Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 3, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1163 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , ETC. 1163
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
4. By causing the Company to discriminate in regard to hire, tenure, terms, and
conditions of employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Union
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the
Act.
5. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Appendix A
1. A. J. Rogers
2. M. H. Miller
3. A. M. Pool
4. M. E. Barbee
5. W. B. Ashmore
6. J. D. Smith
7. R. L. Sparks
8. W. G. Gray
9. R. F. Phelps
10. D. Sales
11. V. J. Eisele
12. J. E. Phelps
13. E. L. Hudson
14. C. M. Grimes
15. R. K. Nails
16. M. D . O'Neal
17. R. G. Donley
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS & PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL UNION NO. 1730 and PAINTING AND DECORATING CONTRAC-
TORS OF AMERICA, GEORGIA STATE COUNCIL, AUGUSTA CHAPTER.
Case No.10-CC-60. September 3,1954
Decision and Order
On February 23, 1954, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices and recommended dismissal of those allegations of the
complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party,
hereafter called the Association, filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and supporting briefs. The Respondent filed a reply brief.
The Board bas 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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions and modifications,
noted below.
As detailed in the Intermediate Report, the Association and the
Respondent had been without a contract in the Augusta-Aiken area
109 NLRB No. 166.
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for some time before February 1953. During the latter month, Re-
spondent presented the Association with a contract, accompanied by
a threat that the Association would be put out of business if it failed
to sign. No bargaining agreement was reached at this or any subse-
quent time, despite the efforts of various conciliators, including
Creech, president of the Aiken-Augusta Building Trades Council
and business agent of the Plumbers' Union 1
Following the Association's rejection of the union contract, Re-
spondent, from March 2 to April 6, 1953, picketed the Thomas-Woods
Housing Project at which Reynolds & Son, a member of the Associa-
tion, was the painting subcontractor. The pickets at the project en-
trances bore signs reading: "This job is unfair to Painter's Local No.
1730, A. F. of L." With few exceptions, the trades on the job con-
tinued working during this picketing.
On May 26, charges of 8 (b) (4) (A) were filed in the present case
alleging, among other things, that the above picketing was unlawful.
A settlement agreement was signed on July 3, and approved July 10,
wherein Respondent, without admitting any unlawful conduct, agreed
to post a notice stating in effect that it would not violate 8 (b) (4)
(A). On July 3, Respondent and the Association agreed that they
would enter into contract negotiations and that, from July 6 to 21,
Respondent would not picket, strike, or boycott. The negotiations,
however, did not result in any signed bargaining contract.
Apparently at about this time, Mobley Contracting Co., which was
engaged in a construction project for S. H. Kress and Co. in Augusta,
subcontracted the painting work to Still Co., a member of the Asso-
ciation. Mobley erroneously believed that Still was then a union
subcontractor.
Thereafter, during the afternoon of August 10, Johnson, Mobley's
superintendent on the Kress job, was informed by Rogers, Respond-
ent's business agent, that the job would be picketed. Johnson called
Creech, president of the Building Trades Council, to inquire "what
effect [the picket] would have on the other trades." 'Creech replied
that "they were going to have to go along with the painters and honor
the picket line.'' 2 Johnson notified Mobley, head of the general con-
tractor, of the impending action by Respondent. Mobley in turn
called Creech and asked if they were going to support the picket line.
1 Although the Association as a group did not sign a contract with Respondent, a num-
ber of painting contractors not involved herein executed individual contracts with that
Union. No allegation of 8 (b ) ( 3) is raised in this proceeding.
2Johnson testified that he had called Creech 2 or 3 weeks previously about threatened
picketing by an unidentified union . Creech said on that occasion "they were going to ignore
it because they had not been notified in the proper channel ." The prior threatened picket-
ing did not materialize.
The foregoing facts relating to conduct by Johnson are not referred to by the Trial Ex-
aminer . Johnson 's testimony in these respects is undenied , except that Creech testified
that lierwas i eked .by. Johnson and, later by Mobley, on August 10 , if he would go along
with the painters and he replied "yes , speaking as an individual."
