The Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 542 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL No. 27 OF THE BROTHERHOOD
OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA, AND
GEORGE H. MEYERS AND JOHN R. HOFFMAN, ITS AGENTS and JOLIET
CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, FOR ITSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS
In the Matter Of GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL No. 27 OF THE BROTHERHOOD
OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA, AND
GEORGE H. MEYERS AND JOHN R. HOFFMAN, ITS AGENTS and THE
NEW LUMBER COMPANY; ALEXANDER LUMBER COMPANY; I. N. R.
BEATTY LUMBER COMPANY; JOLIET LUMBER R FUEL COMPANY;
LEACH BROTHERS, INC.; HACKER-SIME COMPANY, ALL ILLINOIS
CORPORATIONS; E. DURBIN COLLINS AND CATHRYN COLLINS, CO-
PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS LYONS BROTHERS LUMBER & FUEL
COMPANY ; P. C. RYAN, T. F. RYAN, M. L. RYAN AND A. L. RYAN,
CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS THOMAS F. RYAN COMPANY AND
ARNOLD R. WELSCH AND WALTER W. WELSCH, CO-PARTNERS, DOING
BUSINESS AS JOLIET CASH AND CARRY LUMBER COMPANY
Cases Nos. 13-CC-5 and 13-CC-7.-Decided June 26, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 18, 1949, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents Glaziers' Union Local No. 27 of the Brotherhood of
Painters, Decorators, and Paper Hangers of America, herein called
the Glaziers, and George H. Meyers, its agent, had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.,
Thereafter, the Respondents Glaziers and Hoffman, the General
Counsel, and the charging parties filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and supporting briefs. These Respondents also requested oral
argument. This request is hereby denied, as the record and briefs, in
1 The Trial Examiner also recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to
Despondent John R. Hoffman.
90 NLRB No. 93.
542
GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL NO. 27 543
our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
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. We find merit in the Respondents' contention that be-
cause the operations of the Employers involved herein are essentially
local in character, the Board, in the exercise of its discretion, should
decline to assert jurisdiction.
The Employers in this case are all general contractors, subcontract-
ors, or building material suppliers in the Joliet, Illinois, area. Com-
merce facts concerning these Employers, insofar as such information
was elicited at the hearing, are listed in the Intermediate Report in
Appendices A and B. Many of the Employers, who appear in these
appendices are only remotely connected with this case. No alleged
unfair labor practice was directed at them; they merely supplied ma-
terials to other Employers. Of those Employers who are directly in-
volved in alleged unfair labor practices committed by the Respond-
ents,' the record reveals that the largest, in terms of value of building
materials purchased, is Arnold Welsch, whose total purchases amount
to approximately $145,000 annually. Arnold Welsch is also, so far as
the record shows, the largest purchaser of materials from outside the
State of Illinois, his purchases of such materials amounting to approxi-
mately $13,000 annually. Neither Welsch nor any of the other Em-
ployers directly involved herein did any work outside the State of
Illinois. On the basis of these facts, we find that it would not effec-
tuate the purposes or policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction in
this proceeding, and shall therefore dismiss the complaint.3
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 the complaint issued herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
2 Note that the Trial Examiner found violations with respect to only two general con-
tractors and one subcontractor concerning whom commerce facts were adduced at the
hearing.
3 See Building and Construction Trades Council of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Vicinity,
et al. (Petredis and Fryer), 85 NLRB 241 ; Walter J. Mentzer, 82 NLRB 389.
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting :
For the reasons expressed in my dissent in the Churches: : case, I
would assert jurisdiction in this case.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. John P. Von Rohr and Richard C. Swander, for the General Counsel.
31r. Daniel D. Carmell, by Mr. Lester Asher, of Chicago, Ill., for Respondents.
Scott, MacLeish & Folk (Charles M. Price, Charles Boyd Mahin, and Willard
C. Meier), by Mr. Willard C. Meier, of Chicago, I11., for the charging parties.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 27, 1948, the Joliet Contractors Association, hereinafter called the
Association, by its Labor Bargaining Committee, filed, in its own behalf and for
its members,- a first amended charge against Glaziers' Union Local 27 of the
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America, and George
H. Meyers and John R. Hoffman, its agents, hereinafter referred to as the
Respondents, charging that said Respondents were engaged in , and are engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, hereinafter called the
Act. On August 30, 194S, certain lumber and building material dealers of Joliet,
Illinois, designated by name in the margin,' likewise filed a charge against
Respondents, alleging that the latter were engaged in, and are engaging in. unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the same section of the Act. On October
5, 1948, the Acting Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illi-
nois ), issued his order, pursuant to Section 203.33 (b) of the Rules and Regula-
tions of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 5, as amended, consolidating
said cases. With the issuance of the order last aforementioned, the said Acting
Regional Director issued a complaint against Respondents, dated October 5,
1948, alleging that Respondents had engaged in, and were engaging in. unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section S (b) (1) (A), Section 8 (b) (4)
(A). and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, the allegations of
which are more fully hereinafter described, alleged, in substance, that the
Respondents "have called, engaged in, and by promises of benefit, coercion, intimi-
dation, directions, orders, threats, `fair' and `unfair' designations, union by-laws,
working rules, regulations and disciplinary measures, and by permitting such to
remain in existence and in effect, have induced and encouraged the employees of
[Joliet Paint and Glass Company, Inc., a member of the Association, hereinafter
called] Joliet Glass, and of [Maurice Adler, d/b/a Porter Glass Co., hereinafter
called] Porter Glass, to engage in strikes and concerted refusals, in the course of
their employment, to perform any services, an object thereof being to force and
require their employers, and other employers and persons, namely, the members
of the Association and their suppliers of preglazed sash and other preglazed
materials (including the Joliet Lumber Companies aforesaid), to cease using,
selling, handling or otherwise dealing in preglazed sash and other preglazed
materials, the products of other manufacturers, and to cease doing business with
4 Denver Building and Construction Trades Council (William G. Churches , et al.), 90
NLRB 378.
' The New Lumber Co., Alexander Lumber Co., I. N. R. Beatty Lumber Co., Joliet Lm-
her & Fuel Co., Leach Brothers, Inc., Lyons Brothers Lumber & Fuel Co., Thos. F. Ryan Co.,
Hacker-Sime Co., and Joliet Cash and Carry Lumber Co.
GLAZIERS ' TJNION LOCAL NO. 27 545
such manufacturers and suppliers of preglazed sash and other preglazed mate-
rials, and with the owners and building contractors (including members of the
Association) who use preglazed sash and other preglazed materials in construc-
tion work, or, who have glazing work done by other than members of Local
No. 27."
Copies of the chaiges,2 the order consolidating the cases, the complaint, accom-
panied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon all the parties hereto.
On December 6, 1948, the Respondent filed a "Motion to Dismiss the complaint,
or to strike the complaint or certain designated parts thereof," substantially on
the grounds that: (1) "the activities charged did not and do not affect commerce
within the meaning of" the Act; (2) the entire Act, by reason of the amend-
ments made by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, is unconstitutional
because "its provisions are so mutually interdependent and connected with each
other that they form a unified scheme which makes the entire Act invalid"; (3)
the provisions of Sections 8(b) (1) (A) and S (b) (4) (A) of the Act are un-
constitutional; (4) there is no allegation in the complaint charging that em-
ployees were "restrained or coerced" in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act; (5) "the provision in the Respondent Union by-laws that
all glazing work to be performed by the union members must be done on the
job site is lawful and not in violation of the provisions of Sections 8 (b) (1) (A)
or 8 (b) (4) (A)" ; (6) the alleged requests by Respondent Hoffman upon the
Association that the general contractors belonging to the Association agree that
all glazing work be done by union members on each respective job, and that the
contractors agree to discontinue the use of preglazed materials, was lawful and
not in violation of Sections S (b) (1) (A), or 8 (b) (4) (A) ; (7) the alleged
communication to Joliet glazing contractors by Respondent Hoffman of the
names of "fair" general contractors was lawful and not in violation of Sections.
