Metropolitan District Council Of Philadelphia And Vicinity, United Brotherhood Of Carpenters And Joiners Of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 493 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

CARPENTERS (REEVES, INC.)
Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and
Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America and E. Allen Reeves, Inc.
and Delran Builders Co ., Inc. Cases 4-CB-4873
and 4-CB-4890
17 September 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 31 December 1985 Administrative Law
Judge Robert T. Snyder issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, the General Counsel filed cross-ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Parties filed reply briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions,
and briefs' and has decided to affirm the judge's
rulings, findings , and conclusions2 and to adopt the
recommended Order. a
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent , Metropoli-
tan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.
1 The Respondent has requested oral argument . The request is denied
as the record , exceptions, cross-exceptions , and briefs adequately present
the issues and the positions of the parties.
a At Conclusion of Law 3 , the judge concluded that the Respondent
blocked the egress of a Delran employee from the Evangelical Manor
worksite. As found elsewhere in the judge 's decision , the Respondent
blocked the egress of a Reeves employee at that worksite.
' In adopting the judge's cease-and-desist order , we find it unnecessary
to consider or rely on events occurring in the summer of 1983 at the
C.H. Investors worksite.
We agree with the judge that the "blocking of ingress to and egress
from an employer's facility, mass picketing , and threats of unspecified re-
prisals" for engaging in protected activities that occurred in this case
constitute coercive conduct violative of the Act . In this context, we do
not take issue with the judge 's general observation that "union violence
against employees , which has the effect of interfering with" employees'
statutory rights constitutes coercive conduct violative of Sec . 8(bXIXA)
of the Act.
Charles S. Strickler, Esq., and Michael P. Berger, Esq., for
the General Counsel.
William J. Einhorn, Esq., and Thomas H. Kohn, Esq.
(Sagot & Jennings, Esgs) (Kenneth Henley, Esq., on the
brief), of Philadelphia , Pennsylvania, for the Respond-
ent.
493
Lawrence S. Coburn, Esq. (Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz
Esgs), of Philadelphia , Pennsylvania, for the Charging
Parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OP THE CASE
ROBERT T. SNYDER, Administrative Law Judge. This
proceeding was tried at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on
10 and 11 December 1984. The complaints, issued on 27
August and 10 September 1984, ordered consolidated on
26 September 1984, and orally amended at the opening
of hearing, allege conduct by agents and representatives
of the Respondent Union (also called the Union), in con-
nection with its picketing of two worksites in Philadel-
phia including the blocking of ingress of employees at-
tempting to enter the sites, blocking of egress of an em-
ployee attempting to leave one of the sites, mass picket-
ing, and a threat of physical harm to an employee taking
pictures at one of the sites, which restrained and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act. The Respondent filed answers, orally amended at
the hearing, which denied the jurisdictional as well as
the conclusionary allegations of the complaints.
All parties were given full oppportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses,' to argue orally, and to file briefs. The
General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Par-
ties each filed posttrial briefs that have been carefully
considered. On the entire record in the case including
my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
E. Allen Reeves, Inc. (Reeves), a Pennsylvania corpo-
ration, with an office and principal place of business lo-
cated in Abington, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the con-
struction business as a contractor. During 1984, in the
course and conduct of its business operations , Reeves
purchased and received goods and services, valued in
excess of $100,000, directly from suppliers located out-
side the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and located in
the State of New Jersey.
Delran Builders Company, Inc. (Delran), a Pennsylva-
nia corporation , with an office and principal place of
business located in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, is engaged
1 In its posttrial brief, the Respondent renews its request for a continu-
ance to compel the Charging Parties ' compliance with subpoenas and for
a reopening of hearing to permit examination of witnesses concerning the
information regarding the Charging Parties ' financial records, jobs, and
expected completion dates requested in the subpoenas . The Respondent
claims this information is relevant on the issue of the breadth of the reme-
dial cease-and-desist order sought by the General Counsel and opposed
by the Respondent, enjoining the Respondent Union from engaging in
like coercive conduct at any jobsites at which the Charging Parties' em-
ployees are working. The Respondent would limit relief to the two job-
sites involved in the proceeding , each of which is now completed, and
would give no future effect to a cease-and-desist order . The ruling made
by me at Tr . 196-197 is reaffirmed and for the reasons therein stated.
281 NLRB No. 77
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the construction business as a contractor . During the
past 12 months , in the course and conduct of its business
operations, Delran has performed construction services
valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly for customers locat-
ed outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and lo-
cated in the State of New Jersey.
I find, on the basis of the foregoing, that both Reeves
and Delran are employers engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Sie-
mons Mailing Services, 122 NLRB 81 (1958).
The complaints allege, the Respondent admits, and I
find that the Respondent Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts Arising in Case 4-CB-4873
Reeves, which employs approximately 70 employees,
began a job of interior renovation at the Evangelical
Manor (the Manor) located on Roosevelt Boulevard in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in June 1984 . The Manor is a
retirement community , which also provides skilled and
intermediate nursing care to its residents . In July 1984
approximately 10 employees of Reeves worked at the
Manor . The scheduled completion date was June 1985.
