Twin City Carpenters District Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 1017 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

TWIN CITY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
Twin City Carpenters District Council and Boot&
Shoe Workers Union , Local 527-C, AFL-CIO and
Local 160, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America
Twin City Carpenters District Council and Red
Wing Wood Products , Inc. Cases 18-CC-213 and
18-CC-214
October 24, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, JENKINS, AND
ZAGORIA
On April 26, 1967, Trial Examiner Leo F.
Lightner issued his Decision in the above-entitled
case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a sup-
porting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,'
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Twin
City Carpenters District Council, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.2
'We find, as did the Trial Examiner , that Respondent 's picketing of
Pemtom , considering the manner and circumstances in which it was con-
ducted , constituted an appeal to prospective customers to boycott Pem-
tom's houses generally as a means of coercing Pemtom not to buy Red
Wing cabinets, and was therefore violative of Sec 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act,
under the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in N L R B v.
Fruit and Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760, et al, 377
U S 58 The Trial Examiner appears to have further found that, because
cabinets become a fixture to the realty sold by the secondary employer,
any consumer appeal for a primary product boycott, no matter how
directed, would be unlawful since it would, of necessity, encompass an ap-
peal for a boycott of the secondary employer's entire business We find it
unnecessary to pass upon this aspect of his Decision in view of our
disposition of the case
2 Delete from par 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
that part which reads "to be furnished" and substitute "on forms pro-
vided "
167 NLRB No. 151
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1017
LEO F. LIGHTNER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
was heard in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 4,
1967, on the consolidated complaint of the General
Counsel and the answer of Twin City Carpenters District
Council, herein called the Respondent.' The complaint
alleges violations of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act,
1947, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, and 73 Stat. 519, herein
called the Act. The parties waived oral argument. Briefs
filed by the General Counsel, Respondent, Charging
Party Unions, and Charging Party Company, have been
carefully considered.2 During the hearing the Trial Ex-
aminer reserved rulings on several motions, including
Respondent's motions to dismiss the complaint These
motions are disposed of in accordance with findings and
conclusions herein set forth.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESSES OF THE EMPLOYERS
The following jurisdictional facts are undisputed. Red
Wing Wood Products, Inc., herein referred to as Red
Wing, is a corporation with its principal place of business
at Red Wing, Minnesota, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture of wooden kitchen cabinets and bathroom vani-
ties. Red Wing, in the operation of its business, annually
purchases lumber; hardware, paint, and lacquer, in an
amount in excess of $50,000, directly from suppliers
located outside the State of Minnesota. During the 12
months immediately preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint herein, a representative period, Red Wing sold and
shipped finished cabinets, valued in excess of $50,000, to
points outside the State of Minnesota.
Pemtom, Inc., and Pemble-Thomson, Inc , herein col-
lectively referred to as Pemtom, are each a corporate en-
tity, and each has its principal place of business at
Bloomington, Minnesota, and is engaged in the construc-
tion and sale of dwellings in the area of Minneapolis and
St. Paul, Minnesota. At all times relevant herein, three
projects, in the State of Minnesota, were under construc-
tion by Pemtom, Inc., and Pemble-Thomson, Inc , known
as Oakmont, Park Hills, and River Hills. In the operation
of their respective businesses Pemtom, Inc., and Pemble-
Thomson, Inc , each purchased lumber and goods and
materials, for use in the construction of dwellings at Oak-
mont, Park Hills, and River Hills, from points outside the
State of Minnesota, in an amount in excess of $50,000.
The complaint alleges, Respondent does not dispute,
and I find, that Red Wing, Pemtom, and Pemble-Thom-
son, are now and have been at all times material herein,
employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6)
and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
' A charge was filed, in Case 18-CC-213, on October 19, 1966 A
charge was filed in Case 18-CC-214, on November 2, 1966 A con-
solidated complaint was issued on December 16, 1966
2 Counsel are commended for the clarity and excellence of the briefs
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties concede, and I find , that Twin City Car-
penters District Council ,3 herein called Respondent,
Boot & Shoe Workers Local Union 527-C, AFL-CIO,
herein called Boot & Shoe Workers, and Local 160, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , herein called
Teamsters , are each a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Issues
The principal issue raised by the pleadings and litigated
at the hearing is whether Respondent, as more fully set
forth in the complaint, engaged in activity in contraven-
tion of the provisions of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act,
by picketing the construction projects of Pemtom,
identified as Oakmont, Park Hills, and River Hills, com-
mencing in August 1966, and continuing until December
13, 1966, threatened, coerced, and restrained, Pemtom,
where an object is: (1) to force or require Pemtom to
cease using, selling, handling or otherwise dealing in the
products of Red Wing; or (2) to force or require Pemtom
to cease doing business with Red Wing.
It is undisputed that the picketing took place at the
times and places alleged, and that the banner contained
the legend set forth in the complaint. However, Respond-
ent denies it has been engaged in a "labor dispute" with
Red Wing. Respondent asserts that absent a "labor
dispute" the Board has no jurisdiction over conduct con-
stituting the exercise of the constitutional right of
freedom of speech, and to truthfully inform the public
concerning facts. Respondent asserts the informational
bannering engaged in, which may appear to be related to
a secondary purpose, was not proscribed, as Congress did
not intend to prohibit all types of informational picketing.
Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor
practice.
Subsidiary questions are considered infra.
Background
The background facts are undisputed. Howard
Christensen4 is business representative of Respondent,
and has been since the summer of 1960.5 It is undisputed
that, at all times material herein, Christensen was and is
an agent of Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act. Christensen related that Respondent is
responsible for negotiating all contracts for the members
of subordinate locals and the policing of contracts.
Christensen asserted that his duties include, inter alia,
negotiations of contracts for cabinetmakers, handling ju-
risdictional disputes when they arise, and solving
grievances submitted to him by stewards. Since the spring
of 1961, Christensen has been and is president of the
3 Comprised of 13 Carpenter Locals in the Minneapolis-St Paul area
Included are Locals 1865 and 1252, which represent cabinetmakers and
millworkers in the Twin City area
4 Misspelled in the transcript as Christianson Misspelled Christenson
in the complaint
5 Christensen explained that he is I of approximately 85 delegates, from
Minnesota State Council of Carpenters and Joiners, hav-
ing been elected by the delegates to the State Council.
Herbert Kortz is secretary-treasurer of the Minnesota
State Council of Carpenters, and has been for 3 years.
Kortz is also a delegate to Respondent, from his local
union, identified as 1644, a Minneapolis local, and has
been for 14 years. Kortz related that for the past 3 years,
he had been "Director of Organization" for the State
Council. In the latter capacity, his duties included
negotiating contracts and organizing new shops.
On June 4, 1964, Kortz, personally, engaged in an ef-
fort to organize the production employees of Red Wing.
