Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 511 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 16,
Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16, ORDER
International Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO
and John Newkirk , d/b/a CAL-NEVA
Insulation Company ; Interstate Employers
Association, Inc.
Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16,
International Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO;
Santa Clara and San Benito Counties
Building and Construction Trades Council
and John Newkirk , d/b/a CAL-NEVA
Insulation Company. Cases 20-CC-523,
20-CC-541-2, and 20-CC-594.
March 20,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On November 10, 1966, Trial Examiner E. Don
Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceedings, finding that Respondent Local No. 16
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also
found that the Respondents had not engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint in
Case 20-CC-594 and recommended that the
complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent
Local No. 16 filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision with a supporting brief; the General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support
of the cross-exceptions and in answer to Respondent
Local No. 16's exceptions; and both Respondents
filed briefs in reply to the cross-exceptions and brief
of the General Counsel.
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 the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
511
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 Asbestos Workers
Local Union No. 16, International Association of
Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents , and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in
Case 20-CC-594 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in
its entirety.
1 Member Fanning dissents from that portion of the Decision
herein which finds that Local No. 16's picketing at the Health
Center violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. He concurs with his
colleagues, however, in holding that the threats at that site
violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO (General
Telephone Company of California), 151 NLRB 1490 (Member
Fanning's separate views at fn. 4); International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO (L. G. Electric
Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766 (Member Fanning's separate
opinion at 769).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
E. DON WILSON, Trial Examiner : A charge in Case
20-CC-523 was filed on May 28, 1965, ' by John Newkirk,
d/b/a, Cal-Neva Insulation Company, herein Cal-Neva,
and Interstate Employers Association , Inc., herein the
Association , against Asbestos Workers Local Union
No. 16 , International Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, herein
Local 16 , and others . A first amended copy of this charge
was filed on January 19, 1966 . A charge in Case
20-CC-541-2 was filed by Cal-Neva and the Association
on September 2 against Local 16 and others. A first
amended charge in Case 20-CC-541-2 was filed on
March 19 , 1966 , by Cal-Neva and the Association against
Local 16 and others.
On March 30, 1966 , the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board , herein the Board , issued a
complaint in Cases 20-CC-523 and 20-CC-542-2, alleging
that Local 16 violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein the Act.
In Case 20-CC-594, an initial charge was filed on
March 11 , 1966 , by Cal-Neva against Local 16 and Santa
Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction
Trades Council , herein the Council.
A first amended charge was filed on May 9, 1966, by
Cal-Neva against Local 16 and the Council.
On May 19 , 1966 , the General Counsel of the Board
issued a complaint alleging that Local 16 and the Council
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)( B) of the Act.
' Hereinafter all dates refer to 1965 unless otherwise specified.
163 NLRB No. 63
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 19, 1966, the General Counsel ordered Cases
20-CC-523, 20-CC-541-2, and 20-CC-594 consolidated.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing in this matter was held
before me in San Francisco, California, on June 14, 15, and
16, 1966. The parties were afforded full opportunity to
participate. Briefs of General Counsel and Local 16 and
the Council have been received and considered.
Upon the entire record in the case including my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Cal-Neva has an office located at San Lorenzo,
California, and is a contractor in the building and
construction industry engaged in the installation of
insulating materials,
The Association is a California corporation, at all times
material being a voluntary association of employers
engaged in the building and construction industries and in
other industries. It exists for the purpose, inter alga, of
representing its member-employers in collective
bargaining and participating in the negotiating and
administration of collective-bargaining agreements in
behalf of its member-employers with various labor
organizations.
At all times material, Cal-Neva has been a member of
the Association.
During the year ending the last of March 1966, member-
employers of the Association, including Schurr and Finlay,
Inc., located at Yorba Linda, California; Ben J. Hughes,
Inc., located at Bell Gardens, California; Truitt Electric
Company, located at Los Angeles, California; and
H. B. Rogers Electric, located at Santa Fe Springs,
California, in the course and conduct of their respective
business operations, purchased and received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers
located in the State of California, which suppliers received
said goods and materials directly from outside California.
During the same period of time, Schurr and Finlay, Inc.,
a member-employer of the Association, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, received in excess of
$400,000 for services performed for the United States Air
Force at Travis Air Force Base and the United States
Army and the United States Navy in California.
The operations of Schurr and Finlay, Inc., described
above have had a substantial impact on the national
defense.
