Electrical Workers, Local 453

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 415 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 453
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local 453 (Delp Refrigeration) and
Congress of Independent Unions. Case
17-CC-303
MARCH 18, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On December 27, 1967, Trial Examiner Lau-
rence A. Knapp issued his Decision in the above-
entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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 brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommen-
dations3 of the Trial Examiner with the following
modification:
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
herein; and hereby orders that Respondent, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local 453, Rolla, Missouri, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall-take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as modified below:
1. Delete the name Delp Refrigeration the first
time it appears in paragraph 1(a) of the Recom-
mended Order.
2. Delete the name Delp Refrigeration the first
time it appears in the first indented paragraph of
the notice.
415
' The Trial Examiner 's findings and conclusions are based , in part, upon
credibility determinations , to which the Respondent has excepted Respon-
dent also contends that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all rele-
vant evidence Accordingly , we find no basis for upsetting those findings.
The charge of bias and prejudice is also lacking in merit Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
'We hereby correct the Trial Examiner 's inadvertent statement that
paragraph 6(c) of the complaint was dismissed at the hearing since , in fact,
the dismissal involved paragraph 6(b)
' In the absence of exceptions thereto , we do not pass upon the Trial Ex-
aminer 's failure to consider whether Respondent 's picketing was also viola-
tive ofSection 8(b)(4)(u)(B)
Member Fanning dissents from that portion of the Decision herein which
finds that Respondent 's picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the
Act He concurs with his colleagues, however, in holding that the threats of
picketing made to secondary persons violated Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No I1 (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 (L G Electric Contractors, Inc ), 154 NLRB 766
(Member Fanning's separate opinion at 769)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAURENCE A. KNAPP, Trial Examiner: I heard this
case in Rolla, Missouri, on September 21-22, 1967,
following prehearing procedures in compliance
with the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(herein called the Act.)' Following the hearing,
briefs were filed by counsel for the General Coun-
sel and for Respondent Union.
Upon the entire record in the case,' including my
observation upon the demeanor of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION; THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
INVOLVED
Delp Refrigeration (herein called Delp), located
at Rolla, Missouri, is a sole proprietorship of
Robert L. Delp engaged in the construction indus-
try, primarily as a heating and air-conditioning con-
tractor. Delp's employees are represented by the
Congress of Independent Unions (herein sometimes
called the CIU), the Charging Party in this case.
Sometime prior to April 3, the authorities at Fort
Leonard Wood, a Department of the Army installa-
tion in Missouri (herein called the Fort), opened
bids on a proposed contract for air-conditioning
and associated electrical work incident to' the
remodeling of buildings 2253 and 2254 at the Fort.
' The charge herein was filed on July 3, 1967, the complaint issued on
July 11, 1967, and Respondent , International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 453 (herein called the Union ), answered on
July 20, 1967 All dates used herein refer to the year 1967 unless otherwise
indicated
The unopposed and undated motion to correct transcript, submitted by
counsel for Respondent with his brief under covering letter of October 20,
1967, is hereby granted There are other transcript errors which I do not
bother to correct since they are evident from the text and not significant
170 NLRB No. 60
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Delp was the low bidder. As later seen, the Fort
authorities awarded this contract to Delp on May 5
and Delp commenced the work on or shortly, after
June 1. About mid-April, Delp began work on a dif-
ferent project at the Fort, namely, as a subcontrac-
tor to Chapman Construction Co. (herein called
Chapman), to install certain sheet metal apparatus
and electrical equipment required under a general
contract held by Chapman to remodel and repair
building 442.
Between January 1, 1967, and the date of the
hearing, Delp Refrigeration (hereinafter called
Delp) purchased and received from suppliers hav-
in the State of Missouri materials and supplies hav-
ing a value in excess of $50,000 which were-
manu-factured in and originated from States other than
Missouri. Delp's construction activities are activi-
ties "affecting commerce" within the meaning of
Section 2(7) of the Act; and Delp's operations at
Fort Leonard Wood, under its subcontract with
Chapman Construction Co., exert a substantial im-
pact on the national defense.
The Respondent Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of all provisions of the Act
material to the issues presented herein.
H. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On each working day during the period May
5-18, and at the direction of union officials, union
pickets 'patrolled outside three of the main en-
trances, called gates, to the Fort installation carry-
ing picket signs reading as follows:
Delp does not employ members of Local 453,
IBEW, AFL-CIO. Local Union No. 453, IBEW
is not attempting to organize the employees of
Delp and is not requesting recognition by Delp.
