Local 198, Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 196 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and Security
Construction Co. and Henry C. Beck Company.
Case 16-CC-281 and 16-CC-282
October 18, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA
On July 2, 1968, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
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
National 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 this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner,'
ORDER
2 Under the established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's
credibility findings unless a clear preponderance of all relevant evidence
convinces us that they are incorrect , we find no basis for disturbing the
credibility findings in this case Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91
NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3).
As Respondent points out , "Christian," in next to the last sentence
of fn. 9, should be "Sudderth " This typographical error does not affect
the decision and is hereby corrected
3 Member Fanning concurs in the finding that Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B). However, he bases his conclusion on the
evidence that Respondent 's picketing was not conducted initially in
conformity with the standards set forth in Moore Dry Dock Company,
92 NLRB 547, and, therefore , finds it unnecessary to consider what, if
any, effect Respondent 's oral statements had upon the legality of its
picketing See Member Fanning's separate statement of position in
General Telephone Company of Cahfornia, 151 NLRB 1490, fn. 4
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN P. VON ROHR, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed on
February 28 and March 12, 1968, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 16 (Fort Worth, Texas), issued a consolidated com-
plaint on March 29, 1968, against Local Union 198, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
herein referred to as the Respondent or the Union, alleging
that it had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. Thereafter the Respondent filed an
answer denying the allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in
the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me on April
15 and 16, 1968, in Dallas, Texas All parties were represented
by counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to file briefs
Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the
Respondent and they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation
of the witnesses, I hereby make the following
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
below, and hereby orders that Respondent, Local
Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Dallas, Texas, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified:
Delete from paragraph 1(a) of the Recommended
Order "; or" following "any services" and insert
therefor:
"where an object thereof is to force and require the
aforesaid employers and others to cease doing busi-
ness with the City of Dallas; or"
1 The Respondent Union's request for oral argument is hereby
denied as , in our opinion , the record , including the exceptions and brief,
adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties
173 NLRB No 36
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The city of Dallas is a municipal corporation situated in
Dallas County, Texas, incorporated under and by virtue of a
special act of the legislature of the State of Texas, maintaining
its principal office at Maine and Harwood Streets, Dallas,
Texas. It owns and operates Love Field, an airport terminal
facility which provides interstate and international air trans-
portation services, where it is engaged in the letting of
contracts for the designing, engineering, and construction of
additional terminal facilities. It receives gross annual revenue in
excess of $500,000 in the operation of said airport.
Security Construction Co., at times herein called Security,
is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly
organized under, and existing by virtue of the laws of the State
of Texas and maintains its principal office in Dallas, Texas,
where it is engaged in the building and construction industry as
a general contractor During the year preceding the hearing
herein, Security purchased goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 which goods and materials were transported
LOCAL 198, CARPENTERS 197
to building sites in Texas directly from points located outside
the State of Texas
Henry C. Beck Company, at times herein referred to as
Beck, is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
office in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the building and
construction industry as a general contractor During the year
preceding the hearing herein, Beck, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, purchased goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000, which goods and materials were
transported to building sites in the State of Texas from points
located outside of the State of Texas.
Edwin S. Bell, an individual d/b/a Ed Bell Construction Co.,
maintains its principal office in Dallas, Texas, where it is
engaged in the heavy construction industry as a terminal
contractor.
By reason of the above-mentioned interstate purchases and
shipments, Security and Beck are, and have been at all times
material to the issues herein, engaged in interstate commerce,
and in operations affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, I find that the
Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
At all times material hereto, and continuing at the time of
the hearing, various projects involving the improvement and
expansion of certain facilities at the Love Field airport in
Dallas, Texas, are being undertaken at a total estimated cost of
approximately $20,000,000. Largest among these are the
construction of terminal facilities for Braniff Airlines and
American Airlines, the contracts for which are let or approved
by the city of Dallas and are financed by municipal revenue
bonds.
