Glaziers' Local No. 558

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 182 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Glaziers ' Local No. 558 , affiliated with
Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and
Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO (Sharp
Bros. Contracting Co.) and Builders'
Association of Kansas City. Case 17-CC-269
June 6, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, JENKINS, AND
ZAGORIA
Upon charges duly filed by the Builders'
Association of Kansas City, hereinafter called
Builders or the Charging Party, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region 17, issued a complaint
dated August 30, 1966, against Glaziers' Local
No. 558, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Respondent,
alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies
of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were
served upon Respondent and the Charging Party.
On September 9, 1966, the Respondent filed its
answer to the complaint. The complaint was
amended on September 13, 1966, and duly served on
the parties.
On September 29, 1966, the Respondent, General
Counsel, and the Charging Party entered into a
stipulation of the testimony of all witnesses pertinent
to the dispute. These parties also waived a hearing
before a Trial Examiner and agreed that the charge,
complaint, and stipulation shall constitute the entire
record in the case. They further agreed to submit the
stipulated record directly to the Board for findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and a Decision and Order.
By an order dated October 5, 1966, the Board
approved the stipulation and transferred the case to
itself. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed a brief.
Upon the basis of the stipulation and the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Cupples Products Corporation, hereinafter called
Cupples, is engaged in the manufacture of preglazed
windows and doors. At all material times herein,
Cupples supplied preglazed windows to B. D. & R.
Engineering Corporation, hereinafter called B. D. &
R., a wholesale distributor of building materials for
use in the building and construction industry. In the
operation of its business, B. D. & R. annually ships
products valued in excess of $50,000 from its place
of business in Kansas City, Kansas, to points outside
the State of Kansas.
Among B. D. & R.'s purchasers during the
pertinent period was Sharp Bros. Contracting Co.,
hereinafter called Sharp Bros., which was engaged
as the general contractor in the construction of an
office building in Kansas City, Missouri. Sharp Bros.
annually makes interstate purchases of goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000. Sharp Bros. is
a member of Builders which bargains with various
labor organizations for an association of employers,
individuals, firms, and corporations engaged in the
building industry. Royse Masonry Co., Inc.,
hereinafter called Royse, is also a member of
Builders and was engaged by Sharp Bros. to do the
masonry work at the construction site. Royse
annually purchases goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 from outside the State of Kansas.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that B. D. &
R., Sharp Bros., Builders, and Royse are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further find they are
persons engaged in the construction industry
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
About the middle of April 1966, a business agent
of the Respondent visited the jobsite where Sharp
Bros. was constructing an office building and the
business agent told the job superintendent that the
preglazed windows being installed were
manufactured by employees who were receiving
substandard wages. The agent further stated at the
time that he was "going to contact his attorney to see
if there was any way he could advertise this fact to
the public." On May 12, 1966, the Respondent sent a
letter to various unions which were members of the
Building Trades Council of Kansas City stating that
the Respondent intended to picket the construction
site but requesting the other unions to advise their
members who were employed at that site not to
refuse to cross the picket line or work. The record
does not establish that these other unions ever
advised their respective members to such effect.
Four days later, a picket appeared at the jobsite after
the employees were on the job with the following
sign:
165 NLRB No. 27
GLAZIERS ' LOCAL NO. 558 183
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
The Windows Being Installed on This Project
Are Glazed By Cupples Product [sic] Corp.
Whose Employees
Are Receiving Sub-Standard Wages &
Conditions
Being Paid by the Glazing Industry In This Area
.... Please Do Not Buy ....
Cupples Products Corp. Glazed Windows
Help Us Maintain Our Wages & Working
Conditions In This Area
Glaziers And
Glassworkers LU NO. 558
The picketing continued without incident until
May 20. On that day the picket appeared before the
employees had commenced their work, and Sharp's
and Royse's engineers and oilers walked off the job.'
