Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 139 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 139
Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International
Union ^ of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO and
Hansen's, Incorporated . Case 20-CD-308
July 20, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN,
JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On January 11, -1971 , Trial Examiner Herman Marx
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent has engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that -it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner 's Decision and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support
of the Trial Examiner 's Decision . The Charging Party
submitted a letter- urging affirmance of the Trial
Examiner's Decision and alternatively moving to
reopen the record for the receipt of additional
evidence,' and Respondent submitted a letter in
response to the Charging Party's letter.
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 , briefs, and
letters , and the entire record in the case , and hereby
adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner. -
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as . amended,, the National ,Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Operating Engineers Local Union
No. 3, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
Party), and Collins Electrical Co., Inc., to strike or refuse to
perform services with an object of forcing or requiring
Hansen's, Incorporated, to assign certain work to employ-
ees who are members of, or represented by, Local 3 rather
than to employees who are members of, or represented by,
either or both of two labor organizations (herein Local, 437
and the District Council).2
The Respondent has filed an answer denying, in material
substance, that it has committed the unfair labor practices
attributed to it in the complaints , ,
Pursuant to notice duly served by the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board (herein the Labor
Board) upon all other parties, a hearing on the issues in this
proceeding was held before me, as duly designated Trial
Examiner, on November 17, 1970; at Stockton, California.
Each of the parties appeared through counsel and was
afforded a full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine,
and cross-examine witnesses , and submit oral argument
and briefs.
Upon the entire record, from my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and having read and considered
the briefs filed with me, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED; JURISDICTION
Hansen's, Incorporated (herein Hansen), is a California
corporation; maintains a place of business in Modesto,
California, where it is engaged in business as a mechanical
and electrical contractor in the building and construction
industry; and is and has been at all material times an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and
a person within the meaning, of Section 2(1) of the Act.
During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, in
the course and conduct of its business operations, Hansen
performed construction services valued in excess of $50,000
for nonretail enterprises in California, which annually sell
and ship products valued in excess of that sum directly to
1 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. Section 8(bx4) of the Act [29 U.S.C. 158 (B)(4)],
to the extent pertinent here, makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization:
(i) to engage in. or to induce or encourage any individual employed by
any 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 (n) to threaten, coerce , or restrain any person
engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce, where in
either case an object thereof is: -
1 In view of our disposition of the case, the Charging Party's alternative
motion to reopen the record is hereby denied.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN MARx, Trial Examiner: The complaint in this
proceeding alleges, in substance, that a labor organization,
Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (herein Local 3
or the Respondent), has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act' (herein the
Act) by inducing and encouraging individuals employed by
two enterprises, Hansen's, Incorporated (the Charging
192 NLRB No. 28
(D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to
employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade,
craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order
or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative
for employees performing such work ....
2 As used herein, the name Local 437 refers to, Plumbing & Pipe Trades
Local 437, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefittmg Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO; and the name District Council refers to Pipe Trades District
Council No. 36 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO.
3 The complaint was issued on September 22, 1970, and is based on a
charge filed by Hansen on July 27, 1970. Copies of the charge and
complaint have been duly served upon the Respondent.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
purchasers located outside said State. During said year,
also, in the course and. conduct of its business, Hansen
purchased products valued in excess of $50,000, which were
shipped to it directly from suppliers located outside
California, or from suppliers in said State, who obtained the
products directly from sources outside the State.
Collins Electrical Co., Inc. (herein Collins), is a California
corporation; maintains a place of business in Modesto,
California, where it is engaged in business as an electrical
contractor in the building and construction industry; and is
and has been at all material times an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and a person within the
meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act.
As the Respondent admits, Hansen and Collins are and
have been at all material times engaged in interstate
commerce and in operations affecting such commerce
within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.4
Accordingly, the Board has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 3, Local 437, and the District Council are, and have
been at all material times, labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act .5
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory Statement
Hansen, as a member of a multiemployer bargaining
group, is subject to a contract between the group, made
through its bargaining agent, and Local 3; prescribing terms
and conditions of employment of various categories of
employees. The agreement (herein the Engineers Contract)
has been in - effect at all times material herein and, by its
terms,'is to remain in effect at least until June 1, 1971.
