Local Union No. 60, Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1971

190 N.L.R.B. 127 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

LOCAL UNION NO. 60, CARPENTERS
Local Union No. 60 , United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (George P.
MacDougall Co., Inc .) (Burnet-Binford Lumber
Company, Division of Stanray Corporation) and The
Indiana National Bank
Carpenters' District Council of Central and Western
Indiana , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO (George P. Mac-
Dougall Co., Inc.) (Burnet -Binford Lumber Com-
pany , Division of Stanray Corporation) and The In-
diana National Bank. Cases 25-CC-205 and
25-CC-206
April 27, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDY
On January 21, 1971, Trial Examiner Laurence A.
Knapp issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel
and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision
and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed an
answering 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 Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the modification noted.'
' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial
Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the revelant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were
incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d
362 (C A 3) We find no such basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings in this case
' We shall correct the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner to
conform to the recommended notice, which we find to be appropriate, in
order to remedy effectively the Respondents' unfair labor practices See
American Guild of Musical Artists (National Symphony Orchestra Associa-
tion), 157 NLRB 735, Local 38, LB.E W (Bob Cutler Signs), 155 NLRB
1147, 1151-52 Member Fanning would limit the scope of the Order, adopt-
ing the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and would correspond-
ingly limit the scope of the notice See his dissenting opinion in W. D. Don
Thomas Construction Company, 130 NLRB 1289, 1291, enfd. as modified
300 F 2d 649 (C A. 9)
190 NLRB No. 17
ORDER
127
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner as modified below , and hereby or-
ders that the Respondents , Local Union No. 60, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, and Carpenters ' District Council of Central
and Western Indiana , United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, their officers,
agents , and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner 's recommended Order as
modified herein:
Delete paragraph " 1" and substitute the following:
"1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging
individuals employed by George P. MacDougall Co.,
Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or
refusal in the course of their employment to use, proc-
ess, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any
goods , articles, materials, or commodities or to perform
services ; and from threatening , coercing , or restraining
George P. MacDougall Co., Inc., or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where in either case an object of such conduct
is to force or require George P. MacDougall Co., Inc.,
or any other person to cease using , handing , transport-
ing, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease
doing business with, Burnet-Binford Lumber Com-
pany , Division of Stanray Corporation."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAURENCE A. KNAPP, Trial Examiner: I heard these con-
solidated cases in Indianapolis, Indiana, on October 13 and
14, 1970,' following pretrial procedures in compliance with
the National Labor Relation Act, as amended (herein called
the Act).' After the hearing helpful briefs were filed by coun-
sel for the General Counsel, counsel for the Respondents, and
counsel for the Charging Party.
As hereinafter detailed, the Charging Party-the Indiana
National Bank-is in the process of constructing a large bank
building in Indianapolis. Under a contract between the gen-
eral contractor for the project, the George A. Fuller Co., Inc.,
and a subcontractor, the George P. MacDougall Co., Inc.,
MacDougall Co. is engaged in the furnishing and installation
of a variety of interior woodwork for offices in this building,
which products it obtains, in turn, from the Burnet-Binford
Lumber Company, Division of the Stanray Corporation
(hereinafter called Burnet-Binford).
The employees of MacDougall Co. involved herein are
members of Respondent Local Union No. 60. Respondent
Local 60, in turn, is a member of Respondent Carpenters'
District Council which has a contract (hereinafter called the
' All dates used herein refer to the year 1970 unless otherwise stated.
= Following the filing of the respective charges in the two cases on Sep-
tember 10, they were consolidated, and the complaint issued, on September
25 Respondent's answer was filed on September 29
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
builders' contract) with an association of contractors in the
Indianapolis area known as the Building Trades Council.
Through its membership in this contractors' association,
MacDougall Co. is a party to this contract.
Burnet-Binford, on the other hand, is nonunion; i.e., it has
employees in operations coming within the claimed jurisdic-
tion of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters but is not a
party to the contract above referred to (presumably because
past efforts of Respondents to organize Burnet-Binford's em-
ployees have been unsuccessful). Hence, the terms "Union,"
"non-Union," "Union-made," etc., as used by Respondents'
officials and other witnesses in this case, refer to employers
under contract or not under contract, as the case may be, with
Respondents or some other element of their United Brother-
hood of Carpenters parent organization.'
