United Brotherhood of Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 532 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, Local Union No . 2067, AFL-CIO; and
Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 131,
AFL-CIO and Associated General Contractors of
America , Inc., for and on behalf of its employer-
member Batterman Construction, Inc. Case
36-CC-182
June 30, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BEFORE CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On April 17, 1967, Trial Examiner George
Christensen issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respond-
ents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The 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 Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following
modification:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respond-
ent Sheel Metal Workers, Local Union No. 131,
AFL-CIO (Local 131), violated Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging
employees of Montag to engage in a strike or a
refusal in the course of their employment to per-
form services for Montag with an object of forcing
Montag to cease doing business with Bowen, with
an ultimate object of forcing Bowen to cease doing
business with Batterman and Batterman to cease
doing business with Largent. However, the Trial
Examiner inadvertently failed to find that Local
' See, e g , Local 370, United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO (Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company, In-
corporated), 157 NLRB 20, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union No 11, AFL-CIO (L G Electric Contractor,
Inc ), 154 N LRB 766
L In paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order, the Trial Examiner er-
roneously provided that the notice be furnished by the Regional Director
131, by such conduct, also violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B). The General Counsel excepts to the
failure of the Trial Examiner to make such a finding.
We find merit in the General Counsel's exception.'
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,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America , Local Union No . 2067, AFL-CIO, Med-
ford , Oregon , its officers , agents, and representa-
tives, and Respondent Sheet Metal Workers Local
Union No . 131, AFL-CIO, Medford, Oregon, its
officers , agents, and representatives , shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified:
1. Modify the Trial Examiner 's Recommended
Order by changing the present paragraph 2 to 2(a),
and by adding the following as a new paragraph
2(b):
"(b) Respondent Local 131, its officers, agents,
and representatives , shall cease and desist from
threatening , coercing , and restraining Montag Fur-
nace Co., with an object of forcing or requiring
Montag Furnace Co. to cease doing business with
Bowen Brothers Plumbing and Heating , in order to
force or require Bowen Brothers Plumbing and
Heating to cease doing business with Batterman
Construction, Inc., in order to force or require Bat-
terman Construction , Inc., to cease doing business
with Jack L . Largent , d/b/a Jack Largent Contrac-
tors."
2. Modify Appendix B attached to the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Decision ,2 wherein Local 131's name ap-
pears, by adding the following immediately after the
first indented paragraph therein:
WE WILL NOT threaten , restrain , or coerce
Montag Furnace Co., with an object of forcing
or requiring Montag Furnace Co. to cease
doing business with Bowen Brothers Plumbing
and Heating , in order to force or require
Bowen Brothers Plumbing and Heating to
cease doing business with Batterman Con-
struction , Inc., in order to force or require Bat-
terman Construction, Inc., to cease doing busi-
ness with Jack L. Largent , d/b/a Jack Largent
Contractors.
for Region 36 Such notice shall be on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19
The address given at the bottom of both notices attached to the Trial
Examiner's Decision is amended to read 327 Logan Building , 500 Union
Street , Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473
166 NLRB No. 78
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 533
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Trial Examiner: A hearing was
held on December 21 ' at Medford, Oregon, on issues
raised by a complaint issued December 2 based upon a
charge filed on October 17 and amended on November
22 alleging that the Respondent, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2067,
AFL-CIO, hereafter Local 2067, violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, hereafter the Act, by threatening Batterman
Construction, Inc., hereafter Batterman, and by engaging
in. and inducing employees of Batterman and others to
engage in, a strike with an object of forcing Batterman
and others to cease doing business with Jack L. Largent.
d/b/a Jack Largent Contractors, hereafter Largent. It is
further alleged that Sheet Metal Workers Local Union
No. 131, AFL-CIO, hereafter Local 131, induced or en-
couraged employees of Montag Furnace Co.. hereafter
Montag, to engage in a strike with an object of forcing
Montag to cease doing business with Bowen Brothers
Plumbing and Heating, hereafter Bowen, and an ultimate
object of aiding Local 2067 in its effort to cause Batter-
man to cease doing business with Largent.
The Respondents denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
to introduce documentary evidence, to argue orally, and
to submit briefs. The General Counsel and the Respond-
ents have submitted briefs.
Based upon a review of the entire record, observation
of the witnesses, and perusal of the briefs and argument
of counsel, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Montag is engaged in the building and construction in-
dustry as a furnace and sheet metal contractor with its
principal place of business located at Portland Oregon.
Bowen Elstrom and Ayre, Inc., and Eckerson Roofing
are contractors engaged in the building and construction
industry in Oregon.
Respondents concede in their answer that all the
foregoing contractors except Elstrom and Ayre, Inc., and
Eckerson Roofing (who were not referred to in the com-
plaint) were persons (employers ) engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8 (b)(4) of the Act. The Trial
Examiner finds that all of them, including Elstrom and
Ayre and Eckerson were employers and persons so en-
gaged.
Local 2067 admits to membership employees of Batter-
man, Eckerson, and Largent and other employers en-
gaged in the building and construction industry within its
work and area jurisdiction for the purpose of representing
them in collective bargaining with employers concerning
rates of pay, wages , hours, and other conditions of em-
ployment. Local 2067 is a member of the Oregon State
Council of the Carpenters hereafter the State Council,
and has delegated collective -bargaining authority to the
State Council , thereby becoming party to collective-bar-
gaining agreements between the State Council and the
AGC.
Local 131 admits to membership employees of Mon-
tag, Bowen. and other employers engaged in the building
and construction industry within its work and area jur-
isdiction for the purpose of representing them in collec-
tive bargaining with their employers concerning rates of
pay. wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
Local 131 through affiliation similar to that of Local 2067
is a party to collective -bargaining agreements with the
AGC.
Respondents concede and the Trial Examiner finds
that both Respondents are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
1. JURISDICTION
Batterman is an Oregon corporation with its office and
principal place of business in Salem, Oregon, and is en-
gaged in the building and construction industry as a
general contractor. Batterman is a member of the Oregon-
Columbia Chapter of the Associated General Contrac-
tors of America, Inc., hereafter the AGC, has delegated
collective-bargaining authority to AGC, and is thereby
made party to collective-bargaining agreements between
AGC and certain organizations similarly empowered by
the Respondents. Batterman at all times material was en-
gaged as a general contractor in the construction of a new
senior high school in Medford. Oregon, hereafter the pro-
ject, which project is valued at $2,500,000. During the
12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint,
Batterman purchased goods, materials, and supplies
valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it from
points outside the State of Oregon for use on the project.
Largent is engaged in the building and construction in-
dustry as a roofing and lathing contractor with his office
and principal place of business located at Salem, Oregon.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
complaint. Largent purchased goods, materials, and sup-
plies valued in excess of $50.000 which were shipped to
him directly from points outside the State of Oregon.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Sequence of Events
Batterman was awarded a job as general contractor to
build a new senior high school at Medford, Oregon, con-
sisting of 10 buildings connected by covered walkways.
He held a prejob conference with the Medford Building
and Construction Trades Council the first week in March
1966 to discuss manning the job. In the course of the
discussion, Batterman informed the unions that Eckerson
Roofing, a union contractor, would perform the roofing
work.
Batterman did most of the carpentry work with its own
employees. It utilized union labor referred by Local 2067
and the Laborers Local.
Batterman contracted with Bowen. a union firm, to do
the plumbing and mechanical work. Bowen contracted
part of its work to Montag, also a union firm. Batterman
contracted with Eckerson, a union firm, to do the roofing
work.