At the time of the instant hearing , Reeves was employed
as a general contractor at six jobsites in the Philadelphia
metropolitan area.
On 25 June 1984 Fran Laffey, a business agent for the
Respondent Union , identified himself and his position
and hand delivered a letter to James Toolman , president
of the Manor. The letter advised Toolman that the
Union had a dispute with Reeves concerning its destruc-
tion of carpentry area wages and standards . The letter
acknowledged the Union 's awareness that Reeves had
been retained by the Manor as the general contractor for
certain rehabilitative construction work at the Manor's
facilities . It went on to provide formal notification pursu-
ant to Section 8(g) of the Act of the Union' s intention to
establish "an informational picket line at your facility to
publicize our dispute with E. Allen Reeves, Inc." It con-
cluded that the picket line would be established begin-
ning at 7 a.m. on 5 July 1984 .2 As a result of receiving
this letter, the Manor established reserved gates at the
south and north driveway entrances , off Roosevelt Bou-
levard.
About 3 July, a sign was posted at the south driveway
entrance, identifying the entrance as the south gate and
specifying that it was to be used for Manor employees,
residents, and deliveries only. At the same time, a sign
was posted at the north driveway entrance, identifying
the entrance as the north gate and specifying it was to be
used by Reeves employees and subcontractors, and for
deliveries to Reeves and its subcontractors. The north
gate entrance is approximately 20 feet wide.
On 5 July, at approximately 7 a.m., five individuals ar-
rived at the Manor facility and stood in the driveway at
the north gate, blocking that entrance. One of those indi-
viduals was Business Agent Laffey . Two of them carried
signs that read , "E. Allen Reeves is destroying area
2 All dates hereinafter shall refer to the year 1984.
wage standards . This dispute is between E . Allen Reeves
and the Metropolitan District Council of Carpenters."
Uncontradicted testimony and other evidence3 show
that shortly after the five pickets arrived, four trucks
drove up in a single line on Roosevelt Boulevard to the
north gate entrance to the Manor , but their entrance to
the facility was blocked by the five pickets standing
across the driveway. In the first truck were Eric
DeWald, the driver and a Reeves foreman , and Dave
Wolset , a Reeves carpenter employee.
Jay Ferraro, Fred Brenner, Dave Swangler, and Phil
Hickout, Reeves carpenters , were in the second truck.
The third truck held employees of an electrical subcon-
tractor and in the fourth were employees of a plumbing
subcontractor. After remaining in a stationary position in
a line near the curb of Roosevelt Boulevard without
being able to gain entrance to the worksite for over 1
hour, at the suggestion of an officer of the Philadelphia
police labor squad, the four vehicles drove away from
the Manor entrance . The five pickets left the Manor at
approximately 10 a.m.
On 6 July , at approximately 7 a.m., five individuals
again came to the Manor north gate entranceway, again
including Business Agent Laffey. They again stood
across the driveway blocking entrance by any vehicle at-
tempting to enter the Manor facility by that entrance.
Again, two of the five carried picket signs with the same
legend as was carried on the previous day.
Shortly after the five pickets arrived and took up their
places, four trucks again pulled up to the north gate en-
trance but could not enter the facility because of the five
pickets standing across the driveway. The trucks were in
the same order , the first two had the same occupants and
the last two again held employees of an electrical and
plumbing subcontractor, respectively . For anywhere
from 5 to 10 or 15 minutes the trucks remained station-
ary in a row on Roosevelt Boulevard just short of the
north gate driveway . During this entire time the pickets
stood across the driveway. During this time, DeWald
handed a temporary restraining order to one of the men
standing in the driveway . The man refused to take it and
asked DeWald if he was "the fucking sheriff." DeWald
said no. The person then said, "then get the fuck out of
here." At this point, after a suggestion by an officer of
the Philadelphia police labor squad, the four vehicles
drove away from the area. The five pickets left the
Manor driveway at approximately 10 a.m.
On 9 July, at approximately 7 a.m., five individuals ar-
rived at the Manor facility and stood in the north gate
driveway, blocking that entrance to the Manor. Again,
two of the individuals carried picket signs with the same
legend as appeared on the signs carried on 5 and 6 July.
This day, five trucks drove up, single file, along Roose-
velt Boulevard to the north gate driveway entrance but
8 Introduced into evidence by the General Counsel and forming a part
of its case-in-chief are six video cassettes showing the picketing activity
and the interaction between the pickets and others at the Manor worksite
on 5 July and subsequent days during July The cassettes were produced
by a hidden video camera whose lens was aimed at the north gate dnve-
way area from a location on the second floor of the Manor building The
Respondent did not introduce any evidence to dispute the General Coun-
sel's eyewitness accounts and the video film cassettes
CARPENTERS (REEVES , INC.) 495
could not enter because of the five pickets standing
across the driveway . Again , DeWald and Wolset were in
the first truck , the same Reeves carpenters were in the
second truck, and employees of the electrical subcontrac-
tor, the plumbing subcontractor, and a ceramic tile sub-
contractor, respectively, were in the third, fourth, and
fifth trucks.