The Association and its member-employers, including
Cal-Neva, at all material times, have constituted an
employer engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Memorex Corporation, herein Memorex, is a California
corporation which manufactures percision magnetic tape.
During the 1965 calendar year Memorex shipped products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its Santa Clara,
California, plant to points outside California. It is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Local 16 and the Council , at all material times, have
been labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
(1) Did Local 16 engage in a course of conduct in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act during
material times at (a) the District Health Center in San
Francisco, herein the Health Center; (b) the KRON-TV
Building in San Francisco, herein KRON; (c) the
Educational Testing Center in Berkeley, herein the
Testing Center; and (d) at the Memorex Plant in Santa
Clara, herein Memorex, where various general contractors
and their subcontractors were engaged in construction,
the objects of the conduct being (a) to force the
subcontractors to cease doing business with Cal-Neva
Insulation Company and the general contractors to cease
doing business with the subcontractors, in order to force
them to cease doing business with Cal-Neva, and (b) to
force Cal-Neva to recognize and bargain with the Local
Union although the Local Union was not the certified
representative of Cal-Neva's employees?
(2) Did the Council for itself and as agent for Local 16
violate Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by its conduct
at Memorex?
B. Background
In 1963, having unsuccessfully sought a contract with
Local 16, Cal-Neva entered into a contract with
District 50, United Mine Workers of America. In March
1964, Cal-Neva joined Interstate Employers Association,
Inc., an association of California employers engaged in the
building and construction industry and in other industries.
The Association was designated by Cal-Neva as its
collective-bargaining representative, a purpose for which
the Association existed. Through the Association, Cal-
Neva, in May, was a party to a contract between the
Association and District 50, which contract ran until
September 30. This contract was terminated by the
Association and District 50 as of June 30. Not long after
and before September, Cal-Neva through the Association
became a party to a contract between the Association and
Brotherhood of Independent Workers, or BIW.
The activities of Respondents occurred in San
Francisco, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties in
California. Local 16 is affiliated with building and
construction trades councils, including the Council, in
each of these counties.
C. The Health Center Dispute
Stenmark Construction Company was the general
contractor at the Health Center in May and June. Valley
Sheet Metal Company, herein Valley, was a subcontractor
and in turn contracted with Cal-Neva to perform insulation
work at the Health Center, Cal-Neva starting its work on
May 17. On May 18, Ben Hockstrasser, Local 16's
business agent, visited the jobsite and spoke to Valley's
foreman, George Kemper. Hockstrasser, having identified
himself as a business agent of Local 16, told Kemper that
if Cal-Neva's men didn't get off the insulating work,
Local 16 "would picket the job."
Also, on May 18, Local 16's attorney advised
Cal-Neva's attorney, by letter, that Cal-Neva was not
party to a contract with a union and requested a contract
with Local 16. On May 19, Cal-Neva's attorney replied,
saying Cal-Neva could not contract with Local 16 since it
had a contract with District 50.
ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 16,
On May 19, Hochstrasser spoke to Chester H. Nelson,
Stenmark' s general superintendent, saying Cal-Neva was
not in good standing with Local 16 and "he was going to
put a picket on the job" against Cal-Neva. That afternoon
and on the morning of May 20, Local 16 picketed the
Health Center, the picket sign reading:
Cal-Neva Insulation Company, John D. Newkirk
owner, unfair to San Francisco Building and
Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. This dispute
is with Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16.
On the morning of May 20, the employees of various
subcontractors in the building trades industries refused to
cross Local 16's picket line. On the same morning,
Wayne Kelly, Local 16's business manager, asked Nelson
to take Cal-Neva off the job, Nelson replying that he could
not because Cal-Neva was the responsibility of Valley.
On May 20, Local 16's attorney again wrote a letter to
Cal-Neva's attorney, asserting he had been unaware of
Cal-Neva's contractual relations with District 50, and
advising that Local 16 withdraw its contractual demands.
He further stated the pickets had been withdrawn since
Local 16 had been mistaken in believing that Cal-Neva
had no labor contract.
Cal-Neva returned to work at the Health Center on
May 21.
Anthony Meley was executive manager of the Sheet
Metal Contractors Association of San Francisco. Valley
was a member of the Sheet Metal Association. On May 27,
Meley had a telephone conversation with Kelly. Kelly told
Meley he wasn' t going to have Cal-Neva on the job and
discussed the furnishing of insulation workers by Local 16
to Valley to complete the job.