Batterman contracted with Largent, a nonunion firm,
to install ornamental shake trim on the buildings. Largent
was the only nonunion employer on the job.
' All dates refer to 1966.
308-9'16 0-70-35
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At all times pertinent, Batterman was party to a labor
contract (through membership in the AGC) with Local
2067 (through its affiliation with and delegation of powers
to the State Council). Article IV of that contract pro-
vides:
SUB-CONTRACTORS CLAUSE
If a contractor, bound by this agreement, contracts
or subcontracts. any work covered by this agreement
to be done at the job site of the construction, altera-
tion or repair of a building. structure or other work to
any person or proprietor who is not signatory to this
agreement , the contractor shall require such subcon-
tractor to be bound to all the legally enforceable
provisions of this agreement, or such contractor shall
be responsible and liable for the payment of all sums
of money required by all terms of this agreement.
The Union agrees to notify the contractor, person
or proprietor within thirty (30) calandar days of any
delinquent payments of wages, travel or any fringe
benefits owed by the sub-contractor, and to further
issue a certificate to the contractor and subcontrac-
tor when these payments have been made.
About Agust 30, Allen Rettman, business representa-
tive and financial secretary of Local 2067 as well as pres-
ident of the Medford, Oregon, Building and Construc-
tion Trades Council, hereafter the Medford Council.
learned that Largent was working at the project. On that
date Rettman contacted Raymond Bernardy. Batterman's
superintendent at the project. Rettman informed
Bernardy that he did not like Largent being on the job
because Largent was a nonunion contractor and that Bat-
terman better straighten this out or there might be
problems.2 Bernardy reported the conversation to Mr.
Batterman and took no further action. Largent remained
on the job.
A few weeks later Rettman again contacted Bernardy
and asked what progress had been made with regard to
Largent's retention on the job. Bernardy told Rettman he,
didn't know, he had no new word from Salem (Salem
Oregon. was Batterman's headquarters).
On September 28, Rettman addressed a letter to Bat-
terman's Salem office noting that Largent's employees
were observed by Rettman still at work on September 26,
calling Batterman 's attention to article IV of the contract
(set out above), asking if Largent was paying his em-
ployees on the jobsite levels of benefits set out in that
contract, and advising Batterman that if Largent was not
maintaining those levels, it would be necessary for Rett-
man to take proper action as provided in the contract. A
reply by October 3 was requested. On October 3, Batter-
man advised Rettman that his letter had been referred to
the AGC for appropriate response.
On October 3, Rettman dispatched a second letter to
Batterman 's Salem office requesting the discharge of
three of Largent's employees for their failure to comply
with the union-security provision of the AGC-Carpenters
contract. The following day Rettman, on advice of coun-
sel, rescinded his request "unless these people are em-
ployees of Batterman."
On Friday, October 7, Rettman contacted Local 2067
member James Elliott at the project. Elliott was employed
by Batterman at the project as a working foreman. Rett-
man informed Elliott that because Largent, a, nonunion
contractor, was still on the job, the men were going to be
"sick" the following Monday, October 10. Elliott asked
Rettman what if he wasn't "sick," and was told that if he
wasn't, not to expect any help from the union. Elliott
replied that he got his own jobs anyway, he didn't expect
any help from the union. Rettman then left.3
During the week ending October 7. Rettman also ap-
proached Robert Wilkison, a member of Carpenters
Local 1065 at Salem, Oregon, employed at the project by
another contractor (Elstrom & Ayre, Inc.) and asked Wil-
kison what he would do if the men all got "sick" and left
the project. Wilkison asked Rettman what was the score.
Rettman referred to Largent, a nonunion contractor
working on the job, said he couldn't picket or strike the
job to remove Largent, and again asked Wilkison what he
would do if the other men left. Wilkison replied that if the
other carpenters walked off, so would he.4
On Monday, October 10, a group of carpenters (mem-
bers of Local 2067) started to walk off the job, but were
stopped by Robert Ellison. a member of Local 2067 em-
ployed by Batterman on the project as a working
foreman. Ellison suggested that if they were determined
to walk off the job, to first walk over and pick up their
paychecks. because they wouldn't be coming back. Hear-
ing that, the group abandoned the walkout and returned
to work. This was reported to Rettman by phone that
evening by Elmer Blunck , a member of Local 2067 and
its steward at the project (also employed by Batterman).
On Tuesday, October 11, Rettman telephoned Robert
Caley, executive secretary of the Council, and requested
that Caley set up a meeting with the AGC to discuss Lar-
gent's employment on the project. Caley telephoned Ken-
neth Twedt. labor relations manager for the AGC, and
told Twedt that Rettman had called him and said there
was going to be trouble over the use of Largent as a sub-
contractor by Batterman and Rettman would like to have
a meeting in Medford the next day. Twedt checked with
Batterman and then arranged to meet Caley and Rettman
at Medford the next day, Wednesday, October 12.
Twedt, Bernardy, and G. L. Simpson appeared at the
meeting on behalf of Batterman. Caley and Rettman ap-
peared for Local 2067. Rettman stated that he
represented both Local 2067 and the Medford Council,
that the crafts were insisting he do something to get Lar-
gent off the job, and that he was going to have to do
something about it. Caley asked Twedt what Batterman
was going to do to get Largent off the job.5 Rettman and
Caley were flatly informed by Twedt that Batterman was
not going to remove Largent from the job. The conversa-
tion then shifted to Batterman's obligation under article
2 Reitman was aware of two prior disputes between other carpenters lo-
cals and contractors (Mills Construction Co. and Todd Building Co ) over
the use of Largent as a subcontractor
Elliott 's testimony to this effect is credited Reitman was evasive
when questioned about the statements attributed to him
Reitman stated that he didn't ask Wilkison's position if the men got
sick but rather suggested to Wilkison if there was a "problem" at the pro-
ject, Wilkison could continue working at White City (where his employer
had another job going ). This is at best only an indirect denial of Wdkison's
testimony Wilkison's testimony (set out above) is credited.
5 Reitman and Caley deny they asked for Largent's removal from the
project Their denials are discredited and the testimony they made such
statements is credited , inasmuch as such testimony is entirely consistent
with Reitman's earlier conduct and the entire course of conduct by Local
2067 hereinafter described
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 535
IV of the contract. The Local 2067 representatives de-
manded that Batterman obtain records of the rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other conditions and benefits Largent
was providing his men employed at the project 6 and were
informed that Batterman would try to secure such infor-
mation from Largent. Twedt also agreed to seek to learn
if Largent had a contract to furnish both men and materi-
als to complete the installation of the decorative shake
trim on the buildings or a cancelable agreement. Prior to
departing from the meeting, Rettman observed that it
looked to him like they weren't going to get Largent off
the job and he was going to have to do something- maybe
go hunting with Caley (Caley had scheduled a hunting trip
to commence immediately after the meeting; Mr. Batter-
man was on a hunting trip at the time of the meeting and
was not expected to return for a period thereafter)-in-
asmuch as he didn't believe he could control the men at
the project.
The following day. Thursday, October 13. Rettman left
his home about 4:30 a.m. to join Caley on a hunting trip.