After remaining stopped at the north gate entrance for
a minute or two, a sheriff, who had been in a car parked
alongside the driveway, came to the picket line and
waived the first truck through the line with hand ges-
tures . As it drove slowly up the driveway, the pickets
were still moving back and forth across its width. The
sheriff parted the pickets with his gestures . The second
truck was stopped for about 30 seconds before it, too,
was waived in by the sheriff. The third truck was also
stopped for approximately 30 seconds, the fourth truck
entered without difficulty , and the fifth truck was
stopped momentarily before it was assisted into the facili-
ty by the sheriff.
On the next day, 10 July, four trucks containing em-
ployees of Reeves and various subcontractors were
forced to stop at the north gate driveway entrance by
the patrolling pickets, two carrying signs with the same
legends as before, until after about a half hour had
elapsed and the sheriff arrived and parted them to permit
the vehicles to enter the facility through the driveway.
Each vehicle came to a complete stop at the mouth of
the driveway for a minute or so while the sheriff ges-
tured the pickets apart to permit entry.
After an hour on the job , Wolset was asked to drive to
the office of the Reeves attorney in downtown Philadel-
phia . As Wolset pulled up in his truck to the north gate
entrance to leave the facility , his way was blocked by
the five pickets standing across the driveway. After re-
maining stationary in his truck for approximately 5 min-
utes, the sheriff came down , parted the pickets, and ges-
tured Wolset through the line.
On 17 July , at approximately 7:15 a .m., about 30 pick-
ets had gathered in front of the Manor, standing in the
driveway and on the property adjacent to the driveway.
Two of the individuals had picket signs carrying the
same legend as appeared on the signs previously carried
at the site on 5, 6 , 9, and 10 July . Two Reeves employ-
ees, carpenter Don Lafferty and DeWald, had driven up
to the north gate about 7:15 a .m., saw the group of pick-
ets, and drove away without attempting to gain entrance.
After consulting with the Reeves supervisors by tele-
phone from a nearby location , Lafferty and DeWald en-
tered the rear maintenance shop of the Manor facility on
foot through the parking lots of several adjacent build-
ings. By this time, 8 a.m., the group of men congregated
in front of the facility had doubled in size , now consist-
ing of some 60 pickets standing in the driveway at the
north gate and all along the front of the property, on the
grass, and the sidewalk . Between 8 and 8 :30 a.m ., all but
13 to 16 pickets left the area.
Shortly after 8:30 a .m., three vehicles approached the
north gate entrance to the Manor but could not enter be-
cause of the approximately 15 pickets standing across the
front of the driveway. DeWald drove the first truck.
Other Reeves employees were in the second truck and
employees of a mechanical subcontractor were in the
third truck . The three vehicles remained stationary in a
line leading up to the open driveway for 5 to 10 minutes
and then departed at the suggestion of an officer of the
Philadelphia police . The pickets were still at the work-
site in front of the driveway at 10 :30 a.m.
B. The Facts Arising in Case 4-CB-4890
At the time of the hearing Delran employed between
27 and 30 employees . On 9 July Delran began working
as general contractors, renovating the existing structure
at the Wyndmoor Apartments in Chestnut Hill, Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania. By the hearing , the work was basi-
cally completed except for some minor punch list items.
Scheduled completion was 31 December . On the rental
of the one remaining unrented commercial space Delran
would probably be returning to the site for approximate-
ly 6 weeks to complete renovation of that space. In De-
cember 1984 Delran was working as a general contractor
at 6 to 10 jobsites in the metropolitan Philadelphia area.
In August, approximately five or six Delran employees
worked on the Wyndmoor jobsite . At that time, there
was only one entrance to the project worksite, off
Willow Grove Avenue near its intersection with Ger-
mantown Avenue . It consisted of a single door off the
sidewalk, about 3 feet wide and 6 feet, 8 inches high.
On 7 August, at approximately 7:30 a.m., Francis
Ragg, the Delran job superintendent, and Thomas
Cleary, a Delran carpenter , independently arrived at the
Wyndmoor jobsite . At that time , they saw about 18 to 20
individuals who were not employed at the jobsite stand-
ing on both the Willow Grove Avenue and Germantown
Avenue sides of the project site, near the entrance. One
of these individuals was standing in front of and blocking
the entrance door to the site and a few others were
standing close to him . Ragg returned to Delran's office,
informed John Quigg , its president, of union trouble at
the jobsite and was instructed to return to try to gain
access to the site and find out who they were and what
they wanted . Quigg told Ragg those blocking the en-
trance had every right to picket but had no right to deny
him entry and he should get into the building and go to
work . Ragg returned and went up to the doorway en-
trance to the jobsite.
When Ragg got to the doorway , five or six people
were standing there . One of them stepped forward and
Ragg told him he was going to work. The man said he
was not going to let him . Ragg then said to the man
blocking the door he was going to go in and go to work.
