United Bthd. of Carpenters Local 745

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 684 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 745, AFL-CIO and James W.
Glover, Ltd. Case 37-CP-12
September 29, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA
On January 9, 1969, Trial Examiner Howard
Myers issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National 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 recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that Respondent, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and .Joiners of America, Local 745,
AFL-CIO. its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
in adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondent picketed
Glover's freeway project with a recognitional or bargaining object, we
agree that the facts set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision support such
a conclusion However, we also find additional evidence of a recognitional
or bargaining object in the admission by Respondent's financial secretary
Yanagi that Glover would have had to meet every term and condition in
Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement, including the recognition
and union-security clauses, before Respondent would be satisfied that
Glover was meeting area standards
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
S f 3TEy1ENT OF I IIE CASE
HOWARD M'ERS, Trial Lxamincr This proceeding. with
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board (herein respectively called the General Counsel' and
the Board) and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO (herein called
Respondent), being represented by counsel was heard
before the Trial Examiner, at Honolulu, Hawaii, on
October 10 and 11, 1968,2 upon a complaint dated
September 20. issued by the General Counsel, through the
Director of Region 20 (San Francisco. California), and
Respondent's answer duly filed on September 26.
The complaint, based upon a charge and an amended
charge duly filed on August 2 and September 16,
respectively, by James W. Glover, Ltd. (herein called
Glover), alleged, in substance, that Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended from time to time, herein called the Act.'
Upon the entire record in the case' and from his
observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes
the following `
FINDINGS OF FAC I
I GLOVERS BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Glover, an Hawaiian corporation, has Its principal
offices and place of business at Honolulu, Hawau, where
it is operating, and during all times material has operated,
as a general contractor in the building and construction
industry.
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint herein, Glover's out-of-State
purchases of material and supplies used in the course and
conduct of its business exceeded $50.000 in value during
the aforesaid period, Glover rendered services, valued in
excess of $50,000, to the State of Hawaii, which as an
agent of the federal government, during all times material
has been constructing a defense highway commonly
referred to as the Lunalilo freeway.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, the undersigned
finds, in line with established Board authority, that Glover
is, and at all times material has, engaged in commerce, or
in a business affecting commerce. within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that its business
operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the
assertion of jurisdiction
This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel
appearing at the hearing
'Unless otherwise noted all dates herein mentioned refer to 1968
'Specifically, as to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged that
commencing from on or about July 1, and until on or about August 27,
Respondent picketed the Lunaldo Highway construction job of Glover
protesting the purported substandard wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment on that job, that an object of the picketing was to force or to
require Glover to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the collective
bargaining representative of Glover's carpenters or to force or require said
employees to accept or to select Respondent as thtir collective bargaining
representative notwithstanding that Respondent had not been certified as
such representative, and that said picketing has continued for more than 30
days without a petition having been filed under Section 9(c) of the Act
Respondent's answer denied the commission of the unfair labor practices
alleged
'Including the briefs riled by the General Counsel and Respondent's
counsel on November 18, and which have been carefully considered
'At the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, Respondent's counsel
moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, for lack of
proof Decision thereon was reserved The motion is hereby disposed of in
accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
hereinafter set forth
178 NLRB No 109
UNITED BTHD. OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 745 685
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of Glover.
Iii. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Prefatory Statement`
Some 8 years prior to the opening of' the hearing in the
instant proceeding, Respondent, through its financial
secretary and business agent. Stanley Yanagi, requested
Herbert Van Order, Glover's president to recognize and to
bargain with Respondent as the collective bargaining
representative of the carpenters then in Glover's employ.
Apparently, nothing materialized with regard to the
request referred to immediately above for there was no
communication between Respondent and Glover until
June 2, 1967, on which date the Honolulu Building &
Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO (herein called the
Council)' addressed a letter to Glover reading as follows
The AFL-CIO Honolulu Building & Construction
Trades Council in behalf of the local unions in the
building and construction industry in Hawaii hereby
requests information regarding wages, hours and
working conditions under which each of your employees
works.
