Plumbers, Local 60

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 99 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

PLUMBERS , LOCAL 60
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada , Local Union No. 60,
AFL-CIO and Circle, Inc.
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada , Local Union No. 60,
AFL-CIO and Union Carbide Corporation Chemi-
cals & Plastics Division . Cases 15-CC-493 and
15-CC-494
March 2, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On October 25, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Sidney D. Goldberg issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel
and Charging Party Circle, Inc., filed briefs in
support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision,
and Charging Party Union Carbide Corporation
filed an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein,' and to adopt his recommended
Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, Local Union No. 60, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
i In adopting the Administrative Law Judge 's conclusion that picketing
at Gates 7 and 29 was unlawful , we do not rely on his statement that
picketing at gates other than those assigned for the use of the primary
employers could not be primary because it was not shown that the Union
Carbide plant was the primary place of business for these employers
Rather , we find, on the basis of all the evidence , including the refusal to
permit Union Carbide employees to enter a gate reserved for them, that
Respondent 's picketing was designed to enmesh neutrals in its dispute and
hence violated Sec 8 ( b)(4)(i) and ( u) (B) of the Act
202 NLRB No. 21
DECISION
99
SIDNEY D. GOLDBERG, Administrative Law Judge: This
is a "reserved gate" case. The decision turns on whether the
area behind the reserved gate must be regarded, with
respect to the employers engaged in the labor dispute, as
their primary site of operations or as a common situs on
which they and several other employers are conducting
independent operations.
The complaint herein' alleges that United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local
Union No. 60, AFL-CIO (respondent or the union) had
picketed, and was picketing, the four gates designated by
the numbers 7, 29, 30, and 31 at the chemical plant of
Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals & Plastics Division
(Union Carbide) in Taft, Louisiana, with signs denoting
labor disputes with Circle, Inc. (Circle), Delta Iron Works,
Inc. (Delta), and Union Services, despite the fact that
employees of Circle, Delta, and Union Services used only
one of those gates, the one designated as Gate 30.
Respondent's picketing, the complaint alleges, induced
persons employed by Union Carbide and other employers
to engage in strikes and refusals to work, and it threatened,
coerced, and restrained Union Carbide and other employ-
ers, with an object of forcing or requiring Union Carbide
and other employers to cease doing business with Circle,
Delta, and Union Services. Respondent's conduct, the
complaint alleges, was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(n)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(the Act).
Respondent answered, admitting that it had commenced
its picketing at Gates 30 and 31 pursuant to a labor dispute
with Circle, Delta, and Union Services and alleging that,
after it observed that the gate designations were not
enforced by Union Carbide and that all gates were
frequently used by employees of Circle, Delta, Union
Services, and their suppliers, it picketed Gates 7 and 29 as
well.
The issues so raised were tried before me on March 15,
16, 17, and 21, 1972, at New Orleans, Louisiana. All parties
were represented- were afforded an opportunity to adduce
evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and argue on the facts
and the law. Briefs filed by the General Counsel, by
counsel for respondent and by counsel for the charging
parties have been considered.
For the reasons hereinafter set forth in detail, I find that
the Union Carbide plant was not the principal situs of the
operations of Circle, Delta, and Union Services, but was a
common situs upon which they, as well as Union Carbide,
pursued independent activities in a business relationship. I
also find that the gate violations proved by respondent did
not justify its continuous picketing at Gates 7 and 29, but
that its conduct in so doing impels the conclusion that an
object thereof was to induce action by employees of
neutral employers to force those persons to cease doing
business with Circle, Delta, and Union Services, in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act.
Upon the entire record herein, and considering the
i Issued January 13. 1972 on charges filed December 13, 1971
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The parties
Respondent admits that it is a labor organization. It also
admits that both Circle and Union Carbide, the charging
parties, are employers whose annual imports and exports
exceed $50,000 in value. I find that they are persons
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The setting
This case involves activities at the chemical plant owned
and operated by Union Carbide at Taft, Louisiana, about
15 miles upriver (west) 'from New Orleans. The plant
property runs along the southern shore of the Mississippi
for about three-fourths of a mile and extends southward
about a mile and a half. Between its riverside boundary
and the river itself there are the paved public highway
designated as Louisiana Highway 18 and the levee along
the river. The plant property is completely fenced, with
several gates, some used and some not used, opening into it
from the highway. To facilitate description of the location
of the gates and some of the installations on the plant
property, a sketch thereof is set forth on the following
page.
At the time of the occurrences in this case ; that is,
beginning December 10, 1971, the highway gates in use
were those designated by the numbers 7, 29, 30, and 31. As
the sketch shows, Gate 7 is at about the center of the
riverfront boundary and the blacktop road passing through
that gate leads to Union Carbide's administration building
where there is another gate, referred to herein as Gate 7A,
through which access may be had to the operating areas of
the plant property. Gates 29, 30, and 31 are located near
the west end of the river boundary. These, also, give access
only to the plant property: the operating areas of the plant
cannot be reached without passing through guarded gates
inside the property. The road running through Gate 29 is a
blacktop road: the roads passing through Gates 30 and 31
are topped only with crushed shell and they join the road
passing through Gate 29 shortly after traversing those
gates. (See exibit on page 109.)
Raw material for use in the plant comes in, and the
chemicals produced by the plant are shipped out, by
steamship, barge, railroad, and trucks.
3. The issues
The facts are practically undisputed but the inferences
that respondent urges be drawn from them are, in some
areas, quite different from the inferences urged by the
other parties.
The General Counsel and the charging parties contend
that the Taft plant must be regarded as the common situs
upon which both Union Carbide and its contractors
perform their functions: that this case therefore, is
governed by the Moore Dry Dock rule,2 and that respon-
dent's picketing, contravening that rule in several respects,
must be held to have violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B)
of the Act.
