International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 443 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

INTERNATIONA1r 3ROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL W-OREERS 44`
(1) All bakery employees in the bakery departments of the Em-
ployer's members located in Cincinnati, Ohio, excluding office clerical
employees, drivers and/or driver salesmen, maintenance employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
(2) All auxiliary employees in the bakery departments of the Em-
ployer's members located in Cincinnati, Ohio, excluding office clerical
employees, drivers and/or driver salesmen, maintenance employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act'
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication ]
elude that Locals 213 and 2 1Ì€3-A bargained jointly for bakers and auxiliary employees as
a single unit See The Kansas City Bakery Employers Labor Council , 121 NLRB 6 We
find, therefore , that separate multiemployer units of bakers and auxiliary employees, re-
spectively , are appropriate
4 The baker and auxiliary categories in the above unit descriptions comprise the classi
fications represented by Locals 213 and 213-A (BW), respectively , under the current
contract
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union'
No. 11, AFL-CIO and Robert B. McClary and Burt A. Lowe,
Jr., d/b/a Hydro Company and Paul Gardner, Electrical Con-
tractor. Cases Nos 21-CO-281 and 21-CO-282 August 13,1958
DECISION-AND ORDER
On March 31, 1958, Trial Examiner Wallace E Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean]
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
Intermediate Report and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
ORDER
Upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
121 NLRB No 65
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO,
its officers, representatives, and agents, shall :
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging the employees
of any other employers working on a project where employees of
Paul Gardner or Paul Gardner Corporation are working, to engage
in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment
to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work
on any goods, articles, or commodities or to perform any services for
their respective employers where an object thereof is to force or
require the, State of California or any employer or person to cease
doing business with Paul Gardner or Paul Gardner Corporation.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its business offices copies of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report marked "Appendix." i Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to its members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
signed copies of said notice for posting at premises where employees
of Paul Gardner or Paul Gardner Corporation are working. .
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
' This notice is amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." 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 "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Robert B. McClary and Burt A. Lowe, Jr., d/b /a Hydro
Company, herein called Hydro, and by Paul R. Gardner , the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board issued an order consolidating the cases for
hearing and a complaint dated December 17, 1957, against International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11 , AFL-CIO, herein called the
Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4)
(A) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136,
herein called the Act.
In respect to unfair labor practices the complaint alleges in substance that on and
since November 12, 1957, at one location , and on and since November 18, 1957, at
another, the Respondent has picketed certain access roads leading to projects where
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 445
employees of Paul Gardner Corporation, were employed to induce and encourage
employees of other employers to engage in" strikes or concerted refusals in the
course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform services
with an object to force or require the State of California and other employers and
persons to cease doing business with Paul Gardner Corporation.
Respondent's answer denies the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, on January 27
and 28, 1958, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were repre-
sented and were permitted to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce
evidence pertinent to the issues. A brief has been received from counsel for the
Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESSES OF THE EMPLOYERS AFFECTED
Paul Gardner Corporation, a California corporation, is a successor to Paul
Gardner, a sole proprietorship, and is engaged in electrical contracting. Its prin-
cipal office and place of business is located, in Ontario, California. During the
year preceding November 6, 1957, Paul Gardner has performed services and sup-
plied materials valued in excess of $100,000 for and to companies engaged in inter=
state commerce, for and to public utilities, and for and to the State of California
in the construction of interstate highways and essential links to such highways.
Hydro is a partnership doing business in California as a plumbing contractor.
I find that Paul Gardner Corporation is now and Paul Gardner, a sole proprietor-
ship, at all times material herein has been, engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent is a labor organization existing for the purpose of representing
employees in relation to wages, hours, and ,conditions of employment, and during
the period of interest here was attempting to persuade employees of Paul Gardner
or the Paul Gardner Corporation to become its members.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
About October 1, 1957, Paul Gardner began work on a contract with the State
of, California to make certain electrical installations on the campus and perhaps
in the buildings of California State Polytechnic College. Gardner employees were
not represented by any labor organization. The work at the college consisted in
part of laying conduit in a ditch which had been dug by employees of Hydro and
in which Hydro employees were placing water lines. On October 18 a picket was
placed by the Respondent on a road at a point of intersection with the ditch bearing
a picket sign reading: "To employees: Paul Gardner Electric Company is nonunion.
Join LU 11-IBEW-AFL-CIO. This is an organizational picket line." The point
of picketing was sometimes in view of Gardner employees and sometimes not, de-
pending upon the location of their work along the ditch. This same circumstance
applied to the Hydro employees. Robert McClary, a partner in Hydro, testified that
he was unable to get his employees to perform work in the ditch at any point from
which the picket was visible.
