United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1016 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, Richard P. Griffin and Frank Barry, its agents ; Carpen-
ter's District Council of Springfield , Massachusetts , AFL-CIO,
and Walter J. LaFrancis and Harry P. Hogan , its agents and
J. G. Roy and Sons Company. Case No. 1-CC155. May 15,1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On June 24, 1957, the National Labor Relations Board, with one
member dissenting, issued its Decision and Order in the above-entitled
proceeding dismissing a complaint, based on charges filed by J. G. Roy
and Sons Company, hereinafter referred to as Roy Construction,
which alleged that the Respondents, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as
the Union, Carpenter's District Council of Springfield, Massachusetts,
AFL-CIO, and their agents, Richard P. Griffin, Frank Barry, Walter
J. LaFrancis, and Harry P. Hogan, violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
and (B) of the Act:'
More specifically, the Board found that a strike initiated by the
Union against Roy Construction to compel it to cease using building
supplies furnished by Roy Lumber Co., the primary employer with
whom the Union had a dispute with respect to recognition as bargain-
ing representative, was not illegal action proscribed by Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) and (B) of the Act. The basis for the Board's conclusion
was that, by virtue of a close interrelationship between Roy Construc-
tion and Roy Lumber Co., the 2 employers should be considered as 1
for the purposes of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B).
Thereafter, the case was considered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit upon Roy Construction's petition for
review of the Board's order of dismissal.
On January 27, 1958, that court set aside the Board's order.' In so
doing, the court ruled that the Board erred in considering the 2 em-
ployers as 1 for the purposes of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B).
Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the Board for further
proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.
The Board hereby accepts the remand, and will treat the court's
opinion as establishing the law governing this case.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers, in con-
United Brotherhood of Carpenters , etc. (J . G. Roy and Sons Company ), 118 NLRB
286.
2.J. G. Roy and Sons Company v N. L. R B , 251 F 2d 772
3 However, nothing contained herein is to be taken as an abandonment by Chairman
Leedom or Member Bean of the views they expressed in the Board 's original decision.
Member Rodgers adheres to the view expressed in his dissent in the original decision
herein
120 NLRB No. 135.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA 1017
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom
and Members Rodgers and Bean].
The facts, as found by the Trial Examiner and adopted by the
Board in its original decision, are in substance as follows.'
Beginning in the early part of the summer of 1955, and continuing
thereafter, the Union, through Richard P. Griffin, Frank Barry,
Walter J. LaFrancis, and Harry P. Hogan, union agents, sought
recognition as bargaining representative from Roy Lumber Co., al-
though the Union did not represent any of the employees of Roy
Lumber Co. Roy Lumber Co. refused to extend such recognition.
In the operation of its business, Roy Construction used lumber
which it purchased from Roy Lumber Co. The Union, which repre-
sented the employees of Roy Construction, had a contract with Roy
Construction containing a provision which prohibited union members
from working on or installing any lumber "precut by Non-Union
Carpenters."
When Roy Lumber Co. refused to extend union recognition, the
Respondents made two demands upon Roy Construction: (1) that
Roy Construction honor its contract with the Union by not using
lumber supplied by Roy Lumber Co., and (2) that Roy Construction
persuade Roy Lumber Co.- to recognize the Union. When Roy Con-
struction refused to accede to these demands, on May 31, 1956, the
Respondents called a strike of the employees of Roy Construction.
When the case was pending before the Trial Examiner, the
Respondents defended their conduct on two grounds : (1) that the
strike was lawful primary activity because Roy Lumber Co. and Roy
Construction were "allied"; and (2) that the strike was in any event
privileged by the "hot cargo" clause in the Union's contract with
Roy Construction. In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner
rejected the second defense on the basis of the Sand Door and Plywood
Co. case, 113 NLRB 1210; however, the Trial Examiner sustained
the first defense as valid and applicable and recommended dismissal
of the complaint for that reason. Being in agreement with the Trial
Examiner, in its original decision the Board in substance adopted
the Intermediate Report.
As we agree, as heretofore, with the Trial Examiner's finding with
respect to the Respondents' defense based on the Sand Door case
and as the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
+ The facts are set forth in detail in the Intermediate Report The Respondents filed
no exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
5In our original decision we intended to hold that the Respondents ' conduct came
within, but was not privileged by, the clause of the contract respecting precut lumber.
In any event , we so hold now.-
As Member Rodgers views a "hot cargo " clause as contrary to public policy and hence
illegal , he finds the Respondent 's defense in this respect without merit.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
First- Circuit is dispositive of the "ally " defense, we find the Respond-
ents' defenses to be without merit.
Accordingly,,,on, the basis of the foregoing , including the facts
found by the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondents ; by calling
a strike of the employees of Roy Construction , induced and encour-
aged these employees to-engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in
the course of their employment - to perform any services- with an
object of forcing or requiring Roy Construction to cease doing busi
ness with Roy Lumber Co., and with a further object of forcing or
requiring Roy Lumber Co. to recognize or bargain with the Union-
as the representative of the employees of Roy Lumber Co ., the Union
not having been certified as such representative under the provisions
of Section 9 of the Act , in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and,
(B) thereof.