Local Union 453 IBEW is not attempting to in-
duce any individual employed by any person in
the course of his employment not to pick up,
deliver, or transport any goods or not to per-
form any services. Local Union 453, IBEW is
not attempting to induce any person to cease
doing business with Delp. Local Union 453
IBEW does not have a dispute with any other
or [sic] employer on this job. This notice ad-
dressed only to the General Public.3
Issued Presented
In simple language, the complaint, in effect,
charges and the General Counsel adduced evidence
seeking factually to establish:
1. ' That on April 3, the Union asserted to an
appropriate Fort official that it would picket
the- Fort if the Fort authorities awarded to Delp
the general contract for the work on Buildings
2253 and 2254;
2. That on two occasions in April after Delp
had begun work on Building 442 as Chapman's
subcontractor, the Union notified Chapman
that it would picket the Fort unless Chapman
replaced Delp with another subcontractor em-
ploying union members;
3. That the Union engaged in the May 5-18
picketing to cause the Fort authorities not to
award the Buildings 2253 and. 2254 general
contract to Delp, and to cause Chapman to get
rid of Delp as its subcontractor for work on
Building 442.4
If the foregoing propositions are established by
the evidence, then the picketing, designed to get at
Delp through pressure applied upon neutral per-
sons , would be "secondary" picketing violative of
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act, and any asserted
intention by the Union to engage in such picketing
would constitute a threat on its part violative of the
companion clause (ii) of the statutory provisions
just referred to.
The Union appears not to dissent from these
hypothetical propositions. Its position, rather, is
that their factual premises are lacking, contending
that (I) the asserted threats were never, made, and
(2) the evidence otherwise shows that the picketing
was addressed solely' to' the general public, was
what it calls informational in character, and hence
was merely "primary" picketing protected by the
Act.
With the questions before me-essentially factual
in character, I turn to a consideration of the cor-
responding evidence. In doing so, I will first deal
with the incidents involving the alleged threats in
the order stated above, and then with the question
of the legality of the picketing. As to the alleged
threats,' I may observe at this point that the
evidence is in absolute conflict as to whether they
were made. But if they were, that circumstance
would, of course, go far,to establish the secondary
objective and, hence, unlawful character of the
picketing, in view of the very reason for the picket-
ing as expressed in the threats. -
A. The Alleged Unlawful Threats -
1. The picketing threat allegedly addressed by' the
Union to,the Fort authorities -
Sometime prior to April3,_the authorities at Fort
Leonard Wood opened bids on a proposed contract
for air-conditioning and associated 'electrical work
incident to the remodeling of buildings `2253 and
2254 at the Fort. Delp Refrigeration was the low
' During thc^pickctmg period some 330 construction workers employed
by contractors performing Fort construction work, including employees of
Chapman , turned back at the Fort 's gates, resulting in corresponding work
stoppages on contracts having an aggregate face value in excess of $ 16 mil-
lion-
' On motion of the General Counsel at the hearing, the allegations of
paragraph 6(c) of the-complaint , alleging coercion of individual employees
at the picket line, were dismissed
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 453 417
bidder. On April 3, Ray Edwards, assistant business
representative of the Union, called on Daniel
Jakovich, Jr., chief of the central procurement divi-
sion and principal contracting officer of the Fort,
and objected to an award of the contract to Delp
on the ground of Delp's alleged lack of sufficient
experience to perform the electrical work required
on this job. According to Jakovich, Edwards said
that the Union would picket at the gates of the Fort
if the award were made to Delp. Further, according
to Jakovich, he told Edwards that he would post-
pone an award pending an investigation of Delp's
qualifications; he had such a survey made, -in ac-
cordance with official procedures, by the Small
Business Administration, which submitted a report
favorable to Delp; and in the course of the morning
on May 5 awarded the contract to Delp; that is,
signed it on behalf of the Fort authorities.