It is undisputed that the city of Dallas historically has
maintained a distinction between the building construction
industry and the so-called highway and heavy construction
industry in the letting of its contracts. The heavy construction
industry is classified as that which is engaged in the building of
such projects as bridges, roads, dams, culverts, curbs, alleys and
the like. This work normally is not covered by a roof and
people do not dwell in the area. The building and construction
industry, on the other hand, is defined as that which is
principally engaged in the construction of commercial and
industrial type buildings, and housing.
The dispute in the instant case arises out of the perform-
ance of a contract which the Ed Bell Construction Co. has with
the city of Dallas for the modification and expansion of
parking facilities at the Love Field airport. This construction is
at ground level, although it includes two ramps to an upper
level. Bell, which is engaged in the heavy construction
industry, is a nonunion contractor. It does not hire members
of the Respondent Union nor does it hire employees with the
job classification of carpenter.
The contract between Bell and the city of Dallas provides
for minimum wage rates for each of the various job classifica-
tions set forth therein. These rates are predicated upon
periodic area surveys in accordance with the formula provided
in the Davis-Bacon Act. As the Respondent points out,
although a contractor who is party to this type of contract is
required to pay the minimum rates as provided therein, he is
not precluded from paying higher rates if he so desires.
As will be detailed below, the Respondent Union began
picketing the entrance to the Love Field airport on February
26, 1968. Preliminarily, however, it is to be noted that Bell's
employees were engaged in the building of a retaining wall for
a ramp to the overhead parking structure at the time the
picketing began The crew at this time included a foreman,
laborers and two employees classified as form builders (struc-
tures).' As to the construction of the retaining wall, basically
this involves the construction of outer forms into which
concrete is poured. The forms utilized by Bell are sheets of
plywood which are drilled with holes and are attached together
with steel clamps and ties. The sheets of plywood are of a
general standard size, they can be used interchangeably and in
fact are used over again on as many as 10 different jobs. Bell
credibly testified that such carpenter tools as hammers and
saws are used by his crew only 5 percent of their working
time.' Testimony from the Respondent reflects that its
members are not uncommonly engaged in the construction of
forms for retaining walls and ramps which are similar to those
utilized by Bell However, the testimony reflects that this work
is generally undertaken in connection with the heretofore
described building and construction type projects rather than
highway and heavy construction type projects. Further, the
duties of Bell's employees, including form builders, not only
include work in connection with the actual construction of the
forms, but also include such additional functions as the
preparation of the ground site, cement pouring and cement
finishing. Members of the Respondent do not engage in any of
the latter type work.
A J. Christian, a business agent of the Respondent Union,
testified without contradiction, that in early February 1968 he
spoke to Willie Overton, Bell's superintendent at the Love
Field jobsite, and inquired as to the wage rate being paid Bell's
employees. Overton advised Christian that Bell's employees
were being paid at various rates between $2 and $4 per hour.
Christian also testified that at about this time he was aware
that a union contractor, one Schwartz, was engaged as a
subcontractor in form building work in connection with the
construction of a pedestrian tunnel between the parking lot
and the terminal building.3 This project was adjacent to the
Bell project (beginning approximately 50 feet distant there-
from) and the Schwartz employees were being paid at the
union rate of $4.60 per hour.
I Bell testified that at times other employees employed by him at
the Love Field project included those with such job classifications as
concrete finishers (paving ), concrete finishers (structures ), form setters
(paving and curb); and truckdrivers and various equipment operators.
2 This includes the fact that the hammers are principally utilized to
turn latches which hooks the form ties into clamps.
3 Sterline Thompson , president of Security Construction Company
which was the general contractor on this job , testified that the tunnel
was a "building project." The entrance has glass doors , and the tunnel
was lined with architectual materials and was equipped for lighting,
heating and air conditioning.
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Christian wrote Bell the following letter on February 20,
1968.
Gentlemen:
This letter is to protest the undercutting of union
wages and working conditions by your firm. It is our
information that the working conditions and wages being
paid to persons in your employ are substantially lower than
the union scale prevailing for such work in this area. If we
are mistaken, please advise immediately.