This effort was confined to the dispatch of a letter, on the
stationery of Minnesota State Council of Carpenters and
Joiners,6 signed by Kortz as secretary, and dispatched to
an unspecified number of the employees. The letter
inquired if the recipient, as an employee of Red Wing,
was interested in having the Carpenters represent him as
a bargaining agent, and requested the recipient to fill in
and return an enclosed authorization card. Kortz related
that he made five trips to Red Wing, Minnesota, in the
period between June and November 1964, to consult with
the chairman of a local trade union council, comprised of
miscellaneous trade and other unions, for the purpose of
having the chairman arrange a meeting, for Kortz, of the
Red Wing production employees. No such meeting en-
sued.
John M. Keating, president of Red Wing since 1964, re-
lated that his company has been engaged in the manufac-
ture of wooden kitchen cabinets and vanities since
February 1, 1961. These products are preassembled,
finished, and ready to hang on the wall, with the doors on,
however, while holes are drilled for the hardware, the
hardware is not assembled. Shelving is adjustable and
delivered loose with pegs permitting adjustment for
height. Red Wing does not provide counter tops or sinks.
Red Wing has sold its top line of floor cabinets, wall
cabinets, and vanities under the trade name of Riviera,
which Keating described as a registered trademark Red
Wing has sold Riviera cabinets to Pemtom since 1963 and
has used its own drivers to deliver these products, includ-
ing deliveries during the summer, fall, and winter of 1966,
to Pemtom's projects at Oakmont, Park Hills, and River
Hills. Generally the cabinets are removed from the truck
by Red Wing employees, and moved into Pemtom's
houses, however, occasionally they did receive aid from
a Pemtom laborer. Keating's estimate that the delivery of
a single kitchen would not involve more than one-half
hour stands undisputed. Keating asserted that Red
Wing's deliveries were made either weekly or semiweekly
to Pemtom.
It is undisputed that the cabinets are affixed to the
walls and the floors by Pemtom employees, who are
members of carpenters locals, which, in turn, are mem-
bers of Respondent. Essential repairs, such as the
removal of scratch marks or imperfections, are performed
by Red Wing employees of the service department, as
distinguished from employees making deliveries who go
to the jobsite in a special truck containing tools and repair
13 local unions Officers, designated as president, vice president, trustees,
and secretary-treasurer, are elected by the delegates Christensen
similarly was elected to his position
6 The letterhead contains the names of Howard Christensen, president,
Harvey R Paulson , vice president, and Herbert F Kortz, secretary-
director
TWIN CITY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
equipment and make the repairs either in the truck or by
bringing the defective part back to the factory. Keating
estimated the average call by a repairman would involve
approximately one-half hour.
While Keating described Red Wing's business as
seasonal, production continued throughout the year
Keating estimated peak employment, in the production
and maintenance unit, as approximately 80 to 90, with a
reduction during slack periods to between 40 and 50. The
P & M employees are covered by a collective-bargaining
agreement, and have been since 1963, when the State
Labor Conciliator certified the Independent Woodwork-
ers of Red Wing as the collective -bargaining representa-
tive. The current collective-bargaining agreement
between the Independent and Red Wing was negotiated
and executed in January or February 1966. Sub-
sequently, on May 3 1, 1966, the Teamsters and the Boot
& Shoe Workers were certified, as the collective-bargain-
ing representative, by the State Labor Conciliator.
Thereafter, Red Wing cabinets had a "union label," of the
Teamsters and the Boot & Shoe Workers affixed either
on the inside of a side frame or on the inside of a door.7
Keating asserted that Red Wing's P & M employees
have never been represented by any local of the Carpen-
ters, the plant has never been picketed by any local of the
Carpenters, and he had no knowledge of any effort by
anyone representing Respondent to contact Red Wing,
during the period of the picketing, which gave rise to this
litigation.
Lawrence A. Laukka is sales and marketing manager
for Pemtom, and was for approximately 12 months prior
to his testimony. In that capacity, he is responsible for
the sales, advertising , and marketing functions, including
the hiring, training, and developing of sales people, and
the conduct of sales efforts. Previously, for approximately
18 months, Laukka was construction manager and, as
such, in charge of field operations, including the hiring of
field superintendents and the supervision of construction,
as well as construction bidding, subletting, and coordina-
tion between sales and construction. Laukka's capacity
from the time of his initial employment, at the inception
of Pemtom, in January 1963, until he became construc-
tion manager, inferentially was that of field superintend-
ent. Laukka described Pemtom ' s business as the con-
struction and sale of single family dwellings. Pemtom
builds a model center , consisting of two to five model
homes, and a sales office, which might be either a separate
building or a garage of one of the model homes, used by
the sales force and customers. _
Pemtom houses are generally purchased prior to con-
struction, although some homes have been built on specu-
lation. Pemtom initiated the River Hills project, in
Dakota County, in January 1963, and has built approxi-
mately 900 homes. The Park Hills project, in Washington
County, began with the building of model homes in the
spring of 1964, which were opened, as models, in August
1964, and some 250 homes have been built and sold
since. The Oakmont project, in Ramsey County, began
° Described by Laukka as a metal label, blue in color, and the size of a
half dollar or silver dollar
" Laukka related that Pemtom does publish a sales brochure , for each
of the model centers, in which reference is made to the cabinets as a "stan-
dard feature" but does not identify the manufacturer
" Long did not appear as a witness While the record contains an asser-
tion that Long has retired , no explanation was made relative to his failure
1019
with construction of model homes in the fall of 1965, the
opening of the models in January 1966, and approximate-
ly 50 homes have been built since. At each of these pro-
jects there are parking facilities, next to the sales office,
used primarily by customers.
Pemtom subcontracts all work except carpentry, and
employs carpenters and laborers. Laukka's assertion that
the existing collective-bargaining agreement was between
Pemtom and Respondent is undisputed. However, car-
penters, as needed , are obtained from the locals,
identified by Laukka as 87 and 1171. The carpentry work
was described as including rough framing and finished
carpentry, the latter category including the hanging of
doors, finish trim, the hanging of cabinets (including
kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities), closet doors,
closet pulls, etc. It is undisputed that, at all times with
which we are concerned herein, Pemtom purchased
Riviera kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities from Red
Wing, and they were affixed, by nailing to the walls and
floors, by carpenters represented by Respondent. It is
patent that said cabinets thus became a part of the houses
which were being sold by Pemtom.8
Laukka credibly related a series of conversations he
had with various representatives of Respondent and Car-
penter Locals, relative to Pemtom's use of Riviera
cabinets. In 1963, while Laukka was field superintendent
of River Hills, with responsibility for meeting construc-
tion schedules, including ascertaining that the carpenters
and other employees were performing their essential du-
ties, he had more than one conversation concerning the
cabinets, with the business agent and other carpenter
union representatives. Laukka asserted that the business
agent, identified both as Nimrod Long and Reverend
Long, advised him that Pemtom was using a cabinet
which was not recognized by the Twin City District
Council and that it had been placed on a "list."9 Laukka
asserted that Long also stated that Pemtom should not
purchase Riviera cabinets, because they were on the list.
Long advised Laukka that the cabinets were not manu-
factured by a manufacturer that was recognized, or the
employees that worked for the manufacturer were not
recognized by his union and, consequently, Pemtom
should not be using those cabinets. Laukka asserted on
each such occasion he inquired whether Long was in ef-
fect implying that he intended to stop the installation of
the cabinets, and Laukka was assured on each occasion
that the installation would not be stopped.