The man blocking his way said he was not moving and
he was not going to let Ragg in . He said he was from a
Carpenters Union. Present during this interchange were
a number of carpenter and laborer employees of Delran
standing 5 to 7 feet behind Ragg. Other employees of
various subcontractors were also standing not far behind
Ragg but scattered on the Willow Grove Avenue side of
the building worksite.
Shortly after this incident and a little before 8 a.m.,
John Quigg arrived at the site. Quigg saw Seamus Boyle,
a union business agent , whom he had met previously,
present among the group of men , and he took Boyle
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
aside and spoke privately with him . Quigg asked Boyle
why he had come with all those men , why had he made
such a big deal out of this job. Boyle said he wanted the
job, he would like to put his men on the jobsite. Quigg
said that there was not that much carpentry work on
that site. It certainly did not warrant all this picketing.
Quigg asked Boyle to let him in the building . He noted
that what he was doing was illegal . If he wanted to
picket, picket, but let his guys in the door . Boyle could
not deny them access . Boyle responded he was not going
to let them in. Quigg then said he was going to try to get
in.
Quigg then walked to the entrance door . One very
large man who took up most of the doorway was stand-
ing directly in front of the door. In front of him and to
his side, outside the door entrance , was a group of men
who had arrived that morning at the site . Directly
behind Quigg , standing at the curbline some feet away,
was a group of Delran employees and employees of Del-
ran's subcontractors observing the scene . Quigg went to
the door and attempted to get into the building. He
reached for the door latch and pressed into the men in
an attempt to get through them. As he did so, they tight-
ened ranks and Quigg could not get near the door.
Quigg asked them if they would move and they said no.
Boyle was standing nearby . Quigg asked him to ask the
individuals blocking his entrance to get out of the way.
Boyle said no. Quigg then tried to gain entry a second
time the same way but with the same result.
On 13 August, when Ragg arrived at the Wyndmoor
Apartments jobsite around 7:20 a.m. he saw about 18 to
20 individuals standing on the sidewalk on both the
Willow Grove Avenue and Germantown Avenue sides
where they intersect. They were not employees of
Delran or its subcontractors. Four or five of them were
standing in and near the entrance doorway to the jobsite.
Two of them were wearing picket signs identifying them
as being from the Metropolitan Council of Carpenters.
The signs identified Delran Builders as being unfair to
the Union because it was not honoring area wage stand-
ards and stated this is a dispute between Delran Builders
and the Metropolitan District Council of Carpenters.
Ragg approached the same man he had spoken to at
the site on 7 August and said he was going to go in and
go to work . The man said no, they were staging protests
against Delran Builders and they were not going to let
Ragg and the other workers in. Ragg approached the
doorway and repeated his intention to go to work. These
men around the door said they were not going to move.
Present and some feet behind Ragg were Delran laborers
and carpenters . Employees of Delran subcontractors
were behind but staggered up and down the Willow
Grove Avenue side of the site.
At this time, one of the Delran employees, identified
as Serge, was taking flash pictures with a Polaroid
camera of the individuals blocking the entrance. Ragg
told Serge to give the instantly developed prints to him.
Serge did so. As he went to take the first picture, one of
the individuals standing in the doorway hollered to
Serge to put that camera away or he would make him
eat it.
Ragg instructed an employee to get Quigg down to
the site and he went to call the Philadelphia police labor
squad. The labor squad arrived and after talking with
one of the individuals with whom Ragg had conversed,
their members told Ragg there was nothing they could
do without a confrontation.
Quigg arrived at the site around 8 :30 a.m. He saw 20
to 25 men gathered along Willow Grove and German-
town Avenues and at and near the entrance to the job-
site. Quigg first spoke to Ragg , saw that Boyle was
present, and then took Boyle aside again . Quigg asked
Boyle why he had not called him the day of the previous
incident . Quigg said he had tried to work out some kind
of a compromise. Quigg added Boyle could not deny
him access to the building and what he was doing was
completely illegal . Boyle said it was out of his hands.
Quigg then told Boyle he was going to try to make
entry . Quigg next confirmed from the labor squad that
they were neutral observers and would arrest anybody
from either party who created a disturbance. When
Quigg said he did not want any bloodshed but would
make an attempt to enter the building , he was informed
his only recourse was a court injunction.
Quigg next approached the entrance to the jobsite.
Two men were standing in the doorway and several
others were in front of them and to the side. Quigg asked
them to move and walked up and pressed into them and
reached for the door latch. The men tightened ranks and
Quigg could not get through . Quigg tried twice to gain
entrance in this manner, but without success. Quigg
again also asked Boyle , standing to his left, to ask the
men to move, that it was wrong and illegal . Boyle reject-
ed Quigg 's request. Quigg next asked Ragg to attempt to
gain entry and handed Ragg his keys . Ragg then made
two attempts to enter the doorway, but was unable to
penetrate the group of individuals either time. All this
time the Delran employees working on the jobsite were
standing gathered at the curb some feet behind and to
the sides of the entrance door. At this point, Quigg told
Ragg to inform the employees to go back to the shop,
and instructed one of their members to remain at the site
and monitor the situation to see no damage was done.