By this letter we are not requesting, nor shall we
request that you employ or refuse to employ any individual
or group of individuals, nor do we request that you assign
work to employees in any particular labor organization or
any particular trade, craft, or class. We do not seek to
organize your employees, nor do we suggest or request that
you recognize or bargain with this organization as a
representative of your employees, nor do we suggest or
request that you recognize or bargain with this organization
as a representative of your employees. Our sole purpose is
to seek to eliminate the threat to union wages and working
conditions that has arisen as a result of the practices of your
firm.
We shall be happy to provide upon request informa-
tion on the prevailing union wages and working conditions
in this area.
It is our hope that you will cease to undercut union
wages and working conditions. However, in the event we
have not heard from you by February 23, 1968, to the
contrary, we will assume that your practices remain
unchanged and will feel compelled to pursue any lawful and
legitimate means of publicizing your substandard wages and
working conditions
We will appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Bell made no response to the above letter.
On February 26, 1968, the Respondent Union placed a
picket at the entrance to Love Field airport at the corner of
Mockingbird Street and Cedar Springs Street Employees of all
contractors working at the airport used th!s entrance. The
legend on the picket sign stated as follows:
CARPENTER
Local Union 198
PROTESTS THE UNDERCUTTING
OF UNION WAGES & CONDITIONS
By
ED BELL CONSTRUCTION CO.
We are picketing above employer only
The picket remained at this site for 3 days. On the 4th day
the situs of the picketing was changed to the foot of a statue,
4 This is revealed by General Counsel Exhibit 5, which is a scaled
plot of Love Field and its environs , including the places of picketing
5 At this point the picketing was enjoined by a United States
District Court pursuant to a proceeding brought by the General Counsel
under Section 10(1) of the Act.
6 Respondent 's answer admits that "some of the employees of
employers working at the site ceased work." The testimony of Larry C
Sudderth reflects that on the first day of picketing the employees of
Henry C . Beck Company and four or five of its subcontractors, these
including such crafts as iron-workers , carpenters , plumbers, electricians
and laborers , left the job when they got off the bus. They did not return
to work until the picketing ceased on March 25 The same was true of
the various craft employees employed by the Security Construction Co
and its subcontractors
7 There is no dispute concerning the above conversation
this being located adjacent to the public parking lot in front of
the Love Field terminal building. This situs is adjacent to the
Bell construction site and is approximately 3300 feet, or over
1h mile, from the point where the picketing took place on the
first 3 days.' The picketing continued at the statue until
about March 25, 1968.5
It is undisputed that the picketing, from its very inception,
had the effect of causing a substantial number of employees of
employers other than Bell to refuse to cross the picket line.6
Within a day or two after the inception of the picketing,
representatives of Beck and Security contacted the Union
concerning the problem with which they were confronted as a
result of the picketing. In fact, the first contact between the
parties was anticipatory and occurred 3 days before the
picketing began. I turn now to a consideration of this
testimony.
Larry C. Sudderth, the project engineer for the Henry C.
Beck Company, testified that on February 23, a Friday, he was
advised by a subcontractor that a picket would be placed at
Love Field on Monday morning. Accordingly, on the same
date Sudderth telephoned the Respondent' s union hall and
spoke to J. L. Anderson, a Respondent Business agent. When
Anderson confirmed that such picketing would take place,
Sudderth asked who it would be against. Anderson replied that
it would be the Ed Bell Construction Co. Sudderth then
inquired if the picketing would have any effect upon the
Henry C. Beck Company. Anderson said that it would not.7
Upon the cessation of work by Beck's employees after the
picket appeared on February 26, Sudderth on this same day
again called Anderson. On this occasion Anderson put Business
Agent A. J. Christian on the telephone to talk to Sudderth.
Stating first that the picketing at Mockingbird and Cedar
Springs Streets had caused a cessation of work by Beck's
employees at Love Field, Sudderth asked why the picket had
been placed there. Christian replied, according to the credited
testimony of Sudderth, that he was not sure of the location of
Bell's work but that he knew this location would cover all
areas where Bell might be working. Christian also stated that
the Union was picketing Bell only, not any other employer,
and that he was sorry the picketing discommoded the Beck
Company. Sudderth then asked what he could do to get the
picket removed. According to Sudderth, Christian responded
"that he could not tell us [Beck] what to do but we might put
pressure on the city of Dallas to quit awarding this type of
contract."8 Sudderth said the conversation ended with his
telling Christian that his company had a contract with
American Airlines, not the city of Dallas, and that they had no
reason to contact the city since this was not their problem.9
Edward N. Anderson, senior vice president of Beck,
testified that he returned from out-of-town to Dallas on
8 This testimony by Sudderth , as well as similar testimony by two
other employer representatives as hereinafter set forth , is denied by
Christian Christian 's testimony and my resolution of this conflict is
discussed later in this Decision.