8 (b) (1) (A) or 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act; (8) Respondents' alleged refusal,
to furnish union members to Joliet-Glass and Porter Glass was lawful; (9) the
incidents wherein the Respondents allegedly by means of bylaws, working rules.
and regulations and the enforcement thereof, induced employees of glazing con-
tractors to refuse to perform certain types of work is not a violation of the Act;.
(10) the complaint was issued.in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Act; (11)
Potter Glass nowhere appears as a party registering any grievance against.
Respondents; (12) "the alleged unlawfulness of activities . . . are expressly
declared lawful by Section 20 of the Clayton Act"; (13) the complaint was in-
stituted by the General Counsel of the Board, and not by the Regional Director
in the name of the Board, as required by 203.15 of the Rules and Regulations of
the Board, Series 5; (14) sixteen specified allegations in the complaint are
irrelevant, immaterial, redundant, and indefinite.
On December 6, 1948, the Respondents filed an answer, incorporating therein,
and pleading as a defense, all the matters described in the aforesaid "motion to
dismiss the complaint, or to strike said complaint, or portions thereof." The
answer further pleaded that "the real parties in interest, Joliet Paint and
Glass Company, Inc., Porter Glass Company, and Kaiser, Ducett Company, re-
2 At the hearing, the General Counsel offered in evidence , as his Exhibit 1-C, proof of
service of the charges involved herein. The proof, however, failed to include copies of
such charges. Leave was granted to supply the omissions. On January 3, 1949, the
General Counsel supplied copies of such charges to counsel for the Respondents, the charg-
'ing parties, and the Examiner, with the request that they be attached to, and made a part
of, General Counsel's Exhibit 1-C. The request is granted, and it is hereby ordered that
the attachment be made.
903847-51-36
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spectively, did neither file any unfair labor practice charges either for itself
or on behalf of any of its members" ; that no, copy of the charges had been
served on the Respondent Hoffman. The answer admitted that Respondent
Meyers "is and has been the Business Manager of Local 27," but with respect
to all other allegations of the complaint, Respondents either expressly denied
the same, or claimed to be without knowledge as to the truth of such allegations,
and therefore demanded strict proof thereof.
Pursuant to notice, hearings were held at Joliet, Illinois, and Chicago, Illi-
nois, on various dates between December 16, 1948, and March 21, 1940, before
the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.
At the opening of the hearing, the afore-described motion of Respondents to
dismiss the complaint or to strike the same, or portions thereof, was denied
insofar as it pertained to the matters described in (1) to (4) inclusive, and (9)
to (13), inclusive, of the above-described summary of said motion.' Ruling was
reserved on Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleged
a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) of the Act, and on their motion to strike from
the complaint the allegations described in (5), (6), (7), and (8) of the above-
described summary of, said motion. These matters are disposed of by the
recommendations hereinafter made. At the hearings, the General Counsel, the
Respondents,' the Association, and the other charging parties were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearings.
Prior to the hearing conducted by the undersigned, the General Counsel insti-
tuted an action-in the United States Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, pursuant to Section 10 (1) of the Act, entitled "George J.
Bott, Regional Director for Thirteenth Region of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, Plaintiff vs. Glaziers Union, Local No. 27, etc., George H.. Meyers
.and John R. Hoffman, its agents, Defendants, Case No. 48-C-1240." At the
3 (1) of said summary deals with the subject of jurisdiction. The matter being raised
merely on the pleadings, I deemed them sufficient for that purpose. The question of juris-
diction, as developed by the evidence, is dealt with in a subsequent portion of this Report.
(2) and (3) of the summary, dealing with the claimed unconstitutionality of the Statute,
were denied on the authority of Rite-Form Corset Company, Inc., 75 NLRB 174. (4)
urges that the absence of any allegation charging that employees were "restrained or
coerced" is fatal to the complaint. Such an allegation, or its equivalent, is undoubtedly
necessary to sustain a complaint under Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. With respect
to a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), however, no allegation of "restraint or coercion"
is necessary . Under that section it is sufficient to allege that employees were " induced
or "encouraged" to take the violative action. As will appear hereafter, the allegation
charging a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) is dismissed. The matters raised by (9) of
said summary are dealt with at greater length in subsequent portions of this Report. By
(10) of said summary . Respondents urge that there is no such thing as an "amended
charge" ; that "if a charge . . . is not followed by a formal complaint, it may not consti-
tute the basis of any formal proceedings " ; that to allow a complaint on an amended charge
which incorporates matters contained in the original charge , would do violence to the 6
months' limitation prescribed by Section 10 (b) of the Act. The contention is without
merit ; "the second charge was clearly an amended and not a substitute charge." Joanna
Cotton Mills Company, 81 NLRB 1398; Frying Paper Mills, 82 NLRB 434. While it is
true that the original charge filed on June 2, 1948 , did not charge Meyers as one of those
engaged in the violative conduct , he being first mentioned in the amended charge filed
August 27, 1948, that variance is not fatal. The specific acts attributed to Meyers were
all committed within 6 mouths prior to the service of the amended charge on him. Fur-
thermore , the answer having admitted that "Meyers is and has been the business manager
of" Respondent Union, any final order entered herein against the Union would be binding
on Meyers , even if no amended charge had ever been served on him.
4 Respondents , however, noted their appearance as a "special appearance " to test the
jurisdiction of the Board.
GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL NO. 27 547
hearing before the Trial Examiner herein, it was stipulated that the testimony,
exhibits and stipulations adduced in said Federal court action "shall stand as
evidence, testimony, exhibits, stipulations and agreements in this present pro-
ceeding (Cases 13-CC-5 and 7), as if all of the proceedings and testimony [as
reported in a transcript of said federal court action], had been had before the
Trial Examiner in the instant proceeding," reserving, however, to all the parties,
"the right to argue with reference to the [admissibility and effect] of the above
evidence."
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
hearing before the undersigned. Prior to the close of the hearings, the General
Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to formal
matters ; the motion was granted. At the request of Respondents, and without
objection from the other parties, the time to file briefs was extended to May
13, 1949. Within that time, the General Counsel, the Respondents, and the
charging parties filed briefs with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, including that portion of the Federal court
proceeding which was by stipulation incorporated into this record, I make the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION-THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Joliet Contractors Association, hereinafter called the Association, is a non-
profit corporate membership association, incorporated under the laws of
Illinois. Its membership consists of approximately 22 general contractors,
and 44 specialty or subcontractors, all engaged in business in the Joliet, Illinois,
area. Among the association members are the general contractors listed in
Appendix A, hereto attached, engaged in the construction and repair of indus-
trial, commercial, and residential buildings. Said Appendix contains detailed
information as to'the activities of each of these contractors for a consecutive 12-
month period commencing in the latter part of 1947, and ending in the corre-
sponding month of 1948, and covering the following items: (1) Annual volume
of business; (2) value of building materials purchased; (3) value of purchases
received directly from outside Illinois; (4) percentage of purchases originating
outside of Illinois. Item (4) includes materials, which, while purchased from
jobbers, dealers, or manufacturers' agents located within Illinois, were manu-
factured outside the State of Illinois.
Among the lumber and builders' supply companies engaged at Joliet, Illinois,
in the sale of lumber, mill work, sash, roofing, preglazed, and other building
materials and supplies, are the concerns listed in Appendix B hereto attached.