The Respondent Union did not call any witnesses to dis-
pute the testimony of the General Counsel 's witnesses re-
garding the events at the Delran jobsite on 7 and 13
August.
C. Other Like Conduct Allegedly Engaged in by
Respondent Union Against Delran
During the hearing , counsel for the Charging Parties
sought to adduce evidence that the Respondent had en-
gaged in conduct arising out of picketing at another
worksite of Delran's a year prior to the events in ques-
tion in the instant proceeding which interfered with the
Section 7 rights of Delran and other employees, thereby
demonstrating a propensity by the Respondent Union to
engage in conduct violative of the Act in connection
with disputes it has with a charging party at any of its
jobsites. Over the Respondent counsel's objection, and
on the understanding that the proffered testimony and
exhibits were being offered solely on the question of the
CARPENTERS (REEVES, INC.)
scope of the remedy to be fashioned in the instant pro-
ceeding, which appeared to satisfy the General Counsel's
initial objection,' I granted leave to the Charging Parties
to adduce this evidence. Tr. 147-148.6 It showed that in
the summer of 1983 Delran was employed on a building
construction project at 8225 Germantown Avenue,
Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the owner,
C.H. Investors, a partnership.
In early June 1983, a group of 6 to 8 individuals ap-
peared at the worksite in front of the sole entrance and
denied anyone entrance or access to the site. Present
among these individuals was Ed Tohanczyn, a business
agent for the Respondent Union. Delran's president
Quigg, was called to the site and had a conversation
with the business agent . Quigg told Tohanczyn he had a
contract and he was going to fulfill it and Tohanczyn
could not deny him access. Tohanczyn said he would
break Delran's contract with the owners of the building
at the worksite. Present also were three employees of
Delran. They tried several times but were denied access.
When this became clear, Quigg asked Tohanczyn if a
Delran subcontractor performing excavation work at the
site could enter to remove the piece of equipment used
in this work. This was allowed, the equipment was re-
moved, but no work was performed because of inability
to gain access.
After monitoring the situation at the site area a
number of days, during which pickets arrived around 7
a.m. and stayed until 10 or 10:30 a.m., Delran fully en-
closed the jobsite, added a second gate for access, and
arranged for the excavation work to be performed at
5:30 a.m. prior to commencement of the early picketing.
After the arrival of the pickets, on the return of dump
trucks that had carried out loads of dirt early in the
morning, and in the presence of an observer from the
local police and labor squad, Tohanczyn instructed his
men to stand in front of the gate of entry for the trucks
and denied them further access to the worksite, each in
turn, as they approached the gate. After a few minutes
wait, each of four to six trucks was waved away by a
police sergeant at the scene.
As a result of this conduct, a preliminary injunction
was obtained by C.H. Investors, the site owner, against
various named defendants including the Respondent
Union and Tohanczyn as business agent in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Trial Division in
the June term 1983, prohibiting the defendants, including
the Respondent and Tohanczyn, from, inter alia, prevent-
ing by mass picketing, intimidation, coercion, threats,
and obstructing ingress to or egress from the plaintiffs
premises located at Germantown Avenue, Chestnut Hill,
* A later objection to the evidence made by the General Counsel and
concurred in by the Respondent , on the ground that it related to the sub-
ject of a charge filed with the Board but later withdrawn, was also
denied.
5 The Charging Parties' offer of proof and exhibits relating to various
court and Board proceedings in which injunctions and civil contempt
orders were sought or granted and settlement of Board complaints were
arrived at, to which the Respondent Union was a party defendant in
some but not all of these proceedings and the Charging Parties were not
named parties in any, was rejected on grounds of lack of relevance, re-
moteness, prejudice, and the general inadmissability of offers to compro-
mise. See Tr. 185-186.
497
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. By a stipulation entered and
approved by the court on 30 June 1983, the parties
agreed to continue the preliminary injunction until such
time as counsel for defendants petition the court for a
dissolution and it appears , after hearing , that an injunc-
tion is no longer necessary.
Analysis
Picket lines are the responsibility of the union that es-
tablishes them, including the misconduct of any of the
pickets who are at the line acting on its behalf. The
Board has long applied the traditional tests of agency to
determine whether a labor organization should be held
responsible for the acts of individuals. Responsibility at-
taches even if the principal has not specifically author-
ized or indeed may have specifically forbidden the act in
question. "It is enough if the principal actually empow-
ered the agent to represent him in the general area
within which the agent acted." Longshoremen ILWU
Local 6 (Sunset Line), 79 NLRB 1487, 1509 (1948).
Accord: Lithographers Local 235 (Henry Wurst), 187
NLRB 490 (1970).
The obligation of a labor organization in a picketing
situation extends to the proper policing of its picket lines
and maintaining order or, if it fails to do so, bearing the
responsibility of misconduct of its pickets. Boilermakers
Local 696 (Kargard Ca), 196 NLRB 645, 647 (1972);
Teamsters Local 695 (Tony Pellitteri), 174 NLRB 753, 758
(1969).