9 On direct examination Sudderth testified that he held a conver-
sation of similar content with Christian again on February 27 However,
when on cross -examination it was pointed out to him that his pretrial
affidavit and his 10(l) testimony related to only two conversations,
Sudderth testified that he was not certain of having another conversa-
tion with Christian on February 27, although he was certain that he did
have the conversations with Anderson on February 23 and with
Christian on February 26. I believe that Christian was mistaken as to
any February 27 conversation. However, as indicated below, another
official of Beck did talk to Christian on February 27.
LOCAL 198, CARPENTERS
February 27 Having been apprised of the picketing, it is
undisputed that Anderson called Christian and had a conversa-
tion with him on this date. Anderson testified that he began by
stating that the picketing had stopped work on his jobs at Love
Field He then mentioned the situs of the picketing and told
Christian that he "didn't think it was fair to stop all the good
union contractors to picket one little nonumon contractor and
keep all of us from going to work." According to Anderson,
Christian advised him that the picketing was directed against
Bell, but that he (Christian) also stated that "he didn't feel the
City had any right to let the contracts that way and that ... I
ought to talk to the City " Anderson replied that he had no
contract with the city, that how the city let its contract was
none of his business, and that he had no intention of talking to
the city Anderson thereupon asked Christian to move the
picket closer in to the situs of Bell's project, that perhaps then
his employees would not have to cross the picket line and
would return to work According to Anderson, Christian stated
that "he wasn't about to move the picket up there and it was
good advertising where it was."
Following the above conversation Anderson checked with
his attorney and was advised by him that the area "closer in"
to the Bell situs was in fact public property. In the afternoon
of the same day, February 27, Anderson again called Christian
and apprised him of having received such advice from his
attorney. Anderson testified that Christian responded with the
statement that "somebody would have to tell him where to
move the picket." According to Anderson, Christian again
requested him to call the City "because he didn't like the way
they were letting their contracts " Anderson testified that he
recalled Christian stating the foregoing several times, adding
that "there was plenty of small union contractors that could
do that work." Anderson further quoted Christian as saying, "I
know that the Beck company is too big to be doing a little job
like that, but there's still plenty of small union contractors
that could be doing the same work that Bell is doing." As to
the termination of this conversation, Anderson testified,
"[We] really didn't arrive at any great conclusion about who
would tell them where to place the picket." 10 Later the same
day, Anderson sent Christian the following Telegram
CONFIRMING OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS THIS DATE,
WE AGAIN REQUEST THAT CARPENTERS PICKET BE
REMOVED FROM PRESENT MOCKINGBIRD LOCATION TO
IMMEDIATE AREA WHERE BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IS
PERFORMING WORK AS YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED, PICKET IS
APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE FROM THIS PRIMARY JOB SITE
WHICH CAN BE REACHED BY PUBLIC ROAD, AND PICKET HAS
INTERRUPTED AND STOPPED WORK OF HENRY C BECK
COMPANY FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES AT THE TERMINAL
BUILDING AND THE HANGER WORK ON LEMMON AVENUE,
APPROXIMATELY THREE MILES AWAY PICKET HAS STOPPED
10 Aside from the conflicting testimony of Christian, which is
hereinafter discussed , Respondent in its brief argues that Anderson's
testimony is to be interpreted to the effect that Christian requested him
(Anderson) to call the city for the purpose of ascertaining the place
where the picket could be posted on city property From my
observation of the witness, and from a careful study of his entire
testimony , I disagree . While it is conceivable that this could have been a
purpose, I am convinced and find that Christian 's principal purpose in
requesting or suggesting that Anderson make this call is reflected in the
testimony cited above.