That same day. the plumbers reported to the jobsite
prior to the 8 a.m. starting time at the project but failed to
go to work. Local 2067's members started to work on
time. Shortly after work commenced, the plumbers asked
Elmer Blunck, Local 2067's steward, to come see them
at the plumbers' shack. Blunck asked his foreman, Robert
Ellison, to be excused from work on union business and
went to the see the plumbers. The plumbers complained
to Blunck about working on the job with Largent' s nonu-
nion men , who were at work at the time. Blunck tried un-
successfully to reach Rettman by telephone in the plum-
bers' shack. Blunck then went through the project to tell
Local 2067's members that the plumbers were staying off
the job because of Largent's men working and to poll
them on whether they would support the plumbers' ac-
tion . He learned that about 90 percent of them were ready
to walk off with the plumbers. He tried again to reach
Rettman , without success. He then returned to his work
place, when the plumbers called him over again and asked
him if they were going to have to do the job for the car-
penters. At that, Blunck went back to his work place, told
Ellison he was quitting, gathered up his tools, and left the
job, with practically all the Local 2067 members 7 and
most of the other crafts following."
Mike Holmes, Batterman's field superintendent at the
project, noticed Batterman's carpenters stopping work
and starting to leave the project and asked Elliott who had
asked them to leave; Elliott told him Local 2067's job
steward had done so. Elliott at the time was under the
mistaken belief that Local 2067 member Kenneth Bush`'
was the job steward. Holmes addressed an inquiry to a
group of carpenters nearby as to who was the steward;
Blunck identified himself as the steward. Holmes asked
Blunck where he got the right to order the men off the job.
Blunck replied that the men had taken a vote 10 not to
work.
On learning of the walkout, Roy Meyers, Montag's su-
perintendent at the project, contacted Local 131's acting
business agent and financial secretary, Lavern Johnson,
at Johnson's place of employment. Meyers told Johnson
of the walkout and asked Johnson if he could do anything
about the walkout of Montag's employees (six of the eight
sheet metal workers on the job, all members of Local 131,
had left the job). Johnson said he couldn't do anything.
Meyers then commented that if all the other trades were
off his men might as well be off too since production
could not be achieved without the cooperation of the
other trades.
Many of the striking carpenters met at Local 2067's
hall the following day, Friday, October 14. They
designated Blunck and another Local 2067 member,
Hans Olson, to act as their spokesmen.
As soon as he learned of the walkout (on October 13),
Twedt sent a written grievance to Caley, with a copy to
Rettman, alleging violation of the no-strike and other
provisions of the AGC-Carpenter contract by virtue of
the walkout and asserting a claim for money damages for
such breach in the amount of $4,000 per day.
The evening of October 13, Rettman telephoned his
wife who informed him of her agitation over the num-
erous phone calls she had received with regard to the
walkout. Rettman nevertheless stayed overnight, hunted
the following day, and returned home the night of Friday,
October 14. He testified he was not contacted by anyone
regarding the walkout over the balance of the weekend.11
On the following Monday, October 17, the striking car-
penters held another meeting at Local 2067's hall. Rett-
man entered the meeting, recited the no-strike, subcon-
tracting, grievance, and arbitration provisions of the
AGC-Carpenters contract, told the men present that
Local 2067 was in arbitration 12 at that time over Batter-
man's alleged violation of the subcontracting provision of
6 All parties were familiar with an earlier arbitration decision involving
the Carpenters and another contractor (Mills) over Mills' use of Largent
on a job where, although the arbitrator ordered that Largent's employees
on the job be paid the difference between what they actually received and
the rates of pay and other benefits set out in the contract, it had never been
possible to implement that decision because Largent 's records showing
who he employed on the job and what wages and other benefits he paid
them could not be obtained
° Schedule A-5, paragraph (e), provides "There shall be a steward on
the job at all tunes during the regularly established shifts while the work of
the brotherhood is being performed."
8 A cement pour was in progress and was finished by the carpenters,
laborers, and cement finishers so engaged Two of Montag 's employees,
Ralph Wilson and Thomas McKeown, both members of Local 131, con-
tinued to work . Largent's men quit for a time , then returned to work.
There is some discrepancy in Blunck 's testimony as to circumstances
under which the carpenters quit working. On direct he testified they did
not leave until he quit work and left the job, on cross , he testified that 75
percent of them left when he told them the plumbers were off
9 Elliott identified Bush as the man who informed him the men had
voted not to work with nonunion men and that Rettman had told him
(Bush) to walk out Elliott 's testimony is credited as to what Bush told
him, but not to establish that a vote had been taken or that Rettman had
told Bush to walk out
10 All the witnesses agree that a "vote " was not taken; however , it is un-
disputed that Blunck took a "poll " of the carpenters as to whether they
would walk out after informing them the plumbers ' were staying off the
job because of the presence of Largent's employees and secured a consen-
sus fora walkout Blunck testified the men left the job because they didn't
want to work with Largent' s nonunion carpenters, he didn't know what
wages or benefits Largent's men received other than the fact they didn't
have their own water cans and privy and used those provided for the union
carpenters.
" Though at another point he testified he received calls constantly at
his home outside regular business hours.
12 In actuality no grievance had yet been filed by Local 2067, Rettman
informed Batterman in his September 28 letter that "a labor problem
might confront Batterman " if he continued to employ Largent and that "in
the event that Jack Largent is not bound to the current carpenters labor
agreement and continues to perform his work on your Medford High
School Project, it will be necessary for this office to take proper action as
is provided in the current carpenters labor agreement ." [ Emphasis sup-
plied ]
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Batterman's contract with Largent for work on the pro-
ject, and that Local 2067 was bound by the no-strike
provision and therefore Local 2067 could not have
anything to do with the walkout.
That same day Holmes telephoned Rettman (he had
tried unsuccessfully to reach him on October 13 and 14)
and requested that Local 2067 dispatch 35 or 40 13 men
to the Batterman project or let him use some carpenters
who had applied at the project for work. Rettman told
Holmes he had to be allowed 48 hours to refer men before
Holmes could hire any applicants directly. He testified he
then telephoned the top 12 men 14 on the out-of-work list
but none would go to work at the Batterman job so he
stopped calling. He testified he also posted a call for 35
carpenters for work at the project on Local 2067's bul-
letin board, but received no inquiries.
The two Montag employees who continued to work
after the walkout of October 13 continued to work on
Friday, October 14, and Monday, October 17. Other
members of Local 131 employed by Montag who left the
job saw Wilson on the job and complained to Johnson.
Johnson went to the jobsite and accosted Wilson where
he was working. Johnson said he had come to see Wilson
because he was working and to tell him that he shouldn't
be on the job because "they" could make it rough for him
if he continued to work. Wilson asked Johnson who he
meant by "they;" Johnson clarified that "they" meant
both his fellow members of Local 131 and the members
of the other crafts. During the conversation, McKeown,
who had been working nearby, came over. Until then,
Johnson had not known that McKeown was also working.
Johnson then addressed McKeown, an apprentice, saying
that McKeown was really in trouble, inasmuch as he was
due to complete his apprenticeship and receive jour-
neyman status the following January and would probably
be blocked from receiving his journeyman status by the
membership of Local 131 for continuing to work at the
project.
After this conversation, both Wilson and McKeown
ceased work at the project and stayed off until work was
resumed by all the crafts.
On the following Thursday (October 20) Rettman, at
the suggestion of counsel, sent a letter to all the striking
Local 2067 members stating that Batterman had asked
him to request all the carpenters on strike to return to
work at the project and he was complying with that
request, further stating that:
At this time you realize this ,is not a Union sanc-
tioned walk-off, and my only position can be that of
an un-biased mediator, as has been requested by Bat-
terman Construction Company and the employees of
Batterman Construction Company.
The striking carpenters held two more meetings at
Local 2067's hall on Friday, October 21. Blunck spoke
and advocated a continuation of the walkout until and un-
less Largent's employees joined the Union. Rettman did
not attend either meeting.