Edwards denied having made any statement
about picketing in this conversation. According to
him, after he had questioned Delp's qualifications,
Jakovich inquired whether there were-other bidders
on this work who would submit letters of protest
against Delp, Edwards replied he thought there
were, and Jakovich agreed to hold up the award
while Edwards pursued this possibility. Further, ac-
cording to Edwards, he approached certain con-
tractors, discovered that one of these had bid
directly on the job, and was told by this one that it
`-`probably" would send in a protest letter, although
he did not know whether this was ever in fact
done! Further, according to Edwards, he later was
told that the contract had been awarded to Delp on
May 8.1
On this conflicting evidence, the question before
me is one of credibility. I credit Jakovich's
testimony and thus find that Edwards made the
picketing statement attributed to him by Jakovich. I
may say that there were aspects of Jakovich's
demeanor while testifying that raised in my mind
some question whether he might not be harboring
some resentment toward Edwards and/or the
Union, but my concern on this score did not elevate
itself to anything resembling that degree of clear
conviction necessary (particularly in the light of
other factors mentioned below) to adjudge his
testimony untrue. On the side of crediting Jakovich
is the fact that he is a Federal official and, as such,
should not lightly, be thought predisposed to lend
himself to saddliri,g any citizens with violations of a
Federal statute on the basis of his own untrue
testimony. Finally, I find below that Edwards did
make-similar threats in the Chapman incident, and
the pattern of events surrounding that violation
(the similarity of the threats in the two instances,
their contemporaneous character, etc.) has some
significant tendency to . support Jakovich's
testimony that a like threat was made to him.
2. The picketing threats allegedly -addressed by the
Union to Chapman
Norman A. Chapman is described in the record
as the owner of Chapman Construction -Company.
Whether this firm is a corporate or individual enter-
prise , about March 27 it began work on a direct
contract with the Fort for the remodeling of build-
ing 442. This project entailed certain sheet metal
and electrical work for which at some point Chap-
man had obtained a bid from Delp as a potential
subcontractor. There is no dispute that, following
March 27, Chapman and Edwards were together on
a number of occasions or that, on some of these oc-
casions, the subject under consideration was
whether the electrical work to be done under Chap-
man's contract- would be performed by Delp (a
non-IBEW contractor) or by sone- other contractor
employing IBEW members. The General Counsel's
evidence, presented mainly through the testimony
of Chapman, is that on two of these occasions Ed-
wards threatened that the Union would picket if
Chapman gave the electrical work to (or did not
get rid of) Delp as his subcontractor. Edwards, a
principal witness of Respondent Union, denied
making -any such threats to Chapman at any time,
and in other significant respects his testimony con-
tradicts that of Chapman. Some review of the con=
flicting bodies of testimony is necessary before
resolving the determinative questions, of credibility.
In this paragraph, I will attempt to summarize the
main events as Chapman sought to describe them.7
Edwards, whom Chapman had never previously
met, called at the Chapman jobsite (building 442)
about April 3, asked Chapman who was going to do
the required electrical work, and Chapman, told
him he had not yet decided on the- subcontractor.
About 2 weeks later, that is, about April 19, Ed-
wards again appeared at the jobsitewhere Delp had
started work. Edwards told Chapman he thought
Chapman had "more principle," that-is,. that he
thought Chapman was going to have the electrical
work done by an electrical contracting firm of the
area which employed IBEW members. Chapman
told Edwards he was in error in thinking that Chap-
' According to Edwards, he had an additional conversation with
Jakovich, prompted by the latter, about April 10, about the matter of a
protest and the status of the award Jakovich did not refer to any such talk
in his testimony , but in any case what transpired , according to Edwards,
throws, in my opinion , no light on the question of whether in the April 3
talk Edwards made any statement about picketing.
" Delp actually began work on the job about June 1, pursuant to a notice
to proceed issued by the Fort authorities on May 31
It is true, as counsel for Respondent stresses in his -brief, that Chapman
proved to he a somewhat difficult witness . He was uncertain as to the dates
of various meetings and the order of events he sought to describe, he had
difficulty in understanding questions and in expressing himself in plain En-
glish, he alluded to but did not clearly depict some developments in the
total stream of events mentioned in his testimony, and no doubt due to
these factors and the manner in which (not his fault) some of his examina-
tion was conducted,.there hovers over his testimony something of an air of
confusion and disorder But on the decisive questions of fact ( such as what
was said, by wham, and when, about picketing and the reasons therefor)
Chapman's testimony is sufficiently clear and, so far as Ican perceive,
adequately complete and is as summarized in. the text
350-999 0 - 71 - 28
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man had made such an arrangement with Magann,8
In the further conversation, Edwards told Chapman
that the work belonged to the IBEW, -that he
wanted Delp off the job, and that if Delp was not
replaced by a firm employing IBEW members the
Union would engage in informational picketing.