Please understand that we request this information not
for the purpose of organizing your employees or for the
`Certain evidence was adduced at the hearing relating to events occurring
more than 6 months prior to the filing and the service of the charge filed
herein Said evidence was received, not as a basis for any finding of unfair
labor practices as such, but solely for such effect it might have in
elucidating , evaluating , and explaining the character and quality of
Respondent 's alleged illegal conduct after the cut-off date. It is well settled
that Section 10(b) of the Act allows consideration of related acts
transpiring prior to the statutory limitation date for the purpose of
throwing light on the specific conduct within the period in issue Local
Lodge No 1424, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO v
N L R B [Bryan Manufacturing Co J. 362 U S 411, N L R B v Sharpies
Chemicals . inc , 209 F 2d 645 (C A 6), N L R B v Clausen . Fredrica.
d/h/a Lu:erne Hide & Tallow, 188 F 2d 439 (C A 3), N L R B. v
General Shoe Corporation . 192 F 2d 504 (C A 6), Superior Engraving
Company v NLRB, 183 F 2d 783 (C A 7), NL RB. v White
Construction and Engineering Co, Inc. 204 F.2d 950 (C A. 5), N'L.R B
v. Brown and Root, Inc , d/b/a Ozark Dam Constructors and Flrppin
Materials Co 203 F 2d 139 (C A 8), Banner Die Fixture Co . 109 N LR B
1401, Florida Telephone Corporation, 88 NLRB 1429 , Sun Oil Company,
89 NLRB 833 It is also well settled that to prove Respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices it must be shown that the acts and conduct relied
upon occurred within the permissible , 6-month period or extended into said
period. Joanna Cotton Mills Co . N L R B . 176 F 2d 749 (C A 4),
Steward Warner Corp v N L R B . 194 F 2d 207 (C A 4), Superior
Engraving Company v N L R B. supra . Universal Oil Products Company.
inc., 108 NLRB 68.
'The council is composed of various Honolulu Local unions representing
employees working in the Honolulu building and construction industry
The council 's top governing bodies consist of a Board of Business
Representatives ( formerly known as the Executive Board ) and a Board of
Trustees These boards are composed of delegates selected by the various
Local unions affiliated with the Council Stanley S Yanagi and Walter H
Kupau for the past several years have been Respondent's delegates to the
Council and each is on either one or both boards The members of these
boards hold regular meetings at which matters of particular concern to the
affiliated locals, jointly , or singularly, are discussed
The Council 's main duties or objects consist of giving advice and
assistance to its affiliates in their disputes with the employers engaged in
the Honolulu building and construction industry , picketing a particular
employer or a group of employers with whom an affiliate has a labor
dispute, and otherwise assist its affiliated locals in all other labor matters
or disputes
purpose of obtaining recognition of our Council or its
affiliated unions as the exclusive bargaining
representative of your employees.
We would appreciate having this information from you
as soon as possible in order to determine whether or not
your employees are working under substandard wages,
hours and working conditions.
Not having received an answ er to the above quoted
letter, the Council , under date of June 5, wrote Glover as
follows:
This is to protest the substandard wages and/or
working conditions of your employees . Unless
prevailing wages, hours and working conditions are
established for your employees performing construction
work , our Council will picket your projects
Please understand that it is not our intention to have
such work assigned to any employees of unions
affiliated with our Council , nor is it our intention to
picket for recognition or to have you bargain with our
Council or its affiliated unions.
Our only reason for picketing will be to inform the
public and to protest the hours, substandard wages and
working conditions of employees performing such work.
Upon establishment by you of prevailing wages, hours
and working conditions to employees , we will cease
picketing.
Without waiting for a reply to either of the above
quoted letters, the Council , on June 1967, picketed the
Glover Lunalilo freeway job projects . The legend
appearing on the picket signs read:
The AFL-CIO Honolulu Building & Construction
Trades Council protests the sub-standard wages, hours
and conditions of employment on this job by Jas. W.
Glover. Ltd.
The AFL-CIO Honolulu Building & Construction
Trades Council does not intend by this picket line to
induce or encourage the employees of any other
employer to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to
work.
This picket supplied by the AFL-CIO Honolulu
Building & Construction Trades Council.
During the course of the 1967 picketing at the Glover
Lunalilo freeway project. Walter H. Kupau, Respondent's
then business agent and at the time of the hearing herein
its Administrative Assistant , was, not only the Council's
picket captain " in charge of posting pickets" at said
project, but he also was , as George V. Clark, Glover's
construction manager testified , "one of the hardest
working pickets" at said jobsitc.
Apparently, being of the opinion that the
aforementioned picketing was unlawful , Glover filed with
the Board a charge ' alleging, in substance that said
picketing was violative of the Act.