Because the Union here authorized the individuals to
be present at both the Manor and Wyndmoor jobsites, it
must be held responsible for their conduct engaged in
while at these sites . Dairy Employees Local 695 (Yellow
Cab), 221 NLRB 647 (1975); Teamsters Local 327 (Coca-
Cola Bottling), 184 NLRB 84 (1970).
A union letter informed the Manor of its intention of
establishing an informational picket line in its dispute
with Reeves at the site before it did so, and the picket
signs carried at the site informed the public of its having
done so. At the Wyndmoor site, the uncontradicted testi-
mony of Delran's president, John Quigg , relating his
conversation with Union Business Agent Seamus Boyle,
established, even in the absence of any picket signs on
the first date, 7 August, that pickets appeared at the site,
of the Union's having instituted a line in furtherance of a
dispute with Delran and having authorized the individ-
uals who congregated at and near the entrance door to
the site to be present for that purpose.
Furthermore, in most if not all instances at both sites a
responsible union agent, in the person of Business Agent
Fran Laffey at the Manor site and Business Agent
Seamus Boyle at the Wyndmoor site, was present, pre-
sumably overseeing and in charge of the line on behalf of
the Respondent. Neither of these agents took any steps
to divorce themselves or the Union from the blocking or
massing at the sites. See Hospital Employees (Southport
Manor), 227 NLRB 1732 (1977). To the contrary, by
being present in the small group of individuals blocking
the driveway at the Manor site, and by refusing to ask
the blocking individuals to remove themselves from their
position in front of the entrance door at the Wyndmoor
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Apartment site although specifically requested to do so,
these agents adopted on behalf of their principal , the Re-
spondent Union, the acts of coercion and restraint al-
leged in the two complaints.
Thus, union responsibility in both instances is readily
apparent and has been established . It follows that the
acts of blocking ingress and egress , of Reeves and other
employees seeking to enter the Manor worksite , blocking
egress of one employee seeking to leave the site, and
mass picketing of the site with the same effect , as well as
the blocking of ingress of Delran and other employees to
the Wyndmoor Apartments worksite , mass picketing,
and the threat of bodily harm made to a Delran employ-
ee taking photographs of the pickets ' conduct by one of
those pickets then engaging in blocking the work en-
trance , all done in the presence of the affected employ-
ees, constitute acts of restraint and coercion of the Sec-
tion 7 right of these employees to refrain from engaging
in like picketing.
As noted by the Board, "Section 8(bXl)(A) outlaws,
without qualification, all union violence against employ-
ees which has the effect of interfering with their statuto-
ry right to refrain from assisting labor organizations or
engaging in concerted activities ." Lithographers Local 235
(Henry Wurst), cited supra. By blocking entrance to the
worksites , by massing at both sites to intimidate and
coerce employees from attempting to pass through their
ranks to resume work, and by threatening harm to an
employee seeking to make a visual , pictorial record of
their coercive conduct at the Wyndmoor site, the Re-
spondent Union, by its agents-the pickets at the respec-
tive sites and the business agents present-made a show
of force which thereby interfered with the basic right of
these nonpicketing employees to continue working and
not join the picketing effort, in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Blocking of ingress to and egress from an employer's
facility, mass picketing, and threats of unspecified repris-
als issued to employees seeking to work at picketed
worksites for crossing a picket line, each constitute forms
of coercive conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1XA) of the
Act. Longshoremen ILA Local 1291 (Trailer Marine), 266
NLRB 1204 (1983). Blocking of ingress and egress of
employees even for a short period of time until broken
up by police to allow entrance or exit has likewise been
held to be violative of the Act. Iron Workers Local 455
(Stokvis Multi-ton), 243 NLRB 340 (1979).
Mass picketing-the congregating of a large group of
individuals at a particular site out of proportion to the
number that would be reasonable in making known to
the public and employees involved the nature of the
Union's dispute at the site-tends to place employees in
fear of penetrating through the group to enter or leave
their workplace. Both on 17 July at the Manor site,
where upwards of 60 individuals stood in front of and on
both sides of the north driveway for an hour at the start
of the workday, and on 7 and 13 August at the Wynd-
moor site , where 20 to 25 individuals congregated at and
near the single entrance door to that worksite when em-
ployees appeared for work, individuals massed in such
numbers on behalf of the Respondent as to intimidate the
small group of employees present on each occasion from
exercising their Section 7 rights to work and refrain from
assisting the Respondent in its labor disputes with Reeves
and Delran . Such conduct clearly coerced and restrained
employees in violation of Section 8(bx1XA) of the Act.
Longshoremen Local 1291 (Trailer Marine), cited supra;
Laborers Local 275 (S. B. Apartments), 209 NLRB 279
(1974).
Finally, the single threat of unspecified bodily harm di-
rected to a Delran employee for visually recording the
blocking of ingress at the Wyndmoor site on 13 August
reasonably had the coercive effect of intimidating that
employee and the others who heard the remark from as-
serting their Section 7 rights to differ from the conduct
of the pickets and assert their right to continue working.