Hansen is also subject to another agreement (herein the
Pipefitters Contract), affecting various classifications of its
employees, between another multiemployer bargaining
group, made through its bargaining agent, and theDistrict
Council. That agreement, which has been in effect at all
material times, is to remain in effect, according to its terms,
at least through June 30,
In March 1970,6 Hansen began work under a contract
with an enterprise named, Gallo Winery, Inc. (herein
Gallo), providing in the main for the installation by Hansen
of steel piping connecting one tank with another in a group
of about 80 tanks. At the times material here, Hansen
employed about 95 persons at the project. Other contrac-
tors had work to perform there at such times. These
included the Collins enterprise which employed about 60
electricians at the project.
Hansen's work required that the piping be set on
supporting racks some 15 to 18 feet above the ground, and
4 The record contains no commerce facts for Collins other than an
admission by the Respondent that Collins, like Hansen, is engaged in
interstate commerce, and in operations affecting such commerce. In that
regard, I note that the parties are erroneously shown in the transcript as
stipulating "to omit" commerce allegations pertaining to Collins. The word
"omit" should be "admit," and the transcript is accordingly amended at
the relevant place to substitute "admit" for "omit".
4 The District Council is an = "agent" of Local 437 for collective-
at all times material here it has used forklifts- to transport
the ,piping from stock piles on the job site to the point of
installation, and to hoist it to the racks; and as
"scaffolding" platforms on which the pipe installers stood
and worked.
For the installation work and the operation of four
forklifts used in that work, Hansen has employed pipefitters
represented by the District Council, and subject to the
Pipefitters Contract. For other work on the project
"incidental" to the pipe installation, Hansen has employed
other classifications of employees including "operating
engineers" represented by Local 3 and subject to the
Engineers Contract.
The use of pipefitters to operate the forklifts, rather than
operating engineers represented by Local 3, is a focal point
of this proceeding. Hansen's employment of pipefitters for
that work stemmed from its reading of article III, section 3,
of the Pipefitters Contract, and from its customary practice.
Article III, section 3, in pertinent part, provides:
This Agreement shall cover all industrial pipe work,
. including specifically the following:
(A) The Fifty . . . points of jurisdiction . . . a copy
of which . . . is annexed hereto.
(B) The loading and unloading anywhere at the
jobsite . . . distributing or reloading by any method,
whether power equipment is used or not, the, rigging,
hoisting, assembling, fabricating, installation and
erection of pipework of any kind and description.
(C) The loading and unloading- of industrial piping
material . . . on and off trucks used to deliver such
materials from a ... job stockpile to the approximate
point of use or installation.
Point 47 of the "points of jurisdiction" annexed to the
contract has the effect of including in industrial pipe work
"[t]he handling and using of all tools and equipment that
may be necessary for the,erection and installation of all
work and materials used in the pipe fitting industry."
Forklifts used for purposes such as those involved here are
regarded as "tools of the trade" in the pipefitting industry.
As will appear in greater detail later, Local 3 reads the
Engineers Contract as covering the work of operating the
forklifts. The contractual terms cited are voluminous, going
much beyond a statement of those needed for determina-
tion of the issues here, and, in the interests of clarity-at least,
it will suffice to note only the pertinent provisions below.
"Coverage" provisions of the contract, embodied in
section no. l (B)(2) of the instrument, provide in part that
"[t]his Agreement shall cover and apply to all activities of
the Individual Employer [Hansen in this case] in the area
[Northern California] covered by this Agreement falling
within the recognized jurisdiction of the Union [Local 3 ],
including . . . building construction." The term
"employee" as used in the contract is defined, in part, in
section l(A)(4), as meaning "any person . . . (a) whose
bargaining purposes (G.C. Exh. 3), but the record establishes no material
connection of Local 437 with this case. It may be that that organization
represents employees of Hansen, but that does not appear . I see no need
for further reference to Local 437 and dispense with it, notwithstanding
allegations pertaining to it in the complaint.
6 Unless otherwise specified, all dates mentioned below occurred in
1970.
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 141
work for an individual, Employer in the area of this
Agreement falls within the recognized jurisdiction of the
Union or, (b) - who operates, monitors and controls,
maintains, repairs, assembles , erects, services . . . power
o p e r a t e d e q u i p m e n t of the t y p e o r kind ... used in the
performance of work referred to in (a) above."