Since neither of these Employers could continue
their operations without those employees, they sent
their remaining employees home. Respondent's
business agent was immediately informed that
employees were refusing to work because of the
picket line, and he ordered picketing to cease. The
agent then went to the jobsite and informed
departing employees that he didn't want anyone to
cease working because of the picketing. The agent
also sent a telegram to the Union that represented
the striking employees reiterating his request that it
instruct its members that they should not refuse to
work.
Respondent resumed picketing on May 27.
Although Respondent's business agent again went to
the site to persuade the engineers and oilers to
remain, another work stoppage ensued. This same
sequence of events occurred on June 1 and 2, when
the picketing was finally halted permanently.'
The General Counsel contends that the picketing
of this construction site violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act. The Respondent asserts, on the
other hand, that it was engaged in lawful appeals to
consumers. We agree with the General Counsel, for
the stipulated facts clearly establish that the
Respondent unlawfully intended to cause a work
stoppage by its picketing.
The dispute before us is but one of a series that
began late in 1963 when the employees of Cupples
voted against representation by a Glaziers' union.
Thereafter, on at least one occasion in 1964, a
Glaziers' union picketed construction sites where
Cupples' preglazed windows were being installed
because Cupples' employees were nonunion. The
Board found that the Glaziers' had unlawfully
induced employees to refuse to work in order to
force their employers to cease doing business with
Cupples, rejecting the contention that the Union was
engaged in permissible publicity picketing.'; In 1965
this Glaziers' union picketed another construction
site with signs requesting the public not to buy
Cupples' products. And on that occasion, as in the
instant case, the union requested that the local
building trades unions order their members to
continue working despite a picket line. The Board
nonetheless found on the facts that the
Respondent's object was to induce the employees on
the jobsite to cease working in order to force their
employer to refrain from using Cupples' products.'
It is clear from the record in the instant case that
the Respondent herein was picketing for the same
purpose as did its sister local in the earlier cases;
i.e., appealing to neutral employees with an object of
causing them to refuse to continue working. It is
significant that Respondent's picketing on the first 4
days, which began after the neutral employees had
reported for work on those days, did not result in any
employees walking off the job; but that on May 20
the Respondent changed its hours of picketing to
commence before the employees reported for work.
Under the circumstances, we can only conclude that
when the initial picketing did not cause a refusal to
work, Respondent changed its times of picketing so
that neutral employees would have to cross the
picket line in order to enter the jobsite. While
Respondent's business agent, having been informed
on May 20 of the refusal to cross the picket line, did
order picketing to cease on that day and obstensibly
requested the employees to return to work, he
nevertheless resumed the picketing on May 27.
' We find that the first work stoppage occurred on May 20,
when picketing commenced for the first time before employees
began to work This conclusion is based on the mutually
supporting testimony of one of the employees who refused to
work, the Respondent 's business agent , Sharp Bros , Royse, and
another subcontractor on the jobsite. Thus , Royse's oiler stated
that he first refused to work on the date the picket showed up
before they went to work , but the following day there was no
picket so he worked Respondent 's representative McGee stated
he had no knowledge of a work stoppage until he received a phone
call from the picket on May 20, as a result of which he went to the
jobsite, and this testimony is supported by the foreman for Evans
Electrical Construction Company, a subcontractor for Sharp
Bros , who indicated that the first time he recalled a work
stoppage , McGee appeared at the jobsite shortly afterwards. The
job superintendent for Sharp Bros and the foreman for Royse
agreed that a picket appeared about 8 30 a in on May 20 and that
their engineers and oilers refused to cross the picket line
2 During this period the Respondent also picketed B D & R
The signs used were similar to those at the construction site This
picketing is not alleged to be unlawful.
S Glaziers' Local Union No. 513, afff w Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO (Cupples
Products Corp ), 148 NLRB 1648.
4 Glaziers' Local Union No 51 .3, affiw Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO (Cupples
Products Corp.),158 NLRB 1621.