Sometime during this period Blunck contacted Batter-
man, the head of Batterman Construction Company, and
his assistant, Simpson, at a meeting of the local school
board when Batterman reported to the board concerning
the status of the project. Blunck identified himself as a
13 Holmes says 40; Rettman 35 The difference is not material.
14 He could not recall the name of any person he called.
15 Blunck testified that Rettman's secretary had informed him five of
Largent's men applied for membership in Local 2067. Rettman testified
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative of the striking carpenters, told Batterman
the striking carpenters would like to return to work but
could not do so with scab labor on the job, and asked Bat-
terman if there wasn't something he could do-like
getting Largent's men to join Local 2067.
On Monday, October 24, the AGC wired the president
of the Carpenters' International Union requesting he use
his good offices to secure a resumption of work.
On Tuesday, October 25, a meeting was held in Port-
land, Oregon, attended by Caley, Rettman, and two other
Carpenters representatives for the State Council and
Local 2067, and by Russ Gochnour, AGC manager,
Twedt, Batterman, and G. L. Simpson for AGC and Bat-
terman, to discuss the AGC grievance filed against Local
2067 by Twedt on October 13.
That same date, the striking carpenters contacted
Bernardy at Medford to state they were ready to return to
work, and returned to work the following day, Wed-
nesday, October 26. Blunck and Olson spent the evening
of October 24 and all day October 25 calling all the strik-
ing Local 2067 members to tell them the shinglers (Lar-
gent's men) had joined Local 2067,15 that the dispute
therefore was settled, and to return to work October 26.
On October 27, counsel for the State Council and
Local 2067 filed a grievance with the AGC alleging viola-
tion by Batterman of the subcontracting provision of the
AGC-Carpenter contract by virtue of his employ of Lar-
gent, a nonunion contractor, at the project, demanding as
relief that Batterman be ordered to pay any difference
between the wage and other benefits paid by Largent to
his employees at the project and the contract's wage and
benefit provisions and requesting that information be pro-
vided on what wages and benefits Largent paid such em-
ployees.
B. Contentions of the Parties
1. Local2067
The General Counsel contends that Local 2067 by its
agents, Rettman and Blunck, engaged in, and induced or
encouraged employees of Batterman and other contrac-
tors at the project to engage in, a strike, with an object of
forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Largent,
thereby violating Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
The General Counsel further contends that Local 2067
by its agents, Rettman and Caley, threatened or coerced
Batterman with an object of forcing Batterman to cease
doing business with Largent, thereby violating Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
Local 2067 contends that Rettman did not induce or
encourage any employees of Batterman or any other em-
ployer to cease work at the project; that neither Rettman
nor Caley threatened or coerced Batterman; and that
their object was to process a grievance against Batterman
over his alleged violation of article IV of the AGC-Car-
penters contract in order to secure payment to Largent's
employees of benefits due them under the terms of the
contract. Local 2067 asserts that it was not responsible
for the October 13 strike, that Blunck was not its agent
for any purpose other than ascertaining the facts of any
grievance arising among its members at the project and
reporting same to Rettman. Local 2067 further contends
that two of Largent's men offered a $1 tender toward Local 2067' s initia-
tion fee of $150, which was declined on the ground a minimum tender of
$50 was required In any event, none of Largent' s men joined Local 2067.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
that it did not call , cause, authorize , or sanction the Oc-
tober 13 strike at the project , that it was a "wildcat"
strike undertaken by the employees as individuals (in-
cluding Blunck), that Local 2067 disavowed the strike, at-
tempted to man the project, and is not in any wayTrespon-
sible therefor.
2. Local 131
The General Counsel contends that Local 131 by its
agent , Johnson, induced or encouraged Montag em-
ployees Wilson and McKeown to cease work for Montag
with an object of forcing Montag to cease doing business
with Bowen , thereby violating Section 8 (b)(4)(i)(B) of the
Act.
Local 131 contends that Johnson 's statements to Wil-
son and McKeown did not constitute inducement or en-
couragement to cease work for Montag and that, in any
event , Johnson was merely acting as an agent of Meyers,
Montag's superintendent at the project, relaying Meyers'
instructions to cease work at the project.
C. The Issues
1. Local 2067
The issues raised by the pleadings, evidence, and con-
tentions of the parties are:
a. Whether during the prestrike period (prior to Oc-
tober 13) Rettman and Caley, or either of them,
threatened Batterman with an object of forcing Batterman
to cease doing business with Largent.
b. Whether during the week ending October 7, Rett-
man induced or encouraged any employee at the project
to strike or refuse to perform services with an object of
forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Largent.
c. Whether Local 2067 engaged in, or induced or en-
couraged any employees at the project to engage in, the
October 13 strike, with an object of forcing Batterman to
cease doing business with Largent.
d. If so, whether by such actions Local 2067 violated
Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B) of the Act, both, or neither.
2. Local131
The issues raised by the pleadings, evidence, and con-
tentions of the parties are:
a. Whether Johnson induced or encouraged either Wil-
son or McKeown, or both, to strike or refuse to perform
services for Montag with an object of forcing Montag to
cease doing business with Bowen, Bowen to cease doing
business with Batterman, and Batterman to cease doing
business with Largent.
b. If so, whether by so doing Local 131 violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
D. Concluding Findings
1. Local2067
a. Rettman & Caley-prestrike threats
The Trial Examiner has found that on August 30, Rett-
' 6 An arbitrator has ruled that only wage, travel, and fringe benefit defi-
ciencies may be recovered under article IV for the nonunion employees of
a nonsignatory subcontractor employed by a signatory to the contract;
that the union cannot recover initiation fees or dues from such employees
despite their employment in excess of 8 days at the job where the dispute
arises (article V, section 5, requires all employees covered by the contract
537
man informed Batterman's superintendent at the project
(Bernardy) that there would be "problems" unless
Batterman ceased to employ Largent on the project; that
on October 11, Caley informed Twedt there was going to
be "trouble" if Batterman continued to employ Largent
on the project; that on October 12, Caley asked"Twedt
what Batterman was going to do about getting Largent off
the project; and that on October 12, Reitman informed
Twedt, Bernardy, and Simpsoti that he -represented both
Local 2067 and the Medford Council, that the unions af-
filiated with the Medford Council were insisting he get
Largent off the project, and that he was,going to have to
do "something" about it.
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act is violated when a labor
organization threatens an employer engaged in commerce
where an object thereof is to force that employer to cease
doing business with another employer.
It is undisputed that Local 2067 is a labor organization
and Batterman and Largent are persons engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of the statute; the sole questions remaining
under the section are whether the words employed by
Caley and Rettman just set forth constitute threats ad-
dressed to Batterman and, if so, whether an object of such
threats was to force Batterman to cease doing business
with Largent.
The Trial Examiner concludes that they were threats,
and that an object thereof was to force Batterman to
remove Largent from the project.
The "problems," "trouble," and "something" Rettman
and Caley predicted for Batterman if he did not yield to
their requests for the removal of Largent from the project
was a strike against Batterman to force him to remove
Largent. This is evidenced by Rettman's efforts during
the week ending October 7 to induce Elliott and Wilkison
to participate in a strike commencing October 10
(developed in further detail in section b below) and, when
that effort failed, by Local 2067's participation in a suc-
cessful strike commencing October 13 (developed in
further detail in section c below).