Prior to the issuance of any complaint in the aforesaid
proceeding , Glover and the Council entered into a written
agreement , which was approved by the then Acting
Director for Region 20 on October 13, 1967, wherein the
Council agreed , among other things, to post at its offices,
for a specified length of time, copies of a notice, the
pertinent part of which reads as follows:'
WE WILL NO7 picket James W. Glover, Ltd. (herein
called Glover ) or cause Glover to be picketed where an
'Case 37-CP-l l
'Said agreement also stated , "The signing of this Settlement Agreement
does not constitute the admission of any unfair labor practice "
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
object thereof is to force or require Glover to recognize
or bargain with Building and Construction Trades
Council of Honolulu. as the representative of any
employees of Glover or to force or require any
employees of Glover to accept or select said Building
and Construction Trades Council of Honolulu as the
collective bargaining representative in violation of
Section 8(b)(7) subparagraph (c) of the Act.
The aforementioned picketing ceased upon the execution
of said agreement or shortly thereafter.
B The Pertinent Facts1°
Commencing in or about April 1968. and continuing
for some months thereafter, discussions were had at
Respondent's staff meetings regarding an "organising
campaign" to be instituted by Respondent against those
Honolulu employers engaged in the building and
construction industry. including Glover, with whom
Respondent did not have collective bargaining agreements.
As part of said organting program, which was to
continue "for the rest of this year, anyway", Respondent
he projects of aplanned to establish picket lines at the-
number of those building contractors with whom it did not
have collective bargaining agreements, especially at the
jobsites under construction in the Waikiki area
Several days immediately prior to June 26, either at a
meeting held in Yanagi's private office located in
Respondent's headquarters, at which discussion was had
regarding the success Respondent had in obtaining
recognition and signed collective bargaining agreements
that week from eight or ten "new" building contractors,
or immediately after the conclusion of said meeting,
Kupau informed Yanagi that Glover "was paying
substandard wages and conditions
Yanagi, without inquiring where Kupau had obtained
his information that Glover was paying its employees
substandard wages and that they were working under
substandard conditions. accepted Kuapu's report as being
true and correct Despite his complete reliance upon
Kupau's report, Yanagi, nonetheless, on June 26. wrote
Glover as follows-
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Local Union No. 745, hereby requests
information regarding the wages, hours, and working
conditions under each of your employees work.
Please understand that we request this information
not for the purpose of organizing your employees nor
for the purpose of obtaining recognition of our Local
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
your employees.
We would appreciate rcceiN mg this information from
you as soon as possible in order to determine whether
In the light of the undersigned ' s observation of the conduct and
deportment at the hearing of all the persons who testified , and after a very
careful scrutiny of the entire record, all of which has been carefully read
and part of which have been reread and rechecked several times , and being
mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect to the credibility
problems here involved. of the tact that in many instances testimony was
given regarding events which took place months prior to the opening of the
hearing, and of the fact that very strong feelings have been generated by
the circumstances of this case, coupled with the fact that it would
unnecessarily protract this Decision to summarize all the testimony or to
spell out fully the confusion and inconsistencies therein, the following is a
composite picture of all the tactual issues involved and the conclusions
based thereon The parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions,
findings, and conclusions , the record as a whole has been carefully
considered , relevant cases have been studied, and each contention advanced
has been weighed , even though not specifically discussed herein
or not your employees are working under substandard
wages, hours. and working conditions.
Regarding his reasons for writing the above-quoted June
26 letter Yanagi testified as follows:
Q No. I'm asking you your reason for sending the
letter. You wanted to get information?
A. Yes.
Q 1 thought you just told us that you knew what the
information was.
A I didn't hear it from the horse's mouth.
Q Oh. So, you did question Mr. Kupau when he
told you
A. No. When he told me this, this is why we wrote
to Mr Glover.
Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Yanagi, but I'm confused. Would
you please clarify this for me?
A. Mr Kupau said be was paying substandard
wages. This is why we're sending this, to have proof
that he is. whatever Mr. Kupau says. Mr. Kupau
says that the wages were substandard We in turn wrote
to Mr. Glover
Q. But if you believed what Mr. Kupau told you,
why did you have to make an inquiry of Mr. Glover?
A This is make it official.
Q. What do you mean "official"'?
A As a matter of saying
Q. Pardon?
A. Official information to Mr. Glover to find out.
Q Why did you have to make it official to Mr.
Glover?
A. This is my practice
Q. What does this serve? What purpose does this
serve?
