Carpenters, Local No. 644

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 1056 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America , AFL-CIO, Local No 644 and Walsh
Construction Company, Inc, Division of Guy F
Atkinson Company and Bancock & Wilcox Compa-
ny B & W Construction Co Division and Morrison
Construction Company and Eichleay Corporation
and Lord Electric Company, Inc Cases
38-CC-155, 38-CC-156, 38-CC-157, 38-CC-158,
and 38-CC-159
December 21, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On July 21, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Milton Janus issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, in addition, the General
Counsel and certain of the Charging Parties2 filed
limited exceptions and supporting briefs
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions, as modified herein, of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended
Order
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon-
dent's picketing herein violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)
of the Act in that it induced employees of Walsh,
Babcock & Wilcox, Morrison, Lord, and Eichleay to
cease work in furtherance of a prohibited object The
Administrative Law Judge also found that Respon-
dent's picketing restrained Walsh, for the same
forbidden object, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
of the Act
We agree with the Charging Parties that the record
herein establishes that the same picketing also
amounted to restraint and coercion of Babcock &
Wilcox, Morrison, Lord, and Eichleay for the same
unlawful purpose, and that Respondent thereby
further violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act 3 We
therefore amend the Administrative Law Judge's
Conclusion of Law 4 to read as follows
4 By threatening, coercing, and restraining
Walsh, Babcock & Wilcox, Morrison, Lord, and
Eichleay, with an object of forcing or requiring those
companies to either cease to do business with
Kinnear Corporation or to compel Kinnear Corpora-
tion to employ the Respondent's members, the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(11)(B) of the Act
We shall also add the following as Conclusion of
Law 5
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
Local No 644, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the recom-
mended Order
i The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law
Judge effective August 19, 1972
2 Exceptions and briefs were filed by Walsh Babcock & Wilcox and
Morrison Construction companies
3 The Administrative Law Judge s recommended Order provides a
remedy consistent with these findings Although additional remedial
provisions are requested by the Charging Parties we find no record basis to
support their request
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MILTON JANus, Trial Examiner The charges in this
consolidated proceeding were filed as follows
Case 38-CC-155 by Walsh Construction Company, Inc,
Division of Guy F Atkinson Company (Walsh), on
November 11, 1971
Case 38-CC-156 by Babcock & Wilcox Company, B &
W Construction Co Division (B & W), on November 11,
1971
Case 38-CC-157 by Morrison Construction Company
(Morrison) on November 12 and 19, 1971
Case 38-CC-158 by Eichleay Corporation (Eichleay) on
November 12, 1971
Case 38-CC-159 by Lord Electric Company, Inc (Lord)
on November 15, 1971
On December 14, 1971, the General Counsel issued a
complaint and order consolidating cases, based on these
charges, and, on December 15, he issued certain amend-
ments to the complaint As amended, it alleges that
Respondent (Carpenters or Local 644) violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by picketing and engaging
in a work stoppage between November 9, and 24, 1971, at
the construction site of an electric power station being built
for the Commonwealth Edison Company (Edison) near
Pekin, Illinois Respondent filed an answer denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices, and on February
1 and 2, 1972, a hearing was held before me at Peoria,
Illinois, at which all the parties appeared After the
200 NLRB No 152
CARPENTERS, LOCAL NO 644 1057
hearing, briefs were filed by the General Counsel, Local
644, Walsh, B & W, and Morrison 1
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Walsh is an Iowa corporation which is engaged in the
construction business In 1971, and since 1968, it was one
of the general contractors engaged by Edison for the
construction of a new power plant, adjacent to an existing
power station, called Powerton, located some miles south
of Pekin, Illinois Walsh is engaged in the erection of the
superstructure of the new power plant
B & W is a New Jersey corporation and has been
engaged as the general contractor for the erection of a
steam generator and related equipment at the Powerton
jobsite
Morrison is an Indiana corporation and has been
engaged as the general contractor for the installation of the
major piping at the Powertonjobsite
Eichleay is a Delaware corporation and has been
engaged as the general contractor for the installation of
various components, including the turbine and generator
for unit 5 at the Powertonjobsite
Lord is a Delaware corporation and has been engaged as
