United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 943

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1045 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, ETC., LOCAL 943 1045
Intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has interrogated its employees con-
cerning their union sympathies and activities. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner
will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following :
CoNCLusIoNs of LAw
1. United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interrogating its employees concerning their union sympathies and activ-
ities, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. 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 omitted from publication in this volume.]
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
943, A . F. OF L. an, l MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Case No. 16-CD-4. October 24,1951
Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act. On June
7, 1951, Manhattan Construction Company, Inc., herein called the
Company, filed with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region a
charge against United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 943, A. F. of L., herein called the Carpenters, alleging
that the Carpenters had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 10 (k) and Sections 101.30 and 101.31 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the
charge and provided for a hearing upon due notice to all the parties.
The hearing was held before Willis C. Darby, hearing officer, on July
3, ,1951. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing
officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
96 NLRB No. 160.
974176-52-vol. 96-67
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hereby affirmed., All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board and briefs were filed by the Company and the
Carpenters. -
Upon the entire record' in the case,2'the Board makes the following :
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
Manhattan Construction Company, Inc., is a general contractor
engaged in building office buildings, hospitals, army camps, and other
buildings in Oklahoma and Arkansas. During the calendar year 1950,
the Company constructed certain buildings costing 38 million dollars
in Oklahoma and others costing 12 million dollars in .Arkai;isas, of
which approximately 25 percent represented the cost of materials
originating outside the State wherein the buildings were erected.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it would effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction over its operations.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Carpenters and International Hod Carriers, Building and
Common Laborers' Local 1212, A. F. of L., herein called;theLaborers,
are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
A. The facts
In October 1950, the Company began the construction of a six-story
reinforced concrete structure to be known as the Chamber of Com-
merce Building in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Early in 1951 a dispute arose
between the Carpenters and the Laborers over the assignment of work
concerning the stripping of certain wood forms into which the concrete
is poured. This dispute culminated in a strike by the Carpenters on
May 17, 1951, which was terminated by a temporary truce on June
27, 1951. It is this strike upon which the Company's charge of a
violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act is predicated.
1 The hearing officer rejected a statement concerning the rules of procedure of the
National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the AFL Building
and Construction Industry and numerous affidavits concerning practices within the area
relating to assignment of the disputed work Although , in view of our disposition of the
instant proceeding , the rules of procedure of the Joint Board were relevant 'in this case,
the healing officer ' s rejection of the evidence was not prejudicial as-we take judicial notice
of the structure and procedures of that Board.
2 On August 29, 1951, the Carpenters ' International on behalf of its Local No. 943
filed a motion to reopen the record to add certain additional correspondence among the
parties and the Joint Board , the decision of that board , and a copy of their contract with
the Company. The Company opposed the motion on the ground that the proffered evi-
dence was " incompetent , irrelevant and immaterial ," having no relation to "the issues
in this action , to-wit: Whether or not the . . . [Carpenters ]i is guilty of an unfair labor
practice ." In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to rely upon the proffered
evidence and accordingly deny the motion to reopen the record . See footnote 5, below.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, ETC., LOCAL 943 1047
In the view we take of the statutory provisions controlling in this
case, as discussed below, it becomes unnecessary to relate all of the
facts concerning the nature of the disputed work, the contracts and
intraunion agreements involved, and the communications between the
interested parties concerning the dispute which preceded and fol-
lowed the strike. It is sufficient for the purposes of this decision to
note the following facts :
1. The Company is a member of the Oklahoma Chapter, Builders
Division, The Associated General Contractors of America, herein
called Associated. Through Associated the Company has contracts-
with both Unions involved in this case. The contract with the Labor-
ers, dated January 8, 1951, provides, inter alicc, that the Laborers has
jurisdiction over such work as is determined to be within its jurisdic-
tion by "International Agreement."
2. In an attempt to resolve disputes concerning the assignment of
work relating to the handling, maintenance, and stripping of forms
used in concrete construction, the internationals of the Carpenters and
the Laborers entered into an "International Agreement" on October 3,
1949. After setting forth which types of work relating to concrete
forms were to be performed by each union, this agreement provides
that any dispute concerning such work should be referred to the two
internationals for possible adjustment and, thaat failing, to the Na-
tional Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, Building
and Construction Industry, herein referred to as the Joint Board.
As noted in the preceding paragraph, this agreement is incorporated
by reference in the contract between the Company and the Laborers.
3. In addition to the above, before this dispute arose, the Company,
through Associated, had signed a stipulation in which it agreed to be
bound by the "terms and provisions" of the Joint Board, and in par-
ticular agreed that "any decision or interpretation by the Joint
Board . . . shall immediately be accepted and complied with by all
parties signatory to this agreement." The record shows that some-
time after the dispute arose John Beckman, the Company's labor rela-
tions representative, advised A. C. Keeler, international representative
of the Carpenters, to petition the Joint Board for a decision, and as of
the date of the hearing in the instant proceeding the matter was before
the Joint Board for decision.