Laukka related a further conversation which occurred
either in the fall of 1963, or during the first 3 months of
1964. Those present, besides Laukka, were Vice Presi-
dent Thomson and President Pemble of Pemtom and
Christensen and Long of the Carpenters. The meeting re-
lated to the purchase by Pemtom of millwork from Swan
Millwork and Riviera cabinets. The Pemtom representa-
tives were advised by the union representatives that Pem-
tom was using cabinets which were not recognized, that
it was Pemtom's responsibility to cooperate and not deal
with a nonrecognized manufacturer. The same inquiry, by
to appear
While Laukka described the "list" as a "black list," other evidence
would indicate that it could be correctly described as a "we do not
patronize list " This list , insofar as this record reveals, was issued by the
Minnesota State Council of Carpenters and Joiners and distributed to all
of the local unions affiliated with the State Council The use of this list by
Respondent is considered infra.
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pemtom representatives, whether the Union intended to
stop installing, brought a response from Christensen that
the Union would not stop installing, but would like Pem-
tom to "cooperate." Laukka asserted that Christensen
explained that these cabinets were made by farm people
who were not paid a normal living scale and, con-
sequently, the cabinet had a competitive advantage over
a Minneapolis manufactured cabinet. Accordingly, it was
the Union's responsibility to see that these cabinets were
not sold in the Twin City market, and should be the
responsibility of Pemtom to see that they were not in-
stalled, because they were not made by craft employees
in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Christensen suggested
Pemtom secure cabinets from a recognized manufacturer.
Laukka related that in the fall of 1964, when Pemtom
commenced the Park Hills project, they purchased
cabinets from Dura-Supreme, a subsidiary of Columbia
Millwork,1° a Twin City area manufacturer. These
purchases were prefinished kitchen cabinets and
bathroom vanities, and were discontinued, for reasons
which are obscure in this record, in December 1965.
Laukka attended a meeting in the spring or summer of
1965, which was held in Respondent's office. Laukka
identified others present as Gust Johnson, business
representative of Cabinetmakers Local 1865 and a
delegate to Respondent; Charles LaVaque, a delegate to
Respondent, Peter Woida, a delegate and secretary of
Respondent; Long, business representative for Local 87;
and Stan Fudro, business representative for Local 7 and
a delegate to Respondent." Laukka asserted the three
problems discussed were Pemtom's relationship with Red
Wing, Dura-Supreme, and Swan Millwork. Either John-
son or LaVaque, Laukka was uncertain which, advised
that the cabinets Pemtom was using were not of good
quality, were manufactured by a company not recognized
by the Council, and that Pemtom should make an effort
to discontinue using these cabinets and purchase from a
locally recognized firm. As a result, Laukka agreed to
make an effort to obtain the cabinets from a local source
and requested a recommendation, pursuant to which a
firm named Suburban Cabinets was suggested .12 It also
suggested that, if Pemtom wanted to continue purchasing
from Red Wing, Pemtom should make an effort to con-
vince Red Wing that they should organize under the
"right label," that they had an independent union which
Respondent did not recognize. It was suggested that
Pemtom discuss with Red Wing the merits of getting or-
ganized under the right label or cease doing business with
Red Wing Subsequently, Laukka asserted, Pemtom did
make representations to Red Wing. In answer to a
question of whether any specific threat was made at the
1965 meeting, Laukka responded that Respondent's
representatives agreed that the work would continue,
"but that it couldn't last forever."13 Subsequently, Lauk-
ka advised Christensen that Suburban did not wish to bid
for the work.
The Picketing- and Other Events Which Occurred
Within the 10(b) Period
10 As related by Laukka it appears that Dura-Supreme was also on the
later published "do not patronize" list of the State Council
11 Laukka asserted he "believed " Christensen was present. Christensen
asserted he was not present , and could not recall such a meeting On this
state of the record I find no evidence that Christensen was present
12 Laukka acknowledged that Suburban was not interested in bidding
for the business and nothing came of the effort
13 In explanation , Laukka asserted that Woida , in answer to a question
by Laukka as to whether Respondent would attempt a boycott , asserted,
Except as noted , the following facts are undisputed. In
late July or early August 1966, Respondent placed a sin-
gle individual as a picket , alternating , at Pemtom 's three
building projects , Oakmont, Park Hills, and River Hills.
The picket sign read:
NOTICE
TO PUBLIC
CABINETS BEING
installed on this job
were not made by
members of the United
BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA
TWIN CITY
CARPENTERS
DISTRICT
COUNCIL
The picketing continued until December 13, 1966, when,
during the pendency of a hearing on a request for an in-
junction , it was agreed that the picketing would be discon-
tinued , voluntarily, pending the disposition of this litiga-
tion.
The following facts relative to the picketing are un-
disputed: ( 1) No more than one person picketed at any
particular time ; (2) only one of Pemtom 's construction
projects was picketed at any one time, ( 3) on some days
more than one of Pemtom's construction projects was
picketed , but not simultaneously ; (4) picketing on Mon-
day through Friday took place between the hours of 8
a.m. and 4.30 p in ; (5) picketing on Saturday was
between the hours of 8 a.m . and 4:30 p in ., and there was
no picketing on Sundays , (6) at Pemtom's request picket-
ing on Saturdays was discontinued , at approximately the
middle of September ; (7) the picketing occurred at Pem-
tom's model homes, sales centers , and customer parking
lots, at each of the three projects; and (8 ) the size of the
picket sign approximated 18 inches by 30 inches.
The hours of picketing were thus - identical to hours
worked by Pemtom ' s carpenters and construction
laborers. The hours worked by Pemtom's sales force,
during which "consumers " could reasonably be expected
to be present , were 12 noon to 9 p.m. on Monday through
Thursday and 12 noon to 6 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
The sales offices were closed on Friday . The model
homes and sales centers were open only during the hours
indicated as the salesmen ' s hours. Laukka credibly re-
lated that Sunday was the busiest day, in terms of
customers , since it was the only day when Pemtom en-
gaged in advertising , and Saturday and Sunday histori-
cally accounted for the 80 percent of the total consumer
traffic. 14
Laukka, who lives in River Hills, noticed the picket at
the model center of that project, when he left for work
between 8 and 9 a.m. He estimated that he would see the
sign at least two times a week , during the period of the
picketing. Laukka described the location of the picket, at
each of the three projects , with relation to the model
"Well, you know right now it is not legal and soon it will be The seconda-
ry boycott issue is in front of Congress, and if it is legal , it is another
story "
14 Laukka asserted that these assertions were supported by a traffic
count kept daily and hourly for marketing purposes , under his supervi-
sion as sales and marketing manager, and were predicated on the number
of automobiles at the parking lot, each hour of every day when the sales
offices were open
TWIN CITY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
homes and with relation to the area of construction. At
River Hills the parking lot was adjacent to the model
homes, being used as a sales office , and also adjacent to
the construction of a newer model center of homes being
opened for 1967 sales . In Park Hills the model center was
in a location where there was no building in the immediate
vicinity within 200 yards . At Oakmont houses were being
built across the street from the parking lot.
