Seattle District Council of Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 27 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SEATTLE- DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 27
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
tllie Act : - -
, . All lithographic production employees, including pressmen and
feeders, platemakers, and the, camerman, but excluding cutters, the
varnisher, the embosser, clerical employees, professional employees,
the artist, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
,[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Seattle District Council of Carpenters , affiliated with United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL;
'Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers , Local Union No. 174,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , AFL; International Union
of Operating Engineers , Local 302, AFL; and Local 440, Inter-
national Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America , AFL 1 and Cisco Construction Company.
Case No. 19-CC-72. September 9, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
,; On March 25, 1955, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents 2 had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, and recommending
that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, modifications, and
additions noted below.
1 At -the hearing, the General Counsel's motion to dismiss the complaint against Western
Washington District Council, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America, AFL, was granted without objection.
2 Seattle District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL ; Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 174,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL ; Local 440, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union
of America, AFL ; and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, are herein
individually referred to as Respondents Carpenters , Local 174 , Local 440 , and Local 302,
respectively, and collectively referred to as Respondents.
114 NLRB No. 12.
I
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents have
jointly and severally violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. Wt
base this finding on the following conduct attributable to thu
Respondents : 3
(a) Respondent Carpenters' picketing at Cadman's between No-
vember 5 and 17, 1954, and at Western Sand and Gravel on November
15 in connection with its dispute with Cisco.
While we accept the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent Car-
penters picketed Cadman and Western Sand and Gravel at times when
Cisco trucks were not on their premises,4 we do not rest our conclusion
herein on that fact alone . It appears from the record that the dispute
in this case between the Respondent Carpenters and Cisco concerns
employees of Cisco who are employed at the Redmond and Young's
Lake job sites in the State of Washington where Cisco is engaged as
the general contractor. The primary sites of the dispute could be
and are in fact being picketed by Respondent Carpenters, as they have
been virtually since the beginning of the dispute.' In view of these
facts, more fully detailed in the Intermediate Report, we find, for the
reasons stated in Washington Coca-Cola 6 and related cases,' that all
'the Respondent Carpenters' picketing of Cadman and Western Sand
and Gravel was conducted, at least in part, to force those secondary
employers to cease doing business with Cisco, by inducing and en-
couraging their employees to engage in a strike or concerted refusal
to work, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
(b) The instructions by Abbott, assistant business representative
of Respondent Local 302, to Cadman employees, who were members of
Respondent Local 302, on November 8, that they were to cross the
street to where he would be and talk to him when Respondent Car-
penters pickets were on the scene 8
(c) The attempts by Lucero, assistant business agent of Respond-
ent Local 440, between November 29 and December 4, to persuade
Layrite employees who were members of his union not to load Cisco
8It is clear that the various union representatives whose conduct constitutes a part of
the evidence relied upon herein were acting within the scope of their general authority
on the occasions involved
* Inasmuch as the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not shown by a clear pre-
ponderance of all the relevant evidence to be incorrect, we adopt them . Standard Dry
Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 302 (C. A. 3).
5 Respondent Carpenters' contention that the primary situs of its dispute with Cisco
"moved" to Cadman's plant when Cadman agreed to supply concrete to Cisco at its plant
is plainly without merit.
GWashington Coca - Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 107 NLRB 299.
7 See Thurston Motor Lines , Inc., 110 NLRB 748; Gotham Broadcasting Corporation,
110 NLRB 2166 ; Associated General Contractors of America , Inc., Georgia Branch, 110
NLRB 2192; National Trucking Company, 111 NLRB 485 ; and Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company of Alabama, 112 NLRB 30.
8 While Abbott did not expressly instruct the employees to leave their jobs, talk to him
until the pickets left, and then return to their work , as the Trial Examiner found, all this
was implicit in what he did say.
SEATTLE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 29'
trucks, including his threat, on December 4, to call them up for dis-
ciplinary action if they did.
