madison Building & Construction Trades Council (H if K
Lathing Co.), 134 NLRB 517, 518, 524
5 Madison Building if Construction Trades Council (H if K Lathing Co ), supra.
PLASTERERS' PROTECTIVE AND BENEVOLENT SOCIETY 1611
ment with Respondent, and Rynberk said he would look into the situation and call
Boland.6
A few days later,. on Friday, January 8,7 Boland met William Dugal, a business
representative for Ceramic Tile Layers Local 67, since retired, at a coffee shop,
and they decided to go together to visit Rynberk. On arriving in front of Ryn-
berk's office, about 11:30 a.m., Boland advised Dugal to wait in the car until he
determined whether Rynberk was in, and Boland proceeded into Rynberk's office.
Upon entering the office, Rynberk's secretary informed Boland that Rynberk was
around the building and that she would locate him. Boland went to the window
.and beckoned to Dugal to come in. Before Dugal arrived in the office, Rynberk
came into the office from somewhere in the building, and Boland and Rynberk
began to talk.8 According to Rynberk, Boland told him that the plasterers on the
lob were not union men and that if Rynberk did not get them off the job and'
replace them with Local 5 men, "we" would be picketed. Rynberk told Boland he
was under the impression that the plasterers were union men and belonged to Local
1029
Boland's version of his conversation was as follows: He asked Rynberk if he had
checked to determine whether the plasterers were affiliated with any union. Ryn-
berk replied that he had checked previously and had been informed that they were
members of Local 102. Boland told Rynberk that as far as the AFL-CIO was
concerned, Local 102 was not an affiliated organization and that Respondent does
not consider its members to be union people. Boland asked Rynberk "if he would
not be interested in seeing that on future propositions, and on future work that he
would use contractors that were affiliated with AFL-CIO, and Local 5 AFL-CIO."
Rynberk then indicated that he was not interested in any further conversation.
Boland denied that on that or any other occasion he told Rynberk he was going
'to picket the job.
After Boland and Rynberk terminated their conversation, Dugal discussed the tile
work on the job with Rynberk, and both left the office. About 15 mintes later,
Boland drove back to the jobsite "because [he] was curiously wondering whether
or not C & G had resumed work on the project. Rynberk appeared, told Boland
he was trespassing, and asked Boland to leave.
On cross-examination, Boland testified that his reason for visiting the job was that
"I was interested . . . to see whether or not they were continuing to work in 10
above zero without a window in the building. . . . Because plaster freezes, and
when the plaster freezes anything that affects the good name of the plastering busi-
ness reflects on the good name of Local 5." Boland testified that it was 10 above
on that day.
Although Boland testified in greater detail than Rynberk, I do not credit his
denial that he told Rynberk that C & G had to get off the job and threatened to
picket if they did not. While it is conceivable that Boland might have been willing
to let C & G complete their work under contract if Rynberk agreed to let all future
subcontracts to plasterers under contract with Respondent, I find it highly
9 Although I do not credit Boland generally, I credit his testimony as to this conversa-
tion. According to Rynberk, Boland also told him at this time that C & G would have to
get off the job. The recollections of both Boland and Rynberk as to this conversation
were unclear, but Rynberk concededly did not include this statement in his description of
the telephone conversation set forth in an 'affidavit given the General Counsel during 'the
investigation of the case, and it appears that in his testimony Rynberk confused his tele-
phone conversation with his conversation with Boland in Rynberk's office' a few days later
7 Rynberk, Boland, and Dugal, all testified that Boland and Dugal came to Rynberk's
office on a Friday. Rynberk identified the date as Friday, January 8 or 9 Boland placed
it at the Friday following the telephone conversation Dugal identified the date as a
Friday in January January 8, 1965, fell on a Friday. It is stipulated that picketing by
Respondent started on January 12, 1965, and It is clear that the picketing started after
the conversation. The date January 8 is thus clearly. fixed.
8 According to Boland, Dugal came in "a few seconds" behind him and stood beside him
during his conversation with Rynberk. However, Dugal testified that Boland went into
the office "four or five minutes at the most" and "maybe less" before'he entered and that
be beard only the end of the conversation between Boland and Rynberk, after which he
discussed the tile work on the job with Rynberk. I am satisfied that Boland minimized
the amount of time which elapsed before Dugal entered the office and that Dugal credibly
testified that he heard only the end of the conversation between Rynberk and Boland (a
portion of the conversation to which neither Rynberk nor Boland testified)
9 Rynberk testified that he could not recall the exact words which passed between him
and Boland because of the time elapsed since the event.
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
implausible that' his initial and only request to Rynberk related only to future work
or that Rynberk would not discuss such a request.