an electrical subcontractor for B & W at the Powerton
jobsite
Kinnear Corporation (Kinnear) is a corporation doing
business in Illinois, and has been engaged as a subcontrac-
tor for Walsh in furnishing and installing roll-up steel
doors for structures at the Powertonjobsite
During 1971, each of the above Employers purchased
and caused to be delivered to its locations in Illinois goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were
transported to said locations directly from States other
than the State of Illinois
On these uncontroverted facts, I find that the above
Employers are persons and employers engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
subcontractors were building additional generating facili-
ties The issue to be decided is whether the strike was to
enforce a contract clause against subcontracting except to
an employer who had an agreement with Local 644, which
the General Counsel and the Charging Parties contend is
an illegal objective , or whether , as Local 644 contends, it
was for the legal objective of preserving its jurisdictional
claims to certain work to be performed by unit employees
The work in dispute, which Local 644 claims to be within
its jurisdiction, is the erection of scaffolding over 14 feet in
height, and the installation of the power mechanisms which
raise and lower the rolling steel doors which Kinnear, as
subcontractor to Walsh, was erecting The erection of the
doors themselves and of scaffolding 14 feet or less in height
is concededly the work of Local 112, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron-
workers, AFL-CIO, under its agreement with Kinnear
Local 644 has a contract with Home Builders Associa-
tion of Tazewell County, a multiemployer group The
provisions of that agreement which are pertinent to this
proceeding , read as follows
ARTICLE I RECOGNITION AND SCOPE
Sec I Bargaining Unit The bargaining unit shall
be comprised of all employees engaged in the work
described in Sec 3 of this Article The territory covered
by this agreement is as described in Sec 4 of this
Article
Sec 3 Occupational Scope This Agreement covers
all work of all branches of the trade as set forth in the
Constitution of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, as the same has been
interpreted from time to time, and includes, but is not
limited to the milling, fashioning, joining of all
material of wood, plastic, metal
Sec 4 Territorial Scope The territory or area
covered by this agreement shall be known as the
jurisdiction of Carpenters' Local #644 and shall
consist of parts of Tazewell, Peoria and Mason counties
in the State of Illinois, extending
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent, Local 644, and the International Union
with which it is affiliated, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sec 6 Performance of Work by Employees in the
Bargaining Unit The employees in the bargaining unit
and only such employees , shall perform all of the work
covered by this agreement
Issue and Background
The Respondent, Local 644, Carpenters, engaged in a 2-
week work stoppage at Edison's construction site near
Pekin, Illinois, where a number of general contractors and
i Separate motions to correct the official transcript in different respects
were also filed by B & W and by Morrison No oppositions to these motions
have been received from the other parties I have checked the words and
phrases sought to be corrected, and am satisfied that the various items noted
ARTICLE II UNION SHOP AND HIRING PROCEDURES
Sec 1 Union Shop All employees shall be obligat-
ed to become members of the Union after the 7th, but
not later than the 30th day of employment
in the motions are transcription errors with one exception and should be
corrected The one exception is p 193 1 10 of the transcript which I
believe represents what was said at the hearing In all other respects I grant
the motions to correct the official transcript
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sec 5 Hiring and Notice
C Legal Authorization The Employer is exclusively
engaged in the Building and Construction Industry and
both parties of this agreement have elected to come
under the provision of Section 8(f), part 3 of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, which
permits the parties involved to make an agreement
requiring the employer to
(a) Notify the Union of opportunities for employ-
ment, and
(b) Give the Union an opportunity to refer qualified
applicants for employment, and
(c) The Union will notify the Employer of whom
they should contact in order to secure qualified
applicants
D Procedure In the application and administra-
tion of Sec C of this Article the following shall govern
(a) The Employer shall advise the Union of all
available openings and job requirements at least 24
hours prior to the Employer's fulfilling such job
requirements
(b) The Union shall be given an opportunity to refer
qualified applicants for employment
(c) The Union shall advise the Employer of all
qualified applicants available, when requested
* * * * *
Sec 7 Subcontracting The parties hereto being in
the Construction Industry qualify under the provision
of Sec 8(e) of the [Act] The Employer shall not