On October 23 McClary discussed the problem of getting his employees to work
near the picket with a representative of a plumbers union in the presence of Leroy
i In the year preceding November 6, 1957, Paul Gardner, as an individual, performed
work for the State of California Highway Department, having a value of approximately
$68,000 , for the General Electric Company, having a value of in excess of $13,000 ; for
Pasadena Municipal Light & Power Company, having a value In excess of $9,000; and
for Upland Lemon Growers Association, Cucamonga Mesa Growers Association, and
Orange Heights Orange Association, having a value in excess of $16,000. The work for
the highway department was on roads used for the interstate transportation of goods
and products. The citrus associations and General Electric Company each shipped an-
nually.goods and products having a value of-more than $50,000.- The Pasadena Municipal
Power & Light Company has annual gross billings in excess of $6,000,000. Contrary to
the contention of counsel for the Respondent, I find these facts to satisfy the Board's
criteria for the assertion of jurisdiction. See White's Uvalde Mines, 117 NLRB 1128,
1138.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Devereaux , business representative of the Respondent . McClary testified that on
this occasion he asked if he could have his employees work after hours or on week-
ends when the picket would not be present . Devereaux answered that it was a 24-
hour picket line .2 On the same occasion Devereaux disclaimed any intention to
cause Hydro employees to refuse to work and explained that he was merely trying
to organize Paul Gardner employees . On at least three occasions in late October
and early November , Gardner employees were not at work on the college project
but the picket appeared nonetheless . On November 18 the Respondent removed
the picket from the point near the ditch and placed a picket at each of the two
principal entrances to the college campus . Devereaux explained that Gardner em-
ployees had moved to another area on the campus and the access roads picketed on
November 18 were as close to their working place as possible . Many of the em-
ployees of other contractors refused to pass the pickets and did not return to
work until the pickets were removed on November 21.
On November 12, the Respondent placed a picket at the principal employee
entrance of Metropolitan State Hospital in Norwalk , California , where another
group of Gardner employees was working. At the appearance of the picket,
employees of other employers doing work on the hospital project , including those
of Robert E. McKee, the general contractor , refused to enter the grounds and re-
mained away from work until the picket was withdrawn a week or 10 days later.
All employees of Paul Gardner and of the successor Paul Gardner Corporation
report for work at their employer's shop in Ontario , California , before 8 each
morning and return there in the late afternoon from whatever project they have
been working on. The General Counsel argues that inasmuch as the Respondent
could place pickets at Gardner 's place of business and there carry any message it
desired to the employees it was trying to organize , the appearance of pickets on
the college and the hospital project where employees of other employers could be
and were influenced to refuse to work , constitutes a violation of Section 8 (b) (4)
(A) of the Act precisely as found by the Board in the Washington Coca Cola case.3
There the Board said , "The broad argument that picketing is aimed only at publi-
cizing a labor dispute and not at inducing work stoppages by employees who are
required in their regular employment to cross the picket lines has been too often
rejected to require further elaboration here." I am convinced that the Board's
holding in the Washington Coca Cola case is dispositive of the case at hand. Had
the Respondent only a purpose to publicize to Gardner employees the fact that the
Respondent was willing and able to represent them in matters of collective bargain-
ing and were the Respondent concerned only to persuade these workers to become
its members, it seems obvious that picketing would have taken place at the Gardner
shop where these employees could surely be reached twice each day. But no picket
appeared there . The device of placing a picket near the ditch on the college project
where he and his sign would be visible to Gardner employees only upon occasion
and later at entrances to the college project and to the hospital project where it was
certain that employees other than those of Gardner would see the picket and his
sign , leads me to the conclusion that an object of the picketing was to advertise to
employees other than those of Gardner that Gardner men were not members of a
labor organization and thus to encourage these other employees to refuse to work
where the Gardner men were employed .4 I find that by the picketing at the college
project on and after November 18 5 and at the hospital project on and after
'According to Devereaux he meant no more than that the picket would appear when-
ever Gardner employees did In the context of the conversation, however, it would
seem to be a statement of intention to encourage Hydro employees not to work in the
ditch
s Brewery and Beverage Drivers and Workers, Local No. 67 , International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL (Washington
Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc ), 107 NLRB 299.
* "This conclusion rests on the sound premise that a union which can direct its in-
ducements to the primary employer 's employees at the primary employer 's premises,
does not seek to accomplish any more with respect to the same employees by directing
the same inducements to those same employees at the premises of some other employer
Consequently, the only reasonable inference in such a situation is that inducements which
are ostensibly directed at the primary employer 's employees are in fact directed at the
employees of the secondary employers." Local 657 , International Brotherhood of•Team-
aters etc ( Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc.), 115 NLRB 981, 984.
a No picketing prior to that date at the college project is the subject of the complaint.
The picketing.near the, ditch is.not alleged to be an unfair labor practice.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 447
November 12, the Respondent induced and encouraged employees of secondary
employers to cease performing services for their respective employers, an object
thereof being to cause the State of California and the other employers to cease doing
business with Paul Gardner Corporation. I further find that by such conduct the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor ;practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b)' (4) (A) of'the Act.
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 the various employers 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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , Local Union No. 11, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By inducing and encouraging employees of Robert B. McClary and Burt A.
Lowe , Jr., d/b/a Hydro Company ; employees of Robert E. McKee; and employees
of other employers at California State Polytechnic College and at the Metropolitan
State Hospital building project in Norwalk , California , to engage in a concerted
refusal to perform services for their several employers with an object of requiring
the State of California and other employers and persons to cease doing business
with Paul Gardner , or Paul Gardner Corporation , the above-named labor organ-
ization has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(b) (4) (A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LocAL UNION No. 11, AFL-CIO
Pursuant-to the recomendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of any employer other
than Paul Gardner or Paul Gardner Corporation to engage in a strike or
concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, transport, or
otherwise work on goods or to perform any service where an object thereof
is to require the State of California or any employer or person to cease using,
handling, selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of or to
cease doing business with Paul Gardner or Paul Gardner Corporation.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No.
11, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) ' (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.