(d) The "suggestion" by Crowder, business agent of Respondent
Local 174, to Forcier, a Cadman employee, on November 5, that he
go home , while at the same time referring to the fact that Forcier was
working behind a picket line and threatening Forcier with the loss of
his withdrawal card in Respondent Local 174.
Respondent Local 174 contends that this activity on the part of
Crowder was "directed at a single employee" and that, because the
incident constituted the only direct action taken by it against an em-
ployee of a secondary employer, it was not an attempt to induce em-
ployees to engage in a "strike" or a "concerted" refusal to perform
work, within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4). This contention is
without merit. For reasons set forth hereinafter, we believe, as
already indicated, that the above-enumerated activity engaged in by
each Respondent was part of a joint course of action participated in
by all the Respondents herein. In view thereof, it would be mani-
festly unrealistic to consider the Crowder incident in isolation rather
than as part of the total pattern of conduct engaged in by the Re-
spondents in connection with this controversy. And when, under the
circumstances of this case, the incident in question is viewed as but
one of a series of related events, the fact that only one employee figured
in it becomes wholly immaterial .9
In attributing responsibility for the foregoing incidents to the Re-
spondents we are persuaded not only by the related character of the
acts involved but also by the following facts established by the record :
(1) On November 4 Crowder sought to dissuade Western Sand
and Gravel from leasing trucks to Cisco with which to haul concrete.
(2) On November 5 Crowder, before talking to Forcier as noted
above, told the president of Cadman that a representative of Re-
spondent Local 302 would visit the plant on November 8 to tell Forcier,
who had applied for membership in that union, "not to operate."
(3) On November 11 another representative of Respondent 174
told a group of Cadman truckdrivers that they could not go through,
or that the Union would not let them go through, the Respondent
Carpenters picket line at Cisco.
(4) On November 15 representatives of the Respondent Carpenters
and Local 302 asked the president of Western Sand and Gravel not
to deliver materials to Cisco "because of the status of Cisco [a nonunion
operator] in conjunction with the unions."
6 Direct Transit Lines, Inc, 92 NLRB 1715.
In view of our findings and the scope of our Order herein. we consider it unnecessary
to decide whether the conversation between Carr, business representative of the Respond-
ent Carpenters , and Fortier on November 5 and the one between Conlon , secretary and
business representative of Respondent Local 302 , and Forcier later the same day were
also violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A).
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(5) On November 29 when Lucero attempted' to induce Layrite
employees not to load Cisco trucks he was accompanied by MacDonald,
a representative of Respondent Local 302. On that occasion Lucero
told the employees that if they were discharged for refusing to load
the Cisco trucks "the union would shut the plant down, and that they
would call in the Teamsters."
(6) On November 29 a representative of Respondent Local 302 de-
manded of Layrite that it not sell materials to Cisco and, when this
demand was rejected, threatened a picket line and other retaliatory
action.
-'These facts and the record as a whole make it plain that the opera-
tions 'of Cisco at Redmond and Young's Lake on a nonunion basis
were a matter of concern to all the Respondents and that Respondent
Carpenters' activity against Cisco and the action taken by the other
Respondents, whose mainfest purpose was to implement and further
the effectiveness of Respondent Carpenters' activity, were all directed
toward the same end, namely, to secure the unionization of Cisco em-
ployees. In this matter, we find, the Respondents were not acting as
strangers to one another, but rather were engaged in a joint course
of action to accomplish their common purpose. Under well-established
principles, this joint venture relationship between the Respondents car-
ried with it responsibility by the Respondents for each other's acts.
ORDER
Upon 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 Seattle District Council of Car-
penters, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL; Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union
No. 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL ; International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 302, AFL; and Local 440, International
Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America,
AFL, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
the employees of Cadman Gravel Company, Western Sand and Gravel
Company, Layrite Concrete Products of Seattle, Inc., or of any other
employer to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of
their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire Cadman Gravel Company, Western Sand and Gravel Company,
and Layrite Concrete Products of Seattle, Inc., or any other em-,
ployer or person to cease doing business with Cisco Construction
Company.