On June 1, Kelly had another conversation with Nelson.
Kelly said " he was going to put a picket on the job" as of
1 p.m. that day.
Beginning at 1:30 p.m. on June 1 and ending at
4:30 p.m., during working hours, on June 2, Local 16
picketed the Health Center with the following sign:
Cal-Neva Insulation Co., John Newkirk, owner, does
not observe conditions of employment for asbestos
workers and insulators for this area, Asbestos
Workers Local No. 16.
On June 2, the employees of the building trades
subcontractors refused to cross the picket line which was
maintained in front of the premises where the work was
going on . During each of the episodes of picketing Cal-
Neva had work to be done and materials stockpiled at the
jobsite.
On June 1, Newkirk, or Cal-Neva, by telegram asked
Kelly to advise what Cal-Neva must do to induce Local 16
not to picket. Local 16 never replied. On June 2, Newkirk
phoned Kelly and asked the conditions for removal of the
picket. Kelly replied only that Newkirk should talk to
someone else and hung up. On June 4, Newkirk
substantially repeated his June 1 telegram and again
received no reply. During the times that Local 16 picketed
the Health Center, Kelly did not know "specifically" the
hourly wage Cal-Neva was paying its employees. Kelly did
not know the employees' hours of employment. He had
only an "understanding" as to fringe benefits. He had
never seen Cal-Neva's contract and never attempted to
2 Another union official was present His name is not disclosed.
3 Considering his demeanor and his entire course of conduct as
revealed by this record, I do not credit Kelly's denials of his
513
get one. Charles Andrews, Valley's vice president, Kelly,
and Meley met on June 2 while the job was shut down.2
Andrews asked Kelly what they could iIo to stop the
picketing and get the job done. Kelly replied he was not
going to have any District 50 men on the job but that
Local 16 was to do the job. Andrews asked Kelly "if he
would sign up John Newkirk on a contract with Local 16."
Kelly replied that he would do this under no circumstances
because of prior problems he had had with Newkirk. Kelly
added that "under no circumstances" was John Newkirk
going to be on that job. Andrews and Kelly then discussed
the possibility of Andrews signing a contract with Kelly.
Kelly said he would give it some thought but Local 16
would not have Cal-Neva on the job, "and under no
circumstances was Newkirk [Cal-Neva] to go on the job
due to other problems he had on previous, other jobs."
Kelly agreed to furnish two men from Local 16 and did so.
They were employed by Andrews. Cal-Neva stopped on
June 1 and its work was done by Kelly's'men.
D. The Testing Center
On August 30, Cal-Neva commenced work for the
Testing Center as a subcontractor of Fischer Plumbing
Company which in turn had a contract with Lyons
Construction Company. The latter's superintendent was
Wally Lueck. About 9 a.m. on September 1, Kelly
appeared, saw Newkirk, and said, "Hello, John. I see you
scabs are back again." Newkirk made no reply. Kelly,
having briefly observed one of Newkirk's employees,
spoke to Lueck. Kelly introduced himself as business
agent of Local 16 and asked Lueck if he knew there was a
nonunion insulation contractor on the job (Cal-Neva).
Kelly added that Cal-Neva was affiliated with District 50
and Local 16 did not recognize them. Lueck said he was
unaware of the problems and asked Kelly what he
intended to do. Kelly said he would go to the Alameda
County Building Trades Council and have a picket put on
the jobsite and the Council would see that the rest of the
crafts were pulled off.3 There was no picketing at the
jobsite.
E. KRON Project
In November, Cal-Neva entered into a contract with
Valley to perform work at KRON. On November 18, Meley
of the Sheet Metal Contrictors Association of which
Valley was a member, called Kelly on the phone. Meley
said he wanted to know Kelly' s position on the KRON job,
adding that he wished an assurance that there would be no
pickets. Meley said Cal-Neva had the lowest bid for
insulation work and had been awarded the contract by
Valley. Kelly said he would not tolerate Cal-Neva on the
job and if it appeared Kelly would put up pickets. Meley
advised that Local 16 had entered into a settlement
agreement providing that Local 16 would not interfere
with Cal-Neva on any job. Kelly said the agreement was
good for only 60 days. Kelly did not agree that the
settlement agreement was permanent, saying "the order
was only good for 60 days" and he had a right to picket
again . Meley suggested to Kelly that he ask his attorney for
an interpretation. Cal-Neva never performed the work on
KRON, Valley doing the work itself.