- I BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , ETC. 1165
Creech answered that he had served with others to help settle the dis-
agreement between the painters and contractors, that he didn't believe
the contractors wanted to do what was right, "so he was going to go
along with the Painter's Local No. 1730." Mobley asked what he
must do to keep the job open, and whether the pickets would be put
on if the painters were removed and that part of the job closed down.
Creech replied that he did not know, but would have Rogers call
Mobley. Rogers contacted Mobley, and informed him that he (Rog-
ers) did not know whether the other crafts would honor the picket
line the next day. Rogers agreed at that time or the next day to re-
move the picket from the Kress job if Mobley stopped the painting
work. Rogers also said, on or about August 11, that he was going to
place pickets cn all the jobs of the general contractor on which any
member of the Association, not having a contract with Respondent,
was allowed to work.
On August 11, Respondent picketed the entrance to the construction
site, beginning at 7: 30 a. m., before the starting time of the job em-
ployees. The picket sign read : "This job is unfair to Painters Local
No. 1730 A. F. of L." The job employees, consisting of 5 painters
and 20 or 25 other trades employees, approached the picket line indi-
vidually or in groups of 2 or 3. All except three painters refused to
cross the line. There is no evidence of any conversations between the
picket and the employees.
At about 10: 30 a. m., Mobley asked Still to remove his men from
the job and at the same time these parties agreed that Still could
complete the work if he effected an agreement with Respondent.
They further agreed that, if, by the time painters were needed, no
agreement had been effected or no action taken which would permit
the work to continue without picketing, Mobley would itself complete
the job. At about noon, Still removed his employees, the picketing
was discontinued, and the other employees resumed work.
On August 24, the Board's Regional Director applied for an in-
junction against Respondent's picketing. On September 14, the Re-
gional Director and Respondent stipulated in that proceeding that
the matter would be held in abeyance pending Board adjudication,
upon Respondent's agreement that it would not violate 8 (b) (4) (A)
and that, if Respondent violated its agreement, an injunction would
issue. In the meantime, Mobley, incorrectly believing an injunction
had issued, asked Still to return to the Kress job which Still did on
September 1.
On September 21, Respondent again picketed the job, beginning at
7: 30 a. m., before the employees' starting time. One picket was lo-
cated at each of the two site entrances used by the employees. Fol-
lowing advice of counsel obtained after the August 11, picketing,
Respondent on this occasion altered its signs to read : "R. H. Still is
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR) RELATIONS BOARD
unfair to Painters ' Local No. 1730 , A. F. of L." The picketing con-
tinued through September 22. Of the 10 to 15 trades employees
then assigned to the project , including Still's 4 painters , all except
the painters refused to cross the picket line and continued so to refuse
until Still 's employees were removed from the job . As before, the
employees approached the job individually or in small groups and
refused to cross the line after seeing the signs. There is no evidence
that any words were exchanged between the pickets and the
employees.3
Although both Creech and Rogers testified that no authorization
by the Council was sought for Respondent 's picketing , their testimony
is somewhat conflicting as to whether Respondent 's dispute with the
Association was even discussed at council meetings. Also , although
Rogers testified that no authorization by the separate craft unions
was requested , neither Rogers nor Creech could explain why the
crafts honored the picket lines in August and September , but not
in March. The constitution and bylaws of the Building Trades
Council prohibit strikes without the Council 's consent and, in some
instances , prior action by the Local 's International is required.4
Creech admitted that he did not know that Respondent had its Inter-
3 While not mentioned in the Intermediate Report, the record indicates that, on Decem-
ber 9, an injunction was issued by the district court against Respondent 's further picketing.
4 The following are among the pertinent provisions of the Respondent 's constitution
and bylaws :
Section 34 . Demands for increased wages or reduction of hours must be submitted
to the Council for endorsement , after approval of the National or International Union
interested has been obtained, and under no consideration shall a Local Union or
Unions of any organization affiliated with the department be allowed to inaugurate
strikes without the Council's consent.
Section 35 . Before a strike can be called against a general contractor fair to Union
labor, doing an interstate or Local business , or any sub-contractor doing business for
said general contractor , and Union conditions prevail throughout , the matter in dis-
pute must be submitted to the President of the Department , and to the Presidents of
the International. Unions involved , before any action can be taken by this Council.