SEATTLE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 31
2. Take the following affirmative action,.which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at their respective Seattle, Washington, business offices
copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Ap-
pendix." 10 Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of each Respondent herein, be posted by
:said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
.for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondents to in-
sure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. The Respondent shall also sign copies of the notice which
the Regional Director shall make available for posting, the Em-
ployers willing, at the premises of the Employers enumerated above.'
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
10 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a,Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Cisco Construction Company, herein called Cisco,
the then General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively
called the General Counsel 1 and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Nine-
teenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued his complaint on December 6, 1954,
against Seattle District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, herein called Carpenters; Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called Local 174;
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, AFL, herein called Local
302; and Local 440, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America, AFL, herein called Local 440, alleging that Respondents 2 had
engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, as amended, herein called the Act. Copies of
the charges and the complaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly
served upon Respondents and Cisco.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that:
(1) On or about October 28, 1954, Carpenters engaged in an economic strike against
Cisco at the construction site at Redmond, Washington, where Cisco was performing
a contract which it had with the United States Army Engineers and on or about the
aforesaid date began picketing said job site; (2) on or about November 8, 1954,
Carpenters struck the job which Cisco was performing for United States Army En-
gineers at Young's Lake, Washington, and immediately began picketing that job;
(3) Carpenters, although it had no labor dispute with Cadman Gravel Company,
Redmond, Washington, herein called Cadman, or with Western Sand and Gravel
i This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hear-
ting ,
2 Collectively the above-named labor organizations, each of whom is affiliated' with
American Federation of Labor, are referred to herein as Respondents.
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, Maple Valley, Washington, herein called Western, or with Layrite Con-
crete Products of Seattle, Inc., of Seattle, Washington, herein called Layrite, each of
whom was a subcontractor of Cisco, picketed Cadman's premises on various dates
since November 5, and picketed Western's premises on or about November 17, 1954;
and (4) since on or about October 28, 1954, by means of certain stated acts and
conduct, Respondents induced and encouraged the employees of Cadman, Western,
Layrite, and other employers doing business with Cisco, to engage in strikes or con-
certed refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to otherwise perform services for Cisco the object of which was to force or re-
quire Cadman, Western, Layrite, and other employers to cease doing business with
Cisco.
Each Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged un-
fair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on various dates between December
20, 1954, and January 11, 1955, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The
General Counsel and each Respondent was represented by counsel and participated
in the hearing. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce pertinent evidence, to argue orally at the
conclusion of the taking of evidence, and to file briefs with the Trial Examiner on
or before January 31, 1955.3 Briefs have been received from the General Counsel
and from counsel for each Respondent and said briefs have been duly considered.
At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for Local 302 and counsel for Local 440
each specifically moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety as against their re-
spective clients. Decisions thereon were reserved. The motions are now disposed
of in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF CISCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Cisco Construction Company, an Oregon corporation, has its offices and princi-
pal place of business in Portland, Oregon, where it is engaged in the general con-
struction business . Cisco is presently performing construction contracts in the
States of Washington, Oregon, and' Idaho and its annual business exceeds one mil-
lion dollars.
Cisco is now fulfilling a $275,000 contract for the Atomic Energy Commission
at Arco, Idaho; an $800 ,000 contract for the United States Army Engineers at Red-
mond and Young's Lake, Washington; and two AEC contracts at Hanford, Wash-
ington . The Arco contract calls for the construction of certain facilities in connec-
tion with the AEC research program and the Redmond and Young's Lake contracts
call for the, construction of guided missiles launching and control areas for the pro-
'tection of Seattle and the Puget Sound area against enemy attack.