Chapman and Edwards then discussed ways and
means to eliminate Delp and avoid the picketing,
including a suggestion of Edwards that Chapman
become an "IBEW contractor," a possibility which
it was agreed the two would discuss further on the
following Tuesday. Prior to that time, however, and
apparently at Edwards' initiative, there was a
luncheon meeting at the nearby Ramada Inn at-
tended by Chapman, Edwards, and Vaught of
Magann Electric. Chapman' s account of the discus-
sion at this meeting is distinctly sketchy and conclu-
sionary, i.e., that it centered on endeavoring to find
a way to get rid of Delp and assign the electrical
work to Magann Electric or some other IBEW con-
tractor, with some consideration being given to
Chapman's idea that he might utilize the fact that
some of Delp's men had improperly removed some
used wire from the job as a form of "leverage" to
dispose of Delp. This meeting ended on the note
that Chapman would remove Delp from the job and
put Magann Electric on it. There next occurred a
meeting which Chapman understood would be
devoted to the idea of his becoming an IBEW con-
tractor, an approach earlier suggested by Edwards
as previously noted. This gathering was attended by
Chapman, Edwards, an employee of Chapman's
named Falkenrath, and one Pauley, business
representative of the IBEW local union having ter-
ritorial- jurisdiction over Rolla, Missouri, Chap-
man's headquarters. At this meeting , according to
Chapman, the discussion soon shifted to Falkenrath
becoming the contractor rather than Chapman,
with further explanations by the union representa-
tives as to the conditions Falkenrath would have to
observe as the contractor, such as his inability to
work with his tools. As a result of this indication
that the union representatives did not want him- as a
contractor, 'Chapman testified, he "made a stand
and it was to take Delp" although there is no indi-
cation that he made such a statement at this meet-
ing.9 Subsequently, on May 3, Edwards dropped by
the project where he had a brief -conversation with
Chapman. He told Chapman that he had given
Chapman "a chance"; Chapman replied that he did
not know what Edwards was talking about; and Ed-
wards said there would be a picket on the job as
soon as he could arrange this.
As a rebuttal witness, the General Counsel called
one-Dean Sooter, president of the Rolla local of the
Carpenters Union, whose significant testimony will
be summarized in this paragraph. About 2 weeks
before the picketing began on May 5, Chapman
called Sooter by telephone.- In the conversation,
Chapman told Sooter that an IBEW- business agent
had visited him that day at the building 442 site and
had said that he intended to, have the work on the
job for his members and that Delp had to go or he
was going to "put a picket on." Chapman-,asked
Sooter if the Carpenters members (whom Chapman
employed) would cross the picket line, and Sooter
replied he did not know-that this was up to the in-
dividual men. Chapman said he was calling Sooter
because he feared the Carpenters people would be
mad at him about any such picketing; that he did
not want a picket and was trying to explain to
Sooter why it was that some of his employees might
be out of work; and that he wished to evolve some
kind of plan to avoid the picketing but that he
could not "fire" Delp from half the work assigned
to Delp. On May 3 Chapman came to Sooter's
home and told Sooter that an IBEW agent had been
to the job that day and had told Chapman he had
given him his "last chance" and was going to "put a
picket on him."