I I The foregoing testimony of Thompson was not in substantial
dispute with that of Christian concerning this aspect of the conversa-
199
WORK OF OTHER CONTRACTORS AT LOVE FIELD AS
ADVISED, WE CANNOT CONTROL WAY CITY OF DALLAS
CONTRACTS WORK. AS FURTHER ADVISED, WE CONSIDER
THIS PICKET TO BE UNLAWFUL AND WE WILL ACCORDINGLY
TAKE ACTION WITH THE NLRB AND THE COURTS.
Sterlin Thompson, the president of Security Construction
Company, telephoned Business Agent Christian at about 4 30
p in on February 27 Thompson asked Christian "what he was
doing to us," stating that Security had no controversy with the
Union Christian said that the picketing was directed at the Ed
Bell Construction Co , that Bell was paying substandard wages,
and that he could not help it if the men would not work on
the Security project When Thompson asked Christian why the
picket had been placed at Cedar Springs and Mockingbird,
Christian stated that he did not know where else to place it
Thompson then asked if the picket could be moved "a little
closer to Bell's job," stating that "if it was moved past our
gates maybe our men would come to work " Christian replied
that he would have to talk to his attorney before he could
consider moving the picket" Although initially advised that
the picketing was directed against Bell '12 Thompson testified
that he kept "pressuring" Christian for the reason that "we
were being penalized or that our people wouldn't come to
work if his controversy was just with Ed Bell Construction
Company " Thompson testified that Christian finally re-
sponded as follows
And it finally came out, he told me that the contioversy
really wasn't with Ed Bell, it was with the City, due to the
fact that they left their contracts with the heavy and
highway rate rather than the budding construction rate
basis and He also said to me that, further on in our
conversation, that he wasn't supposed to say this to me but
that if I could put some pressure on the City of Dallas that I
could possibly help to get this matter of contracts changed,
and also further in the conversation I asked him if this
picket was a result of the controversy on the wages at the
regional airport and he told me yes, that it was
Turning now to the testimony of Christian, Christian
conceded having conversations with the contractor representa-
tives on each of the occasions discussed above While I do not
deem it necessary to detail his substantially similar versions of
the undisputed aspects of these conversations, the salient part
of Christian's testimony consisted of denials that he made any
of the following statements to the contractors as testified to
by them (1) that he told Sudderth that he should put pressure
on the city of Dallas to quit awarding "this type of
contract" ,13 (2) that he told Anderson that "the City didn't
have any right to let contracts that way," or that he (the
Union) had a battle with the city, or that he asked Anderson
to take any action with respect to the city, or that he didn't
like the way the city was letting the contracts, or that
tion Christian added that he told Thompson that he did not know if it
was legal ( in the public property sense ) to picket further into Love Field
and that he would discuss this with his attorney
12 Thompson said that when so advised by Christian , he replied,
"Well, I can tell that by the sign."
1 3 In this connection Christian testified, "I believe I did make a
remark to him that I thought Dallas made a mistake by letting it to a
contractor that paid substandard wages. But I did not ask him to do
anything about trying to correct it "
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Anderson (the Beck Company) should quit doing business with
the city of Dallas, or that he should put pressure on the city or
Mr Bickley, and (3) that he told Thompson that his real
controversy was with the City for letting this contract, or that
he should put pressure on the city of Dallas, or that he told
Thompson that he (Christian) would appreciate it if Thompson
would put pressure on the city of Dallas, or words to that
effect. Additionally, Christian testified that Thompson did ask
if the picketing was for the purpose of pressurizing the city in
connection with the Regional Airport controversy (which is
discussed hereinafter) but that he responded that any relation
between the picketing and the latter controversy had never
crossed his mind
I do not credit the foregoing denials by Christian. From my
observation of them as they testified, Sudderth, Anderson, and
Thompson impressed me as credible witnesses Each testified
as to separate conversations which they had with Christian and
each testified as to substantially similar statements made to
them by Christian I do not believe that their testimony was
fabricated and I credit these witnesses.