Moreover, Boland's asserted reason for checking on the presence of C & G on the
job immediately after leaving Rynberk's office is discredited by the official report of
the U.S. Weather, Bureau entitled ""Local Climatological Data" showing weather
conditions at Midway Airport, Chicago, Illinois, for January 1965.10 This report
shows that on January 8, the maximum temperature was 63* and the minimum
was 20° and that for the 3 previous days the temperature remained above freezing
at all times." In the face of this report, Boland's testimony concerning his return
to the jobsite after talking to Rynberk is not credible. Also, as indicated above,
Boland's testimony that Dugal was' present during the conversation in Rynberk's
office is not supported by Dugal's testimony. For all these reasons, as well as my
findings as to Boland's credibility elsewhere herein, I have credited Rynberk and
discredited Boland as to this conversation.
On or about January 12, 1965, Respondent authorized and established a single
picket in front of the incompleted building at the Bishop Avenue site who patrolled
peacefully from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 7 days a week. The sign worn by the picket
bore the following legend:
PLASTERING ON THIS JOB
NOT BEING DONE BY MEMBERS
PLASTERERS' UNION LOCAL NO. 5 AFL-CIO
At that time C & G was the only subcontractor performing plastering work at
the site. During the picketing a handbill was also available for distribution and
was distributed by the picket, bearing the following contents:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
C & G Plasterers are performing the plastering work on this building. This
Company does not have a union contract with Local #5-Plastering Union
AFL-CIO.
Since 1876, the union members of Local #5 have done plastering work in
Chicago. Members of Local #5 enjoy many hard-won benefits, including
decent wages, health and welfare benefits, accident benefits and pension benefits.
As an important part of its service to home owners, Local #5 renders inspec-
tion service to the public and purchasers of its services, and ascertains that all
materials are mixed and applied under conditions in accordance with Archi-
tect's and Manufacturer's specifications and good trade practice.
No request is made by Local #5 of any individual employed by any employer
to refuse to pick up, deliver, or transport any goods or refuse to perform any
services.
On January 19, 1965, C. & G. completed its work at the Bishop Avenue site
and left. The picketing continued through January 27, 1965. At no time during
this period did the picketing occur at any other location.
When the picketing started, Imperial's carpenters were working at the job site.
Sometime thereafter, their business agent came to the jobsite and informed them
that they were crossing a picket line. He also told Rynberk that the carpenters
would have to get off the job as long as there was a picket there. They remained
at the jobsite for a few hours thereafter to board the building up at Rynberk's
request, but then left before their normal quitting time. They did not return until
January 20, 1965, after C & G had left the site but before the picketing stopped.
On January 20 and 25, 1965, the charges in Cases Nos. 13-CC-487 and 13-CC-
487-2 were filed, and on April 29, 1965, identical settlement agreements were
approved by the Regional Director, having been previously agreed to between
Respondent and the respective charging parties. The agreements provided that
Respondent did not admit the commission of any unfair labor practice, that the
Regional Director's approval constituted withdrawal of a complaint and notice of
hearing previously issued, and that a notice would be posted setting forth terms and
10 After the close of the hearing the General Counsel served notice by letter dated
January 23 , 1966, upon Respondent of intent to request that official notice be taken of
this report . Respondent has not opposed the request nor sought any, opportunity to show
that the report is contrary to fact or bears further explanation. Respondent in its brief
dated February 8, 1966, does not address itself to this request. I have taken notice of
this report as requested. Plant City Welding and.Tank Company, 123 NLRB 1146, 1151,
footnote 17, see 5 U.S.C.A. § 1006(d).
"The report indicated further that at Grant Park near Buckingham Fountain the tem-
peratures were comparable for the same period.
PLASTERERS' PROTECTIVE AND BENEVOLENT SOCIETY 1613
conditions with which Respondent was to comply. The final sentence of the agree-
ments provided "Contingent upon compliance with the terms and provisions hereof,
no further action shall be taken in the above' case." '
The notice to Respondent's members which it was required to post provided:
WE WILL NOT by means of picketing, request, appeals, orders, instructions
and other means, engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of Royal-
Rin Builders Inc., Imperial Carpentry Inc., or the employees of any other
employer other than C & G Plastering Service, to engage in a strike or a
refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services for their
respective employers, where an object thereof is to force or require Royal-Rin
Builders Inc., Imperial Carpentry, Inc., or any other employer or person, to
cease doing business with C & G Plastering Service, or any other employer or
persons. .