Respondent contends that operation of the plant is the
joint and allied effort of Union Carbide and its contrac-
tors; that the tract is the place of business of Circle, Delta,
and Union Services, with whom it has disputes, as well as
that of Union Carbide; that the appropriate rule is that set
forth in the General Electric case3 and that, therefore, it
was justified in picketing at all the gates. Respondent
further contends that, even if the Moore Dry Dock rule is
applicable, Circle, Delta, and Union Services failed to
restrict themselves to the gate reserved for them but used
all four gates and that, therefore, its picketing at all of
those gates wasjustified.
4. The maintenance contracts
The operation of the plant is conducted exclusively by
employees of Union Carbide and the products of the plant
are sold by that company. The maintenance of the plant,
however, as distinguished from its operation for pro-
duction, is performed only in part by Union Carbide
employees. Although Union Carbide has a complete
maintenance organization and many maintenance employ-
ees, a substantial part of this function is performed by
other companies under contracts with Union Carbide. It
was stipulated that the chief of maintenance at the Taft
plant would testify, if questioned, that this practice of using
outside contractors for supplementary maintenance is a
standard practice throughout the petrochemical manufac-
turing industry of the United States and there was no
evidence contradicting such stipulated testimony.
From 1966, when the plant began operating, until June
1971, most of the maintenance work was performed under
contract by Westinghouse Engineering and Maintenance
Company. In addition, some was being performed by
another contractor, Peter Kewitt, and some was being
performed by Union Carbide's own employees. In per-
forming its contract, Westinghouse had approximately 300
of its employees on the premises at all times, including
pipefitters, electricians, iron workers, engineers, carpenters,
and painters.
Since the expiration of the contract with Westinghouse,
Union Carbide has carried on the maintenance work
2 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Co), 92 NLRB 547
3 Local 761 1 U E v N L R B, 366 U S 673, affg 123 NLRB 1547
PLUMBERS , LOCAL 60
through its own employees and about 150 contractors.
There are usually about 100 contract employees with
regular assignments at the plant and the amount of work
performed by the individual contractors varies from full-
time work by about 30 employees down to occasional
services by one or two employees. Much of the service
work is performed on a cost-plus basis but Union Carbide
also enters into contracts for specific work at a fixed price
for labor and materials. The contractors who are constant-
ly called upon to perform supplemental maintenance work
have annual contracts- called "evergreen" contracts-
which establish only the general terms of their relationship.
Each job ordered under these contracts is evidenced by a
"work order" accompanied by a description of the work to
be performed and, where appropriate, a list of the materials
required to complete it.
Although the contractors on the plant site perform
specified services as requested, Union Carbide provides
much of the material required as well as some of the tools.
In addition, it provides the contractors and their employees
with transportation throughout the plant site by a bus
which runs along fixed routes or by lending trucks to them.
It also provides gasoline and oil for the contractors' own
trucks used in connection with work on the site.
The contractors who perform a substantial number of
jobs and who have employees on the premises practically
all the time are provided with facilities for changing
clothes, keeping tools, and office space. The facilities of
each contractor are separate from those of Union Carbide
and from those assigned, to other contractors. Under
ordinary circumstances, the employees of contractors
perform their work separately from employees of Union
Carbide and other contractors, but Union Carbide employ-
ees, operating cranes or derricks, do most of the moving
and hoisting of heavy machinery or vessels. At such times
the rigging is either done or supervised by Union Carbide
employees. On rare occasions, or in emergency situations,
employees of contractors have worked with Union Carbide
employees for short periods of time.
Whenever an order is issued to a contractor for work to
be performed in the operating areas of the plants the
contractor is required to obtain a permit for that work to
assure the safety of the plant and persons in the area. In
connection with such permits, joint surveys may be
conducted and, when the work has been completed, it is
tested by Union Carbide employees, alone or in conjunc-
tion with employees of the contractor. Before any welder
employed by a contractor is permitted to perform any
welding in the plant, he is tested by Union Carbide
employees. Contractor supervisors and, at times, rank-and-
file employees attend safety meetings conducted by Union
Carbide safety engineers.
4 Nonunion contractors are referred to by Union Carbide officials as
"'merit contractors."
5. Labor relations
101
The Union Carbide employees at the Taft plant are not
represented by a union.
The employees of Westinghouse, during the period of its
maintenance contract with Union Carbide, were represent-
ed by AFL-CIO unions, including respondent.
Some of the contractors performing supplemental
maintenance services for Union Carbide since the expira-
tion of the Westinghouse contract are under union
contracts and some are not.4 The three contractors
involved in this case, Circle, Delta, and Union Services, are
all nonunion.
6. The gates
As stated above, there is a wire fence along the northern
side of the plant property, separating it from Louisiana
Highway 18, the levee and the southern side of the
Mississippi River. There are 10 gates in this fence, but
since November 1971 the only gates regularly in use were
those marked 7, 29, 30, and 31.
Union Carbide's instructions to its employees and
suppliers were that they were to enter and leave the plant
through Gates 7 and 29. At Gate 7 there was a sign reading
"Union Carbide" and at Gate 29 there was a sign reading:
"Union Carbide-Material Deliveries." 5
Gate 30 was designated by Union Carbide for use by its
nonunion contractors and Gate 31 was designated for use
by union contractors. Union Carbide's procedure, when
awarding a contract or ordering maintenance work under
an evergreen contract, was to write the contractor a letter
of notification which included a direction to have its
employees use a specific gate as designated in the letter. At
the same time, the official who awarded the contract or
ordered the work was required to send a memorandum to
the head of the plant guard force informing him about the
contract or work and directing him to post a sign bearing
the contractor's name at the gate which it had been
instructed to use. For this purpose, Union Carbide had
erected, at points behind the fence and close to Gates 30
and 31, signposts consisting of three uprights in triangular
formation pointing toward the fence. Signs bearing the
names of the principal maintenance contractors were
affixed to these signposts in duplicate, so that they could
be seen from the road in either direction. Since there was
room for a maximum of about 15 signs on each of the
signposts, Union Carbide displayed only those signs
bearing the names of the contractors most active on the
plant property, changing the signs as the identity of the
most active contractors changed.