This Council shall be prohibited from calling a strike against any general contractor
fair to Union labor, doing an inter -state or local business , to correct any grievance of
a jurisdictional nature , before getting the sanction of the President of the Depart-
ment, and that of the Presidents of the International Unions directly involved affili-
ated with the Department.
Section 36 . Strikes must be called by the Council or Executive Board in con-
formity with the foregoing section. When strikes are called , the Council shall have
full jurisdiction over the same and any contractor who works on a struck job, or em-
ploys non-union men to work on a struck job, shall be declared unfair and all Union
men shall be called off from his work or shop.
The President of the Council shall have the power to order all strikes when in-
structed to do so by the Council or Executive Board.
Any member of an affiliated Craft who refuses to stop work when ordered to do so
by the President of the Council , shall be reported to the Council . All employees on a
struck job shall leave the same when ordered to do so by the President , and remain
away from the same until such time as a settlement is made or otherwise ordered by
an official act of the Council, and if any International officer of an affiliated organiza-
tion issues any adverse or nullifying order thereto , he shall also jointly serve the
Local Council with a duplicate copy thereof
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 1167
national 's approval for picketing in March, but did know of such
approval in August.
The Trial Examiner found that the picketing which began on
March 2 and August 11, 1953, was unlawful mainly because the
picket signs indicated the entire jobs are unfair and the areas of dis-
pute were thus broadened to include the neutral employers. No ex-
ceptions were filed to this determination . We find, like the Trial
Examiner, that the picketing beginning on March 2 and August 11
was violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A).
However, the Trial Examiner further found that the September
12 and 22, 1953 , picketing was not unlawful on the grounds that the
change of the legend on the picket sign localized the dispute to the
primary employer and there was no appeal to the employees of the
secondary employers for a concerted cessation of work. The General
Counsel and the Association except to this conclusion . We find merit
in their exceptions.
Picketing at a common work situs, to be lawful , must be strictly
confined to the primary employer involved in the dispute .5 If the
record establishes that the picketing , viewed in the light of all the
circumstances , was not so limited, but was directed also to the neutrals
at the job situs, it is proscribed by the Act. r,
Applying these principles to the present case, we find that the
September picketing, like that which preceded it, was unlawful. The
September activities must be realistically considered in the full con-
text of the surrounding events. As already described , less than 6
weeks before , on August 11, Respondent picketed the same job situs
with a picket sign clearly showing that the dispute embraced all em-
ployers on the construction job. At about the same time, Creech, the
president of the Building Trades Council which included most of
the trades on the job, informed the general contractor of his approval
of the picketing action. Although Creech testified that he spoke
(,nly as an individual , we cannot disregard the compelling inference
that the employees , by joining in a complete work stoppage in August,
must have been aware of the approval by Creech and impliedly by
the Council and must have understood , as the picket signs indicated,
that the dispute was now deemed to extend to all employers on the
job .7
Local Union No 55, etc (P) ofes.sional and Business Men's Life Insurance Company),
108 NLRB 363 ; Chauffeurs, Teamsters , Warehousemen, etc. (Hoosier Petroleum Company),
106 NLRB 629 , enfd 212 F 2d 216 (C. A 7).
8Ibid.
7 No other persuasive reason has been advanced by Respondent for the complete work
stoppage of the trades during the August picketing, after Creech's approval had been ex-
pressed , and the virtual absence of any honoring of the picket line in March and April,
before Creech had similarly indicated his approval
.1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When the picketing resumed in September, the sole change was a
substitution on the picket sign of the name "R. H. Still" for the words
"This job." Such change, in the light of the prior picketing and the
employees' apparent understanding as to the scope of that picketing,
was clearly insufficient to apprise the employees that the picketing no
longer extended to the neutrals in aid of Respondents' dispute with
the primary employer. The burden was on the Respondent, which
was responsible for initiating the unlawful picketing, to disengage
the neutrals, by unmistakable and unambiguous measures, from the
scope of its resumed picketing activities. This it manifestly
failed to do.