The Trial Examiner rejects Local 2067's contention
that Rettman and Caley were simply processing a
grievance against Batterman on behalf of Largent's em-
ployees; rather, it appears that article IV was cited in
order to coerce Batterman into yielding to their demands
for the removal of Largent and not for the purpose of
securing the contract benefits for Largent's employees.
To enforce article IV, Local 2067 would be forced to
act as an agent of nonunion employees, seeking to secure
for them the difference between the wages, overtime,
travel, welfare, and other benefits of the contract and the
wage, overtime, travel, welfare, and benefits the non-
union employees receive while on the job which gives rise
to the grievance. Local 2067 would be placed in a posi-
tion wherein it expended effort, time, and money to en-
force the terms of its contract (which it had to expend
time, effort, and money to secure in the first place) on be-
half of nonunion employees who neither contributed to its
costs and effort to secure the contract nor would con-
tribute to its costs and effort in enforcing the contract
through grievance and arbitration.16
to acquire union membership after 8 days' employment and maintain such
membership thereafter as a condition of employment), in connection
therewith note Rettman's October 3 attempt (subsequently withdrawn) to
secure the discharge of Largent's men for failure to comply with the
union-shop provision (article V, section 5) of the contract.
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rettman and Caley were fully aware of the dissatisfac-
tion within the various locals affiliated with the State
Council over arbitration awards secured under article IV
by two of its affiliates-Local 1065 and Local
2133-against Mills Construction Co , and Todd Ship-
building Co , respectively, over the use by the two con-
tractors just named of Largent on projects where mem-
bers of the two locals just named were also employed.
Rettman's remark to Wilkison that he could not strike or
picket the project indicates his probable familiarity as
well as with the case of Local 1065, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of'America, AFL-CIO (Wil-
lamette General Contractors Assoc ration), 138 NLRB
901, wherein Local 1065 was held in violation of Section
8(b)(4) of the Act by its picketing a project because Mills
Construction Co. employed Largent as a subcontractor
there.
While Rettman allegedly informed the striking mem-
bers of Local 2067 on October 17 that a grievance had
been filed against Batterman over his continued employ-
ment of Largent at the project, in actual fact no grievance
had then been filed. Rettman's original letter to Batter-
man (on September 28) merely confirmed his earlier
statement to Bernardy that Batterman might have "labor
problems" if Largent were not removed, requested that
Batterman ascertain if Largent's employees were receiv-
ing wages, overtime, travel, welfare, and other benefits
commensurate with those being paid to Local 2067's
members pursuant to the AGC-Carpenters contract, and
stated that if Largent continued to be employed at the
project by Batterman, it would be necessary for Local
2067 to file a grievance
Ordinarily, when a union seeks to process a grievance
to secure contract benefits for employees, it seeks, to the
extent possible, to find out from such employees the
wage, travel, and fringe benefits of which they are al-
legedly being deprived, files a grievance with the em-
ployer on their behalf, requests generally therein that they
be paid the deprived benefits, and elicits such further
facts as are necessary to establish the specific amount of
the remedy after filing, and during the course of
processing the grievance. Here, however, Local 2067
threatened to file a grievance and demanded that the em-
ployer to whom the threat was addressed supply data
which would enable the union to carry out its threat be-
fore either filing, or even disclosing whether it intended to
file a grievance At the October 12 conference , Rettman
continued to press for the removal of Largent from the
project, only after Twedt unequivocally refused to
remove Largent did Reitman renew his request that
Batterman secure information for Local 2067 to examine
regarding the wages, etc., of Largent's employees. Rett-
man still did not file a grievance, did not disclose whether
he intended to do so, and made no attempt to secure the
allegedly desired information from Largent's em-
ployees-the supposed beneficiaries of his efforts At the
time Blunck and the rest of Local 2067's members struck
the project, they had no doubt as to why they were strik-
ing-certainly not to secure the benefits of their contract
for Largent's men, nor to assure the preservation of union
contract standards at the project, but because Largent's
tnen were nonunion. Blunck did not display the slightest
interest in the level of benefits received by Largent's men
(though he was in direct contact with them when he tried
to persuade them to join Local 2067). All he was in-
terested in knowing was whether or not they were union
members He already knew Rettman's attitude (Local
2067 policy) against any Local 2067 member working
with nonunion men.' 7
Interesting, a grievance was not filed by Local 2067
against Batterman charging violation of article IV over
his emplcy of Largent until its counsel filed it on October
27-the day after the strike ended and the men returned
to work.
All the foregoing clearly supports the conclusion that
Rettman and Caley made their threats to force Batterman
to cease doing business with Largent and not in the
course of processing a grievance against Batterman on
behalf of Largent's employees. The Trial Examiner there-
fore finds and concludes that Local 2067 by its agents,
Rettman and Caley, threatened Batterman with an object
of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Lar-
gent and thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act.
b. Rettman -prestrike inducements
Findings have been entered earlier that during the week
ending October 7, Rettman contacted James Elliott and
Robert Wilkison, employees of Batterman and Elstrom &
Ayre, Inc , informed them that a nonunion contractor,
Largent, was employed at the project, and solicited their
participation in a strike scheduled for the following Mon-
day, October 10, over Batterman's continued employ-
ment of Largent at the project.
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) is violated when a labor organiza-
tion induces or encourages an individual who works for
an employer engaged in commerce or in an industry en-
gaged in commerce to engage in a strike or refusal to per-
form services for his employer where an object thereof is
to force his employer to cease doing business with
another employer.
It is undisputed that Reitman was an authorized agent
of Local 2067 at all times pertinent; and that Elliott and
Wilkison were individuals employed by employers en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry engaged in com-
merce. The Trial Examiner has found that Rettman
sought to persuade Elliott and Wilkison to cease perform-
ing services for their respective employers at the project
and that Rettman 's purpose was to force Batterman to
cease employing Largent.
The Trial Examiner therefore finds and concludes that
Local 2067 by Rettman during the week ending October
7 encouraged Elliott and Wilkison to engage in a strike
and that an object thereof was to force Batterman to
cease doing business with Largent, thereby violating Sec-
tion 8 (b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act
c. Local 2067 strike responsibility
The General Counsel alleges that Local 2067 is
responsible for the October 13 conduct of its job steward
at the project, Elmer Blunck. Local 2067 denies that
Blunck was its agent , and alleges that Blunck acted as an
individual.
17 Blunck telephoned Reitman to inform him of the failure of the at-
tempted October 10 strike promoted by Rettman to lorce Batterman into
removing Largent from the project
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 539
Both the General Counsel and Local 2067 cite the case
of International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, C.I.O. (Sunset Line and Twine Company), 79
NLRB 1487, in support of their contentions. The Board
had before it in that case opposing contentions concern-
ing the responsibility of a union for actions of an officer
and business agent. The Board referred to the then
recently enacted Section 2(13) of the Act for guidance,
which provides that:
In determining whether any person is acting as an
"agent" of another person so as to make such other
person responsible for his acts, the question of
whether the specific acts performed were actually
authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be con-
trolling.
The Board held that the quoted language constituted an
adoption of the common law rules of agency, and quoted
from the Restatement on Agency the standard that:
A principal may be responsible for the act of his
agent within the scope of the agent' s general authori-
ty, or the "scope of his employment" if the agent is
a servant, even though the principal has not specifi-
cally authorized or indeed may have specifically for-
bidden the act in question . It is enough if the prin-
cipal actually empowered the agent to represent him
in the general area within which the agent acted. 79
NLRB 1487, at 1509.