These consolidated cases present the question whether the
Respondent labor organizations violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)
.and (ii) by inducing or encouraging employees of Mac-
Dougall Co. who are members of Respondent Local 60 to
strike or refuse to perform work, and by threatening, restrain-
ing, or coercing MacDougall Co., with the object of forcing
MacDougall Co. to cease doing business with Burnet-Bin-
ford.
I. THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION
Respondents admit and I find the jurisdictional facts set
forth in detail in paragraph 2 of the complaint herein. On
those facts , I find and conclude that Fuller Co., MacDougall
Co., and Burnet -Binford are individually and collectively em-
ployers engaged in commerce and in activities affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find that
each of Respondent organizations named in the caption is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
The conduct complained of against Respondents in this
case was engaged in by one Norman Bland and one Virgil
Belcher, who, on the basis of admitted allegations of the
complaint and record evidence , I find acted as agents of and
on behalf of each of the Respondents.'
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
conversations MacDougall informed Bland of his hopes of
obtaining a contract and, in effect, asked Bland to approve of
his proposed use of Burnet-Binford as the supplier of the
necessary wood products' and that Bland's reply was that
MacDougall would be in violation of the builders' contract
if he used Burnet-Binford material' and that he would not
"let" MacDougall use Burnet-Binford as a supplier because
that company was nonunion. On the basis of both the tes-
timony of Bland and MacDougall, I further find that after
Bland again told MacDougall in the second conversation that
he would not allow MacDougall to use Burnet-Binford be-
cause "they were nonunion,"' MacDougall pointed out to
Bland that Burnet-Binford was being used as a supplier at-the
time by other union builders in Indianapolis; that Bland re-
plied that Burnet-Binford was not supplying materials for the
Indiana Bank job-"his" (that is, Bland's) job-and sug-
gested that MacDougall use one or another of two union
suppliers; and that MacDougall opposed use of these sug-
gested suppliers on the ground that one of them, then a
supplier on this project, was behind in deliveries and that for
this reason the bank wanted "to get somebody else in there,"
and because the other was similarly unreliable.
As stated, MacDougall Co. began work on the project
about September 1. On September 2, three of its employees,
Schultz, Mann, and Corbett (all members of Respondent
Local 60) were approached at the jobsite by Respondents'
agents Bland and Belcher. A composite of the testimony of
Schultz and Corbett as to what happened on this occasion is
that: Bland opened the conversation by stating that they were
having "trouble" or that there was going to be "trouble" on
the job because Burnet-Binford, the supplier of the material
that the three men were working on, was nonunion; and that
this trouble related back to unsuccessful past efforts of Re-
spondents to organize Burnet-Binford's employees. Bland
went on to say that although some doors (manufactured by
a Wisconsin producer) bore the union label they were still
Burnet-Binford material; that the employees were in violation
of their union obligation' in installing materials supplied by
Burnet-Binford; and that, if they continued to install such
materials, charges would be filed against them for violation
of that obligation. Bland further stated that he was not order-
ing the men to quit work but that he wanted them to do so
or that they should do so. He also said there were two union
suppliers who could furnish the material and, after interrupt-
ing the conversation to use the telephone, returned to state
that MacDougall Co. had not contacted either of these firms.
MacDougall Co. began the work subcontracted to it about
September 1. Prior thereto, and in anticipation of obtaining
such a subcontract, George MacDougall, president of Mac-
Dougall Co, had two telephone conversations with Respond-
ents' agent Bland, in calls initiated by Mr. MacDougall. The
first of these was in or about January or February and the
second in early April. The testimony of MacDougall and
Bland is at variance as to whether MacDougall's proposed
use of Burnet-Binford was mentioned in the first conversa-
tion, but Bland admitted that this was the central topic
brought up by MacDougall in the second one. On all the
evidence and circumstances of record, I find that in both
J Burnet-Binford performs some manufacturing or processing operations
on some of the products it sells; it also supplies finished products manufac-
tured by other companies, some of which products are "Union made."