For situations where an employer assigns work subject to
the Engineers Contract to an individual in violation of
applicable hiring, or `job placement" provisions," section
3(a)(4) of Appendix A of the agreement provides:
When an Individual Employer employs or recalls any
person on or for work, including the operation of
equipment used in the performance of such work falling
within the recognized jurisdiction of the Union, covered
by this Agreement, in violation of or not in accordance
with the manning provisions of this Agreement and the
Job Placement Regulations, or either of them, the
Individual Employer shall make whole the Employee or
Employees entitled to such employment under Section
No. 3 and Appendix A by payment to each such
Employee or Employees of all wages, straight time and
overtime, that each such Employee would have received
except for the employment of such person or persons,
and shall pay all Employee benefits for each hour paid
each such Employee.
Both the Pipefitters and Engineers Contracts contain
provisions for the settlement of "jurisdictional disputes." In
that connection article XII of the Pipefitters Contract
provides, in part: '
In the event of any dispute as to jurisdiction of the work
covered by the terms of this Agreement by reason of
any such work being claimed by a Union or Unions
-other than the United Association [the international
labor organization with which the District Council is
affiliated], such dispute shall be referred and settled in
accordance with any procedure or agreement for the
settlement of jurisdictional disputes to which the United
Association is a party or by which it is bound, including
without limitation the National Joint Plan for Settle-
ment-of Jurisdictional Disputes.
The decision of the,. United Association, National Joint
Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, or
other agency agreed to, shall be final and binding on the
parties hereto . There shall be no slow down or stoppage
of work as the result of any, such dispute.
The Unions, the Local .Unions, the Employer and the
Individual-Employers,,are and shall be bound by all of
the terms and provisions of the National Joint Plan for
Settlement Jurisdictional Disputes, and the Procedural
Rules and Regulations of the National Joint Board.
For the resolution of jurisdictional disputes, section
10(D) of the Engineers Contract provides:
There shall be no cessation, or interference -any way
with any of the work of Employer or of any Individual
Employer by reason of jurisdictional disputes between
the various unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO or the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America with respect to
jurisdiction over any of the work covered by this
Agreement. Such disputes shall be settled by,the Unions
themselves in accordance with the rules of the Building
and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO
and the agreement establishing a National Joint Board
for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes"in'the Building
and Construction Industry, as amended, or in the case
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, between
the International Union of Operating Engineers and the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. The Union,
Employer and Individual Employers covered hereby
shall be bound by said agreement establishing said
Board and the settlement of the dispute by such Board
or Labor Unions as the case may be.
B. The Alleged Misconduct
On June 17,1970, Local 3 wrote and delivered to Hansen
a letter setting forth a claim by the union that Hansen was
then "in violation" of the Engineers Contract "by virtue of
your not assigning persons to the operation of the four
forklifts in accordance with provisions of the agreement, or
in other words that Hansen had violated the contract by
employing pipefitters to operate the forklifts at the Gallo
project instead of individuals furnished by Local 3 through
its job referral facilities (called "Job Placement Centers" in
the Engineers Contract). Invoking the "make whole"
provisions of section 3(a)(4) of Appendix A of - the
agreement, the letter stated that Local 3 would submit to
Hansen at a later date the names of the men "to be made
whole" on the basis of their positions on the union's "out-
of-work list." " About a week later, by letter,d'ated June 23,
1970, Local 3 informed- Hansen of the names of such
individuals and- the, amounts allegedly due them ' and
requested that checks for them for the specified sums be
sent to the union.7
As of July 16, Hansen had not paid the requested sums,
and on that date, starting before and continuing during the
workday, Local 3 picketed the entrance to the Gallo project
normally used by employees of Hansen, Collins, and" other
contractors with work to perform. There was one picket,
and he carried a sign bearing the' legend: "Hansen's,
Incorporated Unfair. Operating Engineers Local 3 ' Of
some 95 employees of Hansen with work to perform at the
project, about a third in various classifications, including
operating engineers and pipefitters, did not work that day.
At least some of the operating engineers remained, outside
the entrance "milling",about in the vicinity of the picket. Of
about 60 electricians in Collins' employ with work to
perform at the project, approximately 5 worked that way.
Some of those who did not work remained outside the
entrance in the vicinity of the picket.
On the following day, the entrance was similarly
picketed, and about 40 percent of Hansen's employees,
including operating engineers, and about half of Collins'
7 The letter,, in substance, also requested "make whole" payments for material issues in this case. The complaint was amended at the hearing,
"welding machine" work assignments allegedly made in violation of the without objection, with the effect of deleting allegations pertaining to
Engineers Contract. I dispense with further reference to this aspect of the "welding machine" work assignments.
letter, and the work involved, because they have no connection with the
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
electricians with work to ,perform at the project, did not
work there. 't'he picketing was discontinued on July 17
following` the issuance of a restraining order by a ,state
,court,, and, as is 11 fairly inferable, the cessation- of the
picketing resulted from the order.