A. Well, it give if Glover paying---to find out
whether Jimmy Glover is complying with what Mr
K pau has told me.
Q it may be my fault here. but I'm not
understanding you in this situation Please correct me if
I say something wrong. I'm trying to understand your
testimony
You spoke to Mr. Kupau. He told you that the
Glover company's wages and hours and working
conditions were below standard. You believed hitn.
A. Yes
Q But notwithstanding that. you sent a letter to the
Glover company asking them about their wages, hours
and working conditions. Is that correct''
A. Yes
* * * * *
Q. (By Mr. Letter) Now, will you please explain to
me because -maybe I'm not too bright, but I don't
follow this
Why did you send this letter it you already had the
information?
A To have it on the record like that.
Q To have what on the record? The letter'
A. From Jimmy Glover answering my letter
Q Well, what other records were you trying to make
by sending this letter"
A. To respond to my letter there
Q What kind of record were you trying to make?
A. If lie's paying working conditions
Without waiting for a reply to his aloresaid June 26
letter to Glover, Yanagi. the next day, June 27, wrote
Glover as follows
UNITED BTHD. OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 745 687
This is to protest the substandard wages and/or
working conditions of your employees. Unless
prevailing wages, hours, and working conditions are
established for the employees performing construction
on all of your projects, our Local Union will picket said
projects.
Please understand that it is not our intention to have
such work assigned to any employees affiliated with this
Local Union nor is it our intention to picket for
recognition or to have you bargain with our Local
Union
Our only reason for picketing will he to inform the
public and to protest the hours, substandard wages, and
working conditions of employees performing such work.
Upon establishment by you of prevailing wages, hours,
and working conditions to your employees, we will
cease picketing
The sole reason, Yanagi testified, for sending the June 27
letter instead of waiting for Glover to reply to his June 26
letter or waiting for Glover to supply the information
requested in said letter was due to the fact that on the
afternoon of June 27, Kupau showed him some papers
which Kupau said were Glover's "payroll paper" [sic] and
that alter looking at one of said papers, which simply
contained, to quote Yanagi, "a lot of names on the one
side and the wages on it," he decided to write the June 27
letter.
At about 6:30 a.m. on Monday, July 1" without
waiting for any reply from Glover to either of the
above-quoted letters or for Glover to supply the data
requested therein, about 10 or 11 picketers12 appeared at
the Glover Lunalilo freeway construction project carrying
signs reading'
The AFL-CIO Carpenters Union Local 745 protests the
substandard wage,, hours or conditions of employment
on this job by Jas W. Glover.
This AFL-CIO Union Local 745 does not intend by this
picket line to induce or encourage the employees of any
other employer to engage in a strike or concerted
refusal to work.
This picket supplied by the AFL-CIO Carpenters Union
Local 745.
Regarding his reason for instituting and the object of.
the picketing referred to immediately above. Yanagi
testified as follows
Q. (By Mr. Segal)" Now, Mr. Yanagi, directing your
attention to the picketing of the Glover job in July and
August of 1968, would you please tell the Trial
Examiner what was the object of that picketing?
A As the letter states, that they weren't paying
wages and working conditions, substandard wages and
working conditions.
Q. And what was the object of the picketing?
A. To notify the public that Mr. Jimmy Glover is
not paying-is paying substandard working conditions.
Q. You say he is not paying. You mean he was
paying -
A. Tie's not paying That's why we put the sign to
the public, that Jimmy Glover is not paying. They are
paying substandard wages and working conditions.
Q. And you mentioned the letter. Was it your object
to have Glover pay the wages and working conditions
"Yanagis above-quoted June 27 letter was received by Glover on
Friday, June 28 Work upon the project in question is performed Monday
through Friday only
"Kupau was the picket captain
"Respondent's counsel
that are set forth in that letter?
A This is what we anticipate Jimmy Glover would
pay.
Q. And was that your object when you set up the
pickets on July 1st, 19689
A Yes.
The prevailing "cost" of the fringe benefits given by the
Hawaiian general construction contractors at the time of
the sending of the aforementioned letters of June 26 and
June 27 was fixed by the Hawaii Department of Labor
and Industrial Relations14 for persons employed on Public
Construction jobs, such as Glover's Lunalilo freeway
project, at 15 cents per hour per employee for health and
welfare, 15 cents per hour per employee for pensions, and
one cent per hour per employee for training.