Bland is financial secretary and business representative of Local 60, and
vice president of the District Council. Belcher is identified in the pleadings
as a union "Steward" on the project involved herein; he did not testify in
the case. Respondents' answer admits allegations of the complaint that
Bland and Belcher are agents of both Respondents.
' Burnet-Binford had been MacDougall 's principal supplier of such pro-
ducts for some 25 years.
The corresponding provision of the contract reads:
The Employer agrees not to subcontract or sublet any work covered by
this agreement to any person, firm, or corporation, which does not pay
at least the minimum rates of pay and abides by all apprenticeship
standards as set forth in this agreement together with fringes estab-
lished herein.
Bland's corresponding testimony is as follows: "George MacDougall
called the second time and he asked me-told me that he had the oppor-
tunity to do the tenant work, again, with the understanding that he could
use Burnet-Binford Lumber Company, and wanted to know if I would okay
it. I told him that George Fuller Company, the general contractor on the
jobsite, would not allow Burnet-Binford to deliver materials to the jobsite
because they were non-Union. In the pre-job conference and the under-
standing with George Fuller is that everything on the job would be 100
percent Union. So George asked me if he would get the tenant work would
I allow him to use Burnet-Binford. I told him I would not because they were
non-Union and we would hold him to his contract were he agreed to subcon-
tract to a Union mill."
This "obligation" refers to a portion of the "secret" oath of membership
in the Carpenters' union to the effect that the member "will ask for the union
label and will employ only union labor when the same can be had."
LOCAL UNION NO. 60, CARPENTERS 129
Then, again indicating to the men that they should not use
Burnet-Binford material, he told them again that if they did
so charges would be brought against them.' Bland and
Belcher then left the site, after which Corbett had a further
telephone conversation with Bland in which Bland said he
was not telling the men to stop work but that they "should"
stop working.
Schultz, Corbett, and Mann thereupon, about 2:30 that day
and in advance of normal quitting time, left the jobsite.
Schultz and Corbett testified that they left because of the
concern they entertained about the trouble they were or
might be in with their Union if they continued working."
Bland's version of the September 2 events is that he told the
three men the "problem" with the MacDougall firm was that
its use of Burnet-Binford supplies violated a subcontracting
provision of the builders' contract. But he further testified
that he admitted to Corbett that even though Burnet-Binford
was then supplying other union contractors in the area (that
is, without being a "problem" to Respondents), he was taking
a contrary position toward use of Burnet-Binford by the Mac-
Dougall firm on the ground that it was his "duty" as a union
business representative to "strive to organize" to protect the
union label. He further testified that, after interrupting the
conversation to make telephone calls to see if the MacDougall
firm had sought bids from three union suppliers, he told the
men that he did not have authority to direct them to leave the
job but that they had an "obligation" they should remember
and should act accordingly, and if they left the job they would
be leaving "on their own and not at my order." Queried under
cross-examination as to why he referred to their union "obli-
gation" in relation to their working on Burnet-Binford
materials, Bland testified that (putting himself in the position
of the three carpenters) he would not have quit work on
Burnet-Binford materials even though working on them vi-
olated the union "obligation." He was then asked by the Trial
Examiner why, in these circumstances, he made any refer-
ence to the union "obligation," and in response, explained
that he did so in the expectation that the men would contact
the MacDougall firm to see "if they could work their problem
out," i.e., to see if the MacDougall firm "wouldn't go to a
Union mill" for its supplies.
On September 3, Corbett and Mann did not go to work but
Schultz did, along with Nelson, another union member.
Bland and Belcher came up to Schultz and Nelson in the
building and, according to a composite of the testimony of
Schultz and Nelson, the following then transpired: Bland
asked Schultz if he remembered what Bland had said to him
the day before and Schultz replied that he did; Bland said that
he was not telling the two men to stop work but if they
continued they would be violating their "obligation" and
went on to say that he was going to file charges against
Schultz and Nelson for using Burnet-Binford materials on the
job; Nelson asked Bland under what clause (of the Union's
constitution) he proposed to prefer charges and Bland replied
for violation of "obligation"; Nelson then asked Bland if he
was giving them a "direct order" to stop working and Bland
replied that he was not but did say "I advise you to stopp
working"; that further in the conversation Bland asked Nel-
' The testimony that Bland threatened on this occasion to prefer charges
against the men is that of Schultz Corbett's testimony is that he did not hear
Bland refer to filing charges and that is the interpretation I put on the
testimony of Mann who, while he testified that Bland did not refer to filing
charges, admittedly was in conversation with Corbett during some of the
time Bland was talking, for which reason neither he or Corbett was in a
position to testify as to everything Bland said on this occasion
10 Mann testified that he left work because of what Bland had said to the
effect that working on Burnet-Burford material violated his union obligation.