It is undisputed that throughout the period of the
picketing Pemtom continued purchasing the kitchen
cabinets and bathroom vanities from Red Wing. It is un-
disputed that the banner , carried by the picket , did not in-
dicate the identity of the manufacturer of the cabinets.
There was no work stoppage , or any interruption with
deliveries, and members of the Carpenters Locals, em-
ployed by Pemtom , continued working throughout the
picketing.
Kenneth Tri is secretary -treasurer of the Teamsters.
Tri was advised of the picketing , at Pemtom , by Keating,
president of Red Wing . On an unspecified date, in Au-
gust , Tri talked to Christensen and requested advice as to
how to resolve the problem which was affecting the
Teamsters members. Tri credibly related that Christen-
sen responded that the Boot & Shoe Workers "do not be-
long in the manufacturing of wood products ." Tri's
inquiry as to the possibility of a meeting with Respondent
resulted in advice from Christensen that Christensen had
a pressing workload and could not schedule a meeting.15
Tri related that he had previously attended a meeting,
at Red Wing , Minnesota , on August 4, 1966, called by
Robert Hess and attended by LeDue, Herbert Kortz, and
Linder . Tri identified Hess as executive president of the
State Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, LeDue as a busi-
ness representative of the Minnesota State Building
Trades Council , and Linder as an International represent-
ative of the Boot & Shoe Workers, and a member and
representative of Local 527-C. Tri credibly related that
the discussion was addressed to the problem which ex-
isted between the parties in this litigation , i.e., the Car-
penters on the one hand , and the Teamsters and Boot &
Shoe Workers on the other hand , and the picketing of the
Pemtomjobsites. Tri asserted that Hess opened the meet-
ing by stating that he was acting as a mediator , was unable
to rule on jurisdictional disputes between members of the
AFL-CIO , and the purpose of the meeting was to try to
resolve the problem . Tri asserted that either Hess or
LeDue suggested that , at the termination of the existing
collective-bargaining agreement , the present representa-
tives of Red Wing employees should agree to turn the unit
over to the Carpenters . Tri asserted that he and Linder
had given the background of the production and main-
tenance units' history of organization . During the meet-
ing, the Teamsters and Boot & Shoe Workers offered to
assist the Carpenters in organizing a different unit, in a
different plant , identified as Red Wing Industries, Inc
According to Tri , Kortz confined his statement to an ob-
servation that he had been furnished facts which he did
not believe Respondent herein had , relative to
background . 16 Tri asserted that Kortz advised those
15 Christensen , who appeared as a witness , did not dispute this
testimony
Ili Kortz , who acknowledged attending the meeting related by Tn, de-
nied that there was any discussion of Red Wing or the picketing at Pem-
tom Kortz, whom I find unconvincing, asserted variously that. There was
nothing discussed, the only reason (for the meeting ) was to discuss the fu-
ture , and the Boot & Shoe Workers and Teamsters were going to help him
1021
present that he would take the results of the meeting back
to Respondent. Tri heard nothing further from Respond-
ent thereafter. Tri related that the suggestion that the
Charging Parties turn the iepresentation of the produc-
tion and maintenance unit over to the Carpenters was not
agreed to by these Charging Parties.
Pursuant to a request of Laukka, a meeting was held at
Respondent's office, on August 29, 1966. In addition to
Laukka, those present were Christensen and Pemtom's
construction manager, Vesta. Laukka asserted that the
picketing had been continuing for approximately a month
and he thought it was time to sit down and talk about it.
According to Laukka, when he inquired as to the nature
of the problem, Christensen responded, "You know what
the problem is." Laukka related that, for 2 or 3 years, he
had discussed the problem with Christensen and other
business agents, and having been advised that one of the
alternatives was to see that Red Wing became organized,
had held conversations with Keating and others in the
Red Wing organization and suggested they should do
something, and this suggestion culminated in the Red
Wing production and maintenance unit being organized.
With this background he called Christensen's attention to
the fact that as soon as they were organized Pemtom was
"hit with a sign and a picket," and Laukka did not un-
derstand the reason. Laukka asserted that Christensen
responded, "Well, specifically you're being bannered,
picketed, whatever we are going to call it, because we do
not recognize Boot & Shoe Workers building cabinets
and selling them in Minneapolis and St. Paul. We can't do
it." Laukka then asked if this was not a union problem
and why Pemtom was used as a battleground for the
Teamsters-Carpenters situation. Christensen responded
that it had to be that way, that he had his directives, and
if necessary, they would "go down the tubes on this one."
Laukka asserted that Riviera cabinets were sold to other
builders and no one else was being picketed, that Pemtom
was having a bad enough year, by reason of the building
situation, and could not afford this type of notoriety. He
advised Christensen that they should agree upon and do
something to get it resolved. Christensen responded that
the Teamsters would have to make the first move; he
would not take the pickets off; and they had a point to
prove and the point was that the Boot & Shoe Workers
have no business building cabinets that are going to be in-
stalled by Carpenters in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Lauk-
ka then inquired if this meant the Carpenters would not
install the cabinets and Christensen responded that there
would be no problem with installation or deliveries assert-
ing, "this is an informational picket, strictly legal."
Christensen assured him that if anyone stopped working
or refused to cross the banner line that he should call
Christensen who would immediately get it straightened
out.
Laukka asserted that he had advised Christensen, at
this meeting, that he thought, "I get the drift of what you
are trying to prove, but you are doing it at Pemtom's ex-
pense and we are involved in our sales, in a highly or-
organize Red Wing Wood Products , Red Wing Industries Kortz who was
evasive as to his attendance, as a delegate , at Respondent 's meetings, and
his knowledge of the Pemtom picketing , ultimately acknowledged that at
the August 4 meeting they did discuss the picketing , in terms of the future
To the extent the testimony of Kortz is at variance with that of Tn, rela-
tive to this meeting , I credit the latter
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganized labor market, we sell homes to laboring people in
some of our areas, in all of our areas, and I don't know, I
couldn't suggest how important that banner would be to
the buying public." Laukka asserted that he was fearful
the public would not buy from Pemtom and so stated to
Christensen, advising him he did not know why Pemtom
should be the scapegoat. The meeting concluded with
Christensen advising Laukka that he would not remove
the pickets, that the pickets would remain until the matter
was resolved, and it was the Teamsters responsibility to
get the matter working.
Laukka credibly asserted that during this conversation,
in answer to his question as to what Christensen wanted
him to do, Christensen advised him to stop buying from
Red Wing, to buy from someone locally, and this was one
way Laukka could obtain a removal of the pickets."