The credited, undenied evidence establishes that at the
time of the sending of the two aftermentioncd letters by
Respondent to Glover. Glover was paying the carpenters
working on the Lunalilo freeway project the prevailing
union base wage of $4 90.15 In addition, Glover (a) was
paying each of said carpenters fringe benefits in cash the
sum of 21 cents per hour," (b) was paying directly to the
HMSA 11 cents per hour per employee" for a health and
welfare plan, (c) was paying directly to an insurance
company $1.25 per hour for each person in its employ for
a period of 6 months or more for "a life insurance
program with accidental death and dismemberment
features";" and (d) had a profit-sharing plan for each
regular employee in its employ for 3 years or more."
Under date of August 20, Glover wrote Respondent
setting forth the details by which its employees were paid,
including the cost of the fringe benefit each employee
received The letter compared the wages and fringe
benefits received by the Glover employees with those"cost
items" provided for in the agreement which Respondent
then had with the Hawaii general construction
contractors .211
Under date of August 27, Respondent replied to the
Glover letter referred to immediately above wherein
Respondent again asserted that Glover's working
conditions were substandard.
Respondent's August 27 letter asserted that Glover
frequently put laborers to work doing carpentry work and
paid them the lower wage rate of laborers for doing such
work The credited evidence, however, shows that when
Glover's carpenters perform laborers' work, they receive
the higher carpenters' rate of pay and when Glover's
employees perform work in job classifications rated higher
than their normal classifications, they receive the higher
wage rate.
The aforementioned August 27 letter complained about
the rates Glover paid its employees for "shift work."
Glover does not have employees on shift work The letter
"The fixing of wages and fringe benefits for these employees are made
by the director of this agency pursuant to Chapter 9(a) of the Revised
Laws of the State of Hawaii
"This was the then prevailing base wage scale as fixed by the Hawaii
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
"This sum is "broken down " as follows 15 cents per hour for pensions,
5 cents per hour for health and welfare, and one cent per hour for training
"This amount was raised to 13 cents on July 17
"Glover pays the entire premium for this insurance
"Each employee under said plan has a 30 percent vested interest
immediately after becoming under it, at the end of ten years of service the
employee has a 100 percent vested interest, ten percent of Glover s annual
operating profits goes into the plan, and the employee covered by the plan
shares in it in accordance with his years of service and salary earned
"Approximately 470 of such employers
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
also complained that Glover employees received "regular
rates" when called to do emergency work. The credited
evidence shows that Glover pays its employees at time and
a half for emergency work.
The August 27 letter also stated that Glover paid
nonregular employees at less than the "prevailing practice
for carpenters in Hawaii." Glover does not hire
nonregular employees. Respondent, in said letter claimed
that Glover did not reimburse its employees for tools lost
"by theft while in the custody of the Company" The
evidence established that Glover does reimburse employees
in the event to such loss by theft.
Respondent asserted in said letter, that Glover did not
meet a prevailing practice covering meals and lodgings for
employees brought to work from "Neighbor Islands."
During 1968 Glover hired no one from the "Neighbor
Islands."
Respondent claimed, in said letter, that Glover had no
grievance procedure for its employees. The record shows
that Glover has processed employee grievances through its
managerial hierarchy
The 1968 Lunalilo freeway project picketing ceased on
August 27. At no time during the said picketing (July I
through August 27) did Respondent file a petition seeking
to be certified as the collective bargaining representative,
as provided for in Section 9(c) of the Act, for the Glover
employees.
C. Concluding Findings
This case presents the comparatively rare situation
where the recitation of the facts leading up to the
picketing reveals its unlawful nature. The very sequence of
events, as epitomized in Section 111 B, above,
surrounding the institution of, and the picketing, itself,
renders immediate suspect of Respondent's explanation in
justification of its conduct. Thus, in the face, of the
overwhelming credited evidence that the picketing was
plainly attributed to Respondent's attempt to force or
require Glover to recognize or to bargain with it as the
collective representative of Glover's employees, or to force
or require Glover's employees to accept or select
Respondent as their collective bargaining representative,
Respondent urges that the true object of its picketing at
the Lunalilo freeway project was not, as alleged in the
complaint, for the purpose of obtaining recognition from
Glover as the collective-bargaining representative of
Glover's employees or for the purpose of organizing
Glover's employees, but that the sole purpose of the
picketing was to protest to the public the substandard
working conditions prevailing at the jobsite in question.
The record as a whole does not bear out Respondent's
contentions. In fact, the record clearly establishes the
contrary.