I will now summarize the significant portions of
Edwards' testimony. Edwards denied that he at any
time had any discussion with Chapman about
picketing. The remainder of his testimony may be
summarized as follows in this paragraph. He en-
countered Chapman at the jobsite on April 3, asked
Chapman who was going to do the electrical work,
and Chapman said he did not know but if Edwards
would check back in a week or so Chapman would
let him know. He returned to the site on April 14 at
which time Chapman told him: that he had not yet
awarded the electrical work; that while Delp was
doing some work on the job he was not going to let
Delp do any more because some of Delp's em-
ployees had taken some wire cable from the jobsite;
and that he had already met with Mr. Maggi
(described as the "owner" of Magann Electric) and
Vaught of that firm, was arranging for Magann to
complete the electrical work, and wanted Edwards
to attend a meeting he, Chapman, had arranged to
have with Maggi the following Monday. On that
day, April 17, Edwards had lunch with Chapman
and Vaught (the latter substituting for Maggi) at
the Ramada Inn. At this meeting, Chapman and
Vaught discussed Magann Electric taking over the
balance of the electrical work and related details;
Vaught indicated he was receptive to - working
something out along these lines; and Vaught and
Chapman arranged to meet with Mr. Maggi that af-
ternoon to the end of making some disposition of
the sheet metal work since Magann performed only
electrical work. Following the luncheon, Edwards,
8 Chapman testified that before Delp started work (and thus, apparently,
before this second meeting between Chapman and Edwards), he had had a
discussion with Glen Vaught . superintendent of Magann Electric , concern-
ing utilizing the Magann firm to perform the electrical portion of the work
Delp had hid on, and a few days later Chapman did obtain such a bid from
Magann
'Chapman testified that he decided not to utilize Magann, in part,
because Magann's bid related only to the electrical portion of the total
work necessary to be•subcontraeted and would, therefore, not have taken
care of the sheet metal portion of the work -
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 453 419
after first dropping Vaught off, drove Chapman
back to the jobsite. In route, Chapman told Ed-
wards he had an employee named Falkenrath who
wanted to have a contract with the IBEW. Edwards
told Chapman that Rolla was outside the jurisdic-
tion of his local (the Respondent) but that he was
meeting on April 24 with Pauley, business represen-
tative of the IBEW Local Union, No. 257, having
territorial jurisdiction over Rolla, and would bring
Pauley to meet Chapman on April 24. On April 24,
Edwards and -Pauley picked up Chapman and drove
to some non-Fort site where Falkenrath was work-
ing (as an employee of Chapman ) and a conversa-
tion then ensued between Pauley and Falkenrath as
to the procedures, etc., of Falkenrath signing a con-
tract with Pauley's local. There was- no suggestion
in this conversation that Falkenrath should become
an IBEW contractor so as to take Delp's place as a
subcontractor to Chapman for the work on building
442. On May 3 he visited the Chapman job, not to
see Chapman but merely in line with his regular
practice to observe construction work proceeding
throughout the Fort grounds ; that as he was leaving
the building Chapman, who was working near the
door, asked him, "Do you want to see me?" and he
replied, "No, not necessarily," and except for a
further passing remark left the site without further
conversation with Chapman.
As further witnesses , Respondent Union called to
the stand Superintendent Vaught of Magann Elec-
tric , Pauley , and Harold Johnston , - an IBEW
member and foreman for another electrical con-
tractor called Mack Electric. Vaught testified that
prior to the Ramada Inn lunch meeting he had had
three or four talks with Chapman about Magann
doing the electrical work for Chapman on building
442; that at the Ramada Inn meeting Chapman was
very angry because of the theft of wire from the site
and wanted to get Delp off the job; that at this
meeting Chapman asked him to give Chapman a
price for the balance of the electrical work and
further asked if Vaught could give a price or knew
anything about prices for the heating and sheet
metal work ; that he told Chapman he could not
deal with respect to the latter work, which was
done by another Maggi -owned company called M-
G Metals; and that the day after the Ramada Inn
meeting Chapman came to his office where he gave
Chapman a price for the balance of.the electrical
work. Johnston, who was with Edwards on May 3,
testified that when he and Edwards were leaving
the building Chapman asked Edwards if he had
anything in particular he wanted to talk to Chap-
man about, Edwards replied , "not in particular,"
and that after Chapman had ascertained from John-
ston that, he was with Edwards, Edwards said, "We
had just as well go," and Chapman-said, "I guess I
know what to expect." Johnston further testified
that Edwards said nothing about picketing or any
other activity of the Union against Chapman. Pau-
ley testified that at a meeting of union business
agents held in Rolla on April 24, he was informed
by two business agents other than Edwards that a
man -named Falkenrath was employed by a Carpen-
ters union contractor and desired to join the IBEW
either as a member or a contractor; and that he be-
lieved Edwards said he did not know Falkenrath
but did know the contractor he worked for, and
that Edwards said he would take Pauley to "see
him" that afternoon. Later, Edwards drove him to
the jobsite where they picked up Chapman and
then the three proceeded to the non-Fort site where
Falkenrath was working. There, after some prelimi-
nary conversation with Falkenrath concerning the
latter's intention, Edwards dropped off Pauley at
the union hall in Rolla, so that Pauley could obtain
some union contract forms for further discussions
with Falkenrath, which he then had (with Chapman
possibly still present but Edwards .not). There was
some discussion of Chapman becoming an IBEW
contractor and using Falkenrath as his employee, in
which Pauley told Chapman that he thought the idea
of Chapman becoming an IBEW contractor was not
possible. While not certain, Pauley "believed" that
Edwards was present when this matter was
discussed. As to Falkenrath, Pauley testified that
matters ended with Falkenrath stating he would
have to think the matter over and that he had never
heard further from Falkenrath. He further testified
that nothing was said about Delp nor did Edwards
say anything about picketing.
