Radio Broadcast Technician's Local No. 1225

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1491 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN'S LOCAL NO. 1225 1491
Finally, I would note that, apparently as additional explanation to show the suf-
ficiency of the reasons cited for the Company's failure to adduce at the original
hearing the evidence concerning the April 8 document, the brief and argument sub-
mitted to the court in support of the motion for leave to adduce additional evidence
includes the following statement:
On page 50 of the transcript, the agreement was referred to by petitioner's
witness, Mr. Hubert L. Payne, however, the Examiner refused to allow this
evidence to go in by reason of hearsay.
It appears from the page cited that the witness was referring to a conversation
which may have led to the agreement in question. Certainly "the agreement was
(not) referred to" there. The attorney for the Company himself endorsed the
Trial Examiner's characterization of the testimony as hearsay, saying.
Yes, pure hearsay, your Honor.
The question, if it be further considered, of timeliness or reason for failure to make
a timely offer should not be colored (I do not suggest or believe that this was inten-
tional ) by any implication of interference by the Trial Examiner who conducted the
first hearing.
The facts which can now be found are:
1. Jack C. Robinson, doing business as Robinson Fright Lines (sub nomine
Robinson Freight Line, Inc.), and Local 621 and others prepared an agreement on
April 8, 1955, pursuant to which they undertook to settle certain disputes and to
determine as therein set forth the rights of John Brooks, James Frazier, Edward B.
Carnes, Perry Coward, Eugene Evans, Sam Smith, and Tom Carpenter, among others.
2. The agreement was conditioned on Board approval.
3. The agreement was not signed by or on behalf of Local 621.
4. The Board has not approved the agreement.
5. Neither the Regional Director, the Trial Examiner who was designated to and
did conduct the hearing, nor the Board has consented to withdrawal of either of the
charges herein.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following conclusions of law:
1. Evidence of the agreement dated April 8, 1955, was not timely offered.
2. The agreement is not material to the issues in this case, and does not affect the
Board's findings, conclusions, and order of November 16, 1955.
I recommend adherence to the findings, conclusions, and order of November 16,
1955, without modification on account of the testimony received in the supple-
mental hearing on remand.
Radio Broadcast Technician 's Local No. 1225, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Rollins
Broadcasting, Inc. Case No. 35-CC-36. May 9, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 13, 1956, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
'Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its power to consider
this case to a 3 -member panel [ Members Murdock , Rodgers, and Bean]
117 NLRB No. 137.
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rulings are hereby affirmed.2 We have considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopt the Trial Examiner's findings of fact with the excep-
tions below.' We likewise agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondent has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act.
However, in so finding we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's rationale,
but rely solely upon the analysis set forth below.
The record as a whole convinces us, and we find, that by picketing the
construction site on which Murphy's employees were building a radio
station for Rollins, Respondent induced and encouraged Murphy's
employees to engage in a concerted refusal to perform work for
Murphy, with an object of forcing or requiring Murphy to cease doing
business with Rollins and Rollins to sign a bargaining agreement with
Respondent. Thus Mace, Respondent's business manager, wrote Rol-
lins a letter stating that he wanted to "meet and discuss terms" of "a
collective-bargaining agreement covering the Broadcast Technicians
to be employed at [Rollins' radio station] 4 now under construction in
this city." Mace then went down to the construction site, where he
learned that the construction workers there were employed by Murphy,
who had contracted with Rollins to build the station. Mace ascer-
tained that Murphy's foreman, at least, was a union man, and told
him that the job might be picketed to obtain a "working agreement
or a contract [with Rollins] concerning the labor that was to run the
building or the business." A few days later Mace told Murphy that
he planned to set up a picket line to "stop the job" and to obtain a con-
tract with Rollins, notwithstanding Murphy's comment that "you
are picketing me. You are not picketing anyone else. Rollins don't
have any employees out here, won't have for six months." When
Chambers, Rollins' consulting engineer, refused to sign a contract with
Respondent covering the engineers to be hired at the new station-a
contract which he could not lawfully agree to since Rollins had not
yet hired any engineers for that station-Mace told Chambers that
he would not permit the building to be constructed until he "got a
signed contractual agreement for [Respondent] to represent [Rollins']
engineers." On the picket line Mace told one of Murphy's employees
that "they were attempting to establish a contract with the people
a We find nothing whatever in the record to support the Respondent ' s contention in its
brief that the Trial Examiner had an "unfair and prejudiced attitude "
a The record fails to support the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent does
not accept Negroes into membership The record also shows that the pickets were re-
moved from the construction site no earlier than August 15 , 1956, rather than on
August 14 as found by the Trial Examiner , and that Respondent's business agent and
Rollins ' consulting engineer met on August 6 rather than on August 10, as the Trial
Examiner suggests at one point. See also footnote 5, tinfra.
6 This letter referred to Station WIRI However , it is not disputed that all parties
interpreted it as referring to Station WGEE, the station here involved.
RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN'S LOCAL NO. 1225 1493
;having this project built, for the working conditions of their union." 5
Apart from this direct evidence of the object of the picketing, the
,context in which the, picketing was carried on establishes that the
appeal conveyed by the picket signs not to cross the picket line was
.directed only to Murphy's employees, whose refusal to work on the
project would have compelled Murphy to cease doing business with
Rollins. The picket signs could not have been directed to Rollins'
employees or prospective employees, since, as Respondent knew, no
employees or representatives of Rollins were at the project; nor could
they have been directed to the general public in view of the fact that
the location of the picket signs rendered them almost invisible from
the road.