In accordance with this procedure, signs bearing the
names of Delta and Circle, as well as other principal
5 The road passing through Gate 29 also leads to the warehouse
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nonunion contractors, were affixed to the signpost at Gate
30 and signs bearing the names of the principal union
contractors were affixed to the signpost at Gate 31.6
7. The picketing
At 6 a.m. on Friday, December 10, 1971, Robert A.
Quinn, the union's business agent for steamfitters, and
Edward Fink, its business agent for plumbers, met with
seven union members at a restaurant close to the Union
Carbide plant. Quinn testified that many of the union
members who had worked for Westinghouse were out of
work and that the union had decided to picket Circle and
Delta at Gate 30. He testified that he sent several men with
picket signs to Gate 7, with instructions not to picket but to
observe the people entering through that gate and to report
to him; that he went with four men to Gate 30 and set up
the picket line. He admitted that there were "15 or 20"
members of the union gathered on the levee across the
road from Gate 30 but he denied that he had instructed
them to be there.
After the picket line had been set up at Gate 30, Quinn
testified, he received reports that Circle employees were
entering the plant through Gate 7, about 300 yards 'from
Gate 30 and, at 6:45 a.m., he instructed his men to start
picketing at that gate.
Quinn further testified that he noted that the employees
of the contractors listed on the signpost at Gate 30 were
not using that gate 7 but were entering the plant through
Gate 29 without interference by the Union Carbide guard
at that gate and that he thereupon instructed that picketing
be commenced at that gate also. The picket signs used at
these gates, he testified, bore the name of either Circle or
Delta.
It was admitted that, on December 10, the sign bearing
the names of Union Services, a nonunion contractor, was
erroneously on the signpost at Gate 31. Quinn testified that
about 6:15 a.m. on that day he noticed the Union Services
sign at Gate 31 and, knowing that Union Services was
nonunion, he directed that picketing commence there. The
sign was moved to Gate 30 during the weekend but Quinn
testified that on Monday, although he saw that the sign
had been moved, he nevertheless kept the picket at Gate 31
because he saw the trucks of Union Services continuing to
use that gate.
Respondent continued to picket at all four gates, from 6
a.m. until about 10 a.m.8 on December 16 and 17; and,
6 The sign bearing the name "Union Services, Inc," a nonunion
contractor, had been erroneously posted at Gate 31 and was there on
December 10, 1971, but, as described below, it was transferred to Gate 30
soon thereafter
7 According to the transcript, Quinn's testimony was that "cars of all
contractors listed on Gate 31 were not going in Gate 30," but the context
indicates this to be a typographical error
A On December 14, Quinn testified, one of the attorneys for Union
Carbide told him that a Board agent was on his way to the plant and "was
thereafter, intermittently. It was stipulated, however, that
picketing occurred specifically at Gates 29 and 30 on
December 29, 1971, and at all four gates,on January 5 and
6, 1972. The picket signs used on all occasions were the
same: their upper portions were blank and had written on
them, with markers, the name of one of the employers:
Circle, Delta, or Union Services; the center portion of the
sign was preprinted with the following "Substandard wages
and working conditions-No dispute with any other
contractors"; on the lower portion, also preprinted, was
respondent's name: "Plumbers and Steamfitters Local
Union 60."
The foregoing is Quinn's account of the picketing.9
However, uncontradicted testimony by officials of Union
Carbide, Circle, and Delta added several important details.
Lawrence F. Doyle, Union Carbide's employee relations
manager, arrived at the plant at 5:45 a.m. on December 10
and entered without incident. At 6:15, Joseph M. Fallon,
Union Carbide's assistant plant manager, arrived and saw
four men at Gate 7, one displaying a picket sign, but he
had no difficulty passing through that gate. At the
administration building he met Doyle with Robert Perry,
the superintendent of plant maintenance. In a company car
the three of them drove to the western end of the plant
where Gates 29, 30, and 31 are situated: they saw pickets at
all three gates so they drove a bit further, made a U-turn to
put themselves on the gate side of the road, and came back.
At Gate 29 they found 25 or 30 men standing three deep in
front of the gate, one of them holding a picket sign bearing
the name of either ,Circle or Delta. Fallon left the car,
walked through the group of men, and motioned to Doyle
to drive the car through the gate. The pickets refused to
move and the car was unable to pass. Fallon told the picket
that he and the men in the car were Union Carbide
employees, that they wanted to pass through the gate and
asked why they were not being permitted to do so. The
picket answered "no comment." Fallon and Doyle both
testified that there were also 25 to 30 men with a Circle or
Delta picket sign at Gate 30 and there were 15 to 20 men at
Gate 31 with a Union Services picket sign. At Gate 30, they
testified, the pickets refused to permit employees of the
contractors assigned to.that gate to enter but they also
testified that they did not observe anyone try to enter
through Gate 31.
The three Union Carbide executives drove back to Gate
7, entered the plant and, through the network of inside
going to make me take it [the picket line] down" so he removed the pickets
at about 7 45 a in.
9 Although two of the pickets. Warren G hire and Charles M. Dorr,
appeared as witnesses, their testimony concerning the picketing was
perfunctory and, although Dorr supplied details as hereinafter set forth,
they did not modify Quinn's general description of the picketing The other
witnesses who were employees or former employees did not testify
concerning the picketing
PLUMBERS , LOCAL 60 103
roads, drove to a point inside Gate 29 They remained
there until 8:30 a.m . and both Fallon and Doyle testified
that they saw a substantial number of Union Carbide
employees prevented from entering the plant through that
gate. It appears, however, that those Union Carbide
employees prevented from entering through Gate 29 used
Gate 7, where the four pickets made no effort to prevent
them from passing, and that some employees of nonunion
contractors also entered through Gate 7.