I credit Chapman's testimony and find that when
Edwards met with Chapman at the jobsite for the
second time, Edwards protested Chapman's use of
Delp to performthe electrical work on building 442
and threatened that the Union would picket unless
Chapman got rid of Delp, and that on May 3 Ed-
wards declared to Chapman the Union 's intention
to picket because Chapman had not removed Delp
from the job. There is no doubt that Chapman gave
consideration to getting rid of Delp, and to this end
met with Vaught of Magann Electric and Edwards
at the Ramada Inn and ( as I have not previously
noted) had some talk with Mr. Delp regarding
purchasing Delp out of the picture. But the
question is what motivated Chapman along these
lines and, on this question, I prefer Chapman's ver-
sion that what propelled him was a picketing threat
by Edwards at their second meeting at the jobsite
and not, as Edwards would have it, Chapman's
determination to get rid of Delp because of the al-
leged theft of wire-on the part of some Delp wor-
kers . In this connection , I attach significant weight
to the testimony of the Carpenters union official,
Sooter, concerning Chapman's contemporaneous
declarations to Sooter as to what Edwards had said
on the two other crucial occasions and as to the
concern Chapman manifested to Sooter over the
possible consequences of the picketing threats
Chapman told Sooter that Edwards had made.
I am also unfavorably impressed by Edwards'
denial that he had ever discussed with Chapman the
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
idea of Chapman becoming .an IBEW contractor,
an idea which, according to Chapman,. Edwards ad-
vanced at their second meeting as a possible way to
dispose, of Delp and- which Chapman then un-
derstood was- to be the subject of the projected
meeting with Pauley. Pauley conceded that at .this
latter meeting this matter was briefly discussed, and
while he was not positive, he "believed" that this
discussion took place during the first-phase of this
gathering when Edwards was present. Considering
this belief to represent his best recollection, and the
more likely possibility, I, so find. In the circum-
stances, and bearing in mind that the fact that such
a' discussion would not incriminate Edwards unless
the idea had emanated from him, Edwards' denial
that this idea was ever discussed between him and
Chapman would seem to warrant an inference that
Edwards thought that if he made any such admis-
sion he would be. forced to concede that the idea
had arisen with him anent with Chapman.
Further, there is the fact that, as his testimony
makes abundantly, clear, Edwards was keen- to see
that any electrical work at the Fort was performed
by members of the Union, an interest which un-
doubtedly accounts in part for his periodic job in-
spection tours around the Fort grounds and which
certainly is what motivated him to approach Chap-
man on his first two visits at the Chapman jobsite.
In these circumstances, and bearing- in, mind the
further two meetings between the two, I find it im-
possible- to -believe Edwards' testimony that he
visited the Chapman jobsite on May 3 merely as a
matter of, routine or that what-was said by him and
Chapman on this,occasion was limited to the brief
and laconic exchange Edwards described. Indeed,
Edwards' companion, Johnston, describes Chap-
man as saying at the 'very end of the conversation "I
guess I know what to expect," a remark which
would stand in rather inexplicable isolation if Ed-
wards had not said anything about Chapman's "last
chance" or an intention to picket, but which falls
into an explainable context if Edwards did make
such utterances.