Although the wording of' Respondent's picket signs
complies with the standard language required for picket
signs which inform the public of substandard working
conditions existing on a particular job, the words on the
signs are not the only indicia of intent which the Board
utilizes in determining whether picketing is protected or
proscribed."
Had Yanagi investigated the wages paid Glover's
employees and the conditions under which they worked, or
at least had waited for Glover to reply to his two June
letters or had waited for Glover to supply the information
"See. for example , N L R B v Local 182. Teamsters [Woodward
Motors[, 314 F 2d 53 (C A 2)
requested in said letters, instead of placing pickets at the
Lunalilo freeway project the next working day after
Glover had received the second of the said June letters,
merely on the strength of Kupau's statements that the
employees in question were being paid substandard wages
and working under substandard conditions and upon a
prelunctory examination of a single sheet of paper
containing simply "a lot of names on the one side and the
wages", which paper Kupau informed Yanagi was part of
Glover's "payroll paper", Yanagi would have discovered
that Kupau had not given him the true facts. Nor had the
aforesaid "payroll" paper revealed the true facts. Upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned is convinced,
and finds, that Yanagi was not at all interested whether or
not Glover's employees were being paid the prevailing
union wage scale or were working under standard
conditions, but was solely interested in forcing or
requiring Glover to recognize and bargain with
Respondent as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of Glover's employees or to force or require
Glover's employees to accept or select Respondent as their
exclusive bargaining representative. Under the
circumstances and upon the record as a whole, the
undersigned finds that, by engaging in the acts and
conduct found above, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of
the Act.
At the hearing and in its brief, Respondent points to
the fact that the picketing did not induce any individual
employed by any other employer not to pick up, deliver or
transport any goods or not to perform any services. What
ever may be said of said contention the fact remains that
since Respondent's picketing was for an illegal objective it
is immaterial whether or not the conduct was effective.22
The Trial Examiner has carefully considered
Respondent's contention that the picketing was prompted.
in part, by Glover's failure to maintain adequate safety
standards for its employees, and finds this contention, as
well as the various other contentions advanced by
Respondent to support its defense that the picketing was
lawful, and finds each of them to be without substance or
merit.
IV. THE Ll FFCT OF THE LNFAIR L&BOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III B.
above, occurring in connection with the business
operations of Glover as described in section 1, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and such of them
as has been found to constitute unfair labor practices. tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening commerce and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in conduct
violative of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon
the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes
the following.
"Carolina Lumber Co , 130 NLRB 1438
UNITED BTHD. OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 745 689
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, Local 745, AFL-CIO, is, and during all times
material was, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. James W. Glover. Ltd, is, and during all times
material was, an employer engaged in commerce, or in a
business affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7).of the Act.
3 By picketing James W. Glover, Ltd., for more than
30 days without filing a petition under Section 9(c) of the
Act, with an object of forcing or requiring Glover to
recognize or to bargain with it as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of Glover's employees, or to
force or require Glover's employees to accept or select it
as their exclusive bargaining representative, Respondent
has, and,is, engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
notices to Glover employees are customarily posted
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Director
for Region 20, shall, after being signed by Respondent, be
forthwith returned to said Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Director for Region 20. in writing, within
20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.24
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board
the words "a Decision and Orde r" 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 be enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED BROTHERHOOD'
OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
745, AFL-CIO
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent,
its officers, agents, successors. and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing Glover's Lunalilo
freeway project, or picketing any other Glover
construction project or causing any Glover projects to be
picketed, where an object thereof is to force or require
Glover to recognize or bargain with it as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of Glover's employees
or to force or require any employee of Glover to accept or
select it as his collective bargaining representative in
violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices and
meeting halls, and at all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Director for Region 20,
shall, after being duly signed by an official representative
of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail or deliver to the Director for Region 20 signed
copies of the aforementioned notice for posting at the
premises of Glover, the latter willing, in places where
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner 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 picket James W',Glover. Ltd., (herein
called Glover) or cause Glover to be picketed where an
object thereof is to force or require Glover to recognize
or bargain with us, as the representative of the
employees of Glover or to force or require any
employees of Glover to accept or select us as their
collective bargaining representative in violation of
Section 8(b)(7) subparagraph (c) of the Act.
Dated By
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 745, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(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, 1311 Kapiolani
Blvd , Suite 308, Honolulu. Hawaii 96814, Telephone
808-558-797.