On the morning of July 1-6,-'following the start of the
picketing, a representative of Local 3 named Claude Odom
met with "representatives of Hansen, and the material sum
of what occurred was that Odom took a position' to the
effect that the-workof operating the forklifts was subject to
the Engineers 'Contract,", that 'Local 3 did not care who
performed; that. work "as' long as the Operating Engineers
were paid for 'it"; that he was there "to settle" its money
claim;- and ' tliat that claim "wasn't jurisdictional" and
"could not be arbitrated."
At 'two more meetings, one held later in the day on July
16 and another on July 17, between Odom and representa-
tives of Hansen, Odom expressed substantially the same
views, and Hansen's attorney took the position that Hansen
had assigned the work involved in, accordance with its past
practice and its obligations under the Pipefitters Contract
and that the position of Local 3 "was a jurisdictional claim"
or in other words involved a jurisdictional dispute.
C. Discussion o'f the Issues; Concluding Findings
The' General Counsel `contends that an object of the
picketing was Jo force or require Hansen to assign the
operation of the four forklifts to employees represented by
Local 3, and _ that the picketing 'vas thus within the
proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(D). The Respondent
defends`, on two basic grounds; (1) that the picketing was
lawful because its object was, to compel payment of'money
due employees under section 3(a)(4) of Appendix A of the
Engineers Contract, and not to force' or require a 'work
assignment ; and (2) that the Labor Board is without
jurisdiction to proceed "under Section 8(b)(4)(D)because it
has not made a determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act, which provides:
Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged
in ' ' an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of
paragraph '4(d) of Section 8(b), the Board is empowered
and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of
which such' unfair labor practice shall have arisen,
unless, within 10 days after notice that such charge has
been filed, the parties to such dispute submit to the
Board satisfactory evidenced that they have adjusted or
agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of,
the dispute. Upon compliance by the parties to the
dispute 'with the decision of the Board or upon such
voluntary adjustment of the -dispute, such charge shall
be dismissed.
Although' a jurisdictional challenge is normally a
threshold' question, I think it useful here to defer disposition
,of that issue until, after a finding is made on the question of
whether compulsin of'a work assignment was an object of
the picketing.
On the latter issue, the mere fact that Local 3's demands
8 E.g. International Union ofOperating Engineers, Local 520 (Beibel Bros.
Inc.), 170 NLRB 285; Highways Truckdrivers & Helpers, Local 107 (Safeway
Stores, Inc.), 129 NLRB 1.
9 See also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 728, 153
upon' Hansen, whether in its letters of 'June 17 and 23 or at
the meetings of July 16 and 17; were couched in-terms ,of
monetary "make whole" claims is not' conclusive, nor do I
find impressive 'its positions at the meetings to - the effect
that it was not seeking work assignments, and that its
claims therefore were not subject to the . provisions- of its
contract dealing with settlement of jurisdictional disputes
over work assignments.
There was nothing about 'the picketing itself to indicate
any purpose beyond causing a-work stoppage, ; andwto,find
the underlying object or objects of the -activity one must
look to the' full context of s circumstances in which it
occurred.8 Beyond any doubt; Elie 'money' demand-was
bottomed 'on Local 3's claim to .the fork lift = work.' This is
evident from the fact that the very basis of the "make
whole" demand was Local 3's claim that Hansen violated
the "coverage" and "job placement" 'provisions of- the
Engineers Contract in assigning the work to employees not
covered by that agreement. In fact, at the first meeting of
July 16, 'which took place soon after the picketing began,
and obviously arose out'of it, Odom said as much,'stating
that the "money °claim" was "for work", that Local 3
"claimed." Plainly, then, the root of the picketing was Local
3's claim to the work, and, assuming that an object of the
picketing was, to compel payment of the alleged debt, the
activity would reasonably have'the effect of positing for
Hansen an implied requirement that` it' shift the-forklift
work from the pipefitters to operating engineers as the
condition by which it could avoid the continuing imposi-
tion of a liability to pay,wages for -work that was not
performed. What is more, that Hansen thus interpreted the
monetary demand and the picketing is fairly inferable from
its insistence during the meetings' that the,'controversy
involved was "a jurisdictional dispute over the ' assignment
of the forklift work in accordance with the ` Pipefitters
Contract. r ampersuaded, in sum, that an underlying object
of the picketing was, ^ enforcement'-of the contractual
"coverage and `job placement" provisions, or, in' other
words, to force or require Hansen to assign the forklift work
to individuals represented by"Local 3 rather than "to the
employers represented by the District Council as the
condition for avoiding'a continuing imposition of f-a wage
liability for unperformed work. Clearly, picketing for such
an object is within the, proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(D).