Finally, I do not perceive on this record any natu-
ral or persuasive reason Chapman would have had
for concocting a fabricated version of his conversa-
tions- with -Edwards and the various -associated
events, whereas, for the obvious reasons of self-in-
terest, the same cannot he said of Edwards.,
3. Conclusions relative to the alleged threats
The threats to picket -made by Edwards to
Jakovieh, on the one hand, and to Chapman, on the
other-,-we--re,.in violation of Section'8(b)(4),(ii)(B)
of the Act since,- on their face, an object of the
threats was to force the Department of the Army to
refrain from, and to force',Chapman to cease, doing
business'with Delp. 1,
B. The Legality of the Picketing
It is beyond question that the picketing was ac-
tion designed to induce or encourage the, ensuing
work stoppages which were engaged in by em-
ployees of various contractors, including,those of
Chapman, performing construction work at the
Fort, and that an object of the picketing was to
force or require Chapman to,cease doing business
with Delp is established by my findings relative to
Edwards' statements to,Chapman. Thus, the picket-
ing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.10 But
I am not prepared to find that the picketing -was in
further violation of that section on the ground that
it was likewise in execution of the earlier threat to
Jakovieh of the Fort authorities. For that threat was
to picket if the contract 'on buildings 2253 and
2254 was awarded to Delp, and the picketing began
a few hours before that contract was signed by,
Jakovich and, as I read the record, 2 or 3 days, if
not more, before the Union learned that the award
had been made. Moreover, Delp did not commence
work on this contract until after the picketing had
ceased. In these circumstances, and bearing in mind
that the intervening emergence of the Chapman-
Delp Situation afforded the Union all the opportuni-
ty it needed to strike-at Delp, I am not satisfied -that
when the Union actually instituted the picketing it
did so in implementation of Edwards' threat to
Jakovich.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is -a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2'. Delp Regrigeration and` Chapman Construc-
tion Co. are employers and . persons,. engaged in
commerce or in, an industry affecting commerce
within the- meaning of the Act.
3. By threatening to picket and by picketing as
hereinabove found, Respondent Union has engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act. -
4. Respondent Union has not-engaged in the un-
fair labor practices alleged ,iii paragraph 6(b) of the
complaint herein. -' -
THE,REMEDY
Having found that - '-Respondent Union has -en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices , -I shall
recommend . issuance of,an i order - requiring it to
cease and -desist therefrom and to '=take ` certain
Since the picketing had, in fact , an illegal secondary object, the word-
ing of the'sign is immaterial , and the corresponding contention of the
Union that the picketing was lawful " informational" -activity incident only
to a primary dispute with Delp cannot be sustained.
ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 453 421
affirmative-action designed to remedy its violations
and otherwise to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, of fact
and conclusions of law and the entire record in the
case, 'I recommend pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act that the Board issue the following:
ORDER
- Local 453, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual em-
ployed by Delp Refrigeration, Chapman Construc-
tion Co., or by any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, to en-
gage in a. strike or a refusal in the course of his em-
ployment to perform any services , where an object
thereof is to force or require-Chapman Construc-
tion Co. or any other person to cease doing busi-
ness with Delp Refrigeration.
(b) Threatening,-coercing, or restraining Chap-
man Construction Co., the authorities at Fort
Leonard Wood (U.S. Department of'the Army),,or
any other person engaged in commerce or in an in-
dustry, affecting commerce, where an object thereof
is to force or require any of the above-named or
other persons to cease doing business with Delp
Refrigeration.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I
find necessary to effectuate-the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office meeting halls, and
all -other places -where notices to members are
customarily posted, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
17, after being duly, signed by the Union's represen-
tative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained_by members for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by 'the Union to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or- covered by any other
material.
(b) Furnish to the said Regional Director signed
copies of-said noti ce for posting by- Delp Refrigera-
tion , Chapman Construction Co., and other con-
tractors performing construction work at Fort
Leonard Wood, if willing, in places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be
forthwith returned to the Regional 'Director for
disposition by him.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.12
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 Ap-
peals -Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
12 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 Orderwhat steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR - MEMBERS , AND TO ALL
EMPLOYEES OF DELP REFRIGERATION, CHAPMAN
CONSTRUCTION CO., AND OF OTHER
CONTRACTORS PERFORMING CONSTRUCTION
WORK AT FORT LEONARD WOOD
Pursuant to' the Recommendation of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and
in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby=give
notice that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any in-
dividual . employed by Delp Refrigeration,
Chapman Construction Co., other contractors
performing construction work at Fort Leonard
Wood, or other persons engaged in commerce
or in an- industry affecting commerce,- to en-
gage in a strike or refusal in the course of-his
employment to perform any services where an
object thereof is to force or- require any of the
aforesaid persons or any other employer or
person to cease doing business with, . Delp
Refrigeration, with-,each other, or with the
authorities at Fort Leonard Wood (U.S. De-
partment of the Army).
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or, restrain
any of the above-described or other persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affect-
ing commerce, where an object thereof is to
force or require any of the said persons or
others to cease doing business with Delp
Refrigeration, with each other, or - with the
authorities at Fort Leonard Wood.
LOCAL 453,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
Dated By
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
-(Representative) (Title)
.This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive 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, 610 Federal Building, 601 East -12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone 374-5282.