WE WILL NOT by use of pickets, orders and other means, threaten, coerce
or restrain Royal-Rin Builders Inc., Imperial Carpentry Inc., or any other
employer or person, where an object thereof is to force or require Royal-Rin
Builders Inc., Imperial Carpentry Inc., or any other employer or person to
cease doing business with C & G Plastering Service or any other employer or
persons.
2. The Ashland Avenue picketing
On or about March 5, 1965, Royal-Rin began construction of two 16-flat apart-
ment buildings at 12517 and 12527 South Ashland Avenue, referred to herein as
the Ashland Avenue site, several blocks from the Bishop Avenue site and a few
doors from Royal-Rin's office. The two buildings were approximately 55 feet
apart and were not separated by a fence or other obstruction. Each building was
set back from the sidewalk 20 to 25 feet. The building at 12527 is referred to as
the south building and the building at 12517 as the north building.
On or about June 10, 1965, after Boland discovered that Cheeks and Grady
were working in the north building, Respondent authorized and established a
picket in front of the north building. The picket wore a sign identical to that
previously displayed at the Bishop Avenue site. At the time the picketing com-
menced, C & G was engaged in plastering work in the north building. In addi-
tion, Imperial was performing carpentry work, and Vincent Page d/b/a Normal
Plumbing Company, was engaged in plumbing work at the Ashland Avenue site.
Again the picket had a handbill available for distribution and gave a copy to any-
one who requested one. The handbill contained the following:
To the General Public and to the Proposed Purchasers or Renters of the
Apartment Building-
These are the Facts:
C & G Plastering is the plastering contractor on this apartment building.
C & G has not hired union members of Local No. 5. Journeymen Plasterers,
AFL-CIO to do the plastering work on this apartment building.
Since 1876 , the union members of Local No. 5 have done plastering work in
Chicago. They have worked on Chicago' s finest apartment buildings, like
Marina City, Prairie Shores and Lake Meadows.
As an important part of its service to home owners and apartment dwellers
in Chicago, Local No. 5 renders inspection service to the public and purchasers
of its services and ascertains that all materials are mixed and applied under
conditions and in accordance with the Architect's and Manufacturer's speci-
fications and good trade practices.
The plastering work in this building is not being done by members of Local
No. 5.
No request is made by Local No. 5 of any individual employed by any
employer to refuse to pick up, deliver, or transport any goods or to refuse
to perform any services.
On or about June 28, 1965, C & G completed its work on the north building
and left the site with all their material and equipment .12 C &• G did not again
12 The exact date of C & G's departure from the Ashland Avenue site is not firmly fixed
in the record . Rynberk testified that C & G left around June 29. His letter to Respond-
ent dated June 28, states that C & G had left the site at the time it was written. Plumb-
Ing Superintendent Geagan's testimony , set forth above, indicates that Rynberk told him
the plasterers would, be through on the job before June 25. The exact date of their
departure is not critical as it is clear that C & G left the site on or about June 28, and
picketing continued long after they departed.
1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
return. Rynberk immediately notified Respondent by letter of C & G's departure
from the Ashland site. The picketing and handbilling continued, however, until
August 11, 1965. Much as before, a single picket peacefully patrolled in front
of the jobsite 7 days a week from 8:30 a.m. until 6 or 6:30 p.m.
At the time the picketing, commenced the cement contractor was scheduled to
perform work at the site on June 21. The work was not performed until the end
of August. The electrical contractor was scheduled to work at the site during
the first week in July but did. not perform the work until the third week in August.
A few days before June 25, Rynberk discussed the commencement of plumbing
work on the jobsite with Geagan, the plumbing contractor's superintendent. Gea-
gan inquired as to how long the picket would be on the job, and Rynberk told'
him that when the plasterers were through in the north building, the picket would'
probably be removed. Rynberk also told him that the plasterers would be through
before the plumbers went on the job.
On June 25, the plumbing contractor's employees started work in the south
building. The picket was at the site when they started, and they worked part of
that day. The next day, Saturday, June 26, Geagan came to the jobsite and dis-
cussed the picketing with the plumbers on the job. They told Geagan they felt
uncomfortable with the picket there, and Geagan decided to assign them to
another job the following Monday. Geagan did so and did not assign anyone
further to the Ashland Avenue site until after the picket was removed.