On the challenge to the Board's jurisdiction, I am bound
to reject the Respondent's' contention on the basis of Wood,
Wire and`-Metal Lathers International- Union (Acoustical
Contractors Association), 119 NLRB 1345, where the Board
(at p. 1351), for reasons not necessary' to repeat- here,
"construe[d] the - Act^ to permit the institution of an
8(bX4)(D) complaint proceeding without the prerequisite of
a hearing and determination under Section' l0(k) of `the Act,
if it appears that there exists an agreed upon method of
voluntary adjustment which has broken down in'settling an
underlying jurisdictional dispute." s
Section-10(D) of the Engineers Contract spells out an
"agreed upon method of voluntary adjustment" of Local 3's
NLRB 873, 875; Electrical Workers Local 26, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (McCloskey & Co.), -147 NLRB 1498, '1501-1502,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers
(Stearns-Roger Corp.), 184 NLRB No. 30.
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 143
underlying claim to the forklift operation through use of the
machinery established -in the AFL-CIO in the form of the
"National `Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional
Dispute in the Building and Construction Industry" (herein
the National Joint Board) and binds both Hansen and
Local 3 to acceptance of "settlement of the dispute" by that
agency. It is -'evident; moreover, -from -article XII of the
Pipefitters Contract that the District Council is subject to
the same machinery, in the AFL-CIO -for adjustment of
jurisdictional disputes as` Local 3 and is bound by a
determination by the National Joint Board .10 In other
words, both unions that claim the work in question and the
employer - are' all contractually committed to' a common
plan for the -adjustment of the conflicting claims to the
forklift operation, and it is clear that an "agreed upon
method"" for the resolution of the conflict ' has broken
down.11 The breakdown is not only evidenced by Local 3's
failure to invoke the adjustment -services of the National
Joint Board but by its position during the course of the July
16 and ' I!- meetings with 'Hansen that -its' claim did, not
involve- it jurisdictional dispute and` was not subject to
arbitration , or in other words to section - 10(D) of its
contract:
As one may fairly infer , the Regional Director for Region
20, , as 'a predicate for-issuance of the complaint, made an
administrative determination that an "agreed upon me-
thod'-for resolution of the dispute-had broken down and
that -thus -a-Section 10(k) --proceeding was not`a prerequisite
to adjudication ` of the Section 8(b)(4)(D ) allegations'. The
record -here amply supports such a determination, and I
hold, contrary"to-the Respondent, thatthe Labor Board has
jurisdiction -toy determine : whether the Respondent has
violated Section- 8(b)(4)(D)- and' to issue an 'appropriate
remedial order.
Such a determination does not hinge on a resolution of
the conflicting claims to the work , for the materialissue
here ^ is -not whether one or . the other of the labor
organizations is entitled, contractually or otherwise; to the
relevant work assignment , but whether the picketing had a
proscribed object.
On that issue, I hold, in: summary, that by means of the
picketing Local 3` induced- and encouraged employees of
Hansen - and Collins to engage in a strike at the Gallo
project and,' in theourse 'of their employment , to refuse to
perform services for their' respective employers; that an
object of the'^picketing was to force or require Hansen to
assign the work of operating forklifts performed by
pipefitters represented by the District Council to individu
als represented by -Local 3 ; that in employing pipefitters for
the work, Hansen has not failed to conform to an order or
certification of the Board -'determining the bargaining
representative for employees performing such work; and
thatbyinducing' and'encouraging employees to strike and
refuse to perform services, with an object of forcing or
requiring Hansen to make a work assignment as described
above, Local 3 has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(D) of the Act
and, has coerced and restrained Hansen in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Local 3, set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with theoperations of-Hansen and
Collins,'-described in 'section I, above, have a' close,
intimate, and substantial relation _ to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States -and' tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and- obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce. - ° - - -
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor. practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist, therefrom and
take certain affirmative actions designed to-effectuate the
policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entirt, record in this proceeding, I make the
following conclusions of law:
1. Hansen and. Collins have, at all times material here,
employed individuals, and respectively are, and have been
at all such times persons and employers = engaged in
commerce, and in an industry affecting, commerce, within
the meaning of the Act.