conversation with Lueck A settlement agreement entered into by
Local 16 and others and set aside by the Regional Director for
various reasons has not influenced me in my findings
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. The Memorex Project
On March 10, Cal-Neva began performing work at the
Memorex plant in Santa Clara, under a contract with Nead
Insulation Company which in turn had a contract with
Natkin and Company. Natkin had the contract with
Memorex. Newkirk and one employee were performing
the insulation work in behalf of Cal-Neva. Memorex had
about 400 employees. The various crafts involved in
construction, including pipefitters, electricians, and
painters were working on the project which consisted of
the construction of a three-story addition to the buildings
of Memorex.
On the morning of March 10, Kelly phoned
Roger Brennan, executive secretary of the Council, and
said he had a report that Nead had a contract to work on
the Memorex project and Nead was in violation of his
contract with Local 16. Kelly asked Brennan to visit the
Memorex job and see if Nead was working there, adding
that he was leaving for Washington, D.C., and could not do
the job himself. Brennan thereupon went to the jobsite and
spoke to two employees who were doing insulation work.
He learned they were not employees of Nead but of
Cal-Neva. It appeared to Brennan "that the particular
group in question would have been covered by this BIW
contract."
Brennan called Local 16. He was unable to speak to
Kelly who was enroute to Washington, D.C. He reported
the factual situation to a Mr. Storey.
On March 11, about 8 a.m., Brennan placed a picket on
the job. He did not, at that time, know the identity of
Newkirk. The picket sign identified Cal-Neva Insulation
Company as the employer the Council was picketing
because it did not have a contract with the Council.
Local 16 never requested picketing at the Memorex job.
The Council picketed because it did not consider
Cal-Neva to be a union operation. Twenty to thirty
building trades employees employed by various
subcontractors refused to cross the picket line. When the
Council pickets it normally is on its own behalf and not on
behalf of a local union. The picketing lasted from about
8 a.m. to 9 a.m. The picket was on public property nearest
to where Cal-Neva was working and the dispute was
clearly described by the picket sign as being between
Cal-Neva and the Council. Cal-Neva, at the time of the
picketing, was performing its normal operations.
Shortly before 8 a.m. Reginald Simpson, construction
superintendent and inspector for Memorex, spoke to
Brennan. He asked Brennan what the problem was.
Brennan said his problem was with Cal-Neva and the
prime problem was that Cal-Neva had no contract with
the Council. Brennan said the picket sign would be
removed if Cal-Neva agreed not to operate until its
problem was straightened out. Simpson was surprised to
learn that Cal-Neva was a subcontractor of-Memorex.
There is no substantial evidence that Brennan asked any
representative of Memorex to take any action. Brennan
also said to Simpson that if Natkin and Company would
give some assurance that Cal-Neva would leave the job,
he would discontinue the picketing.
Robert Beasley, a central office supervisor foi Natkin
and Company, spoke to Brennan about 8:15 a.m. Beasley
had received a call from Simpson that there was some
4 Beasley had told Nead and Newkirk that they had both
breached the contract by Nead subcontracting to Cal-Neva
labor problem at the site concerning Cal-Neva. Beasley
knew nothing of Cal-Neva and was certain something was
wrong. He was aware of the picketing. He went to Brennan
and spoke to him. In response to Beasley's inquiry,
Brennan said the picket sign was informational and that
while Nead was authorized to do the work by Local 16,
Cal-Neva was not. Later, Beasley spoke to Brennan again.
Newkirk and another representative of Natkin were
present. Beasley said he had talked to Newkirk4 who had
agreed to pull off the job for the time being. Brennan said
this was agreeable to him. The picket was removed and
the men returned to work. It was Beasley's opinion that
Nead had violated his contract by subcontracting to
Cal-Neva. It is clear that Beasley removed Cal-Neva from
the job as a result of his "own decision" which he later
communicated to Brennan and not as a result of any
request from Brennan. After Beasley told Brennan that
Cal-Neva was being removed from the job as a
unauthorized subcontractor, there was a cessation of
picketing.
It is plain to me that there is insufficient probative
evidence to establish that the Council was an agent of
Local 16 in its picketing of Memorex. Kelly had a dispute
with Nead because of his failure to pay moneys to
Local 16. Kelly requested Brennan merely to look into the
matter so Local 16 could place a claim against Nead's job.