We are patently not requiring, as the dissent attempts to infer, that
Respondent "persuade employees of other employers to cross their
picket line." We are holding as stated above, that the change in the
picket sign made by Respondent immediately after its unlawful pick-
eting in August fell far short of informing the employees of neutrals
that the scope of the dispute no longer included the secondary
employers.
Accordingly, we find that the September picketing by Respondent
extended beyond the primary employer to secondary employers at
the job situs. And, contrary to the Trial Examiner, we further find
that the picketing obviously called for concerted action by the em-
ployees of the secondary employers.' We conclude that Respondent
violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) by its picketing on September 21 and
22, 1953, as well as by that which began on March 2 and August 11,
1953.9
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent , Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators & Paperhangers of America , Local Union No. 1730, its
officers, representatives , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging the employees of
Clarence Mobley Construction Company, of Gilbert & Cooper Con-
struction Company, or any other employer to engage in a strike or a
concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use , manufac-
ture, process , transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
8 See, e. g., Bakery Drivers Local Union No. 276 ( Capital Service, Inc.), 100 NLRB
1092, 1098.
8 Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council (Stover Steel Service ), 108 NLRB
1575, relied on by the dissent, is clearly distinguishable on its facts. Apart from other
considerations , that case did not involve , as here, a context of prior unlawful picketing
activities by the union.
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 1169
articles, or commodities, or to perform any services for the respective
employers where an object thereof is to force or require Clarence
Mobley Construction Company, Gilbert & Cooper Construction Com-
pany, or any other employer to cease doing business with Painting and
Decorating Contractors of America, Georgia State Council, Augusta
Chapter, or any member of said Association.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its business office in Augusta, Georgia, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by an official representative of Respondent,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to mem-
bers of Respondent are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix" for posting,
the Association willing, at the latter's place of business where notices
to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBERS MURDOCK and PETERSON, dissenting :
In the Stover Steel Service 11 case, which issued only a few months
ago, four members of this Board held that a Union can lawfully picket
an employer with which it has a labor dispute on a construction project
,when by its "signs and conduct" it indicates that the dispute is "only
with the primary employer." This case reaffirmed the established
principle that such picketing is lawful even though, incidentally, em-
ployees of neutral employers refuse to cross the picket line of their own
volition. In the instant case, however, the majority appears not only
to have reversed the Stover Steel case, but goes further in prohibiting
picketing of a primary employer at a common situs than any case ever
issued by the Board in enforcing Section 8 (b) (4) (A).
The Union in this case picketed a construction project on which
Still, a nonunion painting subcontractor, was engaged. The sign car-
10 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order," the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
n 108 NLRB No. 221.
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tied by the pickets on August 11, 1953, stated that the "job is unfair."
The Trial Examiner found that this form of picketing was secondary
because the sign did not specifically identify Still as the primary em-
ployer and there was some evidence on this date that employees of neu-
tral employers had been induced not to cross the picket line. Between
August 11 and September 21, when the Union renewed its picketing, it
consulted an attorney to determine how it could picket an employer
with which it had a labor dispute without violating the secondary
boycott provisions of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). Presumably as a result
of this advice, the Union changed the wording of its sign to clearly and
unmistakably identify Still as the primary employer. On September
21 and 22 the conduct of the pickets consisted of marching stolidly be-
fore the entrance to the project, carrying such a sign, but without
speaking to anyone or making a motion, sign, or signal to any em-
ployee. Clearly, it seems to us, the Union on these occasions sought
carefully and most conscientiously to engage in silent, peaceful picket-
ing of a named employer with which it had a legitimate labor dispute.
This type of picketing meets every test of the Moore Dry Dock 12 de-
cision. But the majority now holds that it was not enough for the
Union to remedy its own error and to do on its own accord all that a
Board order would require it to do under previous decisions. The ma-
jority finds that the Union should have taken "unmistakable and un-
ambiguous measures" to "disengage the neutrals." Apparently what
the majority means is that the Union should have actually attempted
to persuade employees of other employers to cross their picket line.