son if he knew that Burnet-Binford was a nonunion employer
and Nelson replied that he did; that toward the end of the
conversation Nelson asked Bland if he was preferring charges
against him and Schultz and Bland replied that he was; and
that Bland stated that he was going to bring suit against the
MacDougall firm for violation of the subcontracting provi-
sion of the contract with the builders' association , which he
read to Nelson on this occasion.
Bland's testimony as to these September 3 events-is that he
asked Schultz if everything was "squared away" and that
Schultz replied that he had talked to Walker, a business
representative of Respondent Council, and that things were
"squared away"; that Nelson then asked why they could not
use Burnet-Binford material on that job and that he told
Nelson that in his opinion the MacDougall firm was violating
the contract with respect to subcontracting; that he "in-
structed both of them , again, that they had an obligation to
live up to," meaning the one contained in the membership
oath; and that when Nelson asked him if he was going to
prefer charges against them he said "No, I am not going to
prefer charges against you although charges could be brought
against you."
Employees Schultz and Corbett went to work on the job on
September 4 and while there were approached by Respond-
ents' agent Belcher. Since Belcher did not testify, on the basis
of the testimony of Schultz and Corbett I find that the follow-
ing took place on this occasion. Belcher inquired of the two
men whether the "trouble" had been settled and was told that
they did not think it had but they had been told by the
MacDougall firm to continue working. Belcher then said
charges had been (or were being) filed against the two men
(Schultz and Nelson) who had worked the preceding day,
whereupon Corbett remarked that he supposed charges
would be filed against him for working that day and Belcher
replied in the affirmative. Corbett then inquired what the
basis of the charges would be and Belcher, referring to their
working on Burnet-Binford materials, stated "violation of
obligation ," meaning, I infer, the provision of the member-
ship oath previously referred to. Belcher then left. Schultz
and Corbett then telephoned to "Bud" Walker, a business
representative of Respondent District Council. (On the previ-
ous evening Corbett had asked Walker at a meeting of Re-
spondent Local 60 what he should do to protect himself with
"the Union" in the light of Bland 's statements that the men
should stop work, and had been advised by Walker to do
whatever a majority of MacDougall's carpenters chose to do.)
Walker confirmed to Schultz what he had advised Corbett to
do the previous evening" and recommended to Corbett that
the men call Bland. Corbett did so, informing Bland that
Belcher had said that "they" had filed charges against the two
men who had worked the day before and asking Bland
whether charges would be filed against him if he worked that
day. Bland responded that he would file such charges. Cor-
bett then said that he could not understand why charges were
to be filed against him when no such action had been taken
against union men who were working on Burnet-Binford
materials on another nearby project. Bland replied that the
union men were not working on that company' s material in
his "district" meaning on jobs for which Bland, rather than
some other business agent, was responsible as Respondents'
representative, and went on to say that "That B.A.'s [mean-
ing Respondents' various business agents] more or less agreed
that they would not use Burnet-Binford material on the jobs"
but that it "looked like" Bland was the only business agent
" I base this finding on the hearsay testimony of Corbett, which particu-
larly since Walker was not called by Respondents, I consider sufficiently
reliable to justify crediting
'130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who was "enforcing" this understanding among the agents."
On September 24, Respondent District Council instituted
suit in a State court seeking an injunction against the Mac-
Dougall firm for alleged violation of the subcontracting
provision of the contract with the area builders. (See Resp.