About 75 percent of the material to be used by Cisco and its subcontractors on
the Redmond and Young's Lake jobs, valued at about $400,000, is shipped to said
jobs -from points located outside of the State of Washington. In addition, Cisco
purchased an undisclosed amount of steel and lumber which were shipped to said
jobs from points outside of the State of Washington and the Army engineers sup-
plied certain materials which were shipped to the Redmond and Young's Lake job
sites from the State of Ohio.
Upon the above undisputed facts, the Trial Examiner finds that Cisco Construc-
tion Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the
Board has jurisdiction over its operations .4
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Seattle District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL; Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local
Union No. 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL; International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 302, AFL; and Local 440, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common
3 At the request of counsel for Respondents the time was extended to February 20, 1955.
4 See Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481, Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110
,NLRB,594.
SEATTLE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 33
Laborers' Union of America, AFL, are labor organizations admitting to member-
ship employees of Cisco.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The pertinent facts
This proceeding centers around the performance of two contracts Cisco has with
the United States Army Engineers for the construction of guided missile launching
and control areas at Redmond and Young's Lake in the vicinity of Seattle, Wash-
ington . As far as the record shows Cisco has never recognized any labor organ-
ization, nor has any labor organization been certified by the Board, as the- bargain-
ing representative of any of its employees.
On or about October 20, 1954,5 Harry L. Carr, business representative of the
District Council of Carpenters in Seattle and King County, accompanied by a rep-
resentative of a union not here involved, called at the Redmond job site and in-
quired of Clifford T. Schiel, Cisco's president, what wages, travel time, and other
financial benefits Cisco's employees were receiving. Schiel replied that the men
were being paid, pursuant to the terms of the contracts with the Army Engineers,
in accordance with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act. When the union repre-
sentatives asked if Cisco would pay its men travel time, make contribution to a
health and welfare fund, and grant its men certain fringe benefits, Schiel stated he
would be glad to do so provided the union representatives were able to prevail
upon the Army to increase the amount of the contracts to permit the granting of
such benefits. Carr and his companion replied that they could not ask the Army
to change the terms of the contracts. Each of them then handed Schiel a proposed
contract , asked him to examine them, and if the terms thereof were agreeable to
sign them . Schiel promised to do so. The meeting broke up with the understand-
ing that the parties would meet again in the near future.
On October 26, Schiel informed Carr and the other union representative that
Cisco could not sign the agreements nor could it grant the employees any of the
requested benefits.
October 28, Respondent Carpenters placed pickets around the Redmond job site
bearing signs reading in substance, "Cisco Construction Company Unfair to Wages
and Working Conditions. District Council of Carpenters, A. F. L." Several days
later , Carpenters pickets appeared at the Young's Lake job bearing similar signs.6
Cisco, at the outset of the Redmond job, had a contract with Cadman Gravel
Company for the delivery of concrete at the job site on a when- and-as-needed basis
and a similar contract for concrete with Western Sand and Gravel Company with
respect to the Young's Lake job. In addition, Cisco had a similar type of contract
with Layrite Concrete Products of Seattle, Inc., for the delivery of concrete
blocks to both jobs. The record discloses that none of said firms with whom Cisco
had contracts had any controversy or dispute with its employees or with any labor
organization representing its employees.
On November 2 or 3, Cisco notified Cadman that it would need concrete at the
Redmond job on or about November 5. At about 8 a. in. on the last named date,
Cadman sent a load of concrete to Redmond but the driver refused to cross Car-
penters picket line and returned to Cadman without making delivery.
Schiel, anticipating that Cadman's truckdrivers, who are members of Respond-
ent Local 174, would not cross the picket line established at Redmond, had entered
into an oral agreement on or about November 4 with Western to lease some of
the latter's concrete mixing trucks to haul concrete from Cadman? When Cad-
man's truckdriver refused to cross the picket line on November 5, Schiel called upon
Western to deliver the leased trucks to the Cadman yard.