On Monday , December 13, Doyle again arrived at the
plant before 6 a.m. Instead of going in through Gate 7, the
main gate, he drove directly to the west end and saw that
there were about 12 men at Gate 29 and about 15 at Gates
30 and 31 He drove beyond those gates, turned around
and came back to Gate 29 , where he made a right turn and
was able to pass through the gate. Using internal roads, he
then returned to the main gate, where he picked up Horace
Thompson, one of Union Carbide's attorneys. With
Thompson and Doyle in one car and Fallon in a second
car, they drove out of the plant through Gate 7, turned left
on Highway 18, and reached Gate 29. At this time, about
6.15 a m., there was a larger number of pickets at Gate 29,
more than 30 of them , and neither Doyle's car nor Fallon's
was permitted to enter, although they identified themselves
as Union Carbide employees . A police officer was present
but declined to assist them in passing through the gate,
stating that he was assigned only to the task of maintaining
the flow of traffic on the highway. Doyle, Fallon, and
Thompson then parked their cars on the shoulder of the
road , walked over to one of the pickets and asked him
"what the problem was" The picket pointed to Quinn, who
was standing on the river side of the road, and said : "Well,
we just take our orders from Mr . Quinn . If you want to
know anything, go and ask Mr . Quinn ." They crossed the
road and Doyle asked Quinn why Union Carbide
employees were not being permitted to pass through Gate
29. Quinn answered that the Saints 10 had a poor game the
previous day. Doyle rephrased his question and Quinn
answered with a comment on Archie Manning'sii poor
game. Thompson, the attorney , then asked Quinn a
question and Quinn said that , since they would probably
see him in court someday, there was no point in going
through the questions at that time
Fallon also testified that, when he reached Gate 29 and
was blocked from entering through that gate , he parked his
car, approached the gate on foot, and identified himself to
one of the pickets as a Union Carbide employee. The
pickets refused to permit him to pass and, when he asked
why, the picket said that it was because "Union Carbide is
hiring people ." He then asked another picket the same
question and was referred to Quinn . He participated in the
conversation described by Doyle and testified that, when
he asked Quinn why Union Carbide employees were being
10 The New Orleans professional football team
" The Saints' quarterback
prevented from enteri ng the plant through Gate 29, Quinn
answered that the Saints were losing so many ball games
that he was trying to getjobs for them . Fallon testified that
he stayed at Gate 29 until 7:30 or 8 o'clock that morning
and saw Union Carbide employees being turned away
from that gate.
Except for the incident , described above, in which the
union removed the pickets before 8 a.m. on Tuesday,
December 14, when the Union Carbide attorney told
Quinn that a Board agent was on his way to the plant to
compel their removal , the picketing at all four gates
continued as stipulated by counsel. There is no evidence,
however , that persons attempting to enter the plant
through any of the gates were thereafter physically
prevented from doing so
With commendable foresight , the union had its pickets
record the identification of all persons , with the exception
of Union Carbide employees , entering through these four
gates while they were on patrol . It was stipulated that, if
the pickets were called as witnesses , they would testify
accordingly. This data was assembled and introduced into
evidence . Copies, slightly modified , are attached to the
briefs and, together with the briefs, have been of great
assistance in the decision of this case. The information
disclosed by these schedules is discussed below.
8. Discussion and conclusions
(a) The relationship between Union Carbide and
the contractors
Respondent has raised no question respecting the
separate identities of Union Carbide, Circle, Delta, and
Union Services. and these are the only employers involved
in this case . The record shows that each of the contractors
has a main office situated elsewhere than on Union
Carbide's plant property and that each of them performs
work for other establishments . There is no evidence of any
financial relationship between Union Carbide and the
contractors, other than the maintenance contracts , or that
the contractors' employees are on Union Carbide premises
except to carry out the contracts . Union Carbide's practice
of supplying tools and material in connection with the
performance of the contracts is economically reflected and
justified in the lower payments necessary to satisfy
obligations for work done under the cost-plus contacts,
and the only straight money contract mentioned in the
record, the building of a bridge, was based upon the lowest
bid for services and material . Similarly, it was made clear
that any contractor 's coverage under blanket insurance
policies obtained by Union Carbide was applicable to the
contractors ' employees only while on the Union Carbide
plant property and it follows that these savings would also
be reflected in reduced contract obligations. Despite
respondent's argument that Union Carbide supervises the
contractors ' employees, the record shows, and I find, that
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the contractors provide adequate supervision of their own
employees for the performance of the contracts and that
Union Carbide's overview is limited to matters of safety
and adequate performance of the contracts. Nor, despite
some hearsay testimony, does the record support the
contention that Union Carbide exercises any control-oth-
er than that required for safety reasons, as in the case of
the welders-over the contractors' choice of employees.12
It follows, therefore, and I find, that Union Carbide is not
a joint employer with Circle, Delta, or Umon Services.i3
The foregoing conclusion is based upon respondent's
factual contentions. Respondent's contention that, as a
matter of law, "Circle, Delta, Umon Services and Union
Carbide together constitute one whole unified employer
... and consequently the property of Umon Carbide
became the situs of the dispute with Circle, Delta and
Union Services" is based principally upon the argument
that the dispute herein presents "the opposite side of the
coin" of the decision of the Supreme Court in the General
Electric case.14
While respondent's brief does not explain the meaning of
the "opposite side of the coin" phrase or the implication it
would have me draw from it, there is no doubt that there is
a limited and superficial similarity between the General
Electric case and this one in that the background of the
union activity in both cases is the same: both cases involve
picketing at a production plant in which some of the
maintenance services necessary for production are pro-
cured through contracts with other employers. In both
cases, also, the picketing by the union charged with unfair
labor practices was carried on at all the gates to the plant,
notwithstanding that the use of certain gates had been
restricted to employees of the maintenance contractors.
The similarity, however, ends there.