Said Appendix contains detailed information as to the activities of each of
these companies as follows: (1) Total purchases of building materials; (2)
percentage of all purchases received from out of the State; (4) total purchases
of preglazed materials; (5) percentage of preglazed materials originating out-
side the State; (6) percentage of preglazed materials received directly from
outside Illinois.
Decisions by the courts and the Board make it unnecessary to indulge in any
lengthy discussion in disposing of Respondent's objections to the jurisdiction of
the Board on the ground that "the activities charged did not, and do not, affect
commerce within the meaning of [the Act]." These decisions were foreshadowed
by earlier opinions of the Supreme Court which gave content and emphasis to
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"the full sweep of constitutional authority" vested in the Board "in order to pro-
tect interstate commerce from the adverse effects of labor disputes . . . In this
Act, Congress has explicitly regulated not merely transactions or goods in inter-
state commerce, but activities which in isolation may be deemed to be merely
local but in the interlacings of business across state lines adversely affect such
commerce." Polish National Alliance v. N.J. B. B., 322 U. S. 643, 647; N. L. R. B.
v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 41; N. L. R. B. v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S.
601.
Guided by these milestones, the circuit courts of appeal have not hesitated in
sanctioning the exercise of jurisdiction by the Board over persons engaged in the
construction industry. Shore v. Building Trades Council, 173 F. 2d 678, (C. A.
3) ; United Brotherhood of Carpenters, et al, v. Sperry, et at , 170 F. 2d 863, (C. A.
10) ; N. L. R. B. v. Austin Co., 165 F. 2d 592 (C. A. 7). For the detailed rationale
which underlies the Board's exercise of jurisdiction in proceedings involving con-
struction work by general contractors, notwithstanding objections similar to
those urged here by Respondent, see Ira Watson Co., SO NLRB 533; Wadsworth
Building Co., 81 NLRB 802; Samuel Langer, 82 NLRB 1025.5
Because the sale of lumber and mill work "is closely related to the building
construction industry," it was also the judgment of the Board that the policy of
the Act will be effectuated by exercising jurisdiction over labor relations of those,
engaged in that business and occupation. National Lumber Co., 82 NLRB 565;
Oettinger Lumber Co., 81 NLRB 632; Longhorn Sash & Door Co., 79 NLRB 1430;
J. H. Patterson Co., 79 NLRB 355.
Application of the principles enunciated by the foregoing cases to the activities
of the contractors and companies involved herein can lead only to the conclusion
that a disruption of their activities would seriously affect the flow of commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and I so find.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent, Glaziers' Union Local No. 27 of the Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators, and Paper Hangers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Its jurisdiction extends to and includes
the city of Joliet, Illinois.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union's bylaws and rules
For a long time prior to, and ever since the enactment of, the Labor Relations
Management Act, 1947, the members of the Respondent Union deemed it to be
in their economic interests not to permit any of them to work on projects that
used preglazed sash.' To make. the prohibition effective, the Union adopted cer-
5 Walter J. Mentzer, 82 NLRB 389. is not inconsistent with the cases just cited. Juris-
diction was there declined because "the operations of Mentzer , a small [plastering], con-
tractor [annual gross income, $33,000] , are essentially local in character , and . . . their
interruption by a labor dispute could , at most, have only very remote and insubstantial
effect on commerce."
'The , term "preglazed sash" as used in this Report, includes doors, windows , etc., in
which the glass or mirrors have been installed in frames elsewhere than on the site of
the building in which the same are to be used ; "open sash" are doors , window frames, etc.,
in which the glass or mirror has not yet been installed.
GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL NO. 27 549
tain "By-Laws and Working Rules." Article XVI, section 1, of said bylaws,
meads as follows :
No member of this Union will be allowed to glaze any sash for any building
in the course of construction or repair within the jurisdiction of Glaziers'
Local No. 27, in the warehouse of any glazing contractor. All sash and glaz-
ing work must be done on each respective job site or building.
Article XVII, section 1, prohibits union members from working "for any firm
or contractor who has not signed this agreement or lived up to the provisions of
same." Article XVIII, section 9, incorporates therein the provisions of an agree-
ment made on May 1, 1947, between the Union and the Glazing Contractors of
Chicago. By articles VI and VII of that agreement, the Glazing Contractors
.agree that none but members of the Union will be employed by the Glazing Con-
tractors to set or glaze all types of glass and mirrors contracted for by said con-
tractors, and that all glass and glazing work undertaken by them shall be glazed
on each respective job by members of the Union. Article XVIII, section 5, of
the bylaws provides that "any member refusing to leave job when ordered to
do so by the Business Agent, or failing to remain away from job until ordered
back by the Business Agent, shall be fined or expelled as the Local may decide."
B. The proposed contracts with the General Contractors and the Glazing
Contractors
Though the foregoing conditions had been adhered to in the city of Chicago
for many years, insofar as this record shows, no attempt was made by. the Union,
prior to 1947, to make said working conditions effective in the Joliet area. In
March of that year, a meeting was called in Joliet and was attended by Max
Glass, the Union's vice president, several representatives of the Association,
representatives of Joliet Glass and Porter Glass (the only two glazing contractors
in Joliet), and representatives of the Joliet Building Trades Council. The pur-
pose of the meeting was to discuss a contract between the contractors and the
Union. Max Glass informed the meeting that the Union had attempted to
eliminate the use of preglazed sash in the Joliet area for some time and that the
time had now come when they were definitely going to eliminate it. If [the glaz-
ing contractors] were going to employ union glaziers [on their] jobs [they]
would have to stop the use of preglazed sash, and that they (the Union) were
going to enforce that if it was necessary to police the area." No agreement was
reached at that time.
A further meeting was held in June 1947, at the office of the Union in Chicago,
attended by George H. Meyers, its business manager for 27 years and its president
for an additional 14 years, Max Glass, Respondent Hoffman, and several con-
tractor members of the Association. The contractors complained that the work-
ing conditions and rules outlined by Mr. Glass at the previous meeting would
work a hardship on them. Either Max Glass, or Meyers, informed the contractors
that. "these conditions were being enforced in Chicago, and that [the contractors]
would definitely have to live up to those rules in Joliet if [they] were to get
union glaziers." One of the contractors asked for a draft of the contract pro-
posed by the Union and Meyers gave him a copy of the agreement in use in Chi-
cago between the Union and certain glazing contractors in that area. This con-
tract was identical in terms with the contract incorporated into the Union's by-
laws and working rules aforementioned. Again the meeting adjourned with-
out reaching agreement.
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A third meeting was held in Joliet in November 1947, between Hoffman and a
committee of the Association. The contractors inquired of Hoffman whether
he "had any communication from Chicago changing the contract, changing the
working rules and working conditions of the glaziers." Hoffman replied that he
had received no such advice. Upon being informed that the contractors had re-
ceived legal advice that it would now be illegal for them to sign such a contract,
Hoffman replied, "I have nothing to do with the law part of the thing, but I cannot
let you have men unless you agree to these rules and this contract."
On January 5, 1948, Hoffman wrote the Association requesting that it sign the
contract aforementioned and informing the contractors that unless it was signed
and returned by February 1, 1948, that "Glaziers Local 27 will be unable to furnish
union glaziers to nonsignatories of this agreement."
Shortly after February 1, 1948, the Association asked Hoffman to call another
meeting with the Union "to see if they could negotiate a contract that the [con-
tractors] could sign and be within the law." Hoffman arranged for such a meet-
ing and it was held in Joliet early in February 1948. The meeting was attended
by Hoffman, W. A. Welbourn, assistant business representative of the Unions
and its recording secretary since 1921 or 1922, Mr. Hacker of Joliet Glass, Maurice
Adler of Porter Glass, Ahrens, Meurer, and Fumigalli, three journeymen glazier
members of the Union, and several members of the Joliet Building Trades Coun-
cil. The proposed contract was discussed article by article. No apparent insur-
mountable obstacle was reached until the discussion of preglazed and open sash
came before the meeting. On this point Welbourn remained adamant and said
that while the Union might "forgive" the past use of preglazed sash, "from this
time on, there could be no more preglazed windows used by contractors if they
expected to have the use of journeymen glaziers on their jobs. That is final."