In no way did Local 16 authorize the Council to take action
regarding Cal-Neva. That Local 16 was a member of
Council does not make the Council an agent for all
purposes, and particularly for alleged unlawful purposes.
The Council engaged in purely informational picketing
truthfully advising that Cal-Neva did not have a contract
with the Council. This was primary picketing. The Council
was not seeking a contract with Cal-Neva.
There is insufficient probative evidence that the
Council, in any manner, requested, threatened, or
required Memorex, Natkin, or Nead, or any or all of them
to cease doing business with each other or Cal-Neva.
Cal-Neva was ordered off the job by Natkin because
Nead, who at that time appears to have been a phantom-
like operation, had no legal right to subcontract to
Cal-Neva. This is why Beasley rid himself of Cal-Neva. I
find no relevant evidence that the Council sought the
enmeshment of neutrals. Brennan's picketing was
primary. I find the sole objective of the Council's picketing
was informational. There is insufficient substantial
evidence that the Council or Local 16 violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B) of the Act by the conduct of Brennan at
Memorex.
G. Concluding Findings
I have already found that there is insufficient evidence
that the Council or the Local Union violated the Act by
Brennan's conduct at Memorex.
The Local Union argues that its conduct at the other
locations met Moore Dry Dock standards5 and
consequently did not violate the Act. The Board, however,
had found that, "[w]hile literal compliance with the
standards of Moore Dry Dock may indicate the primary
nature of common situs picketing, the Board has held that
such an inference is not conclusive but may be negated by
other relevant evidence disclosing the respondent's true
objective to be the enmeshment of neutral employers and
5 92 NLRB 547
ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 16, 515
employees into the primary dispute."s The facts in this
case reveal that in its conduct at the locations other than
Memorex, the Local Union's objective was the
enmeshment of neutrals into the primary dispute.
The Local Union, by its picketing at the Health Center
on May 20 and June 2, caused employees of neutrals to
withhold their labor from their employers. This was
inducement encompassed by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B). Such
work stoppages were restraint and coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
Local 16's letter of May 18 makes clear that an object of
its picketing on May 19 and 20 was to force or require
Cal-Neva to recognize and bargain with Local 16 even
though Local 16 was not the certified representative. So,
too, did Hockstrasser disclose this objective when he told
Stenmark's foreman, Nelson, that Local 16 would picket
because Cal-Neva and Local 16 did not have a contract.
It is plain that an object of Local 16's picketing at the
Health Center was to force or require Valley to cease
doing business with Cal-Neva and to force or require
Stenmark to cease doing business with Valley so as to
bring about a cessation of business between Valley and
Cal-Neva. Thus, on May 19, Hockstrasser told Valley's
foreman, Kemper, that Local 16 would picket "the job" if
Cal-Neva was not off the job. During the course of this
picketing, Kelly asked Nelson to remove Cal-Neva from
the job. By its picketing on May 1.9 and 20, Local 16
induced employees of neutral employers to cease work,
thereby threatening, restraining, and coercing the neutral
employers. The objects of the picketing being found as
above, the picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act.
It has been found that on May 27 Kelly told Meley that
the unwanted Cal-Neva would be picketed again if it
worked on the Health Center job and that simultaneously
Kelly offered Local 16 men to finish Cal-Neva's job.
Obviously, Local 16 was seeking to have Valley cease
doing business with Cal-Neva. On June 1, Local 16
resumed its picketing at the Health Center. Employees of
neutral employers refused to cross the picket lines. At no
time did Local 16 advise Cal-Neva of the alleged desirable
working conditions Cal-Neva was failing to meet although
Cal-Neva sought such advice. It is clear that again
Local 16 was picketing for unlawful objects. On June 1
and 2, Local 16 was not picketing for the reasons or
objects as displayed on the picket sign , but rather for
objects proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. Thus,
Kelly on June 2 told Andrews of Valley that he did not
want District 50 members on the job and "under no
circumstances" were members of District 50 nor was
Cal-Neva to resume work. It was to gain this objective that
Kelly suggested to Valley that it employ Local 16 members
to perform Cal-Neva's job. At no time did representatives
of Local 16 suggest to representatives of Valley or
Stenmark that they persuade Cal-Neva to meet Local 16
working conditions. I find that the June 1 and 2 picket sign
did not disclose the true objective of the picketing which
was to require Valley and Stenmark to replace Cal-Neva
or in its stead utilize Local 16 members. The picketing of
June 1 and 2 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act. The threats of Hochstrasser to Kemper and Nelson as
well as Kelly's threats to Meley and Nelson, particularly
since they involved threats of picketing "the job,"
establish that an object of the threats to picket was to
cause Valley to cease doing business with Cal-Neva or to
cause Stenmark to cease doing business with Valley.