In addition to the foregoing aspects of this case, the
General Counsel adduced testimony from two witnesses to the
effect that at about noon on March 1, the Respondent's picket
sign was changed to make reference to "Love Field" rather
than to Bell William R Beeman, Jr , an architectual superin-
tendent employed by Jack Corgan & Associates, testified that
at this time he observed a picket in the area of the statue with
a sign that "made reference to Love Field " He testified that
he did not observe or could not recall anything further as to
the legend on the sign which he observed at this time Willie D.
Overton, superintendent to Bell, testified that on the same
date he observed that the picket sign was changed to read
"Love Field employees or Love Field workers." He could not
recall anything else of this legend and said that as far as he
knew the sign did not bear the name of any labor organization
On behalf of the Respondent, Elzy F. Crawford, the only
individual who picketed on March 1, testified that the legend
of the sign on this date was exactly the same as that set forth
earlier in this Decision. Although subjected to vigorous
cross-examination, Crawford's testimony was not shaken on
this point Business Agent Christian, who was in charge of the
picketing at Love Field, testified that only one picket sign was
ever utilized at Love Field and that the language reflected
thereon was never changed since the inception of the picket-
ing. In this instance I credit the testimony of Overton and
Christian. Accordingly, and in the absence of more substantial
evidence to support the uncertain testimony of Beeman and
Crawford, I find that the General Counsel has failed to
establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the
legend on the picket sign was changed in the manner
apparently indicated by these latter witnesses
B Conclusions
With the possible exception of the situs where the picketing
took place for the first 3 days, the significance of which I shall
discuss below, the picketing in this case appears to have been
lawful under the standards established by the Board in the
Moore Dry Dock case 14 However, in the Plauche Electric
- case,' 5 and more recently in the L. G Electric Contractors
case 16 the Board commented on these standards indicating
that they are "not to be applied on an indiscriminate `per se'
basis, but are to be regarded merely as aids in determining the
underlying question of statutory violation " In any of these
secondary boycott situations the ultimate determination de-
pends upon the Union's objective "Often `the line is fine,' and
circumstances of the particular case must supply the answer to
which the way the chips must fall .,,1 7
The Respondent, in denying that it engaged in secondary
activity, asserts that the sole purpose in picketing here was for
an informational purpose, viz , to inform the public that it was
protesting Bell's payment of alleged substandard wages. It also
contends that its alleged compliance with the Moore Dry Dock
standards lends further support that this was the sole object of
the picketing. For the reasons set forth below, I disagree
Notwithstanding the legend on the picket sign, in my
opinion the evidence in this case establishes that, at the very
least, a purpose of the picketing was intended to enmesh the
secondary employers involved herein Direct evidence that this
was so is the credited testimony of Security and Beck officials
to the effect that Business Agent Christian requested them to
put pressure on the city of Dallas to cease awarding the type of
contract in the heavy construction industry such as that in
effect between Dallas and Bell covering the expansion of
parking lot facilities at Love Field Christian admittedly was
opposed to the letting of such contracts and he did not
hesitate to say so while on the stand Acknowledging that he
was familiar with the distinction made by the city of Dallas in
contracting for highway and heavy construction industry as
contrasted to the building and construction industry, Christian
testified
Well, I'll have to answer you this way. Years ago we fought
to try to keep the bridge building and it got into this same
situation, just gradually deteriorating and getting wages
down so cheap Then we started even trying to organize it
as a cheaper rate, which is, if you are not familiar with it,
the Texas Highway Department will just almost refuse to
have a union contractor build highways
We have been moved completely out of that field for that
reason, and this is why we think we at least ought to have
the right to advertise when people try to tear down the
construction work in the same manner.
Now, we are also having the same problem with those same
people coming right off of the highways into our shopping
centers, into other areas, and try to cut down the wages as
though they have done on the highway work, and we are
going to, if the law will let us, try to advertise this to the
public, which we are doing in this case [Emphasis
supplied ]
r x r^ s
The only thing I can say to that is we are picketing because
he [Bell] is doing the work that rightfully ought to be done
14 Sailors ' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92
NLRB 547 The standards enunciated in this case are that (1) the
picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of the dispute is
located on the secondary employers - premises , (2) at the time of the
picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the
situs, (3) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the
location of the situs , and (4 ) the picketing discloses clearly that the
dispute is with the primary employer.