Unlike the Trial Examiner, we do not consider this to be a case of
"common situs" picketing. Where, as here, the picketing is conducted
at a location where no employees of the primary employer have ever
worked, where no employees of the primary employer are expected to
work for several months, and where not even applicants for employ-
ment with the primary employer come or are expected to come,- the
picketing can under no circumstances be considered lawful primary
picketing.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that by picketing the construction
site, Respondent induced and encouraged Murphy's employees to en-
gage in a concerted refusal to perform work for Murphy, with an ob-
'ject of forcing or requiring Murphy to cease doing business with
Rollins and Rollins to sign a bargaining agreement with Respondent,
and that by such conduct Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
and (B) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Radio Broad-
cast Technician's Local No. 1225, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging the employees
of Joe Murphy, or the employees of any other employer, to engage in
a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to per-
form services for their employer, where an object thereof is (a) to
S Particularly in view of this evidence regarding the Respondent 's object at the very
time it was picketing the project , we reject Respondent 's contention that the sole object
of the picketing was set forth on the picket signs, which complained of Rollins ' alleged
refusal to agree to pay union rates. 'Also in view of this evidence , we deem it un-
necessary to determine the exact date on which Respondent 's Exhibit No. 1 (a telegram
from Mace to Chambers quoted in the Intermediate Report ), containing allegations
(substantially the same as those on the picket signs , was sent or received ,- and do not
adopt the Trial Examiner 's,finding in this respect
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
force or require any employer or person to cease doing business with
Rollins Broadcasting, Inc., or with any other employer; or (b) to
force or require Rollins Broadcasting, Inc., to recognize or bargain
with Respondent as the representative of its employees unless and
until Respondent has been certified as the representative of such
employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post. at its business office in Indianapolis, Indiana, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be
posted by said Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respond-
ent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A" for posting
at the principal office of Joe Murphy (Joe Murphy willing) in places
where notices to employees of Joe Murphy are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Fl In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
the, e shall he substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pur-
suant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN'S LOCAL
No. 1225, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our members that :
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees
of Joe Murphy or of any other employer to engage in, a strike
or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to per-
form services for their employer where an object thereof is (a)
to force or require any employer or other person to cease doing
business with Rollins Broadcasting, Inc., or with any other em-
ployer, or (b) to force or require Rollins Broadcasting, Inc., to
recognize or bargain with Radio Broadcast Technician's Local No.
RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN'S LOCAL NO. 1225 1495
1225, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 'AFL-
CIO, as the representative of its employees unless and until it
has been certified as the representative of such employees under
the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN'S LOCAL No.
1225, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Title of Officer)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Rollins Broadcasting , Inc., herein called Rollins, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ,' by the Regional Director of
the Ninth Region ( Cincinnati , Ohio), issued his complaint against Radio Broadcast
Technician's Local No. 1225, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent , alleging that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and ( B) and Section 2, subsections ( 6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the
Act. Copies of the charge, complaint , and notice of hearing were duly served upon
the Respondent and Rollins.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance that:
(a) Since on or about July 1956, the Respondent has demanded that Rollins recog-
nize and bargain with it as the collective-bargaining representative of the future em-
ployees of its radio broadcasting station being erected in Indianapolis , Indiana, and
that Rollins enter into a collective -bargaining agreement with the Respondent covering
the wages , hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of such future em-
ployees; ( b) at no time material herein has the Respondent been certified under the
provisions of Section 9 of the Act as the collective -bargaining representative of any
of Rollins' employees at its Indianapolis , Indiana, radio broadcasting station; (c) in
support of its objectives as set forth in subparagraph (a) above, commencing on or
about August 1956, the Respondent has picketed the construction site of the radio
broadcasting station being erected in Indianapolis , Indiana, by Joseph Murphy,
notwithstanding that no employees of Rollins and only construction employees of
Joseph Murphy and the employees of suppliers of Murphy were engaged in work at
said site. In addition Respondent orally requested and appealed to the employees of
Murphy and the employees of suppliers of Murphy not to cross the picket line of
the Respondent and to refuse to work at the picketed premises; (d) by its acts set
forth in subparagraph (c) above, and by other means, including picketing, orders, di-
rections , instructions , and appeals , the Respondent has engaged in, and has induced
and encouraged the employees of Murphy and of other employers to engage in,
strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles , materials or com-
modities , or to perform services; ( e) object of the conduct of Respondent set forth in
subparagraphs (c) and (d) above, are : ( 1) to force or require Joseph Murphy and
other employers and persons to cease doing business with Rollins ; and (2 ) to force or
require Rollins to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative of
the employees of Rollins despite the fact that Respondent has not been certified as
the representative of such employees in accordance with the provisions of Section 9
of the Act. By the acts and conduct described above the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) and
Section 2 , subsections ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
'Herein referred to as the General Counsel and the Board.