A major difference between the two cases is that, in the
General Electric case, the picketing union represented the
production employees of the General Electric Company,
the operator of the plant, and it was engaged in a strike
against that company. One of the gates to the plant had
long been reserved for the exclusive use of employees of
the maintenance contractors and it was only when the
picketing had been extended to that reserved gate that it
became necessary to determine whether such picketing was
primary and lawful or whether it was unlawfully directed
at employees of employers neutral to the dispute and,
therefore, violative of Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act. While
the court's analysis of the problem and its statement of the
controlling considerations constitutes a landmark decision
in the law applicable to common situs picketing; i.e.,
"where two employers were performing separate tasks at a
common situs," at 676-677, it noted, however, that the
12 Respondent' s argument that Union Carbide, "by requiring the
contractors to live up to the terms of their bid limits wages and fringe
benefits available to the contractors' employees" thereby "unifies" Union
Carbide and the contractor, is not supported by the record and is rejected as
specious
13 Oil, Chemical etc, Workers Union, AFL-CIO, et at (Firestone
Synthetic Rubber etc , Co). 173 NLRB 1244, 1245
11 Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO v NLRB B. 366 U S 667 (1961)
15 Neither of the other cases cited by respondent is persuasive In Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers etc (Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Co ),
owner of the premises, where it was the primary disputant,
could not immunize its premises from picketing by erecting
separate gates for deliveries etc., and that the "key to the
problem is found in the type of work that is being
performed by those who use the separate gate." The court
carried its reasoning a step further by noting that the
Board's rationale concerning neutral employers was
applied "only to situations where the independent workers
were performing tasks unconnected to the normal opera-
tions of the struck employer-usually construction work
on his buildings" (p. 680). It was this type of contractor
which the court apparently had in mind in calling it a
common situs case and approving the Board's finding of a
violation of the section. In other words, the Supreme Court
saw this case as a typical "common situs" case.
Almost as an afterthought, however, the court pointed
out that there was an aspect of the situation before it which
had apparently not been taken into account by either the
Board or the court below- i.e., that if the picketed
"contractors' gate" was used "by employees of independ-
ent contractors who performed conventional maintenance
work necessary to the normal operations of General Electric,
the use of the gate would have been a mingled one outside
the bar of 8(b)(4)(A) (pp. 681-682)" and the standard to be
applied would not be the one applicable to common situs
situations . To determine the extent of the use of the
picketed gate by such contractors, the Supreme Court
ordered the case remanded to the Board. On remand, the
Board held that all of the affected contractors were
engaged in work necessary for the normal operations of the
General Electric Company and that, therefore, the picket-
ing at the contractors' gate was primary.
In this case, contrary to the situation in the General
Electric case, the dispute of the respondent is not with the
operator of the plant, but with only three of its many
maintenance contractors. Accordingly, the union cannot
lawfully claim that its picketing at the gates other than the
one assigned for the use of the contractors with whom it
was engaged in disputes was primary picketing and
immune from the proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B),
unless it can establish that the plant property was also the
primary place of business of the three contractors with
whom it is engaged in disputes. As stated above, I find no
support for this contention as a matter of fact and, in the
General Electric case, I find no support for it as a matter of
law.15 Since it is not established that the plant property of
Union Carbide was also the primary situs of the union's
dispute with Circle; Delta, and Union Services, it follows
that it became the situs of that dispute only when and to
the extent that the employees of these contractors came to
173 NLRB 1244, it was the Firestone plant which was on strike and the
work of the contractor whose gate was picketed was found to be engaged in
"related work" within the meaning of the General Electric decision, making
the picketing primary In Laborers Union Local 1290 (Walters Foundation,
Inc), 195 NLRB No 71, the union's dispute was with one of the
subcontractors at the construction site but the Board dismissed the
complaint because the picketing at a place other than the reserved gate was
carried on for only 4 hours and resulted from an ambiguous notice by the
general contractor of a change in the location of the gate reserved to the
subcontractor
PLUMBERS , LOCAL 60
work at the Union Carbide plant. At those times, I hold,
the plant became a "common situs" and the validity of the
union's activities must be determined in accordance with
the standards applicable to such situations.
(b) The common situs picketing
The rules of decision in cases of picketing at a common
situs are now well defined: the precepts stated by the
Board in the Moore Dry Dock case 16 and subsequent cases
have received widespread judicial approval, including that
of the Supreme Court in the General Electric case.
Accordingly, there appears to be no need, at this time and
in this Decision, for comment on either the legal philoso-
phy underlying the rule or on aspects thereof not pertinent
to this case.
As originally stated by the Board, the rule is as follows:
When a secondary employer is harboring the situs of
a dispute between a union and a primary employer, the
right of neither the union to picket nor of the secondary
employer to be free from picketing can be absolute.
The enmeshing of premises and situs qualifies both
rights. In the kind of situation that exists in this case,
we believe that picketing of the premises of a secondary
employer is primary if it meets the following condi-
tions: (a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when
the situs of dispute is located on the secondary
employer's premises; (b) at the time of the picketing the
primary employer is engaged in its normal business at
the situs; (c) the picketing is limited to places
reasonably close to the location of the situs, and (d) the
picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the
primary employer. (Footnotes omitted: 92 NLRB at p.
549)
Although the four conditions set forth by the Board in its
Moore Dry Dock decision do not constitute an absolute test
for the purpose of determining, by mechanical application,
the lawfulness or unlawfulness of picketing at a common
situs, examination of the union's compliance or noncom-
pliance with the stated conditions is nevertheless a
necessary initial step in determining whether such picket-
ing was carried on with an object of exerting pressure on
neutral parties and thus unlawfully enmeshing them in the
dispute. In this case , however, the union planned and
executed its activities with great care and, it appears, with
thoroughly competent legal advice. There are few, if any,
of the collateral statements or acts which sometimes
IS Sailors ' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Co), 92 NLRB
547
17 See Laborers Union Local 1290 (Walters Foundation , Inc), 195 NLRB
No 71
i8 It appears that the basis for the union 's dispute with Circle and Delta
Iron was in the fact that Westinghouse Maintenance , the earlier contractor
with Union Carbide for most of the maintenance work , had employed
members of the union under a collective-bargaining contract. but that Circle
and Delta did not The involvement of Union Services in this case appears
to have been somewhat accidental , growing out of the initial placement of
the Union Services sign at Gate 31, reserved for union contractors , although
Union Services had recently terminated its contract with the union , and out
105
contradict the formal picketing and thereby evidence an
improper purpose despite apparently proper picketing.