15 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 861
(Plauche Electric, Inc ), 135 NLRB 250
16 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No 11, AFL-CIO, Carpenters Union Local No. 710, and Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 494 (L. G. Electric Contractors, Inc), 154 NLRB
766.
17 Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers vNLRB,278F2d282,285(CA.DC)
LOCAL 198, CARPENTERS
by Carpenters and being paid the building trades rate
Although in the above testimony Christian asserted that the
Union is concerned with the "cheap wages" being paid in the
highway and heavy construction industry, I think it significant
that he also alluded to the fact that the Texas Highway
Department would not contract with union employers and
that the work at issue here "rightfully ought to be done by
carpenters and being paid the building trades rate " Whatever
the Union's good faith in protesting alleged substandard rates
paid by Bell, I think it would be unrealistic to conclude that
this was the sole or principal purpose here. Upon the entire
record in this case, I am persuaded and find that an object of
the Union's picketing in this situation was to induce the city of
Dallas, by means of pressure from the secondary employers
(Beck and Security), to award contracts in the heavy construc-
tion industry to Union employers rather than to nonunion
employers.
Aside from the testimony of employer representatives that
they were asked by Christian to put pressure on the city of
Dallas for the aforementioned purpose, there is other evidence
to support the conclusion that the picketing engaged in by the
Respondent was deliberately designed to enmesh neutral
employers in its dispute with the city of Dallas. Thus, I think it
significant that for the first 3 days the place of picketing
occurred more than one-half mile from the situs where Bell
was engaged in the performance of its work. This was the
intersection of two principal city streets, one of which was the
main entrance to Love Field. As heretofore noted, employees
of all contractors engaged in work at the airport used this
entrance to gain access to their respective jobsites. As an
explanation for choosing this place to picket, Christian
testified that the Respondent was not sure of the boundaries
of Bell's work. I cannot accept this explanation. Thus, it will
be recalled that Christian testified that he spoke to Bell's
superintendent in early February to inquire as to the rates
being paid by Bell If Christian at this time was not made
aware that Bell's employees were working at the situs of the
airport parking lot, surely it would have taken very little effort
on his part to ascertain that this was the fact Although the
picket was ultimately moved closer to the Bell jobsite, by this
time the damage had already been done. As previously noted,
the place of picketing for the first 3 days was over one-half
mile removed from the Bell jobsite Such a distance from the
situs cannot be said to be a place "reasonably close to the
location of situs i 8 While I do not find that the picketing at
the situs on the first 3 days was per se unlawful, (such is not
alleged in the complaint), I do find that the Union's picketing
at the intersection of Mockingbird and Cedar Springs Streets
for a 3-day period is further evidence that an objective of the
Union was to enmesh other, neutral employers who were
engaged on other projects at the Love Field airport.
18 See Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO Building Trades Employers Association ), 169 NLRB No.
132, wherein the Board held that picketing one half to three quarters of
a mile away from the situs was not reasonably close to the location of
the situs
19 N. Alex Bickley, the Dallas City Attorney, testified that the cost
of the new airport is presently estimated at approximately
$ 400,000 ,000 This airport eventually will replace Love Field.
20 Respondent is not a member of the Council
21 Sheet Metal Workers International Association , et al (Patrick
Herring) 169 NLRB No. 130, relied on by the Respondent is factually
distinguishable from the instant case Here , statements disclosing the
Union's unlawful objectives were made by Christian to three different
employer representatives . Although the conversations in which these
201
The General Counsel also points to the fact, as the record
establishes, that in latter January and early February 1968, the
United States Department of Labor conducted a 2-week
hearing to determine whether highway and heavy construction
rates or the building and construction rates should apply to
various work involved in the forthcoming construction of a
new regional airport between Dallas and Fort Worth i 9 Al-
though the Respondent was not a direct party to this
proceeding, Business Agent Christian testified at this hearing at
the behest of the Fort Worth Building Trades Council2°
However, and whatever the possible connection between the
coincidental timing of the picketing and the occasion of the
Department of Labor hearing, I do not rely on this factor in
finding the violation herein There is, in my opinion, sufficient
other evidence, as heretofore discussed, to establish the
unlawful objective.