According to Geagan who testified,13 he was never requested to remove his men-
from the job, and the plumbers did not indicate to him that they were contacted
by the picket. Geagan testified that it was a busy time for him and lacking
enough- men for all the jobs he was then doing, he welcomed the excuse to remove
the plumbers from the Ashland Avenue job. According to Geagan, sometime
after the picketing ceased, Geagan either noticed that the picket was gone when
passing the site or was informed that he was gone by Rynberk. Thereafter, he
had men available and scheduled them to complete the job. I find on the basis
of Geagan's testimony, that whatever reasons Geagan may have had for welcom-
ing an excuse to remove his men• from the job only a day after they started, their
absence for a period of time coinciding with the picketing was clearly caused by
the picketing and not a result of extraneous factors.14
The north building was scheduled for completion in the middle of July, but
because plumbing, electrical, painting, concrete, and heating work remained to
be performed, completion was delayed. Several prospective tenants requested a
return of their deposits because of the delay.
On August 11, Rynberk, Boland, and Respondent's attorney met. Boland had
not communicated with Rynberk between January 8 and this meeting. Cook, the
painting contractor on the job, arranged the meeting and was present. At the
meeting, Rynberk agreed to use a Local 5 plastering contractor in the south
building, and Boland agreed to remove the picket. Until this meeting, C & G
had been scheduled to do the plastering in the south building, but had not started
the work. During the conversation, Rynberk complained that he had trouble in
the past with the quality of the work performed by some union contractors, and
mentioned one by name. Boland told Rynberk there were a number who did
work which Boland had inspected, and Boland offered to give Rynberk a list of
contractors. Respondent's attorney told Rynberk that they were not telling him
he had. to do 'business with any of the contractors on the list and that he could
do business with whomever he liked. He also told Rynberk that if he had a
Local 5 contractor, Respondent could not keep the picket at the job because the
sign would not,then be true.
Boland testified that the'picket was 'placed"on the Ashland site because Respond-
ent sought "to inform the general public that these jobs were not being done in
conformity with our standard of work, with our hours of employment, with our
wages, with our fringe benefits, that all of the things that we have worked for
100 years were being undermined." It is conceded that Respondent had a num-
1S In the absence of objection by any of the parties, counsel for Chicago Journeymen'
Plumber's Union, Local 130, was permitted to appear specially for the limited purpose
of participating in the examination of Geagan
is Among other things, there is no indication that Geagan's workload changed between
the time he dispatched the plumbers to the job and the time he removed them The only
intervening factor, over which the plumbers expressed displeasure, was the continued press
ence of the picket at the jobsite, contrary to Rynberk's earlier representation that the
picket would be gone.
PLASTERERS' PROTECTIVE AND BENEVOLENT SOCIETY 1615
her of unemployed members at the time and that unemployment had been a
chronic problem among Respondent's members for about 4 years. During this
period, Local 102 members were performing some of the available plastering work
which Respondent would like to have had for its own members to perform.
B. Concluding findings
1. The alleged postsettlement violation
The complaint alleges that the picketing at the Ashland Avenue construction
site from June 28 to August 11 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).
Respondent contends the picketing was lawful informational picketing. Sec-
tion 8(b)(4) provides insofar as material:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-
(4) (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by
any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to
engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manu-
facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities, orr to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten,
coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affect-
ing commerce, where in either case an object thereof is:
* * * * * *
(B) Forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, trans-
porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, proces-
sor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person,
. : Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed
to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or pri..
mary picketing; I I
In order to establish a violation of 8(b)(4)(1)(B) both unlawful inducement
or encouragement and unlawful object must be shown.
In Upholstereis Fiame & Bedding Woikeis, etc. Local 61 (Minneapolis House
Furnishing Company), 132 NLRB 40, set aside on other grounds, 331 F. 2d 561
(C.A. 8), the Board rejected the contention that picketing at a secondary employ-
er's premises is per se inducement or encouragement within the meaning of sub-
section (i). The Board held "Whether picketing constitutes `inducement or
encouragement of employees of secondary employers to engage in work stop-
pages or refusals to perform services is an issue to be resolved in the light of all
the evidence in a particular case." 132 NLRB at 41. Here, because a common
situs housing both employees of the primary employer (C & G) and of secondary
employers (Imperial and Normal Plumbing) is involved, the inquiry is twofold.
First, in the light of the contention that the picketing was aimed at the public,
it must be determined whether there was inducement or encouragement of any
individual employed by any person. Second, if there was, it must be determined
whether the inducement or encouragement exceeded the bounds of permissible
inducement or encouiagement at a common situs.
As indicated by the quoted portion of Minneapolis House Furnishings Com-
pany, each case in which the Board has found that picketing was consumer picket-
ing and did not induce or encourage individuals employed by employers to engage
in total or partial work stoppage has been decided on the basis of all its facts,
None presents facts identical to those here.