Otherwise, it would seem to us that the action taken by the Union to
isolate and identify Still as the only employer involved was sufficient
"to disengage the neutrals." We had thought until now that Section
8 (b) (4) (A) was merely a prohibition against certain prescribed con-
duct by labor organizations. It now appears that even though picket-
ing is otherwise clearly primary it too is forbidden by that Section of
the Act unless the union affirmatively encourages employees of other
employers to transgress the historic practice of individual union mem-
bers not to cross any picket line. Employees who refuse to obey this
new requirement of the majority are denied the rights guaranteed to
them in Sections 7 and 13 of the Act to engage in primary strikes and
picketing for economic ends.
This severe new criterion is based upon two factors : (1) "the prior
picketing" i. e., the incorrectly worded sign, and (2) "the employees'
apparent understanding."
While there is no dispute but that the Union was responsible for the
prior picketing, we know of no rule of evidence which attributes re-
s'p'onsibility to a respondent for the "apparent understanding" of
12 92 NLRB 547.
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 1171
other persons. Section 10 (c) of the Act requires that the Board base
its finding of an unfair labor practice upon "a preponderance of the
testimony." In this case Creech, the president of the local Building
Trades Council, testified that, speaking as an individual, he had told
several persons that he approved the picket line. From this statement
the majority infers the following: (1) That the Council itself had
approved the picket line; (2) that the employees of neutral employers
were aware of the approval by Creech; (3) that these employees were
also aware of the implied approval by the Council; and (4) that the
picketing "was now deemed to extend to all employers on the job."
We cannot agree that all of these inferences can properly be drawn
from a preponderance of the testimony. It seems to us, in the absence
of evidence of any communication between Creech or the Council and
the employees, that there is no more than a suspicion that such a com-
munication occurred. Suspicion has never been a substitute for evi-
dence. Moreover, as the Trial Examiner found, the September picket
line was authorized solely by the Respondent Union without, so far
as the record discloses, any approval or assistance from any other
union. Neither Creech nor the Council could act as agents for the
Respondent Union. The net result of what the majority has done in
this case is to make the Respondent Union responsible for the state
of mind of anyone approaching the picket line. If there is a sus-
picion that some outside union official or any affiliated Council has
influenced the employees' state of mind, the Union is responsible for
the'result and must immediately take action to cure it.
We think it is enough that a respondent before the Board must be
responsible for its own motivation and state of mind without impos-
ing additional requirements having to do with the state of mind of
other persons. For these reasons we would affirm the Trial Examiner.
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS
& PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 1730, AND TO ALL
EMPLOYEES OF PAINTING AND DECORATING CONTRACTORS OF AMER-
ICA, GEORGIA STATE COUNCIL, AUGUSTA CHAPTER
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the,employees of Clarence
Mobley Construction Company, of Gilbert & Cooper Construc-
tion Company, or of any other employer to engage in a strike or
a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, man-
ufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
334811-55-vol. 109-75
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
goods, articles, or commodities, or to perform any services for
the respective employers where an object thereof is to force or
require any employer to cease doing business with Painting and
Decorating Contractors of America, Georgia State Council,
Augusta Chapter, or any member thereof.
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS
& PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
UNION No. 1730,
Union.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed May 26 , 1953, by Painting and Decorating Contractors of
America , Georgia State Council , Augusta Chapter, herein called either the Charging
Party or the Association , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board , herein called the General Counsel' and the Board respectively ,: by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia ), issued a complaint
dated August 26, 1953. against Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators & Paperhangers
of America , Local Union No. 1730 , herein called the Respondent . The complaint
alleged that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and-Section
2 (6) and ( 7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat . 136, herein
called the Act . Copies of the complaint, the charge , and notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent and the Charging Party.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged that , beginning
on March 2 , 1953 , at the Thomas-Woods Housing Project and thereafter on August
11 and September 21-22, 1953, at the store of S. H . Kress and Co., in Augusta,
Georgia, the Respondent had engaged in and by picketing , orders, instructions,
directions , appeals, and other means had induced and encouraged , and is inducing
and encouraging , employees of other employers working on and at said projects
to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to
perform services , an object thereof being to force and require said other employers
to cease doing business with members of the Association and two named individual
members thereof in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in the instant case at Augusta, Georgia,
on November 17 and 18 , 1953, before the undersigned Trial Examiner . The Gen-
eral Counsel , the Association , and Respondent participated in the hearing by counsel
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues . At the conclusion of
the hearing , the undersigned advised the parties of their rights to file briefs and
findings of fact and conclusions of law or both . Briefs were received from the
Charging Party and the Respondent on December 22, 1953.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Georgia State Council, Augusta
Chapter, is, and has been, at all times material herein, an employer organization
'This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the
hearing.