Exh. 2.) Having made my findings of fact as to the events of
September 4, I turn to this task with respect to the events of
September 2 and 3. In the light of all the testimony of record,
of Bland's failure to testify concerning the events of Septem-
ber 4 involving him, of Belcher's failure to testify at all, and
of my demeanor observations, I credit the testimony of union
members Schultz, Corbett, and Nelson as to the events of
September 2 and 3 and reject such portions of the testimony
of Bland as is, or may appear to be, of contradictory charac-
ter." Accordingly I find that on September 2 and 3, Bland,
speaking as Respondents' representative, made it know to the
MacDougall employees at work on those days that, while he
was stopping short of giving them a direct order to cease
work, he was requesting, urging, and admonishing them to
cease work on the Burnet-Binford materials because Burnet-
Binford was nonunion; that he informed the employees that
he considered their working on such nonunion materials to
be in violation of their union obligation; and that he threat-
ened to prefer charges against them on the basis of their use
of such materials.
Concluding Findings with
Respect to the Alleged Violations
The statements and threats of Respondents' representa-
tives to the MacDougall employees clearly sufficed to "in-
duce" or "encourage" those employees to cease work." And
in the light of Bland's statements to Mr. MacDougall that he
would not let the MacDougall firm use Burnet-Binford
materials because, as Bland himself testified, Burnet-Binford
was nonunion, his similar explanations to the MacDougall
employees, and his references in this connection to the past
unsuccessful efforts of Respondents to organize the Burnett-
Binford employes, it is clear that what gave rise to Bland's
and Belcher's pressures on the men to cease work was the
nonunion status of Burnet-Binford firm. Thus Burnet-Bin-
ford, and not the MacDougall firm, was the offending party
in their eyes and therefore, in the terminology of such cases,
the primary employer in the situation. In short, in my view,
the sole object of Bland's and Belcher's pressures on the
MacDougall employees was that of causing (that is, "forcing"
or "requiring" as the statutory language goes) the Mac-
Dougall firm to cease doing business with Burnet-Binford
because that supplier's employees were not represented by
Respondents and, as the evidence further establishes, to cause
the MacDougall firm to obtain the materials needed from,
" Charges had not been filed against any of the MacDougall employees
at the time of the hearing, but it may be noted that the statutory charges
which gave rise to this proceeding were filed on September 10, about a week
after the events in question, and that the complaint issued rather rapidly
thereafter.
" For example, I specifically decline to credit Bland's testimony that he
did not at "any time" tell Schultz, Corbett, Mann, or Nelson that he was
going to prefer charges against them.
" While Respondents' counsel contends that Bland made it clear to the
MacDougall employees that he was not "telling" them to stop work, he did,
in fact, "tell" them that in substance (while adding that he was not ordering
or directing them to cease work on the Burnet-Binford materials). But he
also said more, i.e., that their membership oath put them under an obligation
to cease work and that that oath would be enforced by intraunion discipli-
nary measures if they did not heed his admonitions. Ample case authority
too abundant for citation renders the totality of Bland's and Belcher's state-
ments unlawful inducement and encouragement within the meaning of the
statutory section involved herein.
that is, to replace Burnet-Binford by, some union supplier.
But whether or not these were the sole objectives of Respond-
ents' representatives, they certainly were "an" objective
thereof. Conduct of this nature and objective, addressed both
to the MacDougall employees and their employer, is violative
of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act.15
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Those activities of Respondents set forth in section III,
found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in con-
nection with the business of the Employers as set forth in
section I, 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.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employers named in section I hereof are employers
engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)
of the Act.
2. Each of the Respondents is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees of George P.
MacDougall Co., Inc., to engage in a strike or refusal in the
course of their employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, with
the object set forth above, Respondents and each of them
have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining George P.
MacDougall Co., Inc., with the object set forth above, Re-
spondents and each of them have engaged in unfair labor
" In his brief, Respondents ' counsel advances as his leadoff argument the
contention that Respondent's sole objective was a "work preservation" one,
i.e., that what their agents were objecting to was the fact that the Mac-
Dougall firm was not performing on the jobsite certain milling operations on
certain "trim" materials which Burnet-Binford was supplying already
milled. But Respondents' counsel made no reference to any such contention
in his opening statement of position solicited by the Trial Examiner, no such
precise and limited objective was portrayed in Respondents ' agents' state-
ments to Mr. MacDougall and to the men, the evidence shows that such
milling operations were neither commonly nor traditionally performed by
the MacDougall carpenters on the jobsite, and Bland himself testified that
he had no objection to the fact that these milling operations on the"trim"
were not being performed by MacDougall employees on the jobsite. Hence,
this contention is unworthy of serious consideration.