B. Applicability of the statute
Section 10 (k) of the Act, although directing that the Board hear
and determine disputes out of which Section 8 (b) (4) (D) charges
have arisen, contains equally mandatory language directing that in
certain circumstances the Board is not to make any determination.
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Such limitations are contained in the italicized portions of the follow-
ing language from Section 10 (k) :
... the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine
the dispute out of which such unfair labor practices shall have
arisen, u'nle$s, within ten days after notice that such charge has
been filed, the parties to such dispute submit to the Board satis-
factory evidence that they have adjusted or agreed upon methods
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Upon compliance
by the parties to the dispute with the decision of the Board or
upon such voluntary adjustment of the dispute, such charge shall
be dismissed.
Clearly the purpose of these provisions was to provide the parties
with an opportunity to settle jurisdictional disputes among themselves
without Government intervention whenever possible.3 It is signifi-
cant, moreover, that the provisions italicized above require that the
Board withhold any determination of a jurisdictional dispute not only
when there has actually been a "voluntary adjustment," but equally
whenever the Board has before it "satisfactory evidence" that as of
the time the charge was filed or within 10 days thereafter the parties
have "agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute."
As noted above, before the charge herein was filed-indeed before
the` dispute which gave rise to that charge arose-the Company, the
Carpenters, and the Laborers were all bound by agreement to deter-
mine jurisdictional disputes pursuant to the procedures of the Joint
Board, and to abide by any award of that board and had in fact sub-
mitted the issue to that board. We have recently had occasion to
note that the Joint Board "was established with the knowledge of this
Board, for the purpose of considering and deciding" jurisdictional
disputes of the type involved herein 4 On the record before us we
are unable to determine whether there has, in fact, been a voluntary
adjustment of the dispute .5 However, without deciding what result
we would reach if there were evidence that any party has refused to
comply with the award of the Joint Board, we regard the fact that all
0 See 93 Daily Cong. Rec. 4155.
4 The Plumbing and Contractors Association of Baltimore , Maryland, Inc at al, 93
NLRB 1081. It may be noted that the issue raised in that case , I. e., whether the exist-
ence of the Joint Board relieved this Board of any obligation to resolve questions con-
cerning representation in the building construction industry is wholly different from that
presented here. The Board 's obligation under Section 9 (c) of the Act to resolve repre-
sentation questions by secret ballot elections is not limited by the kind of references to
voluntary adjustment contained in Section 10 (k).
5 Among the matters which the Carpenters sought to introduce into the record in the
motion which we have denied above ( footnote 2, supra ) was a copy of the decision of the
Joint Board issued after the close of the hearing herein. In briefs supporting this motion
the Carpenters and the Laborers have indicated their intention to comply with that
decision . The Company opposed the motion on the ground that the proffered evidence
-was irrelevant, but did not indicate whether or not it intends to comply with the deter-
mination of the Joint Board.
F. BURKART MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1049
the parties had agreed to be bound by a determination of the dispute
by the Joint Board as satisfactory evidence that at the time the charge
was filed the parties had "agreed upon methods for the voluntary ad-
justment of the dispute" within the meaning of Section 10 (k). We
are therefore without authority to determine this dispute, and we shall
accordingly quash the notice of hearing issued in this proceeding.
Order
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and on the entire record in this case, the Board hereby orders that
the notice of hearing heretofore issued in this proceeding be, and it
hereby is, quashed.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing.
F. BURKART MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PEWITIONER . Case No . 14-RC-1257. October
°4.,1951
Supplemental Decision and Order
On April 26, 1951, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Board on March 30, 1951,' an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Fourteenth Region among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in the Decision. Upon completion of the election, a tally
of ballots was issued and duly served by the Regional Director upon
the parties concerned. The tally reveals that of approximately 174
eligible voters, 157 cast valid ballots, of which 53 were in favor of the
Petitioner, 53 were in favor of the Intervenor, International Associa-
tion of Machinists, herein called Intervenor Machinists, 50 were in
favor of the Intervenor, Upholsterers International Union of North
America, A. F. L., and its Local 702, herein called Intervenor Uphol-
sterers, and none was cast against the participating labor organiza-
tions. There was 1 challenged ballot.
On May 1, 1951, Intervenor Upholsterers filed objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. Thereupon, in accordance with
the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted
an investigation and on June 4, 1951, issued and duly served upon the
parties a report on objections. In his report, the Regional Director
found that substantial and material issues with respect to the election
193 NLRB 1092.
96 NLRB No. 158.