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 1173
comprised of painting contractors, including W. P. Reynolds & Son, and Richard
H. Still Company, among others, as members thereof, who do business in the
Augusta, Georgia-Aiken, South Carolina, area.
During the past year, which period is representative of all times material herein,
the members of the Association received approximately $143,540 for services ren-
dered to customers outside the State of Georgia. During the same period, the
members of the Association purchased equipment, materials, and supplies valued
at approximately $61,000 directly from points outside the State of Georgia, and
purchased equipment, materials, and supplies valued at approximately $51,000
indirectly from points outside the State of Georgia.
Gilbert & Cooper Construction Company, herein called Gilbert & Cooper, a
general contractor at all times material herein, was engaged in the construction
of a new housing development on U. S. Highway No. 1 in the Augusta-Aiken area
known as the Thomas-Woods Housing Project. Portions of said construction work
were performed by employees of Gilbert & Cooper, and other parts, including the
painting, were subcontracted to various contractors including W. P. Reynolds &
Son. In addition, employees of the Georgia Power Company, a public utility, were
engaged in work for their employer on this project. In connection with the said
Thomas-Woods Housing Project, the said general contractor, Gilbert & Cooper,
and subcontractors, including W. P. Reynolds & Son, purchased equipment, materials,
and supplies valued at approximately $375,000 directly from outside the State of
Georgia, and purchased equipment, materials, and supplies valued at approximately
$125,000 indirectly from outside the State of Georgia.
Clarence Mobley Construction Company, herein called Mobley, a general con-
tractor at all times material herein, was engaged in the reconditioning and renova-
tion of the Augusta, Georgia, store of S. H. Kress and Co. Portions of said work
were performed by employees of Mobley, and other parts, including the painting,
were subcontracted to various contractors including Richard H. Still Company. In
connection with the Augusta, Georgia, store of S. H. Kress and Co., Mobley and the
subcontractors, including Richard H. Still Company, purchased equipment, sup-
plies, and materials valued at approximately $250,000 indirectly from outside the
State of Georgia. During the past year, which period is representative of all times
material herein , S. H. Kress and Co., purchased equipment , materials, and supplies
valued in excess of $500 ,000 from outside the State of Georgia.
The undersigned finds that the Association is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
If. THE RESPONDENT
Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators & Paperhangers of America , Local Union
No. 1730, is a labor organization admitting employees of the members of the
Association to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. The March 2-July 3 picketing at Thomas -Woods Project
Sometime in February 1953 , the Respondent submitted a proposed contract to
the Association and demanded that it be signed with the threat that , if the Associa-
tion and its members failed to sign it , the Respondent would prevent them from
doing business in the Augusta -Aiken area. The Respondent contends that the parties
reached an agreement in July 1953 covering wages, hours, and working conditions
for said employees . The Association contends that no such agreement was reached.
The Respondent and the Association has not as yet executed any such contract,
nor has any such contract been executed by either Richard H . Still Company orW. P. Reynolds & Son, both painting contractors and members of the Association.
The last meeting regarding such a contract occurred on November 12, 1953.
After the submission of said proposed contract and on March 2, 1953, the Re-
spondent picketed at the Thomas -Woods Housing Project using one picket at each
entrance thereto who bore signs reading "This job is unfair to Painter 's Local No.1730, A. F. of L ." At this time W. P. Reynolds & Son, a member of the Associa-tion , was doing the painting work on said job under a contract with Gilbert &
Cooper Construction Company, the general contractor.