The meeting thereupon adjourned without formal termination and "everybody
got up and went home."
C. The "fair" and "imfalir" lists
Further evidence of the Union's determination to make its campaign against
the use of preglazed sash effective is provided by its use and publication of a
so-called "fair" list of contractors on whose projects the Union would permit
its members to work, all others to be deemed "unfair." The list was first pro-
mulgated orally. In the fall.of 1947, Respondent Hoffman told Hacker of Joliet
Glass, that the latter would not be able to work for any general contractor that
did not sign a contract with the Union. In January 1948, Hoffman called Hacker
and told him that from then on Hacker could "work for no one only Paul
O'Neil7 . . . because he is the only person that is using open sash." Three or
four days later, Hoffman called Hacker again and advised that the names of
Arnold Welsch, Ernie Swenson, Al Bockholdt, and Vic Mazzuco could be added
to the list of eligible contractors for whom Joliet Glass could work. Because
oral additions and deletions were being made on the list from time to time,
Hacker asked Hoffman to send him "something more definite to work on." Hoff-
man promised to do so by sending Hacker a booklet on which he (Hoffman)
would check the contractors for whom Joliet Glass could work. A day or two
later, on May 25, 1948, Hacker received part of a "Union Contractors Directory,
1947," issued by the Building and Constructions Trades Council of Will County
(in which Joliet is located), on which were checked the names of 14 general
contractors. Attached to the booklet was a note in Hoffman' s handwriting,
7 Sometimes referred to in the record as Paul G. O'Neil or Paul O'Neil.
GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL NO. 27 551
reading as follows: "Friend Geo.-all names mark (sic) are O. K., as we go
along will notify of any changes."
D. The Union's alleged refusal to furnish glaziers and the inducement or encour-
agement of its members not to work on "unfair" jobs
(1) In November, 1947, Magnus T. Strandberg, general contractor and member
of the Association, was engaged in erecting a one-story building for the Reliable
Poultry Company. Strandberg sublet the glazing work, which involved no pre-
glazed sash, to Joliet Glass. Hacker asked Strandberg to see Hoffman before
the glazing work was commenced, and Strandberg thereupon went to Hoffman's
office. The latter showed Strandberg a contract with the Union, similar to that
employed with the Chicago contractors to which reference has heretofore been
made, and asked Strandberg to sign it. Strandberg declined and was told by
Hoffman that if he did not sign the contract, "the Glaziers" would not permit
the installation of the glass.
(2) During a weekend in February 1948, a fire occurred on the premises of the
Joliet Mattress Company, owned by one Sohn. On the following Monday morn-
ing, Sohn called Hacker of Joliet Glass and asked him to replace windows broken
by the fire in a part of the building that was still intact. Hacker complied
and the temporary glazing was completed. Sohn then employed Matt Gregory,
a general contractor and member of the Association, to repair the remainder of
the damage.caused by the fire. About 3 weeks after the first glass was installed
by Joliet Glass, Sohn called Hacker and asked him to furnish the glazing for
the remainder of the building which was then being repaired by Gregory.
Because Gregory was then not on the "fair" list, Hacker called Hoffman, apprised
him of the foregoing facts and said: "I want you to know that I am working for
Sohn, the owner, not for Gregory. As you know Gregory is not on the list of con-
tractors that I can work for. Can I do it?" Hoffman replied, "George, if you
are telling me the truth that you are working for the owner, I can see no
reason why working for the owner on this particular job would be wrong."
Racket then sent his glazier, Ahrens, to complete the glazing, no part of which
involved the use of preglazed sash.
(3) In the same month, February 1948, Joliet Glass was given another fire-
repair job by one Costa. The carpentry work was awarded by Costa to Walter
Harshbarger, a general contractor, who was not then on the union "fair" list.
Because of that fact, Hacker called Hoffman to ascertain if his men could work
on the job. Hoffman replied that he would have to get an O. K. out of Chicago
on that." Hoffman called back shortly thereafter and informed Hacker that he
"could not work with Walter Harshbarger on that job."
(4) On or about March 26, 1948, Gregory was engaged in building a group of
9 or 10 houses, in most of which preglazed sash had been installed. It became
necessary, however, to employ a glazier to install some thermopane basement
sash and picture windows in several of these houses. Gregory gave the order for
this work to Porter Glass who accepted the contract. About a month or two
later, when the houses were ready for the installation of the glass, Porter told
Gregory he could not do the work because the latter was then on the "unfair"
list. I
(5) A similar occurrence took place in April 1948, when Hoffman refused to
sanction the use of Joliet Glass' employees on a residence General Contractor
Stonitsch was building because the latter was using preglazed sash.
(6) In May 1948, when Joliet Glass had a contract with General Contractor
Roy Ice, a member of the Association, to furnish and install plate glass on a job
.5552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.that the latter had for one Honiotes , Hoffman told Hacker that because Ice
"has never agreed to use open sash, [Hacker could not] install this glass on the
.job."
(7) In May 1948, Sverre Ugland, also a general contractor and member of
.the Association , had a contract to. remodel the Brewster Printing Plant and
.awarded the glass contract to Joliet Glass. Because Ugland was. not then on
the "fair " list, Hacker called Hoffman and was told by him that he (Hacker)
could not "install glass for ' Ugland, because he has not agreed to use open
sash yet."
(8) In April 1948 , General Contractor Bockholdt was engaged in remodeling a
:gasoline station for one William Smithe8 Bockholdt ' s carpenter had previously
installed two preglazed doors but Joliet Glass was engaged to set some large
thermopanes in open sash. Hacker sent Ahrens , his steady employee and three
glaziers obtained through the Respondent Union ' s office in Chicago, to set the
thermopanes . After one of the thermopanes was installed , the glaziers , without
instruction from Hacker, removed the glass from the preglazed doors hung by
the carpenters , scraped the back putty , put the glass back in the doors, and
replaced the. molding.
(9) On or about June 17, 1948 , Hacker received an order from the Mazzucco
Construction Company to install a number of glass plates in 2 store fronts of
the building occupied by the Grant Hardware Company. Hacker secured 3
glaziers ( Berger , the foreman , Freislinger , and Coyne ) from the office of the
Respondent Union in Chicago to perform this job in Joliet. After the Glaziers
had installed one plate , they observed some preglazed sash on the second floor
of the building . In reply to questions by the glaziers, Hacker informed them that
he did not know who had installed this preglazed sash. After the glaziers
installed a second plate glass, Hacker and Berger went to the second floor and
found 14 windows with preglazed sash. Berger then advised Hacker that he
would have to report the'situation to Chicago . The 2 men thereupon went to
a drug store and Berger made a telephone call. Upon its completion , Hacker
and Berger returned to the job, and Berger said to the other glaziers : "I just
called Chicago and talked to Meyers: I explained the situation on the job:
Meyers told me, `you are on the job. You know the conditions of the job and you
know the union rules . Do what is right.' " The glaziers all agreed to leave the
job. Although the owner of the building told the glaziers that the glazed windows
were in the building when he had purchased it 2 years before, the glaziers still
continued in the refusal to work. Hacker thereupon called Myers in Chicago,
discussed the situation with him and was told by Meyers : "Hacker, the glaziers
are on the job. They know the conditions of the job . They know whether they
will finish the job or not." By this time, Victor Mazzucco , the general con-
tractor, arrived at the scene . After a discussion with the owner , Mazzucco told
the glaziers that he would smash out the glass in the preglazed sash and that the
glaziers could do the entire job . The glaziers did not give their consent to such
an arrangement . But finally , Mazzucco promised to remove the preglazed sash,
have new open sash delivered , and have the same glazed by the glaziers. This
was agreeable to the men and they departed to work on another job for Mazzucco.