Since that decision, the question of union responsibility
for the words or actions of its steward has arisen re-
peatedly, and has been determined on the basis of
whether or not the steward was empowered to act in the
"general area" within which he exercised his authority,
even though by such exercise he may have exceeded his
specific, delegated powers.
In the Sunset case just cited, the union was held
responsible for a strike it had neither authorized nor
ratified, on the ground one of its officers, who was also a
business representative, had participated in and directed
the strike activities.
In a case decided shortly thereafter, Local 760, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L.
(Roane-Anderson Company), 82 NLRB 696, the union's
job stewards did not have authority to call a strike; its
business manager did. The business manager indicated it
was against union policy for its members to work along
side employees of a nonunion contractor and requested
his removal from the job. The request was denied. The
union 's job stewards thereafter made statements at the
job which induced its members to leave the job, and left
themselves, in a mass, simultaneous strike. They did not
cease work when the nonunion contractor first appeared
on the job, but I`week later and only after the business
manager's request for removal of the nonunion contractor
has been denied. The strikers returned to work when in-
formed it was all right to do so by the stewards. During
the period of the strike, the strikers gathered in the union
hall; none were ordered to return to the job. Held, the
stewards as subordinates of the business manager have
the same powers he possesses; thus, their actions were at-
tributable to the union despite the renunciation and dis-
avowal of the strike action. As the Board stated:
The stewards and assistant business manager, who
made the front line statements inducing the em-
ployees to leave their jobs, have, it is true, limited
authority. But, as appointees of the business
manager, they are subject to his authority and are
under his direction. To the extent, then, that they
acted under the direction of the business manager, or
with his approval, within the broad range of the
latter's general authority, their conduct also fell
within the scope of their employment and was
likewise binding upon their union.
To similar effect, Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen
and Helpers, Local 145, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, AFL (The Howland Dry Goods
Company), 85 NLRB 1037-steward told members not
to cross picket line; had no authority, not ratified by
union ; held, steward acted within his general authority,
union responsible; Local Union No. 789, International
Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union
of America, AFL-CIO; et al. (H. E. Doyle and Jno. W.
Russell, doing business as Doyle and Russell), 125
NLRB 571 -steward saw picket line, asked business
agent what to do, told that business agent would not work
behind picket line; steward left job, members followed.
Held, business agent induced strike by comment, steward
induced strike by leaving job; steward acting as union
representative within his general area of authority and not
as individual, union responsible; Local 761, International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO (General Electric Company), 126 NLRB
123 -strike in progress; stewardess telephoned employee
and implied auto might be damaged if employee con-
tinued to work; held, stewardess authorized to process
1st step grievances and assist in 2nd step; thus "grass
roots leader" and acted within general authority, union
responsible; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
Local No. 83, AFL-CIO (Combustion Engineering,
Inc.), 130 N LRB 184- member suspended after political
challenge to business representative; assigned to job;
steward passed work among members on job that former
member working, that he would not work with him; mem-
bers ceased work; steward telephoned business represen-
tative and told to tell members to continue working; told
members anyone who wanted to work with former
member could go back to work; members left job;
steward did not attempt to dissuade members from leav-
ing, left with them; held, steward is union representative
on the job and the conduit or transmitter of union policy
to members on the job, acted within his general authority,
union responsible.
Restating the premises implicit in the foregoing, in the
case of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, et al.
(Overnite Transportation Company), 133 NLRB 62,
enfd. 332 F.2d 693 (C.A. 5), the Board said at 71:
The Respondent's assertion that the stewards
were without authority . . . is without merit. Clauses
in ... contracts with employers defining the authori-
ty of stewards as between the parties are of no
relevance in determining the Union's statutory
responsibility for the stewards' actions. Moreover
whatever the provisions of the contracts, the conduct
of the stewards was in furtherance of the objectives
of the Locals in their controversy with Overnite and,
so far as employees could judge, within the apparent
scope of the stewards' powers as union representa-
tives. Statements by stewards or union officials that
employees were free to use their own judgment,
made under circumstances-such as here-where
the union representatives suggested what action they
favored, even providing example . . themselves ...
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do not suffice to neutralize the normal effect of the
officials' conduct. . [Emphasis supplied.]
In three recent cases, the Board continued to apply the
principles heretofore expressed: in Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association, Local 299, AFL-CIO (W. F.
Kisner, et. al., dlb/a S. M. Kisner & Sons, a partnership),
134 NLRB 1202, the union had a longstanding dispute
with Kisner; its secretary-treasurer informed Kisner he
would have to sign a contract to stay on the job; Kisner
refused; the union's steward passed word to its members
that a nonunion contractor was on the job: all left the job;
the union denied it had called, caused, or ratified the
strike and argued the steward acted without authority and
as an individual; held, the steward acted within his
general authority, the union was responsible, in Local
349, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Dade Sound and Controls), 149 NLRB 430,
the union had previously called strikes and protested over
the presence on jobs of Dade Sound, whose employees
were represented by CWA Local 3107, IBEW business
representative told representatives of CWA they would
strike any job where Dade appeared at a job, the IBEW
steward stated he objected to working along side CWA
members, he considered them the same as nonunion; all
IBEW members left the job: IBEW disavowed the strike;
held, steward acted within his general authority, IBEW
responsible for strike; in International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local Union No. 377 (All-Ameri(an Stamp and
Premium Corporation of New York), 159 NLRB 982,
again a steward caused a strike, union disavowed strike
and steward's authority; held, strike not "strongly and af-
firmatively" disavowed, strikers not disciplined, union
responsible, steward acted within general authority
In the few cases contra, in one, Building and Construc-
tion Trades Council of Tampa and Vicinity, AFL-CIO,
et al. (Tampa Sand and Material Co ), 132 N LRB 1564,
involved a steward walkoff wherein the steward did not
contact any of the union 's members, nor did they cease
work with him The General Counsel relied on the
premise the union's bylaws required all members to cease
work if a steward was not present, but an assistant
steward took over the duties if the steward had failed to
induce any employees to cease work. in a second, Twin
City Carpenters District Council of the United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO
(August Cederstrand Company), 152 NLRB 887, a
former union member was employed at the job; a steward
informed members of that union and members of other
unions at the job of his presence, the steward then loudly
announced he would not work alongside a nonunion man
and left the job, however, he returned to work in 15
minutes at the urging of the job superintendent and no one
else left the job; held, no inducement. Both of these cases
turned on the fact there was no inducement of other em-
ployees to engage in a strike.
In this case, the governing (AGC-Carpenter) contract
provides (schedule A, page 6) that (e) there shall be a
steward on the job at all times during the regularly
established shifts while the work of the brotherhood is
being performed; he shall be appointed by and at the dis-
cretion of the business representative of the union ; his of-
ficial duties shall be limited to the transmittal to the busi-
ness representative of all complaints and grievances
emanating among the members employed at the job, plus
other minor tasks.
Rettman appointed Elmer Blunck as Local 2067's job
steward on or about September 28, he was informed at
the time of the limited nature of his authority However,
as the cited cases teach, the recitation of the limited na-
ture of his authority in the contract and by the business
representative is not controlling in the determination of
the extent of the union's responsibility for his subsequent
actions; even though the union neither authorized nor
ratified his subsequent acts and even specifically forbade
such acts or disavowed them on learning of them, the
union may nevertheless be responsible therefor if within
his general authority.