At the Testing Center, on September 1, Kelly told
Lyons' superintendent, Lueck, that Cal-Neva was
associated with District 50 and was a nonunion contractor.
Kelly added the threat that the Alameda Council would
picket the jobsite and have all building trades employees
removed from the job. It is clear that an object of this
threat was to cause Lyons to cease doing business with
Cal-Neva. Thus the threat was violative of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
Local 16 again engaged in unlawful activity at the
KRON project. On November 18, Kelly threatened Meley,
a representative of the Sheet Metal Association of which
Valley was a member, that Kelly would not tolerate having
Cal-Neva on the job and that if it showed up, Kelly would
picket. I find Local 16's dispute with Cal-Neva at this time
was as it had been and Local 16 still had the object of
coercing Valley and other neutrals to cease doing business
with Cal-Neva. By its threats to Meley, Local 16 violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Local 16 as set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
employers named in section I, above have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found Local 16's conduct violative of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material the employers named in
section I have been employers within the meaning of the
Act and have been engaged in commerce and/or in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. Local 16 and the Council are each labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. By picketing and other conduct, by inducement and
encouragement, and by threats and coercion as found
above, with the objects of causing other employers to
cease doing business with Valley or with Cal-Neva or to
force or require Cal-Neva to recognize or bargain with
Local 16 as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees
although Local 16 was not certified as such, Local 16 has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, I recommend that Asbestos Workers
Local Union No. 16, International Association of Heat &
6 Carpenters Local Union No 944, et al . (Interstate Employers
Association , et al.), 159 NLRB 563, 564
295-269 0-69-34
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) By picketing or other conduct, inducing or en-
couraging any individual employed by Valley or Stenmark,
or any other employer, to engage in a strike or refusal
in the course of his employment to use or handle any
materials or perform any services, where an object
thereof is to force or require said employers to cease doing
business with Cal-Neva or where an object thereof is to
force or require Cal-Neva to recognize or bargain with
Local 16 as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees
unless Local 16 has been certified as the representative of
Cal-Neva's employees under the provisions of Section 9 of
the Act.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Valley or
Stenmark or any other employer where an object thereof is
to force or require Cal-Neva to recognize or bargain with
Local 16 as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees
unless Local 16 has been certified as the representative of
Cal-Neva's employees under the provisions of Section 9 of
the Act.
(c) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Lyons,
Fischer, Valley, or Stenmark, or any other employer,
where an object thereof is to force or require said em-
ployers to cease doing business with Cal-Neva.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices or
meeting halls, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of said notice to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall,
after being signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for posting by Fischer, Valley, Stenmark, Lyons,
and Cal-Neva, they being willing, at all locations where
notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.8
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL
UNION No. 16, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT
& FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS,
AFL-CIO.
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, by picketing or other conduct,
induce or encourage any individual employed by
Valley Sheet Metal Company or Stenmark
Construction Company or any other employer to
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his
employment to use or handle any materials or perform
any services where an object thereof is to force or
require said employers to cease doing business with
John Newkirk , a sole proprietor, doing business as
Cal-Neva Insulation Company, otherwise known as
Cal-Neva, to recognize or bargain with Local 16 as
the representative of Cal-Neva's employees , unless
Local 16 has been certified as the representative of
Cal-Neva's employees under the provisions of
Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten or restrain or coerce Valley
Sheet Metal Company or Stenmark Construction
Company or any other employer where an object
thereof is to force or require Cal-Neva to recognize or
bargain with Local 16 as the representative of
Cal-Neva's employees unless Local 16 has been
certified as the representative of Cal-Neva's
employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten or coerce or restrain Fischer
Plumbing Company or Lyons Construction Company
or Valley Sheet Metal Company or Stenmark
Construction Company or any other employer where
an object thereof is to force or require said employers
to cease doing business with Cal-Neva.
ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL
UNION No. 16,
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF HEAT&
FROST INSULATORS AND
ASBESTOS WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
r In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
fi In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 "
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, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, 13050 Federal Building, San Francisco, California
94102, Telephone 556-0335.