Accordingly, the legality of respondent's picketing herein
can, and shall, be determined on its adherence to the
Board's standards for common situs picketing 17
Applying the Moore Dry Dock criteria to the union's
picketing in this case, it appears that, with respect to
condition "(d)," there is no question but that the picket
signs used by the union in this case clearly disclosed that
its dispute was with Circle, Delta, and Union Services.18
Furthermore, although it was testified that one of the
pickets referred to "hiring by Union Carbide," there is no
substantive evidence that the union made any statements
or performed any acts either negating the fact that its
dispute was with the specific employers named on its
picket signs or implying that its picketing was, in fact,
directed against any other employer. i9
Similarly, there is no doubt that the contractors were,
when on Union Carbide's property, engaged in their
normal business there and that, therefore, condition "(b)
was satisfied.
With respect to condition "(a)," Union Carbide makes
the argument that, since the contractors' employees did not
begin work until 7:30 a.m. and a substantial number of
Union Carbide employees arrived before 7 a.m., the
inference must be drawn that the picketing, which began at
6:15 a.m., was not confined to times when the contractors'
employees were at the plant and that it was, therefore,
directed against Union Carbide employees. However,
Joseph M. Fallon, Union Carbide's assistant plant manag-
er having responsibility for maintenance, engineering, and
for three of the processing units, testified that Union
Carbide's day-shift employees, as well as those of Circle
and Delta, are scheduled to work from 7:30 a.m. until 4
p.m. Although witnesses testified to times of their own
arrival ranging from 5:45 to 7:30 a.m., I rely upon Fallon's
testimony as representing the standard and I find that both
groups of employees were required to be on the premises
during the same period. There is evidence that individuals
in both groups of employees reported prior to the
commencement of their working hours and there is no
evidence justifying an inference that the early commence-
ment of the picketing was intended to reach Union
Carbide employees rather than employees of Circle and
Delta. Union Services' employees, it appears, reported first
to their home office in New Orleans at 8 a.m., so that their
of the continued use of Gate 31 by employees of Union Services after the
sign was moved to Gate 30 Notwithstanding the vagueness concerning the
union's position vis-a-vis Union Services, it is assumed, for the purposes of
this case, that Union Services and the union were engaged in a labor
dispute
19 There is evidence concerning statements by pickets at Gate 29,
including references to "hiring." that would have required discussion if the
pickets were justified in their presence there with proper signs (see Superior
Derrick Corp v N L R B, 273 F 2d 891 (C A 5. 1960)) Since it is held that
the picketing at that gate was. in itself, violative of the Act, such discussion
is not necessary
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
arrival at the plant would not occur until after that time,
but the considerations applying to the picketing at Gate 31,
it will be seen, are different from those applying to Gates 7
and 29. Accordingly, I find that the picketing did not
violate the requirement that it be "strictly limited to times
when the situs of the dispute is located on the secondary
employer's premises" and I find that it was so limited.
The foregoing determinations leave for discussion
condition "(c)," which requires that the picketing "be
limited to places reasonably close to the location of the
situs " Board Member Fanning, concurring with the
Board's decision in the General Electric case, stated that in
reaching his conclusion he relied principally on the
decision in Moore Dry Dock and that.
Applying the four principles of the Moore Dry Dock
case to the instant case, I must conclude that the
picketing at gate 3-A, which was used exclusively by
employees of neutral employers, was not reasonably
close to the situs of the labor dispute with General
Electric and that picketing at this gate did not clearly
disclose that the dispute was only with General Electric
. . . , (123 NLRB at 1553.)
Since the Board's decision did not cite Moore Dry Dock
as its authority and the Supreme Court opinion deals with
that decision in detail, it is a fair inference that Board
Member Fanning's opinion was considered by the Su-
preme Court as part of the Board's rationale 20
Accordingly, since Gate 30 was reserved for use by,
among others, Circle, Delta, and Union Services, that gate
is the point on the common situs "reasonably close to the
situs of the labor dispute," and it is at that point that the
union is entitled to direct its picketing at the employees of
those employers with which it was engaged in a labor
dispute. There is no contention in this case by the General
Counsel that the union's picketing at Gate 30 indicated an
effort by the union improperly to enmesh neutrals in its
dispute: at that point the picketing must be considered as
primary picketing, any involvement of neutrals who come
to that place being incidental.21
A general description of the picketing has been set forth.