When Western trucks arrived at Cadman, at or about 10:30 a. m. on November
5, the employees of Western who drove the trucks to Cadman, instructed Cisco's
truckdrivers in the operation of the trucks. Thereafter, Cadman loaded said trucks
with concrete and they were driven to the Redmond job and through the picket line
by Cisco's employees.
Schiel testified that very shortly after the Western trucks arrived at Cadman, Carr
and several pickets arrived at Cadman; that some of said pickets carried signs bear-
ing the same inscriptions as those displayed by the Redmond pickets; that the pickets
6 Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1954.
6 At the time of the hearing, both jobs still were being picketed.
° Schiel first spoke to Paul Smith, president of Western, about leasing trucks on Novem-
ber 2 . It was not, however, until November 4, that Smith agreed to Schiel's proposition.
Under date of November 5, a written agreement was entered into.
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
took up stations at the entrance of Cadman's yard; that Carr spoke to the batch
house operator, adding, however, that he did not hear what was -said by either Carr
or said operator; that after a delay of 1 or 11/2 hours the trucks delivered by Western
were loaded; that "after the trucks were loaded some of the pickets remained at Cad-
man's and some of them got in their cars and followed our trucks on down the road
toward the job site and then I noticed other cars falling in behind"; that he got into
his panel truck and joined the procession to the Redmond job; that the pickets who
remained at Cadman displayed their picket signs; that each time the leased trucks
traveled from the job site to Cadman and returned to the job site he followed them
in his panel truck; that after a couple of hours "the pickets no longer remained at
Cadman's while our trucks were away from there but they all got in their cars and
followed our trucks to the job site, waited until our trucks returned, then followed
them back to Cadman's"; that between 9 and 10 o'clock that evening he saw officials
of Local 174 and of Local 302 and officials of other unions conferring at Cadman
with certain Cadman officials; and that since November 5, Carpenters pickets ap-
peared at Cadman on 3 or 4 different occasions when Cisco's leased trucks were there.
Schiel further testified that during the first hour the trucks Cisco leased from West-
ern were being loaded by Cadman, he visited Cadman's yard and saw Carpenters
pickets wearing picket signs when no Cisco-leased trucks were present.
Carr testified that he was informed by a picket that a Cadman truckdriver refused
to cross the picket line; that on November 5, he was at the Redmond job site when
the first Cisco-leased truck went through the picket line; and that Cisco was "pour-
ing about two, trucks an hour. There were three yard mixers. So we sat there
wondering what we could do about it. So I called my counsel and he said, 'If those
trucks are leased-put a roving picket line on them "'; that it was about-noontime
when he spoke to his lawyer; that after receiving the advice about a roving picket
line he, a picket who was stationed at the job site, and a representative of another
Carpenters local, got into an automobile and followed a Cisco-leased truck to Cad-
man; that when they arrived at Cadman he stationed the picket and then informed
those Cadman employees who approached him that he was establishing a roving picket
line which would leave Cadman when Cisco's leased trucks left; that he went to Cad-
man with one picket and said representative of another Carpenters local on Novem-
ber 5, not more than twice; and that thereafter he turned over to said picket the re-
sponsibility of following said leased trucks.
Upon the entire record in the case, coupled with the fact that the Trial Examiner
was favorably impressed with the sincere and frank manner with which Schiel testi-
fied, the Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that Schiel's version of what trans-
pired at the Cadman yard on November 5 to be substantially in accord with the facts;
especially with regard to the picketing which took place at Cadman when the leased
trucks were not present.
Fred Forcier, Cadman's batchman testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that he
is an applicant for membership in Local 302 and a holder of a Teamsters with-
drawal card; that about 12:30 p. in. on November 5, Carr came up into the batch
house and informed him that Carpenters had established a roving picket line on
Cisco trucks and "would follow the trucks wherever they went"; that on and subse-
quent to November 5, he saw pickets at Cadman carrying signs stating, "Cisco
Construction Company Unfair to Carpenters"; and that he had loaded two Western
trucks prior to Carr's talk with him.