contract or subcontract any work coming within the
jurisdictional claims of the Union to any person, firm
or corporation not covered by a collective bargaining
agreement with the Union, providing however, that the
provisions of this paragraph shall apply only to the
contracting and subcontracting of work to be done at
the site of construction of a building and
The Employer will not subcontract any work within
the jurisdiction of the United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America which is to be performed at
the job site except to a contractor who holds an
agreement with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America or one of its subordinate
bodies, or who agrees in writing, prior to or at the time
of the execution of his subcontract, to be bound by the
terms of this agreement
Walsh is not a member of the Association, and has not
signed an agreement directly with Local 644 It did,
however, have a contract with the Carpenters International
Union whereby it agreed (a) to recognize the jurisdictional
claims of the Union, (b) to abide by the wages, hours, and
working conditions established or agreed upon by a
constituent of the International in any locality in which it
was working, and (c) not to subcontract any work within
2 Only one of the seven doors required scaffolding over 14 feet
According to Albrecht, this was for one of the two doors which Kinnear
men started to erect on September 20 Of course all seven doors would also
the International 's jurisdiction which is to be performed at
the jobsite except to a contractor who holds an agreement
with the International or one of its subordinate bodies, or
who agrees in writing to be bound by the terms of the same
agreement
The Complaint
The complaint alleged that Local 644 has had a labor
dispute since at least November 5, 1971, with Kinnear, in
which it demanded that Kinnear employ its members for
the erection of scaffolding and for the installation of the
power mechanisms for the doors, that, in furtherance of
the dispute, its members engaged in a work stoppage on
November 9, which continued to November 24, and that,
from November 10 to November 24, it authorized and
maintained a picket line at the principal entrance to the
Powerton project
It is alleged that an object of the above conduct was to
force or require Walsh to cease doing business with
Kinnear, to force Edison, in turn, to force Walsh to cease
doing business with Kinnear, and to enforce the subcon-
tracting clause in the agreement between Walsh and the
International in order to force Walsh to cease doing
business with Kinnear
The Facts
In November 1971, at the time of the dispute out of
which this case arises, there were approximately 1,300
persons employed in construction work at the Powerton
project Walsh was Edison's general contractor for the
superstructure of the new power plant, and was then
employing about 80 men, of whom about 30 were
carpenters B & W, Morrison, and Eichleay were prime
contractors for other major components of the facility,
each employing some carpenters Lord was a subcontractor
of B & W for the installation of electrical equipment
Kinnear, as noted above, was a Walsh subcontractor, for
the fabrication off the site, and for the erection on the site,
of seven roll-up steel doors Their subcontract agreement
had been entered into in July 1970, but Kinnear did no
work at the site until September 20, 1971
On that date, Albrecht, job steward for Local 644 on the
Walsh job, noticed a Kinnear truck on the site with a load
of scaffolding He went to Perkins, Walsh's job superin-
tendent, and asked him if Kinnear was its subcontractor
for the erection of the roll-up doors, and, according to
Albrecht, agreed that any scaffolding over 14 feet should
be done by carpenters The Kinnear employees, however,
went ahead with the scaffold work for the two doors they
were then installing , and also proceeded, according to
Albrecht, to install their power mechanisms 2
That afternoon as work on the doors was progressing,
Albrecht again went to Perkins, reminded him of the
subcontracting clause in the Carpenters agreement with
Walsh (permitting Walsh to subcontract only to employers
who themselves had an agreement with the Carpenters)
and asked him to call Guler, business agent for Local 644
require installation of separate power mechanisms and this too was work
claimed by the Carpenters
CARPENTERS , LOCAL NO 644 1059
The next day, Perkins and Kinnear'sjob superintendent
met with Guler and the assistant business agent, Lenox
Guler asked the Kinnear superintendent if his Company
had a contract with the Carpenters, but the superintendent
didn't know, and asked Guler to call Kinnear's president,
Boncella, about it Guler also showed Perkins two
documents (Resp Exhs 2 and 3) which purport to be
agreements between the Carpenters and Ironworkers
Internationals, assigning or conceding the two work items
in dispute to the Carpenters Guler also asked Perkins to
assign Walsh carpenters to Kinnear to perform the
disputed work, but I find, crediting Perkins, that he said he
had no authority to do so, although he also admitted that
he thought the work was within the Carpenters jurisdiction