It is undisputed that, on June 28, 1966, and again on
December 1, 1966, a communication was sent "to all
local unions affiliated with the Minnesota State Council
of Carpenters and Joiners ," on the stationery of that
organization1e signed by Herbert F. Kortz, as secretary-
treasurer and director of organization, and contained a
"we do not patronize" list, requested that it be read at
local union meetings, and stated "urge your members that
we do not install fixtures or millwork without our
Brotherhood Lable (sic) " Among the companies and
products appearing on the list is "Riviera Kitchens at Red
Wing, Minnesota-Cabinets." Christensen asserted that
the Riviera cabinets were first placed on this list in 1964,
at the request of the cabinetmakers in Local 1252, St.
Paul. Christensen acknowledged that his approval was
necessary and that he had given it Christensen asserted
a similar list, including Riviera, was published in the St.
Paul Trades and Labor Assembly, through their publica-
tion known as the "Union Advocate " Christensen
acknowledged that the June 28, 1966, communication
from Kortz was read to Respondent's delegates, after its
receipt, by Peter Woida, secretary-treasurer.19
Laukka related that, shortly after the picketing began
and after he had talked to Keating of Red Wing, he
received a telephone call from Tri and advised Tri that he
had to get some answers. As a result, Tri, LeDue of the
Minnesota State Building Trades Council, and Swanson
of Red Wing came to one of Pemton's project sites At
that time Laukka suggested they get the matter cleared up
as quickly as possible as Pemtom could not continue on
in that fashion. Laukka asserted that he was advised that
they were trying to contact Christensen and get the
matter resolved. Laukka asserted that after his meeting
on August 29, with Christensen, he had written to Red
Wing, advised them of the alternatives he had been given,
and requested that Red Wing take some action In
response to this letter he was advised by Tri that they
were working on the situation and that he should be pa-
tient.
Laukka acknowledged that, after his meeting with
Christensen, on August 29, inferentially in September, he
asked Christensen if there was any way to resolve the
Saturday picketing, advising him, "during the week is one
thing but on the weekend is another." Christensen
responded that he would take care of it, and there was no
further picketing thereafter on Saturdays.
Christensen acknowledged making the decision, and
the recommendation to Respondent, to establish the
picketing. His asserted reason was to disseminate infor-
mation to the public, as stated on the banner. He
acknowledged Respondent had no dispute with Pemtom,
and that the relationship between Respondent and Pem-
tom was such that they considered Pemtom "one of the
better employers." Christensen asserted the objective of
the picketing was to call attention to the general public
that the cabinets which were being installed were not
made by members of Respondent's Brotherhood He as-
serted that in one unspecified instance, when work was
not done properly, one of the Local Union's made good
for material and labor to rectify poor workmanship.
Christensen, on the other hand, acknowledged that Red
Wing had a serviceman who took care of all complaints.
Christensen acknowledged that the picket did not dis-
tribute any handbills, explaining that it was a residential
community, and Respondent did not wish to create
animosity by having handbills cluttering up the neighbor-
hood. Christensen asserted the picket was instructed not
to talk to anyone who might make an inquiry, the banner
contained the only information disseminated."'
Asked if the picketing would stop if the Carpenters
union represented the employees at Red Wing, Christen-
sen responded, "I made a statement here before that the
" Christensen flatly denied ever having been asked by any of Pemtom's
representatives the reasons for the Union ' s picketing these projects
Christensen acknowledged having met with Laukka and Vesta, on August
29 Christensen acknowledged that both representatives of Pemtom
questioned him in regard to "information matter that was on the banner,"
and "wanted to know what the reason for them was " Christensen as-
serted that he advised them that he thought the informational banner was
directed at the general public, as the banner stated Christensen asserted
that the company representatives advised that his banner was derogatory
of the Company , "if you read between the lines," and he responded there
was nothing between the lines . Christensen asserted that he was asked
what would happen to the banner if there was a different cabinet on the
project , and that he responded he would have to review the banner and
either change it or remove it Christensen asserted that he advised Lauk-
ka, "It has to fit the situation , we could not tell a lie on the banner As far
as I knew the information on my banner is correct in its wording"
Christensen acknowledged advising Pemtom's representatives , in answer
to an inquiry , that if there was any refusal to work or make deliveries that
he should be advised and that he would see to it that the job was carried on
without stoppages
Christensen acknowledged that they had not placed a picket on the
premises of other employers , asserting that he was only able to use one
banner carrier , that regardless of which contractor he started on the same
question would have been asked and "there had to be a first some place "
Christensen acknowledged Respondent had no dispute with Pemtom,
whom he described as "one of the better employers "
Christensen denied the reason for the picketing was the fact that the
Boot & Shoe Workers and Teamsters represented Red Wing employees
To the extent the testimony of Christensen is at variance with that of
Laukka , I credit the latter
i 8 I have found , supra , that the stationery bears the names of Howard
Christensen , president , Harvey R Paulson , vice president , and Herbert
F Kortz, secretary-director
1' It is undisputed that Respondent 's jurisdiction includes Ramsey,
Washington , and Dakota counties, where Pemtom's construction was
being performed and the Union Advocate was distributed in all three
counties
20 The assertion of Christensen that customers were not requested not
to buy Pemtom houses or Riveria cabinets is credited to the extent that it
implies that Respondent engaged in no conduct at the sites of Pemtom's
houses other than the picketing
TWIN CITY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
Employer [Pemtom] had asked me at a meeting what
would happen if he changed, if the cabinets were coming
from another source, and I said I would have to look at
the banner and see if the banner was telling the truth, and
that is my answer to your question. "21
Contentions of the Parties and Concluding Findings
Respondent urges that General Counsel has failed to
establish there is an existing labor dispute between
Respondent and Red Wing, and that absent a primary
labor dispute the Board is without jurisdiction over con-
duct of parties who exercise their constitutional right of
freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I find no
merit in these contentions.
In the Ocean Shipping Service case22 the Board held:
"There is no merit in Respondents' contention that Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(B) may not be applied in the absence of a
labor dispute with a primary employer. Neither the
legislative history nor the Act itself suggests that the ex-
istence of such a dispute is a precondition for regulation
of conduct, not involving traditional primary activity,
falling within the literal ban of that section and tending to
burden and obstruct commerce."
In the Weyerhaeuser case23 the Board stated:
Respondent contends that the Board may not as-
sert jurisdiction in the instant case because the
record does not disclose the existence of a "labor
dispute." We disagree As the instant case stems
from interunion controversy concerning the
representation of employees for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, an underlying labor dispute is in-
volved. Furthermore, we have held that our jurisdic-
tion is not predicated upon the existence of a labor
dispute [citing Maryland Ship, supra]. Although the
Fourth Circuit, in reversing the cited case, disagreed,
finding such a dispute to be essential, the Board
respectfully adheres, until such time as the issue is
finally resolved by the Supreme Court, to the view
that its power to prevent unfair labor practices is not
so qualified.