Quinn testified that, on the morning of December 10, as he
and the members of the union moved west along the
highway in front of the plant, they left four members and a
picket sign at Gate 7, the main gate. He further testified
that, after they began picketing at Gate 30, he received
reports that Circle employees were entering the plant
through Gate 7 so he directed that the picketing begin at
that gate also. When he saw that employees of contractors
listed at Gate 30 were not using that gate but were using
Gate 29, he instituted the picketing at Gate 29. Discovery
of the Union Services name plate posted at Gate 31, he
20 See N L R B v General Drivers & Dairy Employees, (Local No 563)
[Fox Valley Suppliers Assn J, 440 F 2d 354 (C A 7), citing Moore Dry DocA
and also equating improper picketing at a reserved gate with failure to
confine common situs picketing to places "reasonably close to the location
of the situs "
21 N L R B v International Rice Milling Co, 341 U S 665
22 The picketing at Gate 31 is discussed separately below
23 Respondent's brief states that the union continued to picket at Gate 7
"since it was reported that employees were coming out of the gate to
testified, led to the commencement of picketing there. It
was conceded that the picketing at all four gates continued,
at intervals, into January. Respondent contends that its
picketing at the three gates other than Gate 30 was
justified: (i} by the failure of Union Carbide to enforce its
assignments of gates, (ii) by the fact that the employees of
several contractors were not utilizing the gates to which
they were assigned, and (iii) by the use of those other gates
by employees of the contractors with which it had labor
disputes. The relevance of the first and second of these
contentions escapes me with reference to Gates 7 and 29: 22
if Union Carbide's inadequate enforcement of its gate
assignments had resulted in substantial and continued use
of Gates 7 and 29 by employees of Circle, Delta, and
Union Services, respondent's picketing of those gates
would have been permissible primary picketing directed at
those employees.23 The substance of the result attained by
Union Carbide, not the adequacy of its effort, in keeping
employees of Circle, Delta, and Union Services from using
those gates determines the lawfulness of the union's
picketing. Similarly, I reject as irrelevant the union's
argument that because contractors-other than Circle,
Delta, and Union Services-failed to use at all times the
gates to which they were assigned, the union was justified
in picketing Gates 7 and 29.
A schedule of gate entries by vehicles and by persons
other than Union Carbide employees was received in
evidence under a stipulation that, if the union called as
witnesses the members who recorded the data, they would
testify to these facts The General Counsel limited his
concession to actual persons observed entering through the
gates and he declined to stipulate that passenger vehicles,
claimed by the union's gate observers to contain employees
of the contractors in the dispute, contained such employees
unless specifically identified. The General Counsel, counsel
for respondent, and counsel for Union Carbide all
attached to their briefs copies of the schedule in evidence
somewhat modified as to form. The modified schedule
attached by counsel for respondent to his brief contains
descriptions of two passenger vehicles by license numbers
alone, with a claim in the brief that such motor vehicles
transported employees of one of the disputing contractors
into the plant. In the absence of testimonial identification
of the occupants I am required, by the limits of the
stipulation, to ignore these entries-and I do so. The
schedules attached to their briefs by the General Counsel
and by counsel for Union Carbide appear to conform to
the stipulation and the data contained in them is accepted
as an accurate reflection of the stipulated testimony.
According to their schedules, there were 48 incidents in
which identifiable vehicles entered the plant property in
work on the levee across the road " The testimony of Quinn, at the record
reference in the brief, was that his observers "had seen at different times
several employees coming out of Gate 7 to do work on the river So we
continued to picket " There is no evidence that the employees to whom this
reference is made were employees of Circle, Delta, or Union Services, and
there is no justification for an inference that they were Respondent 's brief
also states that several applicants for employment with Circle and Delta
entered the plant through Gate 7 The record shows, however, that none of
these incidents occurred during the picketing
PLUMBERS , LOCAL 60 107
violation of gate assignments . In addition, Warren Pitre, a
union picket at Gate 7, testified that about 6:45 a.m. on
December 10, the first day of the picketing, he saw Stanley
Overstreet, project superintendent of Delta, drive through
that gate. He also testified that at about the same time he
saw Cookie Schexnayder, one of Circle's foremen, drive
through that gate with another man in his car who was
wearing a yellow "hard hat" marked with a large "C." 24
Analysis of these 50 incidents, however, shows that only 9
of them involved employees of Circle, Delta, or Union
Services and, therefore, are relevant to the decision of this
case.25
The remaining nine gates violations do involve Circle,
Delta, and Union Services. They consist of the two
incidents described by the picket at Gate 7, one in which a
Delta supervisor, and one in which a Circle supervisor
carrying an employee passenger, passed through that gate
early in the morning on December 10. Another of these
incidents occurred on December 21 when a vehicle
belonging to Delta passed through Gate 29 instead of Gate
30. The final six incidents involved vehicles belonging to
Union Services and these incidents are discussed separate-
ly hereafter.
Stanley Overstreet testified that he arrived at the plant
on December 10 at 7 a.m. and tried to enter through Gate
30 but the pickets and other men at the gate, about 30 of
them, completely blocked the gate and physically prevent-
ed him from entering . He testified that he went to Gate 7,
entered the plant and talked with some Carbide officials,
after which he left the plant, again using Gate 7. About
8:30 that morning, he testified, he entered the plant
through Gate 30. Overstreet's testimony was not contradic-
ted and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of his
account. Since it appears that his first effort to pass
through Gate 30 was blocked by respondent's "observers,"
the union cannot justify its picketing of Gate 7 by the fact
that it was used by this Circle employee when he was
prevented by union agents from using the gate reserved for
his entry. To permit the union thereafter to picket at Gate
7 on the basis of this incident would permit it to gain an
advantage as a result of its own misconduct. There is no
evidence accounting for Schexnayder's entry through Gate
7 at about the same time but there is ample evidence that
the pickets at Gate 30 were not permitting anyone to pass
through the gate at that time. On the basis of that evidence
I infer that Schexnayder was similarly thwarted in an effort
to enter through Gate 30. In any event, this single entry by
Schexnayder must be considered as de minrmis and
insufficient to justify respondent in picketing at Gate 7.
The other incident is an isolated entry by a Delta truck
through Gate 29 on December 21, which I also find de
minimis with respect to Delta and insufficient to justify
respondent's picketing at Gate 29.
The six incidents in which trucks of Union Services
entered the plant through Gate 31, however, stand on an
entirely different footing. It is to be recalled that, on
December 10, the Union Services name plate was on the
signpost at Gate 31 and that Quinn, when he noticed it
there, directed that Gate 31 be picketed. Although the
name plate was transferred to Gate 30 over the weekend,
Quinn testified that Union Services trucks continued to
enter through Gate 31. The schedule shows that Union
Services trucks made entries through Gate 31 on December
13 and 15 and on January 4, 6, 10, and 11. This series of
entries through Gate 31, together with the fact that there
are no notations of entries by Union Services trucks at any
other gate, shows a deliberate and consistent course of
conduct by that contractor in disregard of Union Carbide's
designation of Gate 30 for its use. Under these circum-
stances, I find, respondent's picketing at Gate 31 was at a
point reasonably close to the situs of its dispute with Union
Services and complied with the conditions set forth in the
Moore Dry Dock decision.
From the foregoing discussion it appears, and I find, that
the union's picketing at Gates 7 and 29 was not directed at
Circle, Delta, and Union Services, the contractors with
which it was engaged in labor disputes, but constituted
inducement and encouragement of employees of Union
Carbide and other employers to engage in strikes and work
stoppages, with an object of forcing or requiring Union
Carbide and other employers to cease doing business with
Circle, Delta, and Union Services. By this picketing,
therefore, the union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the
Act. This same picketing constituted restraint and coercion
of Union Carbide and the other employers and, since it
had the same object, also constituted a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) thereof.
9. The effect of the unfair labor practices upon
commerce
The activities of respondent set forth in section 6, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Union
Carbide, Circle, Delta, Union Services, and other employ-
ers at the Union Carbide plant, described in sections 2, 4,
and 5, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
24 Some of the details in Pore's testimony are in conflict and
respondent's brief does not follow the record with absolute accuracy The
facts set forth above, however, substantially reflect the record and I so find
25 Of the other 41 incidents, 29 were occasions on which vehicles
belonging to contractors which should have entered through Gate 30, and
one in which it should have entered through Gate 31, entered instead
through Gate 7 or 29 While these violations of gate assignments avoided
exposure of these neutral employees to the picketing to which they would
have been exposed at Gate 30, it cannot be said that the union had a vested
interest in subjecting these neutrals to the inducement of their picket line
Just as a picket line may constitute permissible primary activity despite any
incidental effect it may have on neutrals who come to that point, as in the
Rice Milling and similar cases , so the failure of other neutrals to subject
themselves to such "incidental" effect cannot serve as cause for complaint
by the picketing union It must constantly be borne in mind that one of the
purposes of the Act is to shield neutrals, in so far as possible, from the effect
of actions by the parties to the dispute
There were eight incidents in which vehicles assigned to use Gate 7 or 29,
and three incidents in which vehicles assigned to use Gate 31 , entered,
instead, through Gate 30, where the union was entitled to picket The fact
that these neutrals to the disputes were unnecessarily exposed to permissible
picketing certainly cannot justify an extension of picketing to the other
gates
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
10. The remedy
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it be required to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to remedy the unfair labor practices and
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record herein, I state the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local Union No. 60, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and
8(b)(4) of the Act.
2. Union Carbide, Circle, Delta, Union Services, and
other contractors performing maintenance work for, or
delivering supplies to, Union Carbide's plant at Taft,
Louisiana, are persons engaged in interstate commerce
within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
3. By picketing at Gates 7 and 29 and thereby inducing
and encouraging employees of Union Carbide and its
contractors and suppliers to engage in strikes or refusals in
the course of their employment to perform services, with
an object of forcing said employers and persons to cease
doing business with Circle, Delta, Union Services, and with
each other, respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B), and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Union
Carbide and its contractors and suppliers with an object of
requiring them to cease doing business with Circle, Delta,
Union Services, and with each other, respondent has
engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(u)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended 26
ORDER
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local Union No. 60, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing at Gates 7 and 29 of the plant of Union
Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Division at
Taft, Louisiana, or, in any other manner, inducing or
encouraging individuals employed by that company, or by
any of its suppliers and contractors except Circle, Inc ,
Delta Iron Works, Inc., and Union Services, to engage in,
strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform
any services, where an object thereof is to force or require
their respective employers to cease doing business with
Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc., Union Services, or
with each other.
(b) In any manner threatening, restraining, or coercing
Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Divi-
sion or any of its suppliers or contractors, except Circle,
Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc., and Union Services, with an
object of forcing or requiring Union Carbide Corporation
Chemicals and Plastics Division or any of its suppliers or
contractors to cease doing business with Circle, Inc., Delta
Iron Works, Inc., Union Services, or with each other.
2. Take the following affirmative action, hereby found
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls, and at all places
where notices to its members are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 27
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by
respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by said respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional
Director for Region 15, for posting by Union Carbide
Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Division or any of its
suppliers or contractors including Circle, Inc., Delta Iron
Works, Inc., and Union Services, said employers or
persons being willing, at all locations where notices to their
employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply here-
with.28
3. The complaint, insofar as it alleges conduct in
violation of the Act which is not found by the Decision to
constitute an unfair labor practice, is hereby dismissed.
26 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
27 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
Is In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
O
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all parties were given an opportunity
to present evidence and argument, the National Labor
Relations Board has decided that we committed unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
picketing at Gates 7 and 29 of the Taft plant of Union
Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Division, and
has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out
the order of the Board and abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT picket at Gates 7 and 29 of the Taft
plant of Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals and
Plastics Division, or otherwise induce or encourage any
person employed by Union Carbide Corporation
Chemicals and Plastics Division or any of its suppliers
or contractors except Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works,
Inc., or Union Services, to engage in a strike or to
refuse, in the course of his employment to use,
transport, or work on any goods, or to perform any
services; and WE WILL NOT in any manner threaten,
coerce, or restrain Union Carbide Corporation Chemi-
cals and Plastics Division or any of its contractors or
suppliers, except Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc.,
and Union Services; where in either case an object
thereof is forcing or requiring Union Carbide Corpora-
tion Chemicals and Plastics Division , its suppliers or
contractors, to cease doing business with Circle, Inc.,
Delta Iron Works, Inc., Union Services, or with each
other.
Dated By
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND PIPE
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, LOCAL UNION
No. 60, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Plaza
Tower Building , Suite 2700, 1001 Howard Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361.