Here the facts support the conclusion that the picketing was not merely con-
sumer picketing or an appeal to the general public for support, but also induced
or encouraged total or partial work stoppages by those engaged in the perform-
ance of services at the Ashland Avenue site. The picket sign contained no words
of limitation to indicate at whom its appeal was directed or more particularly to
indicate that its appeal for support extended only to potential renters and pur-
chasers and the general public.15 Although the picket had a handbill available for
15 Boland explained that he felt it was necessary that the picket at Ashland Avenue
wear a sign rather than merely distribute handbills because of the picket' s age and race
and the fear that he would otherwise be mistaken for a racial demonstrator and assaulted.
This explanation does not account for the wording of the sign . Moreover its sincerity
is doubtful in view of the fact that identical picketing occurred earlier at the Bishop
Avenue site.
1616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
distribution; the only evidence as to the scope of its distribution is that he gave
a handbill 'to anyone who requested it. The handbill itself made no appeal for
specific action on the part of potential renters or purchasers. The picket was
present 7 days a week for better than 8 hours a day.16 Insofar as the record
shows, there was no segregation of entrances to the site, and the picket was
placed where visible to those making deliveries or performing services at the site,
as well as passersby or prospective tenants.17 Apart from the handbill, which both
by its caption and its final paragraph indicated to those who read it that Respond-
ent did not request those with services to perform at the site to refuse to do so,
there is nb evidence of any communication with unions representing trades utilized
at the site to inform them of the scope of Respondent's appeal.
While the traditional appeal of the sign utilized by Respondent, absent greater
effort to restrict its impact, might warrant the conclusion that the sign was likely
to induce or encourage total or partial work stoppages, there is a more solid
basis for reaching that conclusion here. For Respondent only 6 months earlier
had engaged in substantially identical picketing several blocks away at the Bishop
Avenue site where the same contractor and some of the same subcontractors were
engaged. On that occasion, despite the identical statement in the handbill then
utilized indicating that Respondent did not request anyone to engage in a work
stoppage, the Carpenters' business agent informed Rynberk that the carpenters
employed by Imperial would have to get off the job as long as the picket was
there, and the carpenters boarded up the job and left until C & G had completed
their work.18 Thus Respondent had reason to believe that picketing with the
sign used at both sites was likely to be construed as a request for persons to
refuse to perform services behind the picket line, but Respondent did nothing fur-
ther to nullify that appeal either at the time it started to picket at Ashland Ave-
nue or when it became apparent that work at the Ashland site was also not being
performed. In_ these circumstances I conclude that the appeal on the sign worn
by the picket was not directed solely to consumers and the general public, but
induced or encouraged persons having services to perform at the Ashland site to
refuse to do so.19
As Ashland Avenue was a common situs, however, at which both C & G and
neutral employers were engaged, it does not follow automatically that the induce-
ment and encouragement found above is proscribed. In Moore Dry Dock, 92
NLRB 547, the Board recognized the right of a union to engage in traditional
primary appeals at a common situs despite the fact that some interference with
the operations of neutral employers might ensue. To balance the right of a
union to engage in traditional primary activity against the right of the neutral
employers to be free from such interference, the Board prescribed four standards
11 The record does not indicate the hours of work of those performing services at the
jobsite, although there is evidence that on at least one Saturday the plumbing contractor's
employees were scheduled to work.
17 The General Counsel contends that the absence of picketing at a model apartment
maintained by Royal-Rin a few blocks away to show to prospective tenants indicates that
the appeals were not directed to them. However, there is no evidence that the model
apartment was advertised as a model for the Ashland Avenue buildings, nor is there any
indication that there were signs at Ashland Avenue directing interested persons to any
other location where picketing could reasonably be expected to reach interested passersby.
I do not rely on the absence of picketing elsewhere in reaching my conclusion herein.
1B The evidence relating to presettlement conduct may be considered as "background
evidence establishing the motive or object of a Respondent in its postsettlement activities "
Northern California District Council of Hodcarriers, etc., AFL-CIO (Joseph's Landscaping
Service ), 154 NLRB 1384, footnote 1.
19 See Millmen & Cabinet Makers Union, Local No. 550, Carpenters (Steiner Lumber Com-
pany ), 153 NLRB 1285. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Emmett Electric Company), 157 NLRB 44. The fact that Respondent may
have sought to involve in its dispute potential consumers and the general public as well
as those having work to perform at the site does not serve to remove its picketing from
the proscription of the statute. Plumbers Local Union No. 519, Journeymen (Babcock
Company), 137 NLRB 596, on which Respondent relies, does not require a contrary, but is
distinguishable on its facts. Among other things, there the picketing occurred only on
Sundays when customers and prospective buyers were most likely to be present at the
picketed housing project and when tradesmen and employees, other than salesmen, were
not working there. The sign carried by 'the pickets, as well as the handbills distributed,
clearly indicated that the appeal was directed to the 'public.