During said picketing , the employees of Georgia Power Company walked off of
said job fora period of 1 day and the .employees of the electrical , contractor employedon said job ceased work for about 11 hours. All other employees on said job,-
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including bricklayers , plumbers, carpenters , road builders , sheet rock men, roughers,
sheet metal workers, and cement workers remained on said job and did not cease
work at any time during said picketing . This picketing continued until about April
6. 1953, when the Respondent and the Association entered into a settlement agree-
ment , approved by the Regional Director for the Board, whereby the Respondent,
although specifically stating that it "neither concedes nor admits " that its past con-
duct violated Section 8 kb) (4 ) (A), agreed to post the following notice:
Pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the Regional Director of the
National Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , you are notified that:
Local No . 1730, Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators & Paperhangers of
America, A. F. L., shall not engage in a strike or induce or encourage the em-
ployees of Clarence Mobley Contracting Company, Gilbert & Cooper Construc-
tion Company , Span-Jerome Contractors or any other employer by picketing,
orders, directions , instructions or by any like acts or conduct or by permitting
any such acts or conduct to remain in effect , to engage in a strike or concerted
refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture , process, trans-
port or otherwise handle work on any goods , articles, or commodities or to per-
form any service , where an object thereof is to force or require Clarence Mobley
Contracting Company, Gilbert & Cooper Construction Company, Span-Jerome
Contractors , or any other employer, to cease doing business with the employer
members, jointly or severally, of Augusta Chapter , Georgia State Council , Paint-
ing and Decorating Contractors of America.
Dated July 3, 1953.
(S) LOCAL No. 1730 BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS,
DECORATORS & PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA,
A. F. L.
By (S) J . L. MILLS, Pres.
HANSEL E. ROGERS, Acting Secretary.
2. The picketing of August 11 at the Kress store
On July 3 , the following document was signed by the Respondent and the Asso-
ciation:
On this 3rd day of July , 1953, Local No . 1730 Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America , A. F. L. (herein called Union), and
Augusta Chapter , Georgia State Council, Painting and Decorating Contractors
of America ( herein called employer ) agrees:
WrrNESSETH : That Union in consideration of Employer 's promise that start-
ing on July 6, 1953 employer , through its authorized representative , shall meet
with Union , through its authorized representative , for the purpose of negotiating
a collective bargaining contract between Union and Employer-Employer here
and now makes such promise to so negotiate , agrees during the fifteen-day period
from July 6th, 1953 and ending July 21st, 1953 to refrain from engaging in a
strike or picketing or a boycott , or inducing or encouraging employees to engage
in a strike , picketing or boycott against the members of Employer , or persons
doing business with any one or more of said employers because such persons
are doing business with the employer or any one of them . Should said employer
and Union negotiate and execute a collective bargaining contract during the said
fifteen-day period , this agreement shall remain in effect until the date thereafter
on which either the International of the Union or the International of the Em-
ployer shall disapprove the collective bargaining contract.
The parties hereto may extend in writing the date of this agreement beyond
said date of disapproval as they can agree on.
Signed and sealed this 3rd day of July, 1953.
By this time the Kress store was under construction with the general contractor,
'Clarence Mobley Construction Company, thinking it had secured a union painting
subcontractor , having subcontracted the painting work to Richard H. Still Company,
which was a member of the Association and had not executed a contract with the
'Respondent.
On the afternoon of August 10, Clarence Mobley, Jr., head of the general con-
tractor , received word that Hansel Rogers, business agent of the Respondent, had
stated that the Respondent would place a picket on the Kress job the following morn-
ing. Mobley , Jr., thereupon telephoned to Louis Creech , business agent of the
-Plumbers ' Union and president of the Aiken-Augusta Building Trades Council, in-
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 1175
quired if he were president of such Council and if he knew whether "they" were going
to support the picket line. Creech answered that "he had served with other men, a
panel , more or less, to help settle the disagreement between the painters and the paint-
ing contractors and that he didn't believe that the painting contractors wanted to do
what was right, so he was going to go along with the Painter's Local No. 1730.112
Mobley then wanted to know what he must do in order to keep the job open and in-
quired whether the pickets would be put on the job if he, Mobley, removed the painters
from the job and closed that part of the work down. Creech stated he did not know
but would have the Respondent's business agent telephone him. A few minutes there-
after Rogers told Mobley over the telephone that "he was going to place pickets on all
of the jobs of Mobley Contracting Company on which any member of said Painting
and Decorating Contractors Association, not having a contract with Local 1730, was
allowed to work."