Here, Rettman was clothed by Local 2067 with general
authority to take actions deemed in the best interests of
the local; Blunck was his subordinate Local 2067
representative at the project clothed with limited, specific
authority by the contract and the steward instructions
furnished him by Rettman. As far as Local 2067's mem-
bers at the project were concerned, however, he was the
official Local 2067 representative at the project and the
man to look to insofar as finding out union policy and to
report any grievances against their employer at the pro-
ject, and certainly the man to look to for guidance in the
absence or unavailability of Rettman."
While both Blunck and Rettman deny that Rettman in-
formed Blunck (or any other person employed at the pro-
ject or any member, officer, or representative of Local
2067 or any other union affiliated with the Medford
Council) of Batterman's October 12 denial of Rettman's
request for Largent's removal from the project,"Blunck
knew of Rettman's opposition to Batterman's employ-
ment of Largent at the project,"' and knew when he saw
Largent's men at work on October 13 that Rettman had
not succeeded in his effort to get Batterman to remove
Largent from the project. Blunck also learned, when he
attempted to reach Rettman by telephone at his office and
home on the morning of October 13 after notice from the
plumbers that they were striking the project due to Lar-
gent's presence, that he was the sole representative of
Local 2067 on the scene
A steward is the first union representative the members
look to, and the man from whom they take their cues in-
sofar as union policy is concerned, when a labor dispute
arises on the job; he is expected to know both their rights
and responsibilities under the contract between the union
and their employer and their rights and responsibilities as
union members This places the steward in a position
where he carries a duty both to the union and its members
whom he services and to the contracting employer to ex-
ercise great care to see that he carries out those duties in
a manner commensurate with such responsibility.
Blunck certainly was aware of article IV and the
grievance and arbitration provisions of the contract
governing his and other Local 2067 members' employ-
'" Blunck clearly believed he was and iepivscnied him.vll as I ocal
2067 s representative at the project at the time the strike commenced on
October 13 he identified himself as the tepiesentatne of the striking
Local 2067 members when Batterman s job superintendent sought to
inquire into the reason for the strike because he wa, the steward " the
striking Local 2067 members chose him as one of then leaders he stated
it was he who approached Batterman to solicit Batter man's intervention
with I argent and his employee, at the school hoard meeting because I
was the steward
'" Which the Trial Examiner discredits. it appearing incredible that
Reitman would fail to mfoim the persons most vitally interested in the
subject matter of the conference of its outcome
20 It was Blunck who informed Reitman of the failure of the October 10
strike Reitman had promulgated
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 541
ment at the project; he also was aware of the no-strike
provision therein (Largent's employment had been a con-
stant source of discussion at the project, and Rettman
testified he had advised Blunck and other Local 2067
members at the project of those contract provisions prior
to the strike).
Instead of informing the plumbers that both they and
Local 2067's members employed at the project were sub-
ject to the provisions of a contract containing a provision
regarding employment of nonunion contractors, a
grievance and arbitration provision for resolving disputes
over its violation, and a no-strike provision, and therefore
the plumbers had best report for work and immediately
returning to work himself on October 13, Blunck went
through the project informing Local 2067's members the
plumbers were striking the project over Batterman's con-
tinued employment of Largent, polling them concerning
their willingness to join in the strike, and himself setting
the example by joining in the strike. Not only did he fail
to make any effort to dissuade Local 2067's members
from striking and to point up the applicable contract
provisions for orderly resolution of the dispute and their
obligations under the contract, by his "poll," he enlarged
and made the strike effective, and actively participated in
it. The strike became a mass walkout through his actions
(except for the few men who completed a cement pour, a
few sheet metal workers who continued on the job until
spoken to by their union representative - see below - and
Largent's employees). Far from disassociating his actions
from his status as Local 2067's representative, he
identified himself to Batterman's superintendent as Local
2067's steward and spokesman when the former sought
to inquire into the reasons for the strike and evidenced his
support of it. He was designated by the strikers to con-
tinue as their spokesman shortly after they left the project
because he was the steward; and he approached Batter-
man to solicit his bringing pressure on Largent to have his
men join Local 2067 "because he was the steward."
True, Rettman went through the technical motions of
disavowing the strike after his return to his office on Oc-
tober 17; he read the subcontracting, grievance, and ar-
bitration, and no-strike provisions of the contract to a
group of the striking Local 2067 members and told them
Local 2067 could not be involved in or officially sanction
the strike. He allegedly called about 12 of Local 2067's
members on the out-of-work list when Batterman
requested carpenters, and allegedly posted Batterman's
work request on the bulletin board. At the suggestion of
counsel , he later sent a letter to the striking Local 2067
members suggesting they return to work.
However, motions are all they were. Rettman did not
order the strikers to return to work; the Trial Examiner
discredits his testimony that he attempted to supply car-
penters at Batterman's request;21 his letter to the strikers
requesting their return to work is carefully couched in
language which conveys the message that the writer,
Rettman, is simply relaying a request from their em-
ployer, Batterman, and is only playing the role of an "un-
biased mediator" or neutral relayer in so doing.22
Not only did Rettman fail to direct the striking Local
2067 members to return to work, he permitted their use
of the union hall to take votes to continue on strike, to
discuss strike strategy and issues, he made no effort to
discipline the strikers'23 and did not "strongly and affir-
matively" disavow the strike.24
Rettman's conduct both before and during the strike
evidenced his desire for and support of the strike against
Batterman and that his object was to force Batterman to
cease doing business with Largent; Blunck's conduct as
his subordinate, particularly on the day the strike com-
menced, was entirely in accord therewith.
The Trial Examiner finds and concludes , on the basis
of the foregoing, that Local 2067 is responsible for the
conduct of Elmer Blunck, particularly his October 13
conduct, which the Trial Examiner finds did cause a
strike by Local 2067's members and thereby enlarged the
dispute into a mass strike of the project.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner
further finds and concludes that Local 2067 engaged in,
and induced or encouraged its members and other in-
dividuals employed at the project to engage in, a strike on
October 13 with an object of forcing Batterman to cease
doing business with Largent.
2. Local 131
Montag employees Wilson and McKeown continued to
work despite the walkout of their fellow employees on
October 13; however, on October 17, the business
representative of their Local 131, Johnson, told Wilson
he had better cease working or his fellow members of
Local 131 and members of the other crafts could make it
rough for him, and told McKeown that he was risking the
attainment of journeyman status (he was an apprentice) ''
as scheduled in January 1967, if he continued to work
at the project. They heeded Johnson's warning and
21 Elliott (and from their testimony, others) did not wish to strike and
was anxious to return to work; with a direct order or referral from Rett-
man to the project for work he would run no risk of union displeasure
(Reitman threatened Elliott that he would not be referred to future jobs if
he did not cooperate by being "sick" on October 10) or union discipline
(for violation of the no-strike obligation)
22 The record does not disclose whether counsel advised and Rettman
dispatched the October 20 letter relaying Batterman's request for carpen-
ters to the striking Local 2067 members before or after the date the
General Counsel sought a mandatory injunction against the strike. as he
is required to do in 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) cases under Section 10(l) of the
Act; the date relationship would have some significance in determining
whether the letter was issued due to the compulsion of the court proceed-
ing In any event. it is significant that Rettman made no effort to secure his
striking members' return to work until October 21 (the day the letter was
received by the strikers). 7 days after the strike commenced. and then did
not order them to report. but rather states that since "I. Allen W. Rett-
man... have been asked by Batterman .. to request that all carpenters
return to the job-site . I thus will advise all carpenters to do so -
" In All-American Stamp, supra; Local 3, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 140
NLRB 729, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 925,
AFL-CIO et al. (J L. Manta, Inc et al) 154 NLRB 671. union failure
to discipline strikers and, in the latter two to furnish replacements
therefor. were significant factors in determining union responsibility for
strikes
'{ The union's failure to strongly and affirmatively disavow the strike
also was a factor in the Board s decision holding the union responsible
therefor in All-Ame rit an Stamp, supra
25 An apprentice does not qualify as a journeyman until (I) he has been
approved for journeyman status by an apprenticeship committee com-
posed of an equal number of persons designated by the union and by
management, and (2) under the practice at Local 131, a majority of its
members have voted to accord the apprentice the status of a journeyman
It therefore appears that the union could block journeyman qualification
by either a "no" vote within the committee, creating a deadlock. or a
majority vote within the union against granting the apprentice a jour-
neyman book and subsequent refusal to refer the rejectee to jobs at the
journeyman rate and status.