In any event, the erection of the two doors was completed
by Kinnear, using only ironworkers
A week or so later, Perkins spoke with Guler, and,
according to the latter's credited testimony, assured him
that Walsh carpenters would do the disputed work on the
remaining doors, and that there would be no problem 3
Nothing further happened until November 5, when Guler
and Gilliam, a representative of the Carpenters Interna-
tional, met with Perkins, who told them that Kinnear
would be installing another door in a few days Guler told
Perkins that it would be a violation of their contract if
Kinnear proceeded to do the disputed work as it had last
time, and again Perkins assured him there would be no
problem
On November 8, a Kinnear truck arrived at the jobsite
with a load of scaffolding Albrecht, the Local 644 steward,
asked Perkins about it, and Perkins then told him that
Palmer was insisting that the Ironworkers do the whole job
Albrecht told Perkins that he could be in a lot of trouble
about it, and Perkins said he realized it There was some
effort to set up a meeting that day, but nothing came of it
The next day, November 9, the Edison manager for the
project, Vertovec, arranged a meeting between Walsh
officials and various Carpenter representatives to discuss
the conflicting claims of the two Unions over the erection
of the doors The scheduled time for the meeting was 2 30
p in but, just about that time, Palmer, the Ironworkers
business agent, walked in, announced that he would not
attend a meeting with the parties there, walked out,
returned and asked the assemblage if anyone was going to
stop Kinnear from going to work, and that if anyone did
there would be no ironworkers anywhere on the project
The meeting therefore never got started, since Palmer's
refusal to discuss the problem left the others with little to
do or say Guler did testify though that his assistant,
Lenox, pointed out to Burdis, project manager of Walsh,
who was there, that Walsh had an agreement with the
Carpenters, that the work in dispute was bargaining unit
work, and that Burdis would be in violation of the
subcontracting provision of the agreement if Kinnear did
the work Albrecht, who also testified as to what Lenox
had said, added that Lenox had tied in the arbitration
3 Over General Counsel s objection, I admitted testimony by Guler as to
a conversation between his assistant Lenox and Boncella, Kinnear s
president, which Lenox had reported to him In substance it was that
Bonceila assured Lenox that there would be no problem that the disputed
work would be done by the Carpenters Although Guler s testifying as to
what Lenox told him is clearly hearsay I see no prejudice to the General
clause of the agreement with Walsh' s failure to abide by
the subcontracting clause Guler, however, did not recall
anyone at the meeting referring to arbitrating the dispute
Lenox, who was present at the first day of the hearing, but
not the second, was not called to testify
The nonmeeting in Vertovec's office broke up with
Palmer's refusal to discuss the dispute, shortly after 2 30
p in, according to Perkins I do not credit Albrecht's
recollection that it broke up about 3 30, since it is obvious
that there was little to occupy the parties after Palmer
walked in and out Within minutes, members of Local 644,
employed by Walsh and the other contractors, began to
walk off, and by 3 p in, more than an hour before the end
of the shift for the Walsh employees, all the carpenters had
left the site
That evening, Guler sent Walsh a telegram demanding
arbitration of the no-subcontracting provision of their
agreement Walsh officials received it the next morning,
and their response to the demand for arbitration was to
refer the dispute over the Kinnear work assignment to the
National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional
Disputes
That day, November 10, a picket line was set up on
public property at the entry to the parking lot, about a half
block from the gate where employees entered onto the
jobsite The legend on the picket signs read
WALSH
Const Co
ONLY
Violation of Contract
Refusal to Arbitrate
LOCAL #644
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America
AFL-CIO
Picketing continued at this one point during daytime
hours, Monday through Friday, for the next 2 weeks,
through November 24 The area where the picketing took
place was the entry point for all the construction
employees Operating employees of Edison entered
through another gate, which was not picketed During the
period of picketing, none of the carpenters employed by
Walsh or the other contractors reported for work, and
many employees of other crafts also refused to cross the
picket line for varying periods of time A separate, or
reserve, gate for Walsh employees was not designated by
Edison, although there were gates some distance away
which could have been used for that purpose There was no
Counsel in it, since it merely corroborates Guler's own testimony that
Perkins had told him the same thing namely that Carpenters would do the
disputed work for Kinnear Neither Perkins nor Boncella, however,
reckoned with the opposition of Palmer, the Ironworkers business agent
who had other ideas about who should perform the work