Charging Party Unions assert the jurisdiction of the
Board as set forth in Section 10(a)24 and do not depend
upon the existence of a labor dispute. These Unions call
attention to the language of the Court in the Delta Steam-
ship case25 in discussing the holding of the Fourth Circuit
in the Maryland Ship case, the court said:
The court, however, did not think it the part of pru-
dence to stand upon this finding of a complete lack of
jurisdiction in the Board. Noting that it was "dealing
with a case of first impression and one likely to be of-
fered for review on certiorari," it thought it ap-
propriate to reach the merits as a hedge against the
21 Christensen was then evasive as to whether, in the August 29 meet-
ing with Laukka, he advised Pemtom to stop buying from Red Wing, as an
alternative Christensen first asserted, "I don't think so, no," then stated,
"I encouraged Pemble-Thomson to buy locally-made products "
Thereafter, having identified locally made products as "being made by our
members," Christensen asserted, " i don't think I asked them outright to
stop buying from [Red Wing] I think I encouraged Pemble-Thompson
to buy local-made products "
22 Local 1355, International Longshoremen's Association (Ocean
Shipping Service, Ltd), 146 NLRB 723, 727, enforcement denied sub
nom N L R B v Intl Longshoremen's Assn and Local 1355, 332 F 2d
992 (CA 4)
"National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO (Weyerhaeuser
1023
possibility that the Supreme Court might view theju-
risdictional issue differently....
We think this decision not to rest upon the jurisdic-
tional issue a highly prudential one. The resolution
made of that issue was, as the court explicitly recog-
nized, one of "first impression," and no direct
authority could be adduced for it. The quoted phrase
of the Supreme Court appears in a Norris-LaGuardia
Act case, in which the Court was passing on the ju-
risdiction of a District Court to enjoin a strike, not
the jurisdiction of the Board to entertain a charge of
an unfair labor practice. It is not our function to say
whether the Fourth Circuit was right or wrong in its
jurisdictional ruling in the Tulse Hill case. We note
only that the same result in practical effect (namely,
the relieving of the union from the burden of the
Board's order) was reached on another basis; and we
are not persuaded by the authority of that case to
deny the existence of jurisdiction in this one. As the
Fourth Circuit thought it wise to do, so do we move
on to NMU's second contention that, even if the
Board had jurisdiction, it erroneously appraised
NMU's conduct as subject to the strictures of Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I find Respond-
ent's contention that the Board is without jurisdiction,
absent a "labor dispute" is without merit 26
The Board, with court approval, has found the absence
of a "primary" dispute in its classic sense does not bar a
finding of a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) In fact, the
proviso to that subsection merely excludes from its
operation lawful primary strikes or lawful primary picket-
ing. In the Sound Shingle case 27 the Board said:
It is true that in the usual type of secondary
boycott there is a dispute with one employer fol-
lowed by secondary activity against another em-
ployer with whom he has business dealings, to force
a cessation of business with the primary employer.
But because this kind of secondary boycott is more
usual or more frequent does not mean that it is the
only kind Congress intended to reach. We do not be-
lieve that, as to the type of conduct now before us,
Section 8(b)(4)(A)28 contemplates the existence of an
active dispute, over specific demands, between the
union and the producer of goods under union inter-
dict. The legislative history surrounding the enact-
ment of Section 8(b)(4)(A), while difficult as a guide
in many respects, does furnish reasonably clear
guidance on the precise issue here. The Senate Com-
mittee Report on this section indicates that no de-
mand upon the producer of the boycotted product is
necessary to sustain the charge that a union has en-
Lines), 147 NLRB 1317, in. 3, enfd. 342 F 2d 538 (C A 2)
24 In pertinent part- "The Board is empowered, as hereinafter provided,
to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice (listed in
section 8) affecting commerce This power shall not be affected by any
other means of adjustment, law, or otherwise
25 National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO [Delta Steamship
Lines] v N L R B, 346 F 2d 411,415 (C A D C), cert denied 382 U S
840, enfg 147 NLRB 1328
261 have found it unnecessary to set forth the definition of "labor
dispute," set forth in Sec 2(9) of the Act
21 Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' District Council (Sound Shin-
gleCo.), 101 NLRB 1159, 1161-62
21 Now Sec 8(b)(4)(B)
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaged in the type of "secondary boycott" we have
here under consideration.
In S. Rep. No. 105 on S. 1126, 80th Cong., 1st
Sess., p. 22, the Committee said:
Thus, it would not be lawful for a union to en-
gage in a strike against Employer A for the pur-
pose of forcing that employer to cease doing
business with B; nor would it be lawful for a
union to boycott employer A because employer
A uses or otherwise deals in the goods of or does
business with employer B (with whom the
Union has a dispute). This paragraph also
makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to
engage in the type of secondary boycott that has
been conducted in New York City by Local No.
3 of the IBEW, whereby electricians have
refused to install electrical products of manufac-
turers employing electricians who are members
of some labor organization other than local
No. 3.... [Citation omitted]
The court, in granting enforcement in the Sound Shin-
gle case '29 made the following cogent observation:
The prohibited object of the boycott is stated by the
statute to be "forcing ... any employer or other per-
son to cease using . . . products of any other
producer, processor, or manufacturer...." That is
a prohibited object whether the union has or has not
a dispute with such "other producer, processor, or
manufacturer." In fact, if the object is sought, not
because of any dispute, but merely because the union
dislikes the other producer for any reason, or for no
reason, the conduct would appear even more
reprehensible.
In the Delta Steamship case, supra at 418-419, the
court stated:
NMU now protests that it cannot be under the ban
of the statute because, even if Cambridge Carriers is
to be thought of as a "primary employer," NMU,
representing its employees, had no quarrel with it
and no occasion to put pressure upon it to do other
than what it was already doing. The pressures it
sought to mobilize in New Orleans, so it is said, were
directed solely against MEBA and not the primary
employer. There are two answers to this. The first is
that Congress clearly desired to protect neutral em-
ployers from the ramifying effects of inter-union, as
well as union-employer, strife. And the second is that
the neutral employer may be hurt just as badly by
pressures generated in support of a primary em-
ployer as by those directed against him. It is the vic-
tim's neutrality which we conceive to be the central
element of Congressional concern in this area. Cam-
bridge Carriers, in a sense, voluntarily placed itself
in a position where it was exposed to labor strife.
Delta and Bloomfield, and the companies with which
they did business in New Orleans, were wholly out-
side the orbit of this conflict. They were neutral, both
29 N L R B. v Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' District Council,
211 F 2d 149,152 (C.A 9)
30 It is unnecessary to reach and determine the assertion of Christensen
that Red Wing is located beyond the jurisdictional area of Respondent,
hence there could be no primary dispute Christensen is both president of
the Minnesota State Council of Carpenters and business representative of
Respondent and was responsible for the picketing herein Kortz , Director
of Organization of the State group and delegate of Respondent, was still
trying to obtain representation of the Red Wing P & M unit , on August 4,
1966 It is inferred this meeting with Tn and Linder, and others , was after
in terms of their interest in and of their capacity to
satisfy NMU's purposes. We believe the Board fairly
read Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) as an expression to
force a suspension of business relationships in New
Orleans because of its dissatisfaction with a similar
suspension which disadvantaged its members and
their employer in Philadelphia
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I find Respond-
ent's contention that an active "primary dispute" is an
essential prerequisite to a finding of "secondary boycott"
is without merit. 311
The Supreme Court disposed of the constitutional
question raised by Respondent in the Langer case '31 the
Court said:
The prohibition of inducement or encouragement
of secondary pressures by § 8(b)(4)(A) carries no un-
constitutional abridgement of free speech. The in-
ducement or encouragement in the instant case took
the form of picketing followed by a telephone call
emphasizing its purpose. The constitutionality of §
8(b)(4)(A) is here questioned only as to its possible
relation to the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
First Amendment. This provision has been sustained
by several Courts of Appeals. The substantive evil
condemned by Congress in § 8(b)(4) is the secondary
boycott and we recently have recognized the con-
stitutional right of states to proscribe picketing in
furtherance of comparably unlawful objectives.