2. Local 3 and the District Council respectively are and
have been at all material times labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by Hansen and Collins to engage in a strike, and.* the
course of their employment to refuse to perform services-for
their respective employers,. for an object proscribed, by
Section 8(b)(4)(D), as -found above, Local 3 has engaged in
unfair, labor practices within the- meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i)(D) of the Act. - -
4. By restraining and coercing- Hansen and Collins for
such an object, as found above, Local 3 has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.-
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis 'of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act„I hereby issue the
following recommended:12 , -
10, I infer, that the ` `National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional
Disputes,, mentioned in article XII of the Pipefitters Contract, is the same
AFL--CIO ` adjustment' agency as the, 'National Joint Board for Settlement
of Jurisdictional Disputes-in'the Building and Construction ' Industry,"
named in section 10(D) of the Engineers Contract . Labor Board cases
involving jurisdictional dispute issues in the pipefittmg and plumbing
trades reflect the use of both names to identify the National Joint Board.
See Local 690, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipef thing Industry (Pipe Linings, Ind.), 150 NLRB`- 496; Local
60, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices 'of the Pluh :'bing and
Pipefitting Industry (Bellezza Co., Inc.), 149 NLRB 599. -
11 See International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Ironworkers, Local 75 (Stearns-Roger Corp.), 184 NLRB No. 90.
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
(Continued)
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in or inducing or encouraging any
individual employed by Hansen's, Incorporated, or Collins
Electrical Co., Inc., or,-by any other person engaged in
interstate commerce, or in an industry affecting such
commerce,- to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of
such individual's employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or, otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, materials , or commodities, or to perform any
services , where an object thereof is to force or require
Hansen's, Incorporated, to assign the work of operating
forklifts to employees who are represented by Local 3,
rather than to employees • who are represented by - Pipe
Trades District Council No. 36 of the United Association of
Journeymen _ and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO.
(b) Threatening, coercing or restraining Hansen's,
Incorporated, Collins Electrical Co., Inc., or any other
person engaged in interstate commerce, or in an industry
affectingsuch,commerce, for such an object.
2. 'Take the following affirmative actions which, I find,
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a)`Post in conspicuous places at its principal office and
usual "membership meeting place, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms
provided'by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the
National Labor Relations Board, shall, after being signed
by a duly authorized representative of Local 3, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and bemaintainedby
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to ' its 'members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Local 3 to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Forthwith mail copies of notice to Regional Director
for Region 2% after such notice has been signed as provided
above for posting by Hansen's, Incorporated, and Collins
Electrical Co., Inc:, if they so agree, in places where they
customarily post notices to their employees.13' '
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.14
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended order herein shall , as provided in
Section 102.48 of,the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the National
Labor Relations Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order,
and all objections thereto'shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
13 In the event that the National Labor Relations Board's order is
enforced by a judgment of the 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," ,
14 In the event that this recommended order is adopted by the National
Labor Relations Board , after exceptions have been tiled, Paragraph2(c)
thereof shall be modified to read : "Notify - said Regional Director in
writing, within 20 days from . the date of this order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith."
APPENDIX'
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER , OF THE -
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency _of - the United States Government
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF: HANSEN'S, INCORPO-
RATED, AND COLLINS ELECTRICAL CO.,
INC.,_ AND TO ALL MEMBERS OF: OPER-
ATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO,
We hereby notify our members that:
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage any
individual employed by HANSEN'S, INCORPORAT-
ED, or COLLINS ELECTRICAL CO., INC., or by any
other person engaged in , interstate commerce, or in an
industry affecting such commerce , to engage in a strike
or refusal in the course of such individual 's employment
to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities, or to perform any services, where, an
object thereof is forcing or requiring HANSEN'S,
INCORPORATED, to, assign the work of operating
forklifts to employees who are represented by us rather
than to employees, who are represented by PIPE
TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL NO.,16 OF THE
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE-
FITTING INDUSTRY OF, THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain HANSEN'S,
INCORPORATED, COLLINS ELECTRICAL CO., INC.,
or any other person for such an object.
OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL UNION No. 3,
INTERNATIONAL UNION, OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an offical notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
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, 13050
Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047,
San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556- 3197:,