In the afternoon of the same day, the open sash to replace the preglazed windows
was delivered and installed on the Grant Hardware Company job. The glaziers
thereupon glazed all the sash on both floors of the building.
s Sometimes referred to in the record as William Smythe.
GLAZIERS ' UNION LOCAL NO. 27 553:
(10) In mid-summer of 1948, Porter Glass received a contract from Kaiser-
Ducett Co., a Chicago General Contractor, to do all the outside glazing work on a-
new store that was being built for Sears Roebuck & Company; in Joliet. On or
about July 14, 1948, Leonard Ahrens, a.union member then in the employ of
Porter Glass, was sent to the job to begin the glazing work. After a day or two,.
Ahrens requested of Porter that he not be sent back on that job because preglazed.
interior show cases were being delivered in the store. Maurice Adler, President
of Porter Glass, called Respondent Meyers at the Union's office in Chicago..
When he told Meyers that the glaziers walked off the job and would not go back.
to work unless the "cases in the interior were glazed union," Meyers asked him
if he could do the interior work, to which Adler replied that he could, if Meyers
would supply him with men. Meyers told Adler that he would let him know what
to do. Thereafter, Adler made arrangements with the owners and the con-
tractor to do all the interior glazing work, including the show cases. The entire.
job was subsequently performed. Ahrens, who had stopped working on a Wednes-
day or Thursday, returned to the job with the other glaziers the following Mon-
day. As the job progressed and more men were needed, Adler obtained them by'
calling the office of the Respondent Union in Chicago.'
E. Respondents' inducement and encouragement of Ahrens to leave employment
of Joliet Glass
As previously indicated, Joliet Glass and Porter Glass were the only glazing
contractors in Joliet, a city having a population of approximately 42,000. Both
contractors employed only glaziers who were members of the Respondent Union,.
and there were but 4 glaziers who resided in Joliet. Joliet Glass employed
1. resident glazier regularly, and called on the Union in Chicago for additional
men when necessary. Porter Glass steadily employed the other 3 resident glaziers
and likewise called on the Union in Chicago for more men if the need arose.
Ahrens went to work for Joliet Glass in the summer of 1946 and continued
.in that employment until June 1, 1948. In mid-May 1948, General Contractor
Roy Ice was engaged in remodeling the Honiotes Food Market, in which no pre-
glazed sash was used. Ice discussed with Hacker a proposal to have the
latter furnish and install nine plates of glass. Hacker, in the presence of Ice,
called Hoffman and asked him whether he (Hacker) could install the glass.
Hoffman replied "George [Roy Ice] has never. agreed to use open sash. You
cannot install this glass on the job." Ice was put on the wire and talked to
Hoffman, apparently without avail. Ten to fifteen minutes later Hoffman called
Hacker again and repeated the admonition that Hacker refrain from installing'
the glass on Ice's job. Hacker did not install the glass, but instead sold it to
Ice, who made other arrangements for its installation. Two days after the sale,
Hoffman called Hacker and inquired whether the latter had sold the glass to
Ice. Hacker answered affirmatively, to which Hoffman replied : "You have
got me in a barrel of trouble now." Prior to that conversation, Hacker had in-
formed Ahrens that he was going to sell the glass to Ice. Thereafter, on
Saturday, May 29, Ahrens called Hacker, told him he would not report for work
on the following Tuesday (the next work day, Monday, was observed as Decora-
9 The complaint pleaded and the record contains testimony of other incidents in addition,
to those narrated in D (1) to (10) incl., supra. Such testimony, however is merely
cumulative as to conduct which I hereafter find not to be violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A).
For that reason , no detailed findings have been made as to such similar events.
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion Day ), and said: "I have been called into the Glaziers ' Union in Chicago. I
will come to work as soon as I get through there." Ahrens went to Chicago on
June 1, where Meyers told him that he had been called to the union office to
find out if be (Ahrens ) was on the Honiotes job, to which Ahrens replied in the
negative . Meyers wanted to know who sold the glass . Ahrens told him and also
informed him that glass was being sold by Hacker "and not being set by the
.glaziers ." Meyers then called Adler of Porter Glass, in Joliet, on the telephone,
.and made arrangements for Ahrens to go to work for Adler.
At about 4 p. m. of June 1, Ahrens came to Hacker 's office and told him he was
quitting . Hacker, reminding Ahrens of the friendly relationship that had
existed between them, asked for an explanation . Ahrens seemed reluctant to
discuss the matter, but finally said : "I have been taken out of the job by Meyers.
He has placed me over in the Porter Glass Company shop ." Upon being further
pressed as to why he had been ordered to leave Joliet Glass , Ahrens replied,
"George , you sold the glass to Roy Ice. There is an unwritten rule in the Union
you cannot do that and I suspect that is the reason I have been taken out of
your shop ." Ahrens went to work the following day for Porter Glass, who was
cooperating with the Union in the enforcement of its rule against the use of
preglazed sash.
IV. CONCLUDING FINDINGS
A. The general objective of the Union
There can be no question, if indeed it was not tacitly admitted„ that one of
the organizational objectives of the Union was to do all within its power to
:prevent the use of preglazed sash in the area over which it had juri,dicton.
This is apparent from its bylaws to which its members owed adherence, from
its contract of many years standing with the glazing contractors of Chicago and
which it sought to impose on the general contractors in Joliet, and from the
testimony of its president for the past 30 years. Although the Union attempted
to justify its position against the use of preglazed sash on another ground, 10 I be-,
lieve it was its purpose, as it could legitimately and appropriately be, to pro-
vide as much work as possible for its members resident in the Chicago area.
Because, however, a substantial part, if not most of the sash that was being used
in Joliet was procured from outside the Chicago area, it could achieve its goal
only by insisting that no preglazed sash, whether assembled by machine or by'
hand, be used in the area over which it had jurisiction.
B. The scope of Section 8 (b) (It) (A)
The general objective of the Union being a legitimate one,11 more than that
must be proved to make out the case which the General Counsel has pleaded
herein as a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. The Taft-Hartley
Act which brought the section into the Act, while greatly reducing the economic
weapons available to labor, does not make it illegal for the Union, under all cir-
cumstances, to make the desired prohibition effective. Thus, the Union could,
without violating the statute, induce and encourage its members to engage in a
10 The Union's president testified that Its motive in adopting this policy was that pre-
glazed sash, being primarily the result of a machine operation, was inferior In quality to
sash glazed by hand. If that were its motive , it would seem to me that there was no
justification for insisting that there be no preglazed sash, because that type of sash does
not preclude sash glazed by hand. The assigned goal of a better product would be attained
by insisting that all glazing be done by hand, without regard for its ultimate destination.
11 To provide as much work as possible for its members in the Chicago area.
GLAZIERS ' UNION LOCAL NO. 27 555
primary strike, or refrain from manufacturing preglazed sash, as a means of
compelling their employer to have his sash glazed on the job where it is to be
finally installed. "Section 8 (b) (4) (A) was [not] intended to curb traditional
primary action by labor organizations :-the Section does not outlaw any of the
primary means which unions traditionally use to press their demands on employ-
ees." 12 The section, however, limits the economic area within, and the means by
which, the Union, or its agents, may seek to effectuate their otherwise legal ob-
jectives under the Act. By the relevant portions of that section it is made illegal
for a union, or its agents, "to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees
of any employer to engage in, a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to use-or otherwise handle or work on any-articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is: (A) forcing or
requiring-any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling or
otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufac-
turer, or to cease doing business with any other person." It seems clear, there-
fore, from the language of the statute, abundantly supported by its legislative
history, that in enacting this section, Congress deprived labor of the right to resort
to the secondary boycott in the furtherance of its objectives.