Either that same day or the following day Rogers agreed to remove the pickets
from the Kress job if Mobley discontinued the painting work.
On August 11, 1953, the Respondent picketed with one picket at the construction
job at the S. H. Kress store in Augusta, beginning at 7:30 a. in., prior to the starting
time of the employees of Clarence Mobley Construction Company and the other em-
ployers engaged on said construction job at the entrance used by said employees,
with a picket sign bearing the legend "This job is unfair to Painters Local No. 1730,
A. F. of L."
All of the employees of the employers then engaged in that construction job except
certain employees of Richard H. Still Company refused to cross that picket line and
refused in the regular course of their employment to perform services for their em-
ployees on said job during the picketing. The evidence showed that, as these em-
ployees approached the entrance to the Kress job, either individually or in groups
of 2 or 3, they decided individually not to cross the picket line. The evidence showed
that there were no words spoken by or between the picket and the employees.
This picketing was discontinued on August 11, 1953, about noon, when the em-
ployees of Richard H. Still Company left the job pursuant to the following written
agreement executed about 10:30 that morning by Mobley and Still:
MR. RICHARD H. STILL
Painting Contractor
Augusta, Ga.
August 11, 1953.
Re: S. H. Kress & Company Store, Augusta, Georgia
DEAR MR. STILL: Due to developments between your firm and the Painters &
Decorators Local Union #1730 which culminated this morning in a work
stoppage , we are going to ask you to remove your men from the work so that
the other trades may be permitted to go back to work.
In accordance with our understanding with you, if you are able to effect an
agreement with the Local, you will of course be permitted to complete the work.
If by the time we have to have painters on the job in order to S. H. Kress & Com-
pany no agreement has been effected between your firm and the Local or no
government agency has taken action which will permit you to complete the work
without picketing by the Union, then we will be obliged to take over the work
and complete it ourselves.
This, we understand, is in accord with our discussion of the matter this morn-
ing and your signature at the bottom of this page acknowledges the agreement
we had reached.
Upon the termination of that picketing, all of the employees who had theretofore
refused to cross the picket line and to perform services for their employers , includ-
ing electricians , carpenters , plumbers, laborers, and sheet metal workers returned
to work either that same day or the following morning.
On or about August 24, 1953, John C. Getreu, as the Regional Director of the
Tenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition in the District
Court of the United States for the Seventh District of Georgia against the Respondent
for an injunction under Section 10 (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, to enjoin picketing and other activities by the Respondent which was alleged
to be in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
2 Creech testified that he told Mobley over the telephone that he was speaking "as an
individual"-a claim apparently borne out by the testimony of Mobley quoted above which
was all stated in the first person singular.
Both Mobley and Creech impressed the undersigned as absolutely reliable witnesses.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 14, 1953, the Respondent and the Regional Director by their re-
spective counsel entered in a written stipulation in said injunction proceedings which
was approved by Judge F. M. Scarlett of said district court by which it was agreed
by the parties that that matter would be held in abeyance pending the final adjudica-
tion of the matter by the Board upon the agreement of the Respondent that it would
not violate Section 8 (b) (4) (A), but that in the event the Respondent broke its
obligation, then the injunction prayed for would be entered by the court.
3. Picketing at the Kress job September 21-22
Sometime before September 21, Mobley, incorrectly believing, as he later learned,
that an injunction had been granted in the aforementioned case, invited Still to
return his men to the Kress job which Still thereupon did.
On September 21, 1953, the Respondent picketed at the construction job at the
S. H. Kress and Co. in Augusta, Georgia, beginning at 7:30 a. in. which was prior
to the starting time of the employees of Clarence Mobley Construction Company
and of the other employers engaged in the construction job, using one picket at each
of the two entrances used by said employees with picket signs bearing the legend:
R. H. Still is unfair to Painters' Local No. 1730, A. F. of L.
During that picketing, which continued through September 22, 1953, all of the
employees then engaged in that construction job, except the employees of Richard
H. Still Company, refused to cