Plumbers & Pipefitters Local No. 471, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 329 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL NO. 471, ETC . 329
3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, Local 2 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local No. 471, United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting In-
dustry of the United States & Canada, AFL-CIO and Leo E.
Murray, Inc., an Individual , d/b/a Wyckoff Plumbing. Case
No. 20-CC-229. January 18, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding is brought under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act. Upon a charge filed by Leo E. Murray, Jr.,
an individual, d/b/a Wyckoff Plumbing, herein called Wyckoff, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the Re-
gional Director for the Twentieth Region issued a complaint dated
November 30, 1960, against Plumbers & Pipefitters Local No. 471,
United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing &
Pipefitting Industry of the United States & Canada, AFL-CIO,
herein called Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and
notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in
substance, that on or about October 13, 1960, and various unknown
dates during October and November 1960, Respondent threatened to
picket the Fortuna Union High School jobsite of Beacom Construc-
tion Company, herein called Beacom, a person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce, if Beacom continued to do business
with Wyckoff at said jobsite. The complaint further alleged that on
or about November 2, 1960, Respondent picketed the said jobsite and
that, as a result of the picketing, the employees of Beacom ceased
work. Objects of the above-described acts and conduct of Respondent,
the complaint alleged, were to force and require Beacom and other
persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to
cease doing business with Wyckoff and to force or require Wyckoff
to recognize and bargain with Respondent, although Respondent had
not been certified as the representative of Wyckoff's employees in ac-
cordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
On December 21, 1960, all parties to this proceeding entered into a
stipulation of facts and jointly requested the transfer of this proceed-
135 NLRB No. 49.
S30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
issuance of a Decision and Order based thereon. In the "Petition and
Stipulation of Facts" the parties agreed that the stipulation together
with the charge and complaint should constitute the entire record in
this case. The parties further stipulated that they waived a hearing
before a Trial Examiner, the making of findings of facts and con-
,clusions of law by a Trial Examiner, and the issuance of an Intermedi-
ate Report and Recommended Order.
On June 5,1961, the Board approved the petition and stipulation of
facts and accepted the transfer of the case.
Upon the basis of the stipulation and the entire record in the case
including the brief, the Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Wyckoff is engaged at Fortuna, California, as a plumbing contrac-
tor and in the sale of plumbing supplies. During the 12-month period
immediately preceding the execution of the stipulation herein, Wyck-
off, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased materials
valued in excess of $70,000, of which approximately $25,000 worth
was received directly from out-of-State sources or from suppliers in
California to whom they were shipped from outside the State.
• Beacom, a California corporation, is engaged in business at For-
tuna, California, as a general contractor, principally in the construc-
tion of schools and commercial structures. During the. 12-month
period immediately preceding the execution of the stipulation herein,
Beacom, in the operation of its business, purchased materials valued
in excess of $150,000, of which materials valued at approximately
$50,000 originated outside the State of California. At all times ma-
terial to this proceeding, Beacom was engaged in the construction of
school buildings for the Fortuna Union High School District at For-
tuna, California, for the contract price of approximately $650,000.
The value of the construction materials used and to be used by
Beacom and its subcontractors on the Fortuna Union High School
project originating outside the State of California is in excess of
$50,000.
• We find, in accordance with the stipulation, that Wyckoff and
Beacom are now, and have been at all times material herein, engaged
in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and
Members Leedom and Fanning].
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL NO. 471, ETC . 331
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent through its agent, Roy Van Norman, made several
efforts to organize the employees of, and to gain recognition from,
Wyckoff. Its most recent efforts in this regard occurred in June
1960. Later, around the middle of October 1960, Van Norman in-
formed Beacom's president, James Beacom, that the Respondent
intended to picket Wyckoff to inform the public of disputes with that
company regarding employment of apprentices and alleged violations
of State and Federal labor laws. Van Norman added that the picket-
ing would include the Fortuna Union High School jobsite while
Wyckoff was engaged there. About October 14, 1960, Wyckoff began
working on the school as a subcontractor for Beacom, and on Novem-
ber 1, 1960, Van Norman told Beacom's superintendent that the
Respondent would commence picketing Wyckoff at the school site the
following day. The pickets appeared a day or so later carrying signs
reading as follows :
AFL-CIO
Picket
Wyckoff Plumbing
Unfair
to
Organized Labor
Plumbers & Pipefitters
Local No. 471
After the picketing began, Van Norman told Beacom that the Re-
spondent Union was engaging in a "legal" picket line for purely in-
formational purposes and would continue to picket so long as Wyckoff
was on the job. When the picketing commenced, Beacom's employees
ceased work. The pickets ceased their activities some 10 minutes after
they appeared when Beacom had Wyckoff's employees removed from
the job. At that time, the other employees returned to work. Though
Wyckoff's employees came back on the job about a week after the
foregoing incidents, there has been no resumption of picketing.
The General Counsel contends, first, that the Respondent Union's
notification to Beacom that it intended to picket Wyckoff at the school
jobsite was a threat designed to cause Beacom to cease doing business
with Wyckoff and, thus, violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). There is,
however, no evidence that the notice had such purpose. Under the
circumstances, the giving of notice to a prime contractor of prospec-
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive picket action against a subcontractor does not, we find, constitute
a violation of the Act as alleged.2
Second, the General Counsel contends that Respondent Union's
picketing of the school site violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B)
of the Act. In explicating its position, the General Counsel contends
that because Wyckoff maintained a permanent place of business only
2 miles from the jobsite where the Respondent could have adequately
publicized its dispute, the picketing at the jobsite to cause Beacom to
cease doing business with Wyckoff was violative of the Act under the
principles enunciated in the Washington Coca Cola case,' that common
situs picketing is unlawful when the primary employer has a regular
place of business in the locality which can be picketed. However,
the Board in its recent decision in Plauche Electric, Inc.,4 has over-
ruled the Washington Coca Cola case to the extent that the place of
picketing is no longer the decisive, but is rather but one of several
factors to be considered in determining the lawfulness of picketing.
The evidence here shows, as the General Counsel stresses, that Wyckoff
maintained its principal place of business at a location only 2 miles
from the school jobsite and that its construction employees normally
reported morning and evening to the shop at that location and occa-
sionally at other times. However, that fact does not, under the de-
cision in Plauche Electric, of itself proscribe the Respondent's picket-
ing at the school site . In that case , as here, the employees involved
reported to the primary employer's establishment several times a day
but spent the majority of their time working at a jobsite away from
their employer's premises . Under such circumstances, picketing at a
common situs, the Board held, would not be unlawful if it were in
accord with the standards set down in Moore Dry Dock 5 Conse-
quently, we conclude that the fact the Respondent did not restrict its
picketing to some place near or at Wyckoff's main establishment does
not in itself constitute a violation of the Act. Rather under the facts
here the question is whether the picketing met the Moore Dry Dock
standards.
2 See General Drivers, Chauffeurs, and Helpers, Local Union No. 886 ( The Stephens
Company ), 133 NLRB 1393, the "second letter," Member Leedom dissenting on this
point ; Construction, Building Material and Miscellaneous Drivers Local Union No. 83,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Ind., 133 NLRB 1144, In which it was held that the mere giving of notice of
prospective strike action against a subcontractor to the prime contractor does not violate
Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B).
s Brewery and Beverage Drivers and Workers, Local No. 67, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, etc. (Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc .), 107 NLRB 299.
4 135 NLRB No. 41.
5 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL ( Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 547, 549.
There the Board held that picketing at a secondary employer 's premise is lawful primary
picketing "if it meets the following conditions: (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."
MARTIN SPROCKET & GEAR, INC. 333
In the situation before us, it is clear that the situs of the dispute was
the school jobsite and that the picketing occurred at that location.
Further, the evidence shows that the picket signs clearly stated the
dispute was with Wyckoff and that the picketing occurred only while
Wyckoff's employees were on the job and engaged in the normal busi-
ness of their employer. Consequently, the picketing here fell within
the standards set forth in Moore Dry Dock. Thus, as there are no
factors present and independent of the picketing demonstrating that
the picketing had, in fact, an unlawful purpose, we find that Re-
spondent's picketing of Wyckoff at the school jobsite did not violate
Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Beacom Construction Company, together with Leo E. Murray,
an individual, d/b/a Wyckoff Plumbing are engaged in commerce and
in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local No. 471, United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of
the United States & Canada, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization with-
in the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER LEEDOM , dissenting :
I believe that the Respondent's dispute with Wyckoff could have
been adequately publicized at or near the Company's main place of
business and that the purpose of its actions at the school jobsite was
to enlist the unwilling aid of neutrals in its actions against Wyckoff.
Consequently, for the reasons set forth in my dissenting positions in
the Stephens Company case (supra, footnote 3) and Plauche Electric
Company (supra, separate opinion) I would find the Respondent by
its threat to picket and its picketing at the school site violated Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B), as alleged.
Martin Sprocket & Gear, Inc. and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1488. January 18, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 10, 1961, Trial Examiner William Seagle issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
135 NLRB No. 46.