There is no reason why Congress may not do
likewise.
Accordingly, I find no merit in Respondent's conten-
tion that the exercise, by the Board, of jurisdiction in this
case would constitute an abridgement of Respondent's
constitutional right of freedom of speech and freedom of
expression.
Since the background evidence, set forth supra, receipt
of which was over Respondent's objections, I find it ap-
propriate to summarily dispose of the issue of its con-
sideration. The Supreme Court in the Bryan case32 said:
It is doubtless true that § 10(b) does not prevent all
use of evidence relating to events transpiring more
than six months before the filing and service of an un-
fair labor practice charge. However, in applying rules
of evidence as to the admissability of past events,
due regard for the purposes of § 10(b) requires that
two different kinds of situations be distinguished.
The first is one where occurrences within the six-
month limitations period in and of themselves may
constitute, as a substantive matter, unfair labor prac-
tices. There, earlier events may be utilized to shed
light on the true character of matters occurring
within the limitations period; and for that purpose §
10(b) ordinarily does not bar such evidentiary use of
anterior events.
General Counsel correctly calls attention to the fact
that under the decision in the Servette case33 a union ap-
peal for the exercise of managerial discretion relating to
the start of the picketing at Pemtom
The Board, with court approval , has many times pierced a corporate
veil to find a single employer in a multicorporate complex Associations
are no more sacrosanct
3' International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 50/, et al.
[Samuel Langer ] v N L R.B , 341 U S 694,705
32 Local Lodge No 1424, International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO [Bryan Manufacturing Co ] v N.L.R.B , 362 U S 411,416
33 N L R B v Servette , Inc, 377 U S 46, 51
TWIN CITY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL 1025
discontinuance of purchasing, unaccompanied by threats,
coercion, or restraint is permissible conduct and not an
unfair labor practice. However, General Counsel urges
that the background evidence herein sheds light on the
reason for, and an object of, the Respondent's picketing
which occurred within the 10(b) period, which was to
cause Pemtom to cease buying cabinets from Red Wing.
General Counsel urges that while Respondent's picket
sign did not identify the manufacturer, Red Wing, it did
refer to "cabinets," and the undisputed evidence is that
only Red Wing was supplying cabinets to Pemtom, at that
time . In fact, Christensen acknowledged that he was
unaware that Pemtom had purchased cabinets from any
other manufacturer.
In summary, the evidence is that, during the pre-Sec-
tion 10(b) period, Laukka had been advised by Respond-
ent's representatives that if Pemtom wanted to continue
purchasing from Red Wing, Pemtom should make an ef-
fort to convince Red Wing that they should organize
under the "right label," since they had a union which
Respondent did not recognize. Pemtom discussed this
matter with Red Wing. Later the representation was
changed to Teamsters and Boot & Shoe Workers.
Thereafter, within the 10(b) period, after other labor in-
termediaries were unsuccessful in an effort to have Tri
and Linder, on August 4, 1966, agree to return the Red
Wing unit over to the Carpenters, Tri was advised by
Christensen "that the Boot & Shoe Workers, do not be-
long in the manufacturing of wood products." This was
Christensen's response to Tri's request for knowledge as
to how to resolve the picketing, which would have an ad-
verse effect on the members of the unit.
As early as 1963, Long advised Laukka that the
cabinets, being used by Pemtom, were not manufactured
by a manufacturer that was recognized by Respondent
Similar representations later, by Respondent's represent-
atives, resulted in Pemtom making an effort to obtain
cabinets from a "recognized" manufacturer, without suc-
cess. Subsequently Laukka was advised by Woida that in-
stallation work would continue, "but that it couldn't last
forever." Subsequently, after the picketing had continued
for approximately a month, on August 29, 1966, in
answer to the inquiry of Laukka, Christensen advised
that Pemtom was "being bannered, picketed, whatever
we are going to call it, because we do not recognize Boot
& Shoe Workers building cabinets and selling them in
Minneapolis and St. Paul." Laukka was also advised, by
Christensen, during this conversation, that Laukka could
obtain a removal of the pickets if he stopped buying from
Red Wing and bought from someone locally.34
In the recent Cascade decision35 where Respondent
had urged that the absence of an existing business rela-
tionship between a primary employer and the affected
employers, at the time of the picketing, precluded a find-
ing that an object of the picketing was to force or require
any person to cease doing business with any other person
within the language of Section 8(b)(4)(B), the Board I
stated, in the language of the Supreme Court ,36 that in
shielding "unoffending employers and others from pres-
sures in controversies not their own," Section 8(b)(4) of
the Act was not limited to situations where such neutrals
have an existing business relationship with an employer
who is a party to a labor dispute. The Board also said:
"The Board and courts have held that `the victim's
neutrality' is `conceived to be the central element of Con-
gressional concern in this area,' and that Congress did not
intend to confine Section 8(b)(4) to a strict and precise
definition of terms which would limit its application in
protecting neutral employers." Elucidating, by footnote,
the Board noted that "retaliatory picketing growing out of
an interunion controversy and enmeshing neutral em-
ployers has been found unlawful under this section where
causing a cessation of business between neutral em-
ployers by means of picketing was an intermediate step in
achieving the end objective of forcing a cessation of
picketing by another union at another location. For, `in
determining the legality of object [the Board] does not
differentiate between the ultimate, alternative, condi-
tional, or immediate nature of the various objectives that
may be involved in the activities of a [picketing] labor
organization. -37
Respondent would characterize its conduct as "banner-
ing" as distinguished from "picketing." Under the facts
herein, I find this a useless exercise in semantics. The
evidence is that while Pemtom was assured there would
be no work or delivery stoppage, thus no violation of Sec-
tion 8 (b)(4)(i), since there was no work or delivery stop-
page, the hours of the picket coincided with the hours of
the work force, as distinguished from the sales force. The
latter were employed from noon until 9 p.m., on Monday
through Thursday, when, inferentially, 20 percent of
Pemtom's "consumers" could reasonably be expected to
be present. There was picketing on Friday when the sales
office was closed, and inferentially the general public was
not present, except those who had already made
purchases. Except for approximately 1-1/2 months at the
beginning of the picketing, there was no picketing on
Saturday or Sunday, when 80 percent of Pemtom's "con-
sumers" could reasonably be expected to be present. I
find there was a confrontation between union members
and employees, customers, or suppliers and that this con-
duct constituted "picketing."36
I find Respondent's reliance on cases involving "infor-
mational picketing,"39 and "possible public embar-
rassment," 90 inapposite . Similarly I find it unnecessary to
treat with the line of Board cases in which the Board
found "patrolling" involving "publicity other than
picketing."41 Unlike the Alden case, the picketing here
was not in a large public shopping area but was confined
to Pemtom's parking areas, adjacent to Pemtom's sales
offices.