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
oral solicitation by the pickets of construction employees
not to enter the jobsite
After the picketing ended, the International Unions of
the Carpenters and Ironworkers moved to resolve the
disputed work issues, and in a joint letter of December 3,
1971 (B & W Exh 1), advised Walsh and Kinnear that the
installation of scaffolding over 14 feet was work belonging
to the Carpenters, and that representatives of the two
International Unions would meet at the jobsite to settle the
dispute over installation of the power mechanisms for the
roll-up doors
According to Gilliam, the Carpenters International
representative delegated to settle that issue with an
Ironworkers representative, they agreed that Walsh would
send carpenters to Kinnear to do the disputed work the
next time doors were to be installed According to Perkins,
the job superintendent of Walsh, he agreed to do so if
Kinnear requested it of him, on the ground that he could
not change their work assignments
Contentions of the Parties
The Respondent argues that its strike was called to
enforce its just claim that the work in dispute is within its
traditional jurisdiction, and that it was therefore engaged
in a primary dispute with Walsh over Walsh's failure to
allow the carpenters in its bargaining unit to perform it
Local 644, it is contended, had no secondary objectives,
seeking nothing from Kinnear, Edison, or anyone but
Walsh As for the union-signatory provisions in Walsh's
contract with the Carpenters International and in Local
644's contract with the Association,4 which Walsh was
obligated to adhere to, it is contended that they should not
be mechanically construed as implying a secondary
objective of affecting the labor relations of employers other
than Walsh, but should rather be considered as part of its
attempt to preserve its traditional or "fairly claimable"
work
The argument is further developed by the contention
that Section 8(e) is not a limitation on the right of self-help
in preserving the Union's bargaining unit work, that it
leaves undisturbed the rights granted in Section 13 and in
the proviso of Section 8(b)(4)(B) to engage in primary
strikes or picketing, and that it merely extends rights in
secondary situations to the construction and garment
industries
The allegations of the complaint are supported in four
separate briefs, submitted by the General Counsel, Walsh,
Morrison, and B & W The conclusion of their arguments
is the same, that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(B)
here, but none of the briefs raises all the contentions
summarized below, and each makes its points in somewhat
different ways A composite of their arguments is as
follows
I (a) Article II, section 7, of the contract between the
Association and Local 644, and the corresponding subcon-
tracting provision in the agreement between Walsh and the
Carpenters International is a union-signatory clause which
has a secondary effect, going beyond the relationship of
Walsh with its carpenter employees
(b) The subcontracting clauses, although secondary in
effect are conceded to be valid under Section 8 (e), because
they do not go beyond the construction industry proviso of
that section , being limited to on-site construction work
(c) Enforcement of a union-signatory provision, such as
the subcontracting clauses here, by economic action is,
however, a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B)
2 (a) Even if preservation of the Carpenters traditional
work was one object of Respondent's work stoppage,
another object was enforcement of the restrictions on
subcontracting, and the latter objective is secondary
3 Respondent's contention that its work stoppage was
to force Walsh to arbitrate the dispute with it is unfounded
in fact , but, even if true, is not a defense to an allegation
that Section 8(b)(4)(B) has been violated
4 The doctrine and rationale of the National Wood-
work case, 386 U S 612, are not relevant to the instant
case
5 The threats, work stoppage, and picketing establish
that Respondent's conduct falls within Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (u)
Concluding Findings
The rule or principle to be applied in determining
whether a provision in an agreement between a contractor
and a union has a primary objective outside the scope of
Section 8(e), or a secondary objective within the scope of
that section, has been variously phrased, but depends
essentially on whether the "Union's objective was preserva-
tion of work for [unit] employees, or whether the
agreements were tactically calculated to satisfy union
objectives elsewhere The touchstone is whether the
agreement or its maintenance is addressed to the labor
relations of the contracting employer vis-a-vis his own
employees "s If an object of the provision is to aid union
members generally rather than members of the unit, the
object is secondary and unlawful 6
The National Woodwork case , supra, on which Respon-
dent relies, instituted no radical change in the formulation
or application of that standard It held that a contractual
provision which permitted the Union to refuse to handle
prefitted doors on a construction project was not illegal