See Clear Pine Moldings , 268 NLRB 1044 ( 1984). It was
reasonable for the Delran employees present to conclude
that the photographs would assist them in asserting their
legal rights to resume work at the site. Indeed , other
photographs of the picketing and blocking taken the
same day, 13 August, were introduced into evidence in
the instant proceeding and have aided in establishing the
alleged violations found herein . The unspecified threat
violated Section 8(b)(1XA) of the Act. Laborers Local
275 (S. B. Apartments), cited supra at 287.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Reeves and Delran are each an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
3. By blocking the ingress of employees of Reeves to a
worksite at the location of the Evangelical Manor, at
8401 Roosevelt Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
by blocking the egress of a Delran employee from the
site, and by mass picketing at the site, the Respondent
Union has restrained and coerced , and is restraining and
coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By blocking the ingress of employees of Delran to a
worksite at the location of the Wyndmoor Apartments,
7940-7946 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania , by mass picketing at said site, and by threatening a
Delran employee taking pictures of the blocking with
unspecified bodily harm , the Respondent Union has re-
strained and coerced , and is restraining and coercing,
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that
it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
CARPENTERS (REEVES, INC.)
As earlier noted , the parties differ as to the scope of
the remedy appropriate under the circumstances of these
consolidated proceedings , the General Counsel and the
Charging Parties seeking to enjoin the Respondent from
engaging in like conduct at any worksites of the Charg-
ing Parties, and the Respondent seeking to limit the
order to only those worksites involved in these proceed-
ings.
Preliminarily, it is noted that the Government does not
seek a broad order, which would interdict the Respond-
ent's conduct directed to employees of "any other em-
ployer" in the absence of a proclivity to engage in un-
lawful conduct involving several employers . See, e.g.,
Sheet Metal Workers Local 80 (Ciamillo Heating), 268
NLRB 4 (1983).
In her brief, the General Counsel does assert that the
numerous incidents of flagrant violations at two different
jobsites over a relatively short period of time , as well as
the frequency with which employers in the construction
industry change worksites making it likely that employ-
ees of the charging parties not present at either of the
sites would become aware of the respondent's conduct,
make most appropriate under the Board 's broad discre-
tion to adapt its remedies to the needs of particular situa-
tions, Carpenters Local 60 v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 651 (1961);
NLRB v. Mine Workers, 202 F.2d 177 (3d Cir. 1953), an
order here not limited to the two sites . Finally, the Gen-
eral Counsel points out that an order limited to the sites
in question would be meaningless given the fact that
work there will be long completed by the time a Board
order issues.
In its brief, the Respondent argues that the standard
governing the award of a cease-and-desist order requires
the Board to examine on a case -by-case basis the nature
and seriousness of the unfair labor practice found , the of-
fender's past history of violations , and the probability of
recurrence . See NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312
U.S. 426 (1941).
In determining whether an order shall apply to all of
an employer's employees or only those at the location
where the violation occurred , the Board weighs whether
the conduct was systemwide , centrally directed, and in-
volved a coordinated policy to commit unfair practices.
NLRB v. Salant & Salant, Inc., 183 F.2d 462, 465 (6th
Cir. 1950). The Board focuses on these same factors in
determining the scope of an order against a union guilty
of violations of the Act. See Broadway Hospital, 244
NLRB 341 (1979).
Applying these standards to the facts at hand, the Re-
spondent would limit the relief here to the specific sites
in question . The signs were limited to disputes at those
sites only. The activity at both sites encompassed parts
of only 7 days in all. The wage rates paid at the sites
were the focus of the disputes . Neither has the Respond-
ent been shown to have a history of engaging in like mis-
conduct . The only other incident included in the record
concerned a dispute remote in time , in which injunctive
relief against the Union was granted on affidavits with-
out a hearing and the moving party was the site owner,
C.H. Investors, and not Delran.
Although it is true that a preliminary injunction based
on a showing of reasonable cause to believe a violation
499
has occurred , as in the case of that incident, does not es-
tablish that violations of the Act have in fact been com-
mitted, as pointed out by the Respondent in its brief. See
Teamsters Local 70 (C & T Trucking), 191 NLRB 11
(1971), in the instant proceeding there is more. Quigg
testified in detail , describing the nature of the Respond-
ent's conduct at this other Delran site roughly 1 year
prior to its conduct at the Wyndmoor site. The conduct
of blocking and denying worker entry to a jobsite is
strikingly similar to that engaged in at Wyndmoor. They
are also both in furtherance of similar disputes with
Delran.