Fortier further credibly testified that after his talk with Can he immediately left
the batch house and inquired of Tor Magnussen, Cadman's president, whether he
should load the Cisco-leased truck which was under the batch house awaiting load-
ing and that Magnussen instructed him to do so, that after he had loaded said
truck he telephoned Local 302 to ask advice; that he was informed he should speak
to Russell T. Conlon (secretary and assistant business representative of Local 302)
who was not then available; that he returned to his work and while so engaged he
was called to the telephone and spoke to Conlon; that because Conlon refused to
advise him whether or not to continue to load Cisco-leased trucks, coupled with Con-
lon's remark that to load or not to load was "entirely up" to him, he received the im-
pression that Conlon did not want him to load the trucks Cisco had leased; that he
nevertheless returned to work but being "still in doubt" as to what he should do, he
conferred with Magnussen who telephoned Conlon; that he heard Magnussen ask
Conlon, "You are not telling us not to load the trucks?" but did not hear Conlon's
reply; and that Magnussen, at the conclusion of his conversation with Conlon, told
him "to go ahead and load the trucks," which he proceeded to do.
Magmussen testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that after Carr had advised him
of the establishment of the roving picket line and that the pickets would be at Cadman
SEATTLE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 35
whenever the Cisco-leased trucks were there he ordered Forcier to continue to load
the trucks; that Forcier later spoke to Conlon on the telephone and when Forcier
,had concluded his conversation with Conlon he spoke to Conlon; that, after telling
Conlon that Cadman had no contract with Carpenters but was under contract to
deliver concrete to Cisco, he received no satisfactory answer to his query as to
-whether Carpenters' strike would affect Cadman's operators.
- Magnussen further testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that at about 6:50 p. m.
on November 5, Alan Crowder, business agent of Local 174 and business represen-
tative of Teamsters Joint Council 28, whose jurisdiction is Washington Statewide,
telephoned and, after stating that Forcier was not a member. in good standing in
Local 302 and that a representative of that union would be at the plant the follow-
ing Monday, November 8, and advise Forcier.that he could not work for Cadman,
asked to speak to Forcier.
Regarding his conversation with Crowder on the evening of November 5, Forcier
credibly testified as follows:
Q. What was the conversation between you and Mr. Crowder, Mr. Fortier?
A. Well, he mentioned that if I was driving a truck yet, I would not go through
a picket line. And I told him, "No, I wouldn't." And it was mentioned several
times during the conversation that there was a tape recording being made of the
conversation; and he mentioned to me, he said, "You might be getting pretty
tired," and I said I was. And he suggested that I might go home. And he asked
me what I was going to do, and I said, "Well, I,think I had better go home."
And that was at seven o'clock. So I quit loading trucks then." 8
Q. At any time during the conversation, did [Crowder] mention your
[Teamsters] withdrawal card?
A. That was mentioned, and he, said that it was. good in the United States,
Alaska, and Hawaii.
Q. Did he say anything about its being taken away?
A. Well, he said, "You know that could be taken away from you."
Forcier credibly testified further that during the aforementioned conversation Crowder
referred to the fact that Forcier in effect was working behind a picket line; that when
he concluded speaking to Crowder he remained in the office for about 30 or 40 minutes
talking to Magnussen and Cadman's plant superintendent; and that he did no further
work that night but his duties as batchman were taken over by the office crew.
The record is clear, and the Trial Examiner finds, that on November 8, Cole
Abbott,9 assistant business representative of Local 302, went to Cadman and there
instructed Harry Cotterill, a Cadman oiler and a member of Local 302-A of the
Operating Engineers, Roland Pearson, a Cadman crusherman and a Local 302 mem-
ber, and Leonard P. Downs, a Cadman drag line operator and a Local 302 member,
to leave their respective jobs each time the Carpenters pickets appeared at Cadman,
go across the street from -Cadman's premises and talk to him until the pickets left,
and then return to their jobs; that none of said employees did as instructed although
Abbott was present on and after November 8 "most of the times when the pickets"
were at Cadman.