We further find that the activities of the Respondents set forth in
section III of the Intermediate Report, occurring in connection with
the operations of the Employers set forth in section I of the Inter-
mediate Report, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to
trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States , and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
TIIE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, we shall
require them to 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, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Roy Construction and Roy Lumber Co. are employers engaged'
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, and Carpenter's District Council of Springfield, Massa-
chusetts, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondents, Richard P. Griffin and Frank Barry, have been,
at all times material herein special representatives of the Respondent,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO ; and the Respondents, Walter J. LaFrancis and Harry P. Hogan,
have been at all times material herein agents of the aforesaid labor
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA 1019
organization and of the Respondent, Ca'rpenter's District Council of
Springfield, Massachusetts, AFL-CIO.
4. By inducing and encouraging employees of Roy Construction to
engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their-
employ-ment to perform services, an object thereof being to force or require
Roy Construction to cease doing business with Roy Lumber Co., the
Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
5. By inducing and encouraging employees of Roy Construction
to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to perform services, an object thereof being to force or
require Roy Lumber Co. to recognize or bargain with the Union as
the representative of the employees of Roy Lumber Co., the Union not
having been certified as such representative under the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act, the Respondents engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (B) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Car-
penter's District Council of Springfield, Massachusetts, AFL-CIO,
their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, including
the Respondents, Richard P. Griffin, Frank Barry, Walter J. LaFran-
cis, and Harry P. Hogan, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of
G. Roy and Sons Company, or of any employer other than Roy
Lumber Co., to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to perform any services where an object thereof
is to force or require any employer or person to cease doing business
with Roy Lumber Co., or where an object thereof is to force or require
Roy Lumber Co. to recognize or bargain with a labor organization
as the representative of its employees unless such labor organization
has been certified as the representative of such employees under the
provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Post at the business offices of the Respondent labor organiza-
tions, in Springfield, Massachusetts, copies of the notice attached here-
to marked "Appendix A." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished-by
the Regional Director for the First Region, after being duly signed
by the official representatives of the aforesaid labor organizations, in-
cluding the individual Respondents, shall be posted by the aforesaid
6 Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by
them for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to union members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. The Respondents shall also sign
copies of said notice which the Regional Director shall submit for
posting, the Employer willing, at the premises of Roy Construction
,Co.
(b) Each Respondent herein shall notify the Regional Director for
the First Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of
this Order, what steps-it or he has taken to comply herewith.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND OF CARPENTER'S DIS-
TRICT COUNCIL OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, AFL-CIO, AND
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF J. G. ROY AND SONS CO.
Pursuant to,a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of J. G. Roy
and Sons Company, or the employees of any employer other than
Roy Lumber Co., to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in.
the course of their employment to perform any services, where
an object thereof is to force or require their employers or any
other person to cease doing business with Roy Lumber Co.
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of J. G. Roy
and Sons Company, or the employees of any employer other than
Roy Lumber Co., to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in
the course of their employment to perform any services, where an
object thereof is to force or require'Roy Lumber Co. to recognize
or bargain with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
ALLEN'S, INC. 1021
of America, AFL-CIO, said labor organization not having been
certified as the representative of the employees of Roy Lumber
Co. under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
or Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
CARPENTER'S DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, AFL-
CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated---------'------- ---------------------------------------
(RICHARD P. GSIFH'IN)
Dated---------------- ---------------------------------------
(FRANK BARRY)
Dated---------------- ---------------------------------------
(WALTER J . LAFRANCIS)
Dated---------------- ---------------------------------------
(HARRY P. HoGAN)
Allen's, Inc.' and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Chauffeurs,
Teamsters, and Helpers, Local No. 795, Petitioner .2 Case No.
17-RC-2591. May 15, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Cassidy, hearing
-officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Allen's moves the dismissal of the petition herein on the ground
that its operations do not meet the Board's jurisdictional standards.
The Petitioner, which seeks to represent Allen's truckdrivers, con-
tends that this company together with nine others' located in Wichita,
I The Employer 's name, herein called Allen's, appears as amended at the hearing.
' The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
8 Airway Concrete, Inc , Pre-Mixed Concrete, Inc. ; Quality Concrete , Inc ; Speedy-Mix
Conciete , Inc.; It. & A. Maintenance Corp ; Superior Sand Company , Inc ; Ritchie Bros.
Construction Company ; Asphalt Paving, Inc ; and Commercial Asphalt, Inc., herein called,
respectively , Airway , Pre-Mixed , Quality , Speedy-Mix , It. & A., Superior , Ritchie Bros ,
Asphalt, and Commercial
Ritchie Bros ., a partnership , is the only company that is not a corporation.
120 NLRB No. 137.