PLASTERERS' PROTECTIVE AND BENEVOLENT SOCIETY 1617
to be used as "aids in determining the underlying question of statutory violation." 20
Here the General Counsel contends that Moore Dry Dock standards were
breached when the picketing continued after C & G left the Ashland Avenue site.21
On or about June 28, C & G completed its work in the north building, and left
the site with all its men, materials, and equipment. Rynberk notified Respondent
to that effect, and there is no indication that Respondent made any response or
took any action as a consequence of that notice. 22 There may be some question
whether the situs of the dispute continued to be located at Ashland Avenue after
June 29 in view of Rynberk's testimony that C & G had been scheduled to do
the plastering in the south building. However, it is clear that after C & G left
the premises on or about June 28, C & G was not engaged in its normal business
at the Ashland Avenue site.23 The picketing nonetheless continued more than 6
weeks thereafter. While the Moore Dry Dock rules are not to be mechanically
applied,24 the continuation of the picketing as Ashland Avenue in the absence of
the primary employer for so long a period of time is alone sufficient to establish
that Respondent induced and encouraged employees of neutral employers to engage
in a strike or refusal to perform services at the Ashland Avenue site.25
The record also establishes that the picketing was for a proscribed object.
Although Boland did not contract Rynberk following the commencement of the
picketing at Ashland Avenue until August 11, the conversation between Rynberk
and Boland on January 8 as well as the circumstances under which the picket was
removed establish that Respondent's object was to force or require Royal-Rin to
cease doing business with C & G'within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B).26
I have found above that on January 8 in Rynberk's office, Boland told Rynberk that
the plasterers were not union men and that if Rynberk did not get them off the
job and replace them with Local 5 men, the job would be picketed. Rynberk
terminated the conversation without agreeing to replace C & G, and 4 days later
picketing started at the Bishop Avenue site.
Absent further communication between Boland and Rynberk and absent any
significant change in the signs and handbill utilized, one may readily infer that
Respondent's object remained unchanged when the picketing resumed upon dis-
covery of C & G at Royal-Rin's Ashland Avenue site. The nature of the con-
versation on August 11 when Boland and Rynberk met and the immediate re-
moval of the picket when Rynberk agreed to use a Local 5 plastering contractor in
20lnternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861 ( Plauche Electric,
Inc.), 135 NLRB 250.
21 No contention is made that Moore Dry Dock standards were breached before that date.
Although it is not clear whether Cheeks and Grady employed plasterers other than them-
selves at the Ashland Avenue site, that factor is immaterial. See Northeastern
Washington -Northern Idaho Building and Construction Trades Council (Northwestern Con-
struction of Washington , Inc.), 152 NLRB 975. Although the sign did not identify C & G
as the primary employer, C & G was the only plastering subcontractor on' the job. See
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 59 ( Anderson Company'Elec-
trical Service), 135 NLRB 504, 505.
32 Boland admitted having seen Rynberk 's letter, but insisted that he did not know
'C & G was off the project because he had not been told C & G was not on the project even
as of the date of the hearing, asserting that the letter was not addressed to him. The
letter was headed "Plasterers Union, Local #b, AFL-CIO, 330 South Marshfield Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois. Att.: Mr. John Boland or Mr. E. W. McMaster." Boland's testimony
in this regard, most charitably characterized, was hypertechnical and reflects generally
upon his candor as a witness. Clearly Boland had every reason to believe C & G had
left the site and no cause to believe the contrary. Assuming he entertained the darkest
distrust of the truth of the contents of the letter, the means were readily available to
verify, challenge, or refute them. Boland did nothing.
2' International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 ( Plausche Electric, Inc.),
142 NLRB 1106, 1109, enfd. 353 F. 2d 736 (C.A. 5).
24Millwrights Local Union No. 1102, Carpenters (Dobson Heavy Haul, Inc.), 155
NLRB 1305.
2; The General Counsel also urges in support of this conclusion the absence of evidence
that Respondent picketed at C & G's office . However, the record is silent as to 'the exist-
ence or nature of C & G's place of business , and there is no indication as to the extent,
to which Cheeks, Grady, or their employees visit C & G's place of business if it exists. I
do not rely on this factor . See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 861 ( Plauche Electric, Inc.), 135 NLRB 250.
2e See footnote 18, supra.
221-731-67-vol . 158-103
1618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL` LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the south building conclusively demonstrate that Respondent's object was not to
protect the unsuspecting public from inhabiting completed apartments with possibly
defective plaster, but to obtain the work on the uncompleted apartments for
members of Local 5 by securing the replacement of C & G contractor on the job.