Paul H. Smith, president of Western, credibly testified that for about 11/2 or 2 hours
on November 15, the first day Western delivered any material to Cisco, Carpenters
pickets bearing "Cisco Unfair to Organized Labor" signs stationed themselves in front
of his firm's plant although no Cisco trucks were present.lo
On November 29, according to the credible and undenied testimony of William
Quinnett, a lift truckdriver for Layrite Concrete Products of Seattle, Inc., and a mem-
ber, of Local 440, Ed Lucero, assistant business agent of the aforementioned union,
called at Layrite, and, after asking Quinnett if he had heard about the labor trouble
8 According to Forcier 's credible and undenied testimony he normally commences work
at 7 : 30 a. in. and works "until all of the concrete is out for the day" or "as long as the
trucks are out of the yard."
0 Also referred to in the record as Jiggs Abbott.
10 Smith and another official of his concern drove the Western trucks when making
delivery through the Young ' s Lake picket line and occasionally a Western truckdriver
would drive a truck , from • the plant as far as the said picket line and then either Smith
or another Western official would drive it through the picket line. Cisco also used leased
trucks manned by its own employees to haul material from Western to the Young's Lake
job site.
387644-56-vol. 114---4
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cisco was having and after Quinnett has acknowledged that he had, Lucero asked
Quinnett to stop loading the Cisco trucks."
Quinnett also credibly and without contradiction testified that when he told Lucero
that he feared losing his job if he refused to load the Cisco trucks, Lucero assured
him that Local 440 would "protect" him; that on November 30, Elmer R. Baumgart-
ner, Layrite's secretary-treasurer, assembled him, James Thurman, Layrite's fork lift
operator, and Marvin Anderson, a Layrite foreman, and stated that Layrite had con-
tracts with Cisco and if any employee refused to load Cisco trucks he would be dis-
charged; that on December 4, Lucero again came to the plant and told him, in the
presence of Thurman and employee Larkin, they "were not to load Cisco trucks" and
if they did they would "more than likely be called in front of a union board for
disciplinary action"; that on December 7, Lucero told him, Thurman, Larkin, and
Shop Steward Brothers, in the presence of Baumgartner and Vernon Frese, Layrite's
president, that the men were to load all trucks coming into Layrite's yard; and that at
no time did he refuse to load any Cisco truck.
James Thurman also credibly testified that on November 29, Lucero came to the
Layrite plant and, to quote Thurman, "told me there was labor troubles at Cisco's,
and that they had non-union drivers, and other labor troubles; and asked us not to
load Cisco trucks"; that he replied that he would not load the Cisco trucks, that Lucero
assured him that "if we refused to load the trucks and [Layrite] fired us, that the
union would shut the plant down, and that they would call in the Teamsters"; that
about 10 minutes later he told Plant Superintendent Beardsley about his conversation
with Lucero; that about 7 a. in. on November 30, Lucero again came to the plant and
repeated the same remarks he made the previous day; that later that morning Baum-
gartner advised him, Quinnett, and Anderson that if any employee refused to load a
Cisco truck he would be fired; that about 4 p. in. the same day, November 30, Lucero
returned to the plant, inquired "how things had been going," that he replied, "pretty
smooth"; that when Lucero again asked him to cease loading Cisco trucks he said, to
quote Thurman, "I told him that as I was a family man, I had to think of my family
first, and I was going to continue to load" Cisco trucks; that on December 4, Lucero
came to Layrite and told him, Quinnett, and Larkin that if they did not cease loading
Cisco trucks they "would have to answer to" a union board of inquiry which might
discipline them; that on December 7, Lucero announced that he and the other em-
ployees were to load all trucks coming into the Layrite plant; and that at no time did
he refuse to load any Cisco truck.