In sum, and for the reasons set forth above, I conclude and
find that the Respondent threatened, restrained, and coerced
the Security Construction Co., and Henry C. Beck Company
for the heretofore proscribed object within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. See Local 25, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Building
Trades Employers Association), 169 NLRB No. 132; Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association, et al. (The Board of
Harbor Commissioners), 137 NLRB 1178.21 It is immaterial
that the Respondent may have had an additional lawful
objective. 22 In view of the widespread work stoppages by the
employees of secondary employers, which I am persuaded was
at least partially due to the situs chosen by the Union to
conduct its first 3 days of picketing, I find that Respondent's
conduct here also violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) of the Act.' '
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The course of conduct chargeable to Respondent Union, set
forth in section III, above, since it occurred in connection with
the operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and com-
merce among the several States, and, absent correction, would
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 certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act In view of the
serious nature of the violations found herein, it may reason-
ably be anticipated that Respondent will engage in similar
statements were made were initiated by the employers, it is particularly
significant that Christian advised Thompson that, "the controversy
really wasn't with Ed Bell , it was with the City, due to the fact that
they had let their contracts with the heavy and highway rate , rather
than the building and construction rate basis ." I would view this, and
similar statements made by Christian , as admissions against interest
Indeed, citing Hartsell Mills Co. v. N.L R.B., I1 I F.2d 291, 293 (C.A.
4), the Board has frequently stated that analogous employer admissions
of unlawful motivation in 8(a )( 3) cases is direct evidence of a purpose
to violate the statute and is of a type that is "rarely obtainable "
22 Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council,
et al. (Centlivre Village Apartments), 148 NLRB 854
23 Local 125 , international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Building Trades Employers Association), supra
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unfair labor practices I will, therefore, recommend that the
Respondent Union cease and desist from engaging in such
unfair labor practices with respect to any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
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 Local Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2 Security Construction Co and Henry C. Beck Company
are individual employers engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
3 By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by
Security and Beck, and other employers, to engage in strikes or
refusals in the course of their employment to perform services,
an object thereof being to force the above-named employers
and others, to cease doing business with the city of Dallas, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B)
of the Act.
4 By the Act described above in paragraph 3 for the
objects set forth above in said paragraph, Respondent did
threaten, coerce and restrain, and is now threatening, coercing
and restraining Security and Beck, persons engaged in com-
merce and in an industry affecting commerce, and the
Respondent thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act
5. 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
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I
recommend that Respondent, Local Union 198, United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall.
1 Cease and desist from.
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by
Security and Beck, or by any other person engaged in
commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in
a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work
on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to
perform any services; or
(b) Threatening, coercing or restraining Security, Beck, or
any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force and
require the aforesaid employers and others to cease doing
business with the city of Dallas
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 hereto marked "Appendix X24 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of
the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to 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) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 16 signed
copies of said notice for posting by Security and Beck, 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
forth with returned to the Regional Director for disposition by
him
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision
and Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply
herewith .21
24 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be enforced by a decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the
words "a Decision and Order "
25 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by a
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional
Director in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF Local Union 198, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner
of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify you that
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual em-
ployed by Security Construction Co , Henry C. Beck
Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce (except employees of
employers with whom we have a direct dispute) to engage
in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, materials, articles, or commodities, or
to perform any services where an object thereof is to force
or require any of the aforesaid employers, or any other
employer or person, to cease doing business with the city of
Dallas
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any of the
above-named employers or persons, or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
where an object thereof is to force or require said
employers or others to cease doing business with the city of
Dallas
LOCAL UNION 198,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CAR-
PENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
LOCAL 198, CARPENTERS 203
Dated By If members have any question concerning this notice or
(Representative) (Title) compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from with the Board's Regional Office, 8A24 Federal Office Building
the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone
by any other material. 334-2934