Even absent the communications between Respondent's representatives and
Rynberk and the circumstances of the termination of the picketing, the picket
sign and handbill are sufficient to establish that an object of the picketing was to
force or require Rynberk to cease doing business with C & G as plastering con-
tractor. For as the sign and handbill disclosed, Respondent protested that the
plastering was not being done by members of Local 5. Implicit in its protest, was
its purpose to secure performance of the work by Local 5 members. That purpose
could be achieved only if C & G were to reassign the work to members of Local
5 exclusively or if C & G's subcontract were terminated. The exertion of second-
ary pressures in these circumstances could only have had as its objects to cause
Royal-Rin to impose an added condition of performance of C & G by requiring
it to use Local 5 men or to cause Royal-Rin to terminate its subcontract with
C & G. In either case Respondent had an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B).
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York
Telephone Company), 140 NLRB 729,. enfd. 325 F. 2d 561 (C.A. 2); Local 2346,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Erectors,
Inc.), 156 NLRB 1105.
Accordingly, I conclude that the picketing at Ashland Avenue from on or about
June 28 to August 11, 1965, violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act. As the
unlawful picketing also threatened, coerced, and restrained Royal-Rin and the
neutral employers engaged at the jobsite within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)
with the same objects, I find further that the picketing during that period also
violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) ( B).27
2. The alleged presettlement violation
The picketing which occurred between January 20 and 27 violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) at Bishop Avenue for much the same reasons as those
set forth in connection with the Ashland Avenue picketing.28 At the time of the
Bishop Avenue picketing both the sign and the handbill distributed by the picket
left it unclear at whom the appeals were directed. Even when it became readily
apparent from the action of the carpenters in boarding up the buildings that the
job was being shut down, no effort was made to clarify the nature of the appeal.
For these reasons, in addition to those set forth above in connection with the
Ashland Avenue picketing based on factors common to both instances of picket-
ing, I find that the picketing was,not solely consumer picketing, but also induced
and encouraged employees coming to the Bishop Avenue site to engage in a
total or partial work stoppage.
As in the case of the Ashland Avenue picketing, the picketing at Bishop Avenue
continued after C & G completed the work in which it was engaged and left the
jobsite. Although there is no indication that notice of C & G's departure was
given to Respondent as in June, such a notice is not required , and Respondent's
picket must have been aware of the changed circumstances on the jobsite, which
included not only the departure of C & G but the return of the Carpenters to
work. Moreover, as the discussion above makes clear, Respondent's objects in
picketing at Bishop Avenue were the same as its objects at the time of the later
picketing. As the picketing did not conform with Moore Dry Dock standards, I
conclude that after January 20 the Bishop Avenue picketing also violated Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
There remains for consideration the allegation that Boland threatened Rynberk
on January 8 that Respondent would picket and stop work at the Bishop Avenue
site, independently violating Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. Rynberk's testi-
mony, which I have credited, was that if Rynberk did not get C & G's plasterers
21International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers ' Union of America Local
No. 1140 ( Gilmore Construction Company ), 127 NLRB 541 , enfd. as modified 285 F. 2d 397
(C.A. 8), cert. denied 366 U . S. 903; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 861 ( Plauche Electric, Inc ), 142 NLRB 1106, dnfd 353 F . 2d 736 (C.A 5).