The Board recently had occasion, in a case similar to the one under considera-
tion, to summarize the two factors which must combine to warrant a finding of
an unfair labor practice under the quoted section. "(1). The alleged activities
must have as an object the forcing or requiring any employer, inter alia, to cease
using the products of any manufacturer or to cease doing business with any per-
son; and (2) the activities must constitute inducement and encouragement of
employees in the course of their employment within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4) (A). The absence of either factor will defeat the charges thereunder"
C. The Union's refusal to furnish glaziers upon request and the demands upon
the contractors
The crux of the complaint against the Respondents is that they induced and
encouraged employees of Joliet Glass and Porter Glass to engage in concerted
refusals , in the course of their employment , to perform any services , an object
thereof being to force and require their employers, and other employers and
persons , to cease using preglazed sash, the product of other manufacturers. To
substantiate that theory of his case , the General Counsel in paragraph 5 of his
complaint alleges that a large number of incidents , and "each of them," pleaded
seriatim in subparagraphs "( a)" to "(t )," inclusive , constitute violations of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. Thus, for example, numerous allegations
plead : (1) That the Union has. refused, on request, on a number of occasions, to
furnish member glaziers to "unfair" employers , or for work on "unfair" jobs ;
(2) that the Union, on various dates, demanded of the contractor members of the
Association that they refrain from using preglazed sash, that they sign a contract
with the Union to the same effect, and that failing to do both, the Union would
refuse to furnish member glaziers on any job in which such recalcitrant or de-
faulting contractors were engaged ; and (3 ) that Respondents on various occa-
sions informed the glazing subcontractors that the latter could not accept con-
tracts on jobs that used preglazed sash, or work for general contractors who were
is Oil Workers International Union and The Pure Oil Co., 84 NLRB 315.
^a United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , District Council of Kansas
City, Missouri, et at. and Wadsworth Building Company , Inc., 81 NLRB 802.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not on the Union's "fair" list. While these incidents have evidentiary value in
proving the General Counsel's case, standing alone, they do not, as he pleads, con-
stitute violations of the section under consideration.14
As to the first group of allegations that the Union has refused to furnish
member glaziers to "unfair" employers, or for work on "unfair" jobs. I find
nothing in Section 8 (b) (4) (A) which makes it an unfair labor practice for
a union, or its agents, to initially refuse the services of its members to "unfair"
contractors, or on "unfair" jobs, or indeed for any reason found satisfactory to
the Union. The invoked section of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for
a union or its agents to induce or encourage "the employees of any employer to
engage in-a concerted refusal in the course of their employment-to perform
any service" where the object of such refusal is proscribed by statute. The fac-
tual situation under consideration here antedates an employer-employee rela-
tionship. True, the persons alleged to have been induced and encouraged are
members of the Union, but they are not yet "employees of any employer." Fur-
thermore, not having reached that status, their "concerted refusal" could not be
"in the course of their employment." "Course of employment" contemplates an
existing employment relationship to be disrupted by the inducement. Such
persons are therefore not yet amenable to the proscriptions found in Section
8 (b) (4) .(A) 15
As to the second group of allegations, viz., demands made on contractors to re-
frain from using preglazed sash and that they sign contracts agreeing to so
restrict themselves, I am likewise of the opinion that these allegations do not
constitute violations of the Act. Standing in isolation, as they do for present
consideration, it was not a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) for the Union to
make such demands on the contractors. As previously noted, the applicable
section declares it to be an unfair labor practice to induce or encourage "em-
ployees" to engage in the proscribed conduct. The section does not make it un-
lawful for a union, or its agents, to induce: or encourage "employers" to cease
using pre-glazed sash, or merely to demand that they sign contracts agreeing to
abstain from such a practice.18
As to the third group of allegations pertaining to the directions given to the
glazing subcontractors, I likewise find such conduct not prescribed by Section
8 (b) (4) (A). The prohibition of the section is specifically limited to the
inducement and encouragement of "employees of any employer" to engage in a
secondary boycott. The section imposes no prohibition against the inducement or
encouragement which a union may direct towards an "employer." It is therefore
clear that there is a notable "absence" of the second factor which the Board,
in the Wadsworth case, ruled must be present to warrant a finding of an unfair
14 Proof of these incidents, though unnecessarily pleaded, have evidentiary value in prov-
ing the over-all objective of the Union and its effect as a factor in determining whether
Respondents induced and encohraged the secondary boycott herein found, and I have so
considered them.
'6I am not unmindful of Section 2 (3) of the Act which defines "employee" as follows
"The term `employee' shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees
of a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise," etc. The connota-
tion I have given to the term, "employee" is consistent with the permitted statutory
differentiation.
16 The allegations of the complaint and the supporting evidence seeking to charge Hoff-
man as an agent of the Union with conduct allegedly violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
was confined to conduct which I find not to be violative of that section. I therefore find
it unnecessary to pass on the question of whether Hoffman was an agent of the Union
within the meaning of the Act so as to make the latter responsible for his conduct.
GLAZIERS ' UNION LOCAL NO. 27 557
labor practice under the section in question-"the activities must constitute in-
ducement and encouragement of employees in the course of their employment
within the meaning of Section S (b) (4) (A)." (Emphasis supplied.)
D. The "fair" and "unfai'r" lists
The complaint charges that Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) when
it "notified said Joliet Glazing Contractors of the names of various general
contractors in the Joliet area who were approved, or `fair,' and for whose
projects Local 27 would furnish the glazing contractors with glazier employees
and permit its members to work." Having found that Respondents did not
violate'Section 8 (b) (4) (A) by refusing to initially furnish member glaziers for
work on jobs of "unfair" general contractors, I likewise find that there was no
violation of the section by the promulgation of the so-called "fair" and "unfair"
general contractors list. The list was furnished to Joliet Glass only to advise it
that the Union would not furnish its members as prospective employees for em-
ployment at an "unfair" job. The list was not used, as it was in the Wadsworth
and Osterii?k cases cited by the General Counsel, "as a means of inducing and
encouraging employees in. the course of their emplounsent to withhold their
services in order to force or require their employer to cease doing business
with the listed employer." I therefore find that the Respondents did not violate
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) by the promulgation and maintenance of the "unfair"
and "fair" lists more particularly described in III, C, supra.
E. The secondary boycott
The complaint, however, does charge that the Union and its agents induced and
encouraged employees of Joliet Glass and Porter Glass to engage in the secondary
boycott proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act and I find substantial evi-
dence in .the record to support that allegation.
1. The Union's bylaws and rules
Even after enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act, it was not, per se, violation of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) for the Union to keep in effect, for all purposes, its long
standing bylaws and rules 17 which had for their objective, the prohibition
against the use of preglazed sash. Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, however,
was "aimed at eliminating all secondary boycotts and their concomitant activui-
ties which Congress thought were unmitigated evils and burdensome to com-
merce. It was Congress' belief that labor disputes should be confined to the
business immediately involved and that unions should be prohibited from extend-
ing them to other employers by inducing and encouraging the latters' employees
to exert economic pressure in support of their disputes." 18 By making it unlaw-
ful to "induce or encourage" employees to engage in it secondary boycott, Con-
gress used the broadest generic terms to bring within the sweep of its proscrip-
tion "the whole gamut of union activities by. which such boycotts are achieved."