under Section 8(e), and its enforcement by economic
action was not illegal under Section 8(b)(4)(B), because its
sole purpose was to preserve the work of unit carpenters at
the jobsite In its summation of the facts in the Decision,
the Supreme Court quoted, 386 U S 612 at 617, the Trial
Examiner's finding that the "will-not-handle" sentence of
rule 17 (the contract provision in dispute) was not
concerned with the nature of the employer with whom the
contractor did business nor with the employment condi-
tions of other employers or employees nor did it attempt to
control such other employers or employees Thus, the
"will-not-handle" portion of rule 17 had nothing to do with
subcontracting, or with any qualifications or limitations on
4 To the effect that Walsh would subcontract Carpenters work only to an NLRB 328 F 2d 534 538 (C A D C )
employer who had an agreement with the Carpenters 6 Meat and Highway Drivers Local 710 Teamsters v N L R B 335 F 2d
5 National Woodwork Manufacturing Association v N L R B 386 U S 709 716 (C A D C)
612 644-645 See also , Orange Belt District Council of Painters No 48 v
CARPENTERS, LOCAL NO 644
the employer's right to do so, but rather only prohibited the
performance of certain traditional on-site work away from
the site, either by a union or by a nonunion manufacturer
The effect of a "will-not-handle" clause is comparable to
that of a clause forbidding all subcontracting of a union's
claimed jurisdictional work at the jobsite An absolute
prohibition of subcontracting is primary in scope, and its
violation may be enforced by strike action 7
However, a provision which permits an employer to
subcontract out on-site construction work only to a
subcontractor who will himself agree to be bound by the
agreement between the contractor and the union is an
organizational device directed against the subcontractor,
designed to preclude a signatory contractor from doing
business with a nonsignatory subcontractor The purpose
of such a provision is not to protect the work of employees
already in the bargaining unit, but to enlarge the coverage
of the bargaining unit by forcing the subcontractor to
accept his contractor's agreement with the Union, thereby
affecting his relationship with his own employees who must
join a union not of their own choosing, and with potential
employees who would have to use the Union's hiring hall 8
Applying these general principles to the facts here,
Albrecht and Guler were concerned whether Kinnear, the
subcontractor, had a bargaining agreement with the
Carpenters International or some constituent body of that
organization They were demanding, in effect, that the
Carpenters jurisdictional claims be observed by Kinnear,
and that the work in dispute be assigned to Kinnear
employees whom Local 644 would represent This concern
of Local 644 tends to become obscured because it would
have been satisfied if Walsh had been able to persuade
Kinnear to borrow Walsh carpenters for the small amount
of work involved rather than have Kinnear hire new
carpenter employees Thus, it is made to appear as if Local
644 merely wanted Walsh to honor a commitment to use
its own carpenter employees for work within the Carpen-
ters claimed jurisdiction, whereas Local 644 was in fact
insisting that Kinnear assign the erection of scaffolding
over 14 feet, and the installation of the door mechanisms to
its members generally rather than to members of the
Ironworkers Union It was Kinnear with whom Local 644
had a primary dispute over which union was to perform the
work in dispute, and Walsh was a secondary employer,
embroiled in a dispute which it was powerless to resolve
except by unilaterally changing the terms of its subcontract
with Kinnear or by ceasing to do business with it 9
All Respondent's arguments are geared to the proposi-
tion that the only object of its work stoppage was the
primary one of preserving its members' traditional work
jurisdiction against Walsh's wrongful subcontracting of
part of it to Kinnear Among these arguments are that it
struck to enforce an arbitration clause in its agreement
with the Association, to which Walsh agreed to be bound,
that its picketing satisfied the Moore Dry Dock standards,
that Edison could have prevented any possibility of illegal
inducement of secondary employees by establishing a
7 Bakery Wagon Drivers and Salesmen v N L R B 321 F 2d 353 357
8 See art II sec 1 and 5 of Local 644 s agreement with the Association
9 Falls Cities Carpenters District Council (Cox and Crawley Inc) 190
NLRB No 53 Sequoia District Council of Carpenters etc (Wm M Lyles
Company) 186 NLRB 432 Local Union No 28 Sheet Metal Workers
1061
reserve gate for Walsh employees exclusively, and that
Section 13 and the proviso to Section 8(b)(4)(B) preserve
the right to engage in a primary strike
These are all beside the point, since an object of Local
644 was to cause Walsh, the neutral general contractor, to
change its method of doing business with Kinnear, the
subcontractor, with whom Local 644 had a primary dispute
over the assignment of work By enacting the Section 8(e)
proviso, which removes the contracting or subcontracting
of construction work to be performed at the site, from the