11 In view of the findings above with respect to the postsettlement conduct , approval of
the settlement agreements was properly withdrawn , and allegations of the complaint relat-
ing to presettlement conduct may be considered on their merits Nothern California Dis-
trict Council of Hodcarrsers , etc., Local 185 (Joseph's Landscaping Service) , 154
NLRB 1384. 1
PLASTERERS' PROTECTIVE AND BENEVOLENT SOCIETY 1619
off the job and replace them with Local 5 men, "we" would be picketed. Rynberk
admittedly could not recall the exact words used by Boland, and his testimony
describing Boland's threat leaves ambiguous the nature of the threat. However,
in the light of the continuation of the picketing for 7 days after C & G left the
job, as well as the recurrence of the picketing for the same object at Ashland Ave-
nue in June, which again continued after C & G left the site, I conclude that
Boland's threat was not a limited statement of intention to engage in lawful com-
mon situs picketing directed at C & G. I find that Boland's threat to Rynberk on
January 8 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Royal-Rin, Imperial, Commercial, Normal
Plumbing Company, and C & G Plastering Service, as 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 commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the Act. General Counsel requests that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in conduct of the kind
found herein, "whether such activity be directed against Royal-Rin, its subcontrac-
tors, or any other person." General Counsel contends that the "broadest possible
order" is required, citing N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 861, 353 F. 2d 736 (C.A. 5). It is not entirely clear whether
General Counsel seeks to have Respondent ordered to cease and desist (a) from
exerting unlawful pressure on Royal-Rin, its subcontractors, or any other person
to force or require them to cease doing business with C & G or (b) from exerting
unlawful pressures on Royal-Rin, its subcontractors, or any other person, to force
or require them to cease doing business with C & G or any other person. An
order at least as broad as the former is warranted where, as here, it is clear that
the identity of the neutral subcontractors on Royal-Rin's project who were subjected
to unlawful pressures was not material to the violation and the unlawful conduct is
related to a single primary dispute.29 The latter broader alternative is warranted
when the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices before the Board and a
Respondent's disregard for the Act established by previous like violations involv-
ing other employers with whom it had disputes are such as to indicate "a proclivity
to engage in unlawful secondary activities." 30 Absent evidence before me of
similar violations by Respondent involving other primary disputes, I conclude that
an order incorporating the latter alternative set forth above is not warranted in
this case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Royal-Rin Builders, Inc., Imperial Carpentry, Inc., Commercial Carpentry,
Inc., Vincent Page d/b/a Normal Plumbing Company, and Albert Cheeks & G. W.
Grady d/b/a C & G Plastering Service are employers engaged in commerce, or
in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
2. Journeymen Plasterers' Protective and Benevolent Society of Chicago, Local
No. 5, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging •employees of Imperial and Normal Plumbing
to engage in a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, and
by threatening, coercing, and restraining Royal-Rin with an object of forcing and
requiring Royal-Rin to cease doing business with C & G Plastering Service, Respond-
ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B) of the Act which affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2DInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc.),
142 NLRB 1106, enfd. 353 F. 2d 736, supra.
30 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 (Albert K. Newlin, Inc.),
143 NLRB 1169, enfd. 353 F. 2d 736, supra.
1620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recom-
mend that Respondent, Journeyman Plasterers' Protective and Benevolent Society
of Chicago, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging any individual employed by
Imperial Carpentry, Inc., Vincent Page d/b/a Normal Plumbing Company, or by
any other person similarly engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any articles,
materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; or threatening, coercing,
or restraining Royal-Rin Builders, Inc. or any other person similarly engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object
thereof is to force or require any such employer or person to cease doing business
with Albert Cheeks and G. W. Grady d/b/a C & G Plastering Service.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices, meeting halls, and all
places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 31 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for
Region 13 for posting by each of the employers named in the preceding para-
graphs who are willing, at all places where notices to their respective employees
are customarily posted.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith32
31 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."
321n 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF JOURNEYMEN PLASTERERS' PROTECTIVE AND
BENEVOLENT SOCIETY OF CHICAGO, LOCAL No. 5, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Imperial
Carpentry, Inc., Vincent Page d/b/a Normal Plumbing Company, or by any
other person similarly engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to
use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; or threaten,
coerce, or restrain Royal-Rin Builders, Inc., or any other person similarly
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either
case an object thereof is to force or require any such employer to cease
doing business with Albert Cheeks and G. W. Grady d/b/a C & G Plastering
Company.
JOURNEYMEN PLASTERERS' PROTECTIVE AND BENEVOLENT
SOCIETY OF CHICAGO, LOCAL No. 5, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By---------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
GLAZIERS LOCAL UNION NO. 513 1621
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
Illinois, Telephone No. 828-7597.
Glaziers Local Union No. 513, affiliated with Brotherhood of
Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO
and Cupples Products Corporation . Case No. 14-CC-3d3.
June 7,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 18, 1966, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision?
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
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, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
3 The General Counsel filed a motion to strike Respondent 's exceptions on the ground
that they do not comply with the Board 's rules regarding the content and form of ex-
ceptions . We hereby deny the motion.
2 We do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s finding that Respondent 's picketing took place
when Cupples ' products were not on the picketed jobsite, for the record does not permit a
finding as to whether or not Cupples ' products were present at the time of the picketing.
In adopting the ultimate finding as to the unlawfulness of Respondent 's picketing, we
do not rely on either the testimony of Respondent 's agent Robert Riley that he made no
investigation as to the wages or working conditions of Cupples ' employees or the fact that
Respondent ' s telegram requesting various local unions to advise members to cross the
picket line was sent on June 18 rather than on June 17.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
Max Rosenberg in St. Louis, Missouri, on August 19, 1965, on complaint of the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and an amended answer
158 NLRB No. 145.