34 Christensen , having flatly denied that Pemtom's representative
inquired as to the reasons for the Union 's picketing , acknowledged that,
in response to a question of what would happen if there was a different
cabinet on the project, he responded that he would have to review the
banner "and either change it or remove it " A not too subtle distinction
akin to tweedledum and tweedledee
35 Salem Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO (Cascade Employers As-
sociation, Inc ), 163 NLRB 33, 35 and fn 4
36 Citing N L R B v Denver Building and Construction Trades Coun-
cil, 341 U S 675, 692
37 Citing Weyerhaeuser and Delta Steamship cases, supra
38 N L R B v United Furniture Workers of America , 337 F 2d 936,
940 (CA 2)
3' N.L R B v Upholsterers Frame & Bedding Workers Twin City
Local No 61 (Minneapolis House Furnishings Co ), 331 F 2d 561 (C A
8).
40 N L R B v Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics, etc
(Royal Typewriter Co ), 228 F 2d 553 (C A 2)
41 See , e g, Chicago Typographical Union No 16 (Alden Press, Inc ),
151 NLRB 1666,1669
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's reliance on the Tree Fruit case42 is mis-
placed Respondent herein either neglected to note or
ignored the portion of the proviso to Section 8(b)(4)
which permits truthfully advising the public - "that a
product or products are produced by an employer with
whom the labor organization has a primary dispute and
are distributed by another employer." Nothing in the
legend, on the picket sign herein, identifies Red Wing as
the primary employer, and in fact Respondent denies the
existence of a primary dispute.
The Supreme Court in the Tree Fruit case drew a clear
distinction between the picketing of a product, being dis-
tributed by a retail store, and an effort by the Union to
have the public withhold its patronage from the seconda-
ry employer. The Court said.43 "On the other hand, a
union appeal to the public at the secondary site not to
trade at all with the secondary employer goes beyond the
goods of a primary employer, and seeks the public's
assistance in forcing the secondary employer to
cooperate with the union in its primary dispute."
General Counsel correctly calls attention to the fact
that Red Wing's cabinets leave the manufacturer's plant
as completed cabinets and are nailed to Pemtom's houses.
They, thus, become a part of the realty and are a fixture
under well-established principles of law. Pemtom's busi-
ness is building and selling houses.44 General Counsel
urges that the picket was instructed, by the Respondent,
not to tell anything to customers, that by the sparsity of
the legend on the picket sign, and the physical location of
the picketing, consumers would assume that the picketing
was directed at Pemtom. General Counsel accurately
characterizes Respondent's conduct as a "reckless disre-
gard" for Pemtom's rights. General Counsel notes that in
determining the lawfulness of picketing at a neutral site
the Board and courts have to balance the right of a union
to put economic pressure on the primary employer
against the right of neutral employers to be free from such
pressures. I so find.
The picketing here cannot be said to have had any
reasonably direct thrust against the primary employer.
Assuming the picketing "created an appeal for a con-
sumer boycott of the so-called product of the primary em-
ployer, such a product boycott would of necessity encom-
pass the entire business ... of the secondary employer,
and must be said to be `employed to persuade customers
not to trade at all with the secondary employer' and
`designed to inflict injury on his business generally. -45 I
so find.
The Supreme Court has recently reviewed at length the
legislative history of Section 8(b)(4)(B), inter alia, and the
areas considered in a number of its prior decisions
thereon .46 In that case the Court noted that it had previ-
ously found where an object of boycotting was to secure
benefits for local employers and employees, to the exclu-
sion of out-of-State manufacturers, "This is a secondary
object because the cessation of business was being used
tactically, with an eye to its effect on conditions else-
where." 47
Inasmuch as the picketing was not sufficiently
identified with, or limited to, the operations of the prima-
42 N L R B v Fruit and Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local
760,377 U S 58
48 Id at 63-64
44 While General Counsel urges that Pemtom is a distributor of the
cabinets, in view of the language of Sec 8(b)(4)(u)(B), I find it unnecessa-
ry to reach this question
45 Cf Cascade Employers, supra, 36 and fn 10
ry employer to constitute primary activity, but was
designed to inflict injury on the secondary employer's
business generally, for an object of forcing or requiring
neutral employers to cease using the product of another
producer, or manufacturer, in order to force or require the
secondary employer to cease using the products of, or
doing business with, the primary employer, I find that
Respondent did threaten, restrain, and coerce Pemtom
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.48
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Pemtom's operations
described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it 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. Red Wing Wood Products, inc., Pemtom, inc., and
Pemble-Thomson, Inc., are each engaged in commerce,
and in an industry affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act.
2. Pemtom, Inc., and Pemble-Thomson, Inc., are per-
sons within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act.
3. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Pemtom,
Inc , and Pemble-Thomson, Inc., with an object of forc-
ing or requiring them to cease doing business with Red
Wing Wood Products, Inc., Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, it is hereby recommended that
Respondent, Twin City Carpenters District Council, its
officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall.
1. Cease and desist from threatening, restraining, or
coercing Pemtom, Inc., and Pemble-Thomson, Inc , or
any other person or persons, where an object thereof is to
46 National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v N L R B , 386
U S 612
41 td at 618, citingAllen Bradley Co v Local Union No 3, Electrical
Workers, 325 U S 797
41 Cf National Woodwork Mfrs supra, Cascade Employers, supra at
36 and fn 12, Millmen & Cabinet Makers Union, Local 550, 153 N LRB
1285, enfd 367 F 2d 953 (CA 9)
TWIN CITY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
force or require said persons to cease doing business with
Red Wing Wood Products, Inc., under circumstances
prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at the business offices and meeting halls, in-
cluding the business offices and meeting halls of member
Locals, in the Twin City area, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."99 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 18, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 18
signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix,"
for posting by Pemtom, Inc., and Pemble-Thomson, Inc ,
if they are willing, at places where they customarily post
notices to their employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.50
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's
Decision the Respondent shall notify the said Regional
Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing
Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations
Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the
aforesaid action.
"" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
50 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
1027
this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES , AGENTS,
AND DELEGATES TO TWIN CITY CARPENTERS DIS-
TRICT COUNCIL, AND TO ALL MEMBERS OF CON-
STITUENT LOCALS
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT, in any manner prohibited by Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, threaten, coerce, or
restrain Pemtom, Inc., or Pemble-Thomson, Inc., or
any other person or persons, by picketing, where in
any case an object thereof is to force or require said
persons to cease using the products of Red Wing
Wood Products, Inc., or to cease doing business with
Red Wing Wood Products, Inc.
TWIN CITY CARPENTERS
DISTRICT COUNCIL
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal
Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Min-
nesota 55401, Telephone 334- 2618.
310-541 0 - 70 - 66