B. Concluding findings
In drawing the line between secondary strikes and picketing, which Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) proscribes, and primary strikes and picketing, which the Act does not
proscribe and indeed protects, the Board is required to determine whether picket-
ing or other strike action in any given case is directed against the primary or
against the secondary employer. The court in N. L. R. B. v. Service Trade
Chauffeurs, Salesmen and Helpers, Local 145, 191 F. 2d 65 (C. A. 2), after acknowl-
edging the aforesaid legal doctrine, approved as "a sound interpretation of the Act"
the criteria formulated by the Board in Sailors' Union of the Pacific, 92 NLRB 547,
for determining the scope of legitimate picketing in a "roving situs" case such as
here present. Under these criteria, the court held in the aforementioned case,
picketing at a secondary employer's premises is primary and permissible only if it
meets all of 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.
If the picketing meets all of those requirements the effect upon the neutral employer
is, as the said court noted, "merely incidental to a traditionally lawful primary
strike, conducted at the place where the primary employer does business"; otherwise
"On or about November 2, Layrite entered into a written agreement with Cisco for the
sale and delivery of concrete blocks to the Redmond job. A similar contract was signed
on or about November 5, for the sale and delivery of concrete blocks to the Young's Lake
job. On or about November 12, the first day Cisco obtained any blocks from Layrite for
the jobs in question, an agreement was entered into whereby Cisco agreed to pick up the
blocks at the Layrite plant.
SEATTLE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 37
it is unlawful secondary action designed to conscript the aid of the neutral employer's
employees, in violation of the Act.
The credible evidence clearly discloses that Respondent's picketing and other
conduct at Cadman, Western, and Layrite, as summarized above, were not "merely
incidental" to the picketing at Cisco, but, at least in part, specifically aimed at
Cadman, Layrite, and Western and their respective employees and hence it is
found that Respondents' aforementioned conduct and activities were not protected
primary picketing under the criteria established by the Board in the Sailors' Union
case. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner finds that Respondents, and each of them,
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.12
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Cisco Construction Company set forth 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents, jointly and severally, have engaged in activities
violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, it will be recommended that they
cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Cisco Construction Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Seattle District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL; Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local
Union No. 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, AFL; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
302, AFL; and Local 440, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common
Laborers' Union of America, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in concerted action where an object thereof was to force or require
Cadman Gravel Company, Western Sand and Gravel Company, and Layrite Con-
crete Products of Seattle, Inc., and their respective employees to cease doing business
with Cisco Construction Company, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
79 It is immaterial that the inducement and encouragement were ineffective. See The
Grauman Company, 87 NLRB 755; N. L R. B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades
Council, 193 F 2d 421, 424 (C. A. 10) ; Roy Stone, 100 NLRB 856, Union Chevrolet Com-
pany, 96 NLRB 957.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF SEATTLE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, AF-
FILIATED WITH UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL; TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 174, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LOCAL 302, AFL; AND LOCAL 440, INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND
COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, AFL
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of Cadman
Gravel Company, Western Sand and Gravel Company, and Layrite Concrete
0
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Products of Seattle , Inc., or of any other employer to engage in, a strike or, a
concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture , 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 Cadman Gravel Company, Western Sand and Gravel Company, and
Layrite Concrete Products of Seattle , Inc., or any other employer or other
person to cease doing business with Cisco Construction Company.
SEATTLE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS , AFFILIATED
WITH UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS , LOCAL UNION No.
174, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL
302, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
LOCAL 440, INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND
COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
The F. C. Russell Company I and International Union , United
Automobile Workers of America, AFL, Local 192, Petitioner.?
Case No. 8-RC-2469. September 9, 1955
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.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner, which, pursuant to a 1952 consent election, has
represented under contract a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Pandora, Ohio, plant, seeks in this proceed-
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
a The name of the Petitioner was amended at the hearing to include Local 192.
114 NLRB No. 15.
6