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ceased work, not returning until the general callback
of October 26.
Since it is undisputed that Johnson was an authorized
representative of Local 131 and Montag, Bowen. Batter-
man, and Largent were persons engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, the only questions remaining
under Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) for determination are (1)
whether Johnson's words constituted inducement or en-
couragement of Wilson and McKeown to engage in a
strike or refusal to perform services for Montag and, if so,
(2) whether an object therefor was to force or require
Montag to cease doing business with Bowen, with the
further object of forcing Bowen to pressure Batterman to
cease doing business with Largent.
In the judgment of the Trial Examiner, Johnson could
not have had any purpose in going to the project other
than to induce, or, at the very least, to encourage Wilson
and McKeown to cease work for Montag: admittedly, he
went there at the behest of other Local 131 members em-
ployed by Montag already on strike who were angered at
the fact they were losing income in supporting the strike
and Wilson was not. Johnson's statement that it could be
"rough" for him if he didn't cease work certainly would
not encourage Wilson to remain at work' Similarly, while
Johnson did not know McKeown was working until he
got to the project. his words again had only one possible
purpose-to induce or encourage McKeown to cease
work. By successfully inducing Wilson and McKeown to
cease work for Montag. Johnson forced Montag to cease
doing business with Bowen. forcing Bowen in turn to
cease doing business with Batterman all for the ultimate
object of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with
the sole nonunion employer at the project, Largent
While the Trial Examiner finds Local 131 s defense in-
genious that Johnson was merely acting as an agent of
Meyers. Montag's superintendent, transmitting Meyers'
instructions to Wilson and McKeown to cease work, this
defense is rejected. Meyers did not testify Local 131 re-
lies on Johnson's testimony that upon his (Johnson's) Oc-
tober 13 statement that he couldn't do anything about the
walkout of Local 131 members at the project, "He told
me ... Roy Meyers did, that as long as the other trades
had walked off, that he was just as soon-be in favor of
our crew walking off too, because there are certain cir-
cumstances that the trades have to get along with, other-
wise. it will slow up the production ' Clearly, Montag
wanted its employees to work-Wilson and McKeown
performed work for Montag both on the day Meyers
spoke to Johnson (October 13. the day the strike com-
menced) and thereafter, October 14 and 17, and Meyers'
purpose in contacting Johnson was to secure men to work
at the project. His statement was a gratuitous comment
and certainly did not contain words of appointment of
Wilson as his agent.
The Trial Examiner on the basis of the foregoing finds
and concludes that Local 131 by its business representa-
tive, Johnson. induced or encouraged Wilson and
McKeown to engage in a strike or refusal to perform ser-
vices for Montag with an object of forcing or requiring
Montag to cease doing business with Bowen. Bowen to
cease doing business with Batterman, all with the ultimate
object of forcing or requiring Batterman to cease doing
business with Largent. The Trial Examiner further finds
and concludes that Local 13 1 thereby violated Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Batterman, Largent, Montag, Bowen. Elstrom &
Ayre, Inc., and Eckerson Roofing were persons (em-
ployers) engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2). (6), and
(7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act at all times pertinent hereto.
2. Locals 2067 and 131 were labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act at all times
pertinent hereto.
3. By engaging in. and by inducing or encouraging em-
ployees of Batterman and other contractors at the project
to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to perform services for Batterman and other
contractors at the project with an object of forcing Batter-
man to cease doing business with Largent. Local 2067
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
4 By threatening, coercing, or restraining Batterman
with an object of forcing Batterman to cease doing busi-
ness with Largent, Local 2067 violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act
5. By inducing or encouraging employees of Montag
to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to perform services for Montag with an object
of forcing Montag to cease doing business with Bowen
with an ultimate object of forcing Bowen to cease doing
business with Batterman and Batterman with Largent,
Local 131 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that both Respondents Locals 2067 and
131 have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, the Trial Ex-
aminer shall recommend that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions
and upon the entire record , the Trial Examiner recom-
mends that-
1. Respondent Local 2067. its officers , agents, succes-
sors, and assigns , shall cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any in-
dividual employed by Batterman or any other contractor
to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his em-
ployment to perform services with an object of forcing or
requiring Batterman or any other contractor to cease
doing business with Largent or another contractor.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Batterman or
any other contractor where an object thereof is to force
Batterman or any other contractor to cease doing busi-
ness with Largent or another contractor
2 Respondent Local 13 1, its officers , agents , succes-
sors, and assigns, shall cease and desist from inducing or
encouraging any individual employed by Montag or any
other contractor to engage in a strike or refusal in the
course of his employment to perform services with an ob-
ject of forcing or requiring Montag or any other contrac-
tor to cease doing business with Bowen or another con-
tractor.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
3. Both Local 2067 and Local 131, their officers. Dated By
agents, successors, and assigns, shall post in their respec- (Representative)
tive business offices and meeting halls copies of the at-
tached notices wherein their names appear marked "Ap-
pendix A" and "B."26 Copies of said notices, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 36, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof. and be main-
tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to in-
sure that said notices are not altered defaced, or covered
by any other material. Said Regional Director shall be
notified, in writing. within 20 days from the date of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.27
26 In the event 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 "
27 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director.
in wasting within 10 days from the date of this Order. what steps Respon-
dent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE
To All Members of United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America , Local Union No. 2067, AFL-CIO
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 engage in, or induce or encourage
any individual employed by Batterman Construction,
Inc.. or any other contractor to engage in, a strike or
refusal to perform services where an object of such
inducement or encouragement is to force Batterman
Construction, Inc.. or other contractor to cease
doing business with Jack L. Largent or another con-
tractor who does not meet the requirements or condi-
tions of our contracts.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Batter-
man Construction, Inc., or any other contractor,
where an object of such threats, coercion, or restraint
is to force Batterman Construction, Inc., to cease
doing business with Jack L. Largent or another con-
tractor who is not in compliance with our contracts.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS & JOINERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION
No. 2067, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
543
(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 members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 612 Lincoln
Building, 208 SW Fifth Avenue. Portland. Oregon 97204,
Telephone 226-3361, Extension 1431.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
To All Members of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No.
131, AFL-CIO
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 engage in, or induce or encourage
any individual employed by Montag Furnace Co. or
any other employer to engage in, a strike or refusal to
perform services where an object of such inducement
or encouragement is to force Montag Furnace Co. or
other contractors to cease doing business with
Bowen Brothers Plumbing and Heating. or another
contractor who does not meet the requirements or
conditions of contracts to which our organization or
other affiliates of the Medford Building and Con-
struction Trades Council are parties.
SHEET METAL WORKERS
LOCAL UNION No. 131,
AFL-CIO
(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 members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 612 Lincoln
Building. 208 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204,
Telephone 226-3361, Extension 1431.