Respondents further contend in their brief (1) that there was no unlawful
inducement or encouragement of the MacDougall employees to cease work
(because, Respondents contend, no threat to file charges was made and the
employees were otherwise left entirely free to determine whether or not to
leave the job); and (2) that there was no coercion applied to the MacDougall
firm because, Respondents assert, the only threat communicated to it was
that Respondents would bring suit for breach of contract. But I have found
the facts to be otherwise in respect to both of these contentions.
Finally, Bland testified that he took the steps he did because, in his
opinion, MacDougall's contract with Burnet-Binford violated the subcon-
tracting clause of the builders' contract. See, fn. 6, supra. My contrary
findings as to the true reasons and objective of his conduct require a rejec-
tion of this testimony. But even if this were the true basis of his conduct
Respondents would be in no better position since economic action such as
I have found they took would, if their objective was to enforce compliance
with this clause, likewise bring them into violation of the Act, as they appear
to concede.
LOCAL UNION NO. 60, CARPENTERS
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act, I shall recommend that they be required to cease and
desist from such practices, and to take certain affirmative
actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended:16
ORDER
Respondents Local Union No. 60, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters, and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Carpen-
ters' District Council of Central and Western Indiana, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by
George P. MacDougall Co., Inc., to engage in a strike or
refusal in the course of their employment to use, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities or to perform any services for
George P. MacDougall Co., Inc., for an object of forcing or
requiring said Employer to cease doing business with Burnet-
Binford Lumber Company, Division of Stanray Corporation.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining George P. Mac-
Dougall Co., Inc., for an object of forcing or requiring said
Employer to cease doing business with Burnet-Binford Lum-
ber Company, Division of Stanray Corporation.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at their respective business
offices and meeting halls, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A" or "Appendix B," correspond-
ing to the respective Respondents." Copies of said notices, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after
being duly signed by authorized representatives of Respond-
ents, shall be posted by each of Respondents immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by them for 60 con-
secutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ents to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Promptly after receipt of copies of said notices from
said Regional Director, return to him signed copies for post-
ing by George P. MacDougall Co., Inc., and by Burnet-
Binford Lumber Company, Division of Stanray Corporation,
if they be willing, at their places of business, including the
Indiana Bank jobsite in the case of said MacDougall Co., at
locations where notices to employees of said Employers are
customarily posted.
16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
" In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
131
(c) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within 20
days from the date of receipt of this Decision , what steps have
been taken by Respondents to comply herewith."
3° In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby advise all members of Local Union No. 60, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, and George P. MacDougall Co., Inc., and Burnet-Bin-
ford Lumber Company, Division of Stanray Corporation,
and their employees, that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of
George P. MacDougall Co., Inc., or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of
their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials or commodities, or to perform any services,
and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain George
P. MacDougall Co., Inc., or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
where in either case an object of such conduct is to force
or require George P. MacDougall Co., Inc., or any other
person, to cease using, handling, transporting, or other-
wise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing busi-
ness with, Burnet-Binford Lumber Company, Division
of Stanray Corporation.
LOCAL UNION No.
60, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 614 ISTA
Center , 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana
46204 , Telephone 317-633-8921.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby advise all members of Carpenters' Distract Coun-
cil of Central and Western Indiana, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and George
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
P. MacDougall Co., Inc., and Burnet-Binford Lumber Com-
pany, Division of Stanray Corporation, and their employees,
that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of
George P. MacDougall Co., Inc., or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of
their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities, or to perform any services
and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain George
P. MacDougall Co., Inc., or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
where in either case an object of such conduct is to force
or require George P. MacDougall Co., Inc., or any other
person, to cease using, handling, transporting, or other-
wise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing busi-
ness with, Burnet-Binford Lumber Company, Division
of Stanray Corporation.
CARPENTERS' DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF CENTRAL
AND WESTERN
INDIANA, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 614 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana
46204, Telephone No. 317-633-8921.