general strictures of Section 8(e), "Congress intended that
pre-existing cases be preserved as governing law in
applying Section 8(b)(4)(B) In sum, we hold that the
building construction proviso to 8(e) has no bearing upon
the determination for the purposes of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of
the validity of the object of strike or picketing activity
"10
Based on the entire record, I conclude that Local 644's
conduct came within the ambit of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B)
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Walsh, Morrison, B & W, Eichleay, and Lord, described in
section I, above, 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
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I will recommend that the Board
issue the recommended Order set forth below, requiring it
to cease and desist from said unfair labor practices and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act
2 The Charging Parties are employers, as defined in
the Act, engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce, as defined in the Act
3 By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by Walsh, Morrison, B & W, Eichleay, and Lord to engage
in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to
perform services, with an object of forcing Walsh to cease
doing business with Kinnear, the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act
4 By threatening, coercing, and restraining Walsh with
International Association (Johnson Service Company) 156 NLRB 804 and
Orange Belt District Council of Painters (Calhoun Dry Wall Co) 139 NLRB
383 remanded 328 F 2d 534 (C A D C) and reconsidered 153 NLRB 1196
to Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council (Cent
livre Village Apartments) 148 NLRB 854 857-858 and fn 17
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an object of forcing it to cease doing business with
Kinnear, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended
ORDER i i
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, Local No 644, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
1 Cease and desist from
Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by
Walsh Construction Company, Inc, Babcock & Wilcox
Company, Morrison Construction Company, Eichleay
Corporation, Lord Electric Company, or any other
individuals employed in an industry affecting commerce,
to refuse in the course of their employment to perform any
services, and threatening, coercing, or restraining the
above-named employers, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an
object thereof is to force or require Walsh Construction
Company, Inc, or any other person or employer to cease
doing business directly or indirectly with Kinnear Corpora-
tion
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post in their offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix 1112 Copies of such
notice, to be furnished by the Officer-in-Charge for
Subregion 38, shall, after being duly signed by the
authorized representatives of Respondent, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to members
are customarily posted 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 sufficient copies of said notice to the
Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, for posting by Walsh
Construction Company, Inc, Babcock & Wilcox Compa-
ny, Morrison Construction Company, Eichleay Corpora-
tion, and Lord Electric Company, if they are willing, at all
places where notices to their employees are customarily
posted
(c) Notify the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision
and recommended Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith 13
i i In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of 'he National Labor Relations Board the findings
conclusions recommendations and recommended Order herein shall as
provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the
Board and become its findings conclusions and Order and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
i2 In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
13 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed this provision shall be modified to read
Notify the Officer in Charge for Subregion 38 in wasting, within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of
Walsh Construction Company, Inc, Babcock & Wilcox
Company, Morrison Construction Company, Eichleay
Corporation, Lord Electric Company, Inc, or other
individuals employed in an industry affecting com-
merce to refuse to perform any services, in the course
of their employment, nor will we threaten, coerce, or
restrain the above-named employers or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where in either case, an object thereof is to
force or require Walsh Construction Company, Inc, or
any other person or employer to cease doing business
directly or indirectly with Kinnear Corporation
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
LOCAL No 644
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
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 Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, Savings Center Tower, 10th
Floor, 411 Hamilton Boulevard, Peoria, Illinois 61602,
Telephone 309-673-9061