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of the above, we can only conclude that at
all times the Respondent actually intended to induce
the neutral employees to engage in work stoppages,
and that it caused such stoppages, in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
The Respondent's protestation that it was
engaged in informational picketing directed solely at
the public cannot be reconciled with this intended
inducement of employees to engage in a work
stoppage. In such a case "the union does more than
merely follow the struck product; it creates a
separate dispute with the secondary employer."5
Therefore, in these circumstances, and in
consideration of the fact that the Respondent's
dispute was avowedly concerned with the working
conditions at the Cupples plant, we conclude that an
object of the picketing was to induce and encourage
employees at the jobsite to refuse to work in order to
apply pressure against the neutral persons for the
purpose of forcing Sharp Bros. to cease doing
business with B. D. & R. and to compel B. D. & R. to
cease dealing with Cupples Products in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.6 And, since "a work
stoppage against a neutral employer constitutes
restraint and coercion of such employer within the
meaning of clause (ii) of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the
Act,"7 we further find that the Respondent also
violated that section of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
ON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the
operations 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist therefrom 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, the Board
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Cupples Products Corporation, Sharp Bros.
Contracting Co., B. D. & R. Engineering Company,
° N.L.R.B. v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers, Local 760 (Tree
Fruits), 377 U.S. 58.
Since we have found that the Respondent intended to cause a
work stoppage , we need not, and do not, pass upon the
Respondent 's contention that it could lawfully appeal to neutral
employers not to use Cupples ' products in the future. But cf.
Salem Building Trades Council (Cascade Employers Association),
163 NLRB 33
Royse Masonry Co., Inc., and Builders Association
of Kansas City are persons engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Glaziers' Local No. 558, affiliated with
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and
Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By inducing or encouraging individuals
employed by persons engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or
refusal to perform services, and by coercing or
restraining persons engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce with an object of
forcing or requiring Royse to cease doing business
with Sharp Bros., to force or require Sharp Bros. to
cease using, handling, or otherwise dealing in the
products of Cupples and to cease doing business
with B. D. & R., and to force or require B. D. & R. to
cease doing business with Cupples, Respondent has
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Glaziers' Local No. 558, affiliated with Brotherhood
of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of
America, AFL-CIO, Kansas City, Missouri, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing
or encouraging individuals employed by Sharp Bros.
Contracting Co., Royse Masonry, or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal
in the course of their employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities, or to perform any services; and from
threatening, coercing, or restraining the above-
named Employers or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce;
when in either case an object thereof is to force or
require Sharp Bros., B. D. & R., or any other person
to cease doing business with Cupples Products
Corporation.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at Respondent's business offices and
' Local 370, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Ptpefitting Industry (Baughan Plumbing),
157 NLRB 20. See also International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 313, AFL-CIO (James Julian, Inc.), 147 NLRB
137.
GLAZIERS' LOCAL NO. 558
meeting halls in Kansas City, Missouri, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 17, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to its 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 Regional Director for Region 17 for posting by
each of the Employers named in the preceding
paragraphs, if willing, at all places where notices to
their respective employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the
words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GLAZIERS' LOCAL No. 558
AFFILIATED WITH BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS,
DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO, AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF SHARP BROS.
CONTRACTING Co., ROYSE MASONRY CO., INC., B. D. &
R. ENGINEERING COMPANY, AND CUPPLES PRODUCTS
CORPORATION
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
185
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in a strike or induce or
encourage individuals employed by Sharp Bros.
Contracting Co. and Royse Masonry Co., Inc.,
or any other person engaged in commerce, or in
an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a
strike, or a refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, materials, articles, or commodities, or to
perform any services, nor will we threaten,
coerce, and restrain the above-named
Employers, or any other person, where an
object thereof is to force or require Sharp Bros.,
B. D. & R., or any other person, to cease doing
business with Cupples Products Corporation.
GLAZIERS' LOCAL
No. 558, AFFILIATED
WITH BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS, DECORATORS
AND PAPERHANGERS OF
AMERICA. AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions , they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106, Telephone FR4-7000.