Thus, notwithstanding the apparent guarantee to engage in peaceful picketing
as an exercise of free speech, and the judicial protection generally accorded
such activity, the Board and a number of courts have held that Congress can
constitutionally, and in fact did, prohibit the prosecution of secondary boycotts
17 See III, A, supra.
18 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , et al. and Wadsworth Build-
ing Company, Inc., et at ., 81 NLRB 802.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by speech as well as by other methods.10 Similarly, the Board has held that the
mere circulation of an "unfair list" of contractors among union employees, "ir-
respective of whether or not a threat of discipline inhered" therein, constitutes
a form of inducement and encouragement now outlawed by Section 8 (b) (4)
(A) 20 I cannot draw a distinction between the effect which "unfair" lists have
on the recipients thereof, and the application of the Union's bylaws, by which
its members are bound, in the instant proceeding.
The conclusion seems inescapable that the section prohibits all peaceful means
of inducement and encouragement in furtherance of the secondary boycott
proscribed therein, and that this prohibition includes the application by a union
of its bylaws as an aid to the enforcement thereof.
I therefore find that the application of the bylaws and rules of the Union
as an aid to the enforcement of a secondary boycott by employees of any employer
are in violation of Section S (b) (4) (A) of the Act 21
2. The Grant Hardware Company incident
I find that the Union and Meyers, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the
Act, induced and encouraged Foreman Berger and Glaziers Preislinger and
Coyne, employees of Joliet Glass, to engage in a concerted refusal, in the course
of their employment, to work on the Grant Hardware Company building then
being remodeled by the Mazzucco Construction Company, and that the object
of said refusal was to force or require Mazzucco to cease doing work on build-
ings in which preglazed sash had been installed.' Respondents claim that the
refusal was the voluntary decision and act of the individual workmen them-
selves, and not the result of any inducement or encouragement by Respondents.
The evidence, however, compels a contrary finding. Significantly, the workmen
10 Matter of the Wadsworth Building Company, supra; Printing Specialties and Paper
Converters Union, Local 388 v. LeBaron, 171 F. 2d 331 (C. A. 9) ; United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Sperry, 170 F. 2d 863 (C. A. 10) ; Douds v. Local
1250, Retail-Wholesale Department Store Union, 170 F. 2d 700 (C. A. 2).
20 Wadsworth Building Company, supra; Bricklayers, Stone Masons, Marble Masons, and
Tile Layers Benevolent d Protective Union No. 1 and 0sterink Construction Co., 82 NLRB
228.
21 It is immaterial that these bylaws were adopted prior to the enactment of the Taft-
Hartley Act. The inducement and encouragement they furnished to further a secondary
boycott after August 22, 1947 "was subject to the interdiction of Section 8 (b) (4) (A)."
Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and Ira A. Watson
Co., 80 NLRB 533; Bricklayers, Stone Masons, Marble Masons, and Tile Layers Benevolent
and Protective Union No. 1 and Osterink Construction Co., 82 NLRB 228 ; Local 1796,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L. and Montgomery
Fair Co., 82 NLRB 211.
22 See III, D, (9) supra. Respondents in their brief argue that "No by-laws, working
rules and regulations were in existence which prohibited the installation of preglazed sash
or the performing of work in those cases where preglazed sash had been previously installed
on the job site." While a literal reading of article XVI, section 1, of said bylaws lends
color to such a view, consideration of the remainder of the bylaws and the interpretation
thereof by its officers compel a contrary conclusion. Thus, XVII, section 1, specifically.
prohibits any union member from working for any firm or contractor who has not "lived
up to the provisions" of the bylaws, the preceding article of which requires that "all sash
and glazing work must be done on each respective job site or building." This can only
mean that union members are not, under its bylaws, permitted to work for a contractor
who, in the past has used, or is currently using preglazed sash. That it was so inter-
preted by the Union is made evident by the statement of Welbourn, the Union' s assistant
business representative, at the meeting with the contractors, attended by three glazer mem-
bers of the Union, in February 1948, in which Welbourn stated that the Union might
"forgive the past use of preglazed sash" if the contractors would sign a contract to
abstain from its use thereafter.
GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL NO. 27 559,
did not stop work as soon as they realized that preglazed sash had been installed,
in the building. It was only after Berger called Meyers in Chicago, told him
about the preglazed sash and was instructed by Meyers that he (Berger) "know [s],
the union rules" that the men refused to continue the work.. I therefore find that
the Union and Meyers provided the inducement and encouragement proscribed.
by the Act.
3. The Sears Roebuck incident
I likewise find that the Union and Meyers, on or about August 1, 1948,
induced and encouraged Leonard Ahrens to cease work on the Sears Roebuck
job because preglazed interior showcases were being delivered for use on the
same premises.' Though Ahrens testified that he voluntarily requested of his
employer that he not be sent back on that job, it would be extremely unrealistic
to forego giving effect to Ahrens' termination of employment with Joliet Glass.
about 6 weeks earlier, because in Ahrens' opinion, with which Meyers agreed,
Joliet Glass had not abided by the Union's rules.'
I therefore find that the Union and Meyers induced and encouraged Ahrens'
work-stoppage at the Sears Roebuck job and that such conduct was in violation,
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A).25
4. The transfer of employment by Ahrens
I also find that the Union and Meyers violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) by in-
ducing and encouraging Ahrens to leave his job with Joliet Glass and to go
work instead for Porter Glass.26 There can be no question but that Meyers.
induced and encouraged Ahrens to engage in a "refusal-to perform services"
for Joliet Glass. Nor (lo I have any hesitation in finding that the "object" thereof
was to "force or require [Joliet Glass] to cease doing business with" General
Contractor Roy Ice. Respondents in their brief deliberately avoid discussing
the "merits" of this incident, but contend that because only one workman was
involved, the conduct is not violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). They argue that
because the section makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to engage
in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in a strike
or a concerted refusal to handle centain goods, "that the Union will be guilty of
an unfair labor practice only if more than one employee is involved." A similar
contention was rejected by the Board in the Wadsworth case, supra, where, as
here, "the Respondents-also induced and encouraged other employees to engage
in a strike or concerted refusal in order to compel [their employer] to cease
doing business with [any other person]. The Respondents conduct in calling
[the single employee] off, his job was part of these total activities. Under these
21 See III, D , ( 10), supra.
24 See III , E, supra.
25 Respondents in their brief contend that this incident "may not be considered in the
present proceedings , since [ it] is not mentioned in any of the unfair labor practice charges
which are attached to and form the basis of the complaint ." Factually the contention is
correct , but the conclusion is erroneous . A charge need not set out in detail every act of
violation. N. L. R. B. V. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 118 F. 2d 780, 788-9 (C. A. 9) ;
N. L. R. B. v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 114 F. 2d 376, 379 (C. A. 2).
26 See III, E , supra . I do not find that Hoffman 's activity in connection with this inci-
dent , or any others described in this Report, to be in violation of the section under con-
sideration . I consequently find it unnecessary to pass on the question of whether or not
he was "the agent" of the Union, within the meaning of the Act, so as. to make the latter
responsible for his conduct.
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circumstances , I conclude that the Union and Meyers violated Section 8
(b) (4) (A) of the Act by calling Ahrens off his job with Joliet Glass.
F. Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
The General Counsel also pleads that each of the acts alleged to'be in viola-
tion of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act is likewise a violation of Section
8 (b) (1) (A). The latter section makes it an unfair labor practice for a union
or its agents, to "restrain or coerce" employees in the exercise of their rights
under Section 7 of the Act. At the opening of the hearing, on the argument of
Respondents' motion to dismiss that portion of the complaint alleging a violation
of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), the General Counsel took the position that the facts
.alleged "set up virtually a closed shop situation" and therefore constitute "a
specific violation of Section S (b) (1) (A)." Assuming; arguendo, that such a
conclusion can be drawn from the facts pleaded, and assuming further that
Respondents received timely service of a charge accusing them of such a
violation as required by Section 10 (b) of the Act, the conclusion drawn by the
General Counsel is not sound.
In National Maritime Union of America, 78 NLRB 971, the Board specifically
rejected a similar contention "that an [activity] for an illegal objective neces-
sarily restrains and `coerces' employees; as these terms were intended to be
applied in Section 8 (b) (1) (A). The touch stone of the [activity] which is
violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) is normally the means by which it is accom-
plished, so long as its objective is directly related to the interests of the strikers
and not directed primarily at compelling other employees to forego the rights
which Section 7 protects.-[The activity] having been peacefully conducted, it
did not violate Section 8 (b) (1) (A)." n
I shall therefore recommend that the allegations of the complaint, insofar as
they allege a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, be dismissed.
V. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union and Meyers set forth in Section IV, above, occur-
ring in connection with the operations of the general contractors and subcon-
tractors described therein whose activities are 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 and have led to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Raving found that the Respondent Union and Respondent Meyers have vio-
lated 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 foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Glazier's Union Local No. 27 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and
Paperhangers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
B See also International Union United Aline Workers of Anaerica, and Jones and Laughlin
Steel Company, 83 NLRB 916; Local 74, United Brotherhood of. Carpenters and Joiners of
America, and Ira A. Watson Company, 80 NLRB 533.
GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL N O. 27 561
2. George M. Meyers is an agent of the aforesaid labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees to refuse in the course of their
employment to cease work on the Grant Hardware job and the Sears Roebuck
job, by inducing and encouraging Ahrens to leave the employment of Joliet Glass,
and by applying the Union's bylaws and rules as an aid to such inducement
and encouragement, an object thereof being to force and require their respective
employers to cease doing business with certain general contractors, the Union
and Meyers have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. Respondent Hoffman has not engaged in any of the unfair labor practices
charged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law , the under-
signed hereby recommends that the Respondents Glaziers ' Union Local No. 27 of
the Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators , and Paper Hangers of America, and
George H. Meyers, its Business Manager and agent ,.and their agents, successors,
and assigns shall :
1. Cease and (lesist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the members
of Local No . 27 to engage in , a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to perform services for any employer , where an object thereof is to
require their employer or any other employer or other person to cease doing
business with any member of the Joliet Contractors Association , or any other
employer who uses or sells preglazed sash, or has used or sold preglazed sash.
. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Notify Berger , Freslinger , Coyne, and Ahrens that they are free to work
on jobs on which any member of the Joliet Contractors Association or any other
employer is the general contractor , if assigned to such jobs by their employer,
and that their work on such jobs will not prejudice their rights , privileges, and
standing in the Respondent Glaziers ' Union Local No. 27 of the Brotherhood of
Painters , Decorators , and Paper Hangers of America ;
(b) Notify Leonard Ahrens that he is free to work for Joliet Paint and
Glass Company, Inc ., if offered employment , and that his acceptance of such
employment will not prejudice his rights , privileges, and standing in said Union
last aforementioned ;
(c) Post in a conspicuous place at the business office of Local No. 27 in the City
of Chicago , Illinois , where notices to members are ordinarily posted, a copy of the
notice attached hereto as Appendix C. Copies of the notice , to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region , shall , after being signed by a
representative of Local No. 27 and by George H. Meyers , as Business Manager for
said Local , be immediately posted and maintained for a period of 60 days tlfere-
after . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that the
posted notice is not altered, defaced , or covered by other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois),
in writing , within twenty ( 20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
903847-51-vol. 90-37
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is also recommended that unless the Respondent Union and Meyers shall
within twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report notify said
Regional Director in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recom-
niendations the Board issue an order requiring said Respondents to take the
action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the Respondent Hoffman has engaged in the alleged violative conduct de-
scribed in the complaint.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file.
with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement
in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any
other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or
objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief
in support thereof; and any party may, within the same period, file an original
and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of
exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record
relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed
shall be double spaced.. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed
with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further
provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally
before the Board, request therefore must be made in writing to the Board within,
ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the
Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules,
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 18th day of July 1949.
DAVID LONDON,
Trial Examiner.
GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL NO. 27
APPENDIX A
General contractors-members of Joliet Contractors Association
563
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Value of pur-
Name Annual volume Value of build- chases shipped Percent of
of business mg materials directly from purchases orig.
(cents omitted) purchased outside of Illf- inating out-(cents omitted) nois (cents side of Illinois
omitted)
Joliet Construction Co_________________ $228,000.- $92,000 $9,200 85
Mazzucco CCo_____________Construction
onst
272,000 83,000 8,200 50-70
Hansen & Peterson 667,200 135,800 12,864 65
E. 11. Swenson_________________________ 193,000 112,000 5,600 70
Matt Gregory
regory__________________________ 166,250 60,000 3,000 85
Sverre Ugland _________________________ 156,000 70,000 3,500 80
Stonitsch & Son________________________ 97,000 29,000 _ -------------- 60
Richard Berti__________________________ 85,000 46,000 ---------------- 80-85
Arnold Welsch________________________ 228,000 145, 000 13, 000 70
Magnus Strandberg____________________ 135,000 40,000 _ ______________ 70
W. B. IIarshbarger____________________ 46,090 18,000 ________________ 90
Albert Boekholdt---------------------- ---------------- 93,000 ---------------- 90
Lindblad Construction Co______________ 69,987 49,668 ________________ 30
APPENDIX B
Lumber and building supply companies
Total pur- Percent Percentof all Total pur-
Percent
f re-
Percent
f re-chases of of all purchases chases of
o p
glazed
po
glazed
Name
building
materials
purchases
originating shipped
matgerzed
materials materials materials
(cents out of directly (manta originating shipped
omitted) State from outof State omitted)
out of
State
from
outside
Leach Bros. Inc_______________ $174,293 94 _ 391 _____-______ 45
Hacker-SimeCo______________ 268,197 70 60 25,000 40 40
Lyons Bros. Fuel & Lumber
Co__________________________ 231,565 95.3 80 23,987 ____________ 16.9'
Joliet Lumber & Fuel Co 347,804 91 52 40,560 100 10
Alexander Lumber Co________ 241,610 87 70 11,007 100 1
L. N. It. Beatty LumberCo__ 113,843 ____________ 70 8,555 ____________ _
Joliet Cash & Carry Lumber
Co-------------------------- 286,713 ------______ 40 26,189 100 _---________
Joliet Paint and Glass Co.,
Inc------------------------ 91,000 50 --------- -------- ------------ ------------
APPENDIX C
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 Relations Act, we hereby notify our members and employees of Joliet
Paint and Glass Company, Inc., that :
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of JOLIET
PAINT AND GLASS COMPANY, INC., or any other employer to engage in, a
strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform.
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
services for such employer, where an object thereof is to require Joliet
Paint and Glass Company, Inc., or any other such employer, to cease doing
business with any other employer or person because such other employer uses,
sells, or has used or sold preglazed sash.
WE WILL NOT interfere with Leonard Ahren's right to work for JOLIET
PAINT AND GLASS Co_uI PANY, INC., if offered employment, and his acceptance of
such employment, and his acceptance of such employment will not prejudice
his rights, privileges, and standing in our organization.
GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL No. V OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS,
DECORATORS AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
By -------------------------------- -----------------
(Title of Officer)
GEORGE H. 1IEYERS.
Dated --------------------