I conclude that I may weigh the Union 's past conduct
as reflecting on the breadth and ongoing nature of the
Respondent 's dispute, generally, with Delran, which may
likely arise at other Delran worksites in the future. Par-
ticularly is this so when the issue is not whether, as in
Teamsters Local 70, supra, a broad order shall issue, but
only whether the narrow order shall be limited to sites
where the work of Delran and Reeves has been complet-
ed. However, for the reasons advanced by the Respond-
ent, the record does not reveal through past violations
the requisite proclivity to violate the Act . Nor does it
show such egregious or widespread misconduct as to
demonstrate a general disregard for the employees' fun-
damental statutory rights-either being the necessary
predicate for issuance of a broad order not limited to en-
joining conduct "in any like or related manner." See
Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). See also Rail-
way Carmen Local 543 (North American Car), 248 NLRB
285 (1980). Accordingly, I will reject the broad injunc-
tive language included in the General Counsel's pro-
posed order submitted with its brief and use the narrow
injunctive language, "in any like or related manner."
I am convinced, based on the appropriate standards
discussed by the Respondent, that its conduct in these
consolidated cases warrants an order that reaches at least
these two employers , Delran and Reeves , at any work-
sites where its employees are engaged in performing con-
struction work. Neither Delran 's nor Reeves' employees
are members of, or represented by, the Union and it is
likely that the dispute about the wage rates paid to them
or their performance of work on projects in place of
union members is a continuing one that will erupt again
as it did at Wyndmoor in the summer of 1984 after the
incidents nearby at the C.H. Investors site in the summer
of 1983 . The Union's mode of protest is to picket work-
sites because neither Reeves nor Delran maintains plants
where employees are regularly employed . Given the
nature of the construction industry and the evidence on
the record of the relatively short duration of construc-
tion work until completion of a particular project, and
my conclusion that employees of both Charging Parties
might reasonably be expected to become aware of the
Union's conduct at any one worksite, the only reasonable
and appropriate remedy here is one broad enough to
protect the employees of the two Charging Parties at
any worksites where they are employed . For these rea-
sons, as well as the multiple and serious nature of the
Union 's violations of the Act, I am not convinced that
the remedy in such cases as Laborers Local 275 (&B.
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Apartments), supra, and relied on by the Respondent, is
appropriate. See, e .g., Laborers Local 245 (Apex Contract-
ing), 219 NLRB 142 (1975), and Williamsport Building
Trades Council (Sardec), 192 NLRB 6 (1971). The facts
in Laborers Local 275 may also be distinguished because
it appears that the construction project at which the un-
lawful picketing and related activity took place and to
which the cease-and-desist order was solely directed,
was an ongoing one of some duration , involving the con-
struction of 63 garden -type apartment units in 7 build-
ings, while the projects in the instant proceeding were
renovations of single existing structures, with one sched-
uled for completion in 1 year and the other primarily
completed in 6 months.
As made clear by the Board in Long Construction Co.,
145 NLRB 554, 556 (1963), cited and quoted by the
Charging Parties in their brief, "The cease-and-desist
order, in conjunction with the utilization of the contempt
procedures provided in the Act, is well designed to pre-
vent the recurrence of the unfair labor practices and to
vindicate public rights ." That remedy here has deterrent
value only if it attaches to jobsites in existence or yet to
commence at the time the order becomes effective. The
fear expressed by the Respondent in its brief that an
overly broad order will unjustifiably subject it to con-
tempt proceedings is unfounded . Legitimate union pro-
test and publicity is not inhibited by an order properly
framed which reaches the nature of the Respondent's un-
lawful conduct in relation to the two employers with
whom it has a continuing dispute.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
eds
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its business office in Philadelphia , Pennsyl-
vania, copies of the attached notices marked "Appendi-
ces A and B ."7 Copies of the notices, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being
signed by the Respondent 's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees and members are customarily posted . Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director signed copies of the
notices for posting, if E. Allen Reeves, Inc. and Delran
Builders Company , Inc. are willing , in their offices, in
places where notices to employees and members are cus-
tomarily posted. Copies of the notices, on forms provid-
ed by the Regional Director for Region 4, after having
been signed by the Respondent 's representatives shall be
forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such
posting by E. Allen Reeves, Inc. and Delran Builders
Company, Inc.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
ORDER
The Respondent, Metropolitan District Council of
Philadelphia and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia, its officers , agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Restraining and coercing employees of E. Allen
Reeves, Inc. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
by blocking ingress or egress, mass picketing, or in any
like or related manner restraining or coercing employees
of E. Allen Reeves, Inc. in the exercise of their Section 7
rights.
(b) Restraining and coercing employees of Delran
Builders Company, Inc. in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Re-
lations Act by blocking ingress, mass picketing, threaten-
ing to inflict bodily harm, or in any like or related
manner restraining or coercing employees of Delran
Builders Company, Inc. in the exercise of their Section 7
rights.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT block ingress to , or egress from, jobsites
of E. Allen Reeves, Inc.
WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing at jobsites of
E. Allen Reeves, Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees of E. Allen Reeves, Inc. in the exer-
cise of their Section 7 rights.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOIN-
ERS OF AMERICA
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
CARPENTERS (REEVES, INC.) 501
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing at jobsites of
Delran Builders Company, Inc.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees of Delran Builders
Company, Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees of Delran Builders Company, Inc.
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT block ingress to jobsites of Delran
Builders Company, Inc.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOIN-
ERS OF AMERICA