,1496 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about October 1, 1956 , the Respondent filed its answer , in which it admitted
certain jurisdictional facts, but denied the commission of any of the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint . It did , however , admit that it picketed the premises of
Rollins, and by way of confession and avoidance alleged as follows:
7. And , by way of further Answer to the Complaint the Respondent alleges
that , in conferences with representatives of the Respondent , the said Rollins
Broadcasting , Inc. stated that it would not pay its radio engineering employees
wages equal to the union scale of wages prevailing in the Indianapolis area, and
the Respondent picketed the premises of Rollins Broadcasting , Inc. for the pur-
pose of advising the public of the fact that Rollins Broadcasting , Inc. would not
agree to pay its radio engineering employees wages equal to the union scale
of wages prevailing in the Indianapolis area; the Respondent did not ask Rollins
Broadcasting , Inc. to recognize it as the collective bargaining agent of the
employees of said Rollins Broadcasting , Inc.; the Respondent did not seek to
have Rollins Broadcasting , Inc. enter into a collective bargaining agreement with
the Respondent ; that all the Respondent asked of Rollins Broadcasting , Inc. was
that it merely proceed to pay its radio engineering employees wages equal to the
union scale of wages prevailing in the Indianapolis area, which Rollins Broad-
casting, Inc. refused to do, and only thereafter did the Respondent picket the
premises of Rollins Broadcasting, Inc.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on October 17, 1956 , at Indianapolis , Indiana,
before the Trial Examiner duly appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner . The General
Counsel , the Respondent , and the Charging Party were represented by counsel. Full
opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues , was afforded all parties.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion by the Gen-
eral Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof as regards minor matters such as
names, dates, and the like. Though given an opportunity to do so, all parties waived
oral argument . The parties were also advised of their right to file briefs with the
Trial Examiner. Only the Charging Party chose to take advantage of this right and
a brief was received from its counsel on or about November 5, 1956 . It has been
given due consideration by the Trial Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF ROLLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY
The complaint alleges and the record shows that Rollins is a Delaware corporation
whose principal office and place of business is at Rehoboth Beach , Delaware, and is
engaged in the operation of radio broadcasting stations in several States of the
United States under licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission?
Rollins' gross revenues from the operation of said broadcasting stations was substan-
tially in excess of $200,000 in 1955.
On or about December 22, 1955 , Rollins was awarded' , a license by the Federal
Communications Commission to construct and operate a radio broadcasting station
at Indianapolis , Indiana.
On or about June 15, 1956 , Joseph Murphy, a general contractor in and around
Indianapolis , Indiana, pursuant to a contract with Rollins , commenced construction
of a building to house the new radio broadcasting station at 4805 East Raymond
Street , Indianapolis , Indiana.
Upon the foregoing , and upon the entire record considered as a whole, the Trial
Examiner finds that Rollins is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2,
subsections ( 6) and (7) of the Act and Rollins and Joseph Murphy are and were at
all times material herein employers within the meaning of Section 2, subsection (2)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Radio Broadcast Technician 's Local No . 1225 , International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As indicated above, the primary employer herein is Rollins Broadcasting, Inc.,
Rehoboth Beach , Delaware . The record shows that Rollins is actually a subsidiary
of John W . Rollins Associates of Wilmington , Delaware, which is engaged in a
2 See infra.
,RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN'S LOCAL NO. 1225 1497
variety of enterprises ranging from automobile fleet leasing to cattle raising, including
radio and television broadcasting. The Charging Party, that is Rollins, at times
material herein, operated the following radio stations: WBEE, Harvey, Illinois;
WPTC, Plattsburgh, New York; WNJR, Newark, New Jersey; WAMS, Wilmington,
Delaware; WRAP, Norfolk, Virginia; and WGEE, Indianapolis, Indiana, the station
involved herein. The record also shows, that G. Russell Chambers, at all times
material herein, was employed by Rollins as a consulting engineer, and in his capacity
as such had charge of the construction and establishment of Station WGEE, with
which we are primarily concerned herein.
Sometime in June 1956, Rollins entered into a contract with Joseph Murphy, a
building contractor in Indianapolis, Indiana, to build its radio station on a site it
had purchased outside the city limits of Indianapols. Murphy started building the
station sometime in June 1956.
On or about July 1, 1956, H Dale Mace, business agent for the Respondent Union,
read an article in a local paper as regards Rollins' plans to construct Station WGEE.
The same article gave the name of its local attorney, William Lemond. Shortly
thereafter, Mace called on Lemond for the purpose of ascertaining who was in
charge of construction and installation of Station WGEE for Rollins. Lemond
advised Mace that Rollins, at the time, had no regular representative in Indianapolis,
but that Chambers was in and out of the city quite often in his capacity as its con-
-sulting engineer. He also gave Mace Rollins' address in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
In addition, at Mace's request he agreed to write Rollins and inform the manage-
ment that Mace, as the business agent for the Respondent Union, was anxious to sit
,down and talk to one of its representatives as regards the operation of Station WGEE.
Lemond did so but insofar as this record is concerned he never received an answer.
Mace called Lemond's office several times during the next 3 or 4 weeks and -was
advised accordingly. Mace in the meantime sent the following undated letter to
Rollins:
RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN'S
Local No. 1225
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Indianapolis, Ind.
3518 E. Michigan St.
Indianapolis, Indiana
Rollins Radio Corp. Registered Mail: Return
Moore Bldg. Receipt Requested
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
Attn: Mr. O. Wayne Rollins, Pres.
DEAR MR. ROLLINS: On Monday, July 9th, we contacted your Indianapolis
Attorney Mr. William F. Lemond relative to negotiating a collective bargaining
agreement covering the Broadcast Technicians to be employed at W. I. R. I.
now under construction in this city. Mr. Lemond informs me he has conveyed
our message to your Delaware offices to the attention of Mr. George Russell
Chambers with no resulting answer.
Please be informed we are most anxious to meet and discuss terms of an
Agreement with you or your Representatives at the earliest possible date and
await your immediate reply.
Sincerely yours,
H. DALE MACE,
Bus. Mgr., Local Union 1225.
Chambers was away from his office at the time the above letter was delivered
and it did not come to his attention until sometime in the latter part of July under
circumstances which will be discussed below.
Mace testified in substance that since he had been unable to get any information
from either Attorney Lemond or Chambers as regards a meeting with some re-
sponsible representative of Rollins for the purpose of discussing the operation of
Station WGEE, he decided to go out to the building site on the chance that he might
possibly meet some representative there. Upon arrival he found no one on the
job but employees of Murphy. He made inquiry of workmen on the job and was
referred to Foreman Ray H. Kocher, who was in charge. Mace met Kocher and
conversed with him as regards Rollins and in particular as to how to get hold of
Chambers so that he could discuss with him the terms of an agreement between
Rollins and the Respondent Union. There are two versions of what transpired at
this time, Kocher's and Mace's. Each will be thoroughly discussed below.
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kocher's version is.best told in his own words. For this reason his testimony in
this regard is set forth below:
Q. What was said by Mr. Mace and the man with him, and what was said
by you?
A. Well, he came out to the job with this other fellow and came uo and asked
who was in charge. I told him I was, and he introduced himself and the other
fellow to me. Then he told me that he had been trying to locate Mr. Chambers
or the officials of the Rollins Broadcasting Company to get a working agreement
or a contract signed concerning the labor that was to run the building or the
business.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Did you establish the date?
Mr. HARDY. In the latter part of July.
A. (Continued.) And he told me that he was trying to contact them without
any success, he had sent them registered letters and was trying to contact them
through a lawyer.
I then also told him that he was hard to get hold of because he was moving
around from one place to another, that I hadn't even met him at that time.
Q. (By Mr. Hardy.) You mean Mr. Chambers?
A. Right. And he also said that if he could not contact him within a certain
period of time that he would be forced to put a picket on the job for the reason
to obtain a working agreement There wasn't much else said.
Q. Is that all you recall of the conversation?
A. Yes. He asked me if I belonged to a union and whether any other
union people were working there, and that was about all. [Emphasis supplied.]
During the course of the conversation Kocher told Mace that he would appreciate
it if he [Mace] would get in touch with Murphy on such matters rather than him-
self because he was ". . . just working for Murphy." Mace agreed and Kocher
gave him Murphy's telephone number. Later in the day Murphy came out to the
job site and Kocher told him of Mace's visit and in particular as regards his threat
to set up a picket line at the entrance to the job site. Kocher did not see Mace
again until August 10, 1956, the date the Respondent Union set up its picket line
at the entrance to the Rollins project.
Mace's account of his conversation with Kocher is for the most part a flat denial of
Kocher's testimony, in particular that he told Kocher that the Respondent Union
was ". . . going to put up a picket line there to force the Rollins Broadcasting
Company to give . the Union a contract "
From the foregoing it is obvious that the Trial Examiner is confronted with a
question as regards the credibility of the witnesses Kocher and Mace. The resolution
of questions involving the credibility of witnesses that appear before a tner of the
facts is always a difficult and thankless task. But resolved they must be. Many
facets enter into a final determination of issues of this nature. In reaching a de-
termination of this troublesome issue the Trial Examiner has been guided not only
by his observation of the witnesses while they were before him, but their testimony
as well when considered in the light of the record as a whole After long and careful
consideration the Trial Examiner credits Kocher's account of the conversation and
discredits that of Mace. Compelling factors in the Trial Examiner's ultimate de-
termination of this issue have been as follows: (1) the fact that the Respondent
Union did establish a picket line shortly after the above conversation occurred; (2)
Mace's active participation in the picketing; (3) the corroborating testimony of other
credible witnesses which tends to support Kocher's account of the incident; and
certain documentary evidence introduced by both the General Counsel and the
Respondent Union, which also tend to support Kocher's testimony
Upon all of the foregoing, and upon the entire record considered as a whole, the
Trial Examiner finds that Mace made the statements as regards the Respondent
Union's position as regards the Rollins project attributed to him by the witness Kocher.
Shortly after Mace left, Murphy came out to the job site and Kocher told him of
Maces' visit and his threat to picket the job.
As indicated above the Respondent Union established a picket line at the entrance
to the Rollins job site on August 10, 1956. The record shows that Murphy and
Mace had at least three telephone conversations before the picket line was established.
As the Trial Examiner interprets the record, Murphy called Mace on the telephone
shortly after his visit to the job site. Murphy's testimony regarding his contacts
with Mace are, to say the least, a "bit hazy." Though he impressed the Trial
Examiner as an essentially honest witness, nevertheless, it has been most difficult
'to fathom. After careful consideration of the record the Trial Examiner is con-
vinced that Murphy 's only personal contact with Mace was on or about August 14,
RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN'S LOCAL NO. 1225 1499
1956, and that Murphy's testimony regarding certain conversations between them
were by telephone and not face to face, so to speak, as some portions of his testi-
mony would indicate. A primary factor in the Trial Examiner's appraisal of
Murphy as a credible witness insofar as material and probative matters are con-
cerned has been the fact that for the most part it is corroborated by the testimony
in the record of other credible witnesses and certain documentary evidence offered
by both the General Counsel and the Respondent Union at the hearing herein.
As the Trial Examiner interprets the record, Murphy called Mace shortly after
Kocher informed him of Mace's threat to picket the Rollins job in order to force
Rollins to enter into a contract with it for the employees which were to be hired in
the future to operate Station WGEE. The record indicates that the first conversation
between Murphy and Mace was around July 27, 1956.
Sometime on July 27, 1956, Murphy called Chambers at his office in Rehoboth
Beach, Delaware, but was unable to contact him there. After several futile attempts
to reach him elsewhere, Murphy finally succeeded in locating him at Station WRAP,
Norfolk, Virginia. In their telephone conversation Murphy told Chambers of
Mace's threat to Foreman Kocher and about his conversation with Mace by tele-
phone on or about July 27, 1956 As the Trial Examiner interprets the record
Chambers was very much perturbed by the information given him by Murphy. As
a result he left Norfolk immediately and drove to Rehoboth Beach. Upon arrival
he went to Rollins' office and found the letter Mace had written him several days
before regarding Station WGEE. Chambers then sent the following telegram to
the Respondent Union:
RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIANS UNION 1225
3518 E MICHIGAN ST INDIANAPOLIS IND
REFERENCE YOUR LETTER HAVE NOT EMPLOYED ANY PERSON-
NEL FOR OUR NEW STATION IN INDIANAPOLIS I WILL BE
PLEASED TO MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF YOUR UNION
PRIOR TO HIRING ANY BROADCAST TECHNICIANS. I WILL BE
AVAILABLE IN INDIANAPOLIS WITHIN PERHAPS TEN DAYS. WILL
GET IN TOUCH WITH MR MACE AT THAT TIME.
G R CHAMBERS ROLLINS BROADCASTING INC
REHOBOTH BEACH DEL JULY 28
As indicated in the telegram Murphy received a copy of it from the Western
Union. Upon receipt of the telegram Murphy called Mace and read its contents
to him.
On Monday, August 6, 1956, Chambers and Mace met for the first time at the
Sheraton-Lincoln Hotel in Indianapolis, Indiana. Chambers invited Mace up to
his room so that they could discuss the situation regarding Station WGEE. Accord-
ing to Chambers' credible testimony the conversation at first was confined to gen-
eralities regarding the radio industry and persons engaged therein that they both
were acquainted with. Later on Mace presented to Chambers for his signature a
typed copy of a contract between Rollins and the Respondent Union. Chambers
refused to sign it. Mace then told him that Rollins would ". . . never be able to
build this radio station without me signing an agreement and that he would take
whatever steps were necessary to prevent the station from going on the air." Mace
then proceeded to tell Chambers why the Respondent Union insisted upon having
Rollins sign an agreement with the Respondent Union before Station WGEE com-
menced operations. [In passing the Trial Examiner desires to point out that at this
time Rollins had no employees in the Indianapolis area, and as indicated above its
radio Station WGEE was under construction.] Chambers' version of what Mace
said in this part of their conversation , is in the considered opinion of the Trial
Examiner, best told in his own words. Consequently an excerpt from his testimony
in this regard follows below:
At the time the meeting progressed to a point where we decided we weren't
getting any place so far as signing the agreement was concerned, Mr. Mace
told me that I would have to be willing to take the responsibility for whatever
happened. He described to me some of the things that were happening to
organizations who did not sign up here in the area.
He specifically informed me that he had no control over what the members
of other unions did, and that they got pretty rough so far as bombings were
concerned; but he did tell me that he thought his union was a pretty nice union.
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. (By Mr. Hardy.) Did Mr. Mace state anything about his experience
with other stations in Indiana?
TRIAL EXAMINER: I didn't hear the last of the question.
(Question read.)
Q. (By Mr. Hardy.) Well-
A. Yes, he did. He said that it had been the experience not only of Local
1225 but also of the International Union that whenever they were attempting
to organize a new station that if they allowed the station to be constructed that
they were at a very great disadvantage in organizing the engineers and that there-
fore in this case they had no intention of permitting us to construct this building
before they got a signed contractual agreement for their union to represent our
engineers. By "our" I mean Rollins Broadcasting. [Emphasis supplied.]
Q. (By Mr. Hardy.) Did you understand that Local 1225 represented tech-
nicians in radio broadcasting stations in Indianapolis and surrounding territory?
A. Yes, I did, and Mr. Mace had, in the conversation concerned with not
allowing a station to be built and then attempting to organize, he mentioned
that they had had this experience in another station in the area and he told
me the name at the time, but I don't recall it, or the name of the town that they
had allowed the station to be built and then were not able to organize it, and
that they didn't intend that it be permitted in this case.
Chambers further testified in substance that he told Mace that Rollins had no
objection to the Respondent Union organizing its employees, but that it would
. be strictly up to the men whether or not they wanted Local 1225 to repre-
sent them." Insofar as employing present members of the Respondent Union he
asked Mace to give him their names and addresses and that he would be glad to
interview them as regards employment when the station was ready to commence
operations. As far as the wage scale then prevalent in the Indianapolis area was
concerned he advised Mace that the salary Rollins would pay its engineers and other
personnel would depend upon their experience and the impression they made upon
him at the time they were interviewed. He also told Mace that Rollins paid its
personnel at other stations wages either equal to, or in excess of, the prevailing wage
in the area. At the time of the hearing herein Rollins had hired only one engineer.
Mace's testimony regarding what transpired at the meeting between him and
Chambers on August 6, 1956, is at odds with that of Chambers insofar as matters
pertinent to the issues herein are concerned. He admitted that he requested Cham-
bers to sign a contract with the Respondent Union and regarding Chambers' refusal
to do so. He flatly denied that he told Chambers that the Respondent Union
. . would not allow that station to go up or to operate without a contract with
your union"; that the Respondent Union ". . . had no intention to permit the con-
struction of the building"; and that he told Chambers ". . . that unless he entered
into a contract" with the Respondent Union he (Mace) . would put a picket
line up there. . .. Mace further testified in substance that Chambers was hesitant
and vague in regard to whether or not Rollins would pay the prevailing wage rate.
From what the Trial Examiner gleans from his testimony there was considerable
discussion regarding Station WGEE being established primarily to cater to the
Negro population in the Indianapolis area, and the hiring of Negro personnel to
operate it. According to Mace this was of considerable concern to the Respondent
Union, since they did not accept Negroes into membership and secondly it had been
the experience of both the Respondent Union and the International Union that when
Negro engineers and technicians were employed by a radio station it eventually led
to a lowering of the prevailing wage in the areas affected.
The meeting between Mace and Chambers lasted about 3 hours. Insofar as this
record is concerned this was the only meeting between them at times material herein.
Chambers left Indianapolis shortly after his meeting with Mace on August 10, 1956,
and returned to Rehoboth Beach. A few days after his return he received the follow-
ing telegram from Mace:
GEORGE RUSSELL CHAMBERS
ROLLINS BROADCASTING CO MOORE BLDG REHOBOTH BEACH DEL
INRE RADIO STATION WGEE INDIANAPOLIS AFTER CONSIDERING
THE ABOVE MATTER, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT YOUR ACTIONS
WARRANT US IN CONCLUDING THAT YOU ARE JUST STALLING,
RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN'S-"LOCAL NO. "122"5' 1501
AND THAT YOU DO NOT INTEND TO PAY YOUR'RADIO ENGINEER-
ING EMPLOYEES WAGES EQUAL TO THE UNION SCALE OF WAGES
IN THE INDIANAPOLIS AREA - `
H DALE MACE BUSINESS MANAGER LOCAL 1225
IBEW-AFL-CIO 3518 EAST MICHIGAN ST. INDIANAPOLIS
After careful examination of the above telegram the Trial Examiner is convinced
and finds that Mace sent it on August 8, 1956, at 8:45 a. in., central standard time, and
that it was received in Rehoboth Beach at 10:29 eastern standard time on the same
day. Chambers made no reply to the telegram either by letter or otherwise.
It is significant that 2 days later the Respondent Union established its picket line
at the Rollins job site, of which more anon.
As indicated above the Trial Examiner credits Chambers' testimony as to what
transpired at the above-described meeting and discredits that of Mace insofar as his
testimony concerning matters pertinent to the issues herein are concerned. He has
arrived at his finding in this regard after long and careful consideration. As indicated
above certain factors have entered into the Trial Examiner's determination in this
regard. A compelling factor has been the fact that the Respondent Union did in
fact'take steps to interfere with the construction of Station WGEE by setting up a
picket line at the only entrance to the job site on August 10, 1956, at a time when
Mace as business agent of the Respondent Union well knew that Rollins neither had
a representative there nor had even hired any employees to operate the station.
Moreover, Chambers' account of Mace's threats, veiled and otherwise, as to what
would happen to Rollins if it did not sign a contract with the Respondent Union before
it opened Station WGEE is in the main a restatement of Kocher's credible testimony
as regards his conversation with Mace a few days before the picket line was set up.
As indicated above the Respondent Union set up a picket line at the only entrance
to the job site on the morning of August 10, 1956. According to the credible testi-
mony of Ralph V. Halstead, an employee of Murphy, the picket line was set up when
he reported to work on the morning of August 10, 1956. There were 5 pickets, 1 of
whom was Mace. When he approached the picket line Mace came up to him and
said that the Respondent Union was picketing the job for the purpose of "... attempt-
ing to establish a contract with the people having this project built, for the working
conditions of their union." Mace also told him that the pickets would stay there until
the Respondent Union had orders to remove them. Halstead told Mace that he
would not cross the picket line. Shortly thereafter other employees of Murphy in-
cluding Foreman Kocher arrived at the job site.
Kocher testified that shortly after he arrived at the entrance to the job site Mace
came up to him and said to him in substance that he was sorry that the Respondent
Union was forced to set up the picket line but that it had no other choice, and that the
picket line would stay there until "somebody removes it." He further testified that
he asked Mace if the picket line had been approved by the Indianapolis Building
Trades Council and that Mace admitted that he had not consulted the council.
Shortly thereafter Kocher told the employees of Murphy who had reported for work
that ". . . there was no sense in us creating any trouble" and took the employees to
another job that Murphy had in Indianapolis.
Two of the pickets "carried" on their person a sign which carried the following
legend:
ROLLINS BROADCAST CO.
Radio Station WGEE
WILL NOT AGREE TO PAY
ITS RADIO ENGINEERING
EMPLOYEES WAGES EQUAL
TO THE UNION SCALE OF
WAGES PREVAILING
IN THE INDPL'S AREA
LU. 1225-IBEW-AFL-CIO
The record shows that the pickets were on the job on August 10, 13, and 14, 1956.
On Monday some of the employees reported for work but went home on account
of wet grounds around the job site. On the next day, August 14, Murphy's em-
ployees went through the picket line. The Respondent Union removed the pickets
sometime later in the day.
1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record shows that the Respondent Union changed the wording on its picket
signs after August 10, and added the following to the above legend , which first ap-
peared on the signs Monday morning , August 13, 1956:
THIS PICKETING IS
SOLELY AGAINST
ROLLINS BROADCAST CO.
Conclusion
Having found as above the Trial Examiner is convinced and he so finds that the
General Counsel has maintained the burden of proof and that the Respondent Union
engaged in the conduct complained of in his complaint.
As the Trial Examiner sees it the Respondent Union acting through its Business
Agent Mace violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) and (B ) of the Act by engaging in, and
inducing the employees of Joe Murphy to engage in a concerted refusal in the course
of their employment by picketing the Rollins job site where Murphy was constructing
the building that was to house Station WGEE, regardless of the fact that Rollins had
no employees either on the job site at times material herein or in the Indianapolis
area, which was a fact well known not only to Mace but the general public as well.
In addition to the calculated effect of the picket line as a means of inducing the em-
ployees of Murphy (all of whom were members of the Carpenters Union), to refuse
to work at the picketed premises, the Respondent Union acting through Mace orally
requested them to not cross the picket line and to refuse to work on the Rollins
project. The object of the Respondent being to force Murphy and his subcontractors
to cease doing business with Rollins, and thus delay either the opening of Station
WGEE or cause Rollins to abandon the project altogether unless it recognized the
Respondent as the collective-bargaining agent of its future employees, regardless of
the fact that the Respondent Union had neither been certified as the representative
of Rollins' employees in accordance with Section 9 of the Act nor even made an idle
gesture in this regard , which of course it would have been since Rollins had no
employees at the time.
It is significant that the Respondent Union makes no pretense that its picketing and
oral persuasion was for organizational purposes . The evidence clearly shows that its
primary purpose was to force Rollins to recognize it as the bargaining agent for its
future employees. After Mace had failed to intimidate Chambers by the threats cited
above the Respondent Union decided to picket the job, and by this method coerce
Rollins to recognize it as the sole collective-bargaining agent of said future employees,
in complete disregard of the rights guaranteed them by virtue of Section 7 of the
Act. Had Rollins acquiesced to the Respondent Union's demands it would have
likewise engaged in conduct violative of at least Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the
Act In other words, had Rollins signed the contract presented to Chambers by
Mace its future employees would have had thrust upon them a bargaining agent not
of their own choosing as contemplated by the Act. Nor does the fact that the picket
sign mentioned that Rollins would not agree to pay its radio engineers the pre-
vailing wage rate in the area alter the situation, since Mace, as the outspoken
representative of the Respondent Union, had made crystal clear to several of
Murphy's employees, including Foreman Kocher, that the real purpose of the
picketing was to force Rollins to sign a contract with it. Furthermore, Mace well
knew at the time he set up the picket line that all of Murphy's employees were union
men and would not cross the picket line as a matter of principle. One would have
to be most naive to reason otherwise. Again the mere fact that the Respondent
Union changed the legend on the picket signs sometime between August 10 and 13,
to show that the picketing was directed solely at Rollins, alter the situation for the
simple reason. that the secondary employees, such as Murphy, had already been
injured on the first day of the picketing, August 10, 1956. While it is true that the
pickets were withdrawn on August 14, 1956, it does not necessarily follow that the
Respondent Union should be held blameless for its conduct, for the simple reason
that it has been found that the original purpose of the picketing was to cause Murphy
and other secondary employers to cease rendering services to Rollins, and by such
tactics coerce and force Rollins to sign a collective-bargaining contract with it
It is clear from the foregoing that the picketing by the Respondent Union was
carried on at a "common situs," i. e , premises jointly occupied by primary and
secondary employers. This is true even though Rollins at times material herein
had no employees on the premises. In a recent case 3 Retail Fruit Dealers' Associa-
8 Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks' Union Local 1017, and, Retail Grocery Clerks ' Union,
Local 648, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO and Retail Fruit Dealers'
Association of San Francisco , Inc, 116 NLRB 856
RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIAN ' S LOCAL NO. 1225 1503
tion of San Francisco , Inc, the Board had a somewhat similar situation before it.
There the Board held as follows:
This case thus presents the problem , with which the Board has had frequent
occasion to deal, of determining the legality of picketing at a "common situs"-
i. e., premises jointly occupied by primary and secondary employers . In Denver
Building and Construction Trades Council, above, the Supreme Court pointed
out that in such cases the Board was required to give effect to the "dual Con-
gressional objectives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring
pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shield-
ing unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not
their own."
In seeking to accommodate these sometimes conflicting congressional objec-
tives, the Board , with judicial approval , has established certain standards for
"common situs" picketing. The gist of these standards is that where picketing
occurs at premises which are occupied jointly by primary and secondary em-
ployers, the timing and location of the picketing and the legends on the picket
signs must be tailored to reach the employees of the primary employer , rather
than those of neutral employers . If these standards are observed , the picketing
is lawful, and any incidental impact thereof on neutral employees at the com-
mon situs will not render it unlawful.4 Where, however , there is any deviation
from these standards , the Board , with judicial approval, has held that the
picketing violates Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) of the Act .5 In developing and apply-
ing these standards , the controlling consideration has been to require that the
picketing be so conducted as to minimize its impact on neutral employees inso-
far as this can be done without substantial impairment of the effectiveness of
the picketing in reaching the primary employees.6
We believe , contrary to the contention of the Respondents , that the foregoing
principles should apply to all common situs picketing, including cases where, as
here, the picketed premises are owned by the primary employer . We can see
no logical reason why the legality of such picketing should depend on title to
property . The impact on neutral employees of picketing which deviates from
the standards outlined above is the same whether the common premises are
owned by their own employer or by the primary employer.
There is ample precedent for this view . In Professional and Business Men's
Life Insurance Company, supra , the Board held that picketing of a construction
site owned by the general contractor , the primary employer, violated Section
8 (b) (4) (A ) of the Act because of the impact of the picketing on neutral sub-
contractors working on the site. This finding was approved by the court of
appeals , which held , in effect, that the picketing was illegal because it did not
conform to the limitations imposed by the Board on common situs picketing
in the Moore Dry Dock case , 92 NLRB 547. In the Deena Artware case,7
the court of appeals rejected the contention that the fact that picketing was
limited to a construction site owned-by the primary employer precluded, as a
matter of law, a finding that the picketing violated 8 ( b) (4) (A) or ( B) with
respect to employees of a neutral contractor who were working on the site.
The court deemed controlling the object , rather than the geography, of the
picketing . See, also, N. L. R. B . v. Deena Artware, Inc., 198 F. 2d 645, 653
(C. A. 6), cert. denied 345 U. S. 906.
' Moore,Dry Dock Company , 92 NLRB 547; N L. R B v. Service Trade Chauffeurs,
etc., 191 F 2d 65, 68 ( C A. 2); John A Piezonki d/b/a Stover Steel Service v
N L R B. , 219 F 2d 879 , 883 (C A. 4) , cf N L R B v.' General Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local 968 . 225 F 2d 205 ( C A. 5), cert denied, 350 U S 914
° N L It . B v. Local Union No. 55 and Carpenters ' District Council of Denver &
Vicinity, 218 F. 2d 226 , 231 (C. A 10 ) , N L R B . v Chauffeurs, Teamsters, etc.,
Local Union No. 135, 212 F . 2d 216, 219 ( C A 7) ; Richfield Oil Corporation, 95
NLRB 1191 ; Columbia- Southern Chemical Corporation , 110 NLRB 206
' See Southwestern Motor Transport , Inc, 115 NLRB 981
United Brick and Clay Workers of America , et al v Deena Artware, Inc,
198 F 2d 637 ( C A 6), cert . denied 344 U. S 897
In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner the standards enunciated by the
Board in the above -cited case regarding "common situs" picketing are applicable
here for the following reasons : There the Board said that the legend on the signs
must be ". . . tailored to reach the employees of the primary employer ," but where
as here the primary employer had no employees , a fact well known to the Respondent
Union, then it is obvious that regardless of the language of the legend , the only
persons that could possibly be affected were the employees of the secondary em-
1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployers. The record clearly shows that they and they alone were reached and
affected by the signs carried by the pickets which were not only injurious to them,
but their secondary employer, Joe Murphy, as well. The Trial Examiner is con-
vinced and finds that the Board's standards set forth above in the cited case are
applicable to the situation herein, and it is so found.
Upon all of the foregoing, and upon the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that beginning sometime in July 1956, and thereafter, in particular
on August 10, 1956, the picketing at the only entrance to Rollins' property had as
one of its purposes the inducement and encouragement of employees of employers
other than Rollins to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment
to cease performing services, that is the construction of radio Station WGEE, with
the object of forcing and requiring such other employers, particularly Joe Murphy,
to cease doing business with Rollins in order to compel Rollins to recognize and
bargain with Respondent Union although it was not certified as the representative
of Rollins' employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, and that such
conduct was violative of Section (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in section III, above , occurring
in connection with the operations of Rollins Broadcasting, Inc., 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 the Respondent Union has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and
(B) of the Act, the Trial Examiner shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case , the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Rollins Broadcasting , Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Radio Broadcast Technician's Local 1225, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sections
2 (5) and 8 (b) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Joe Murphy to engage in a strike,
or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to handle or work on products
of Rollins Broadcasting, Inc., or to perform services for their employer, with the
object of (a) forcing or requiring their employer to cease doing business with Rollins
Broadcasting, Inc., and (b) forcing and requiring Rollins Broadcasting, Inc., to
recognize or bargain with Respondent Union as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees although it has not been certified as such representative
in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, the Respondent Union
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
and (B ) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Toledo Board of Trade and American Federation of Grain Mill-
ers, Local 58, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-2890. May
9,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John Vincek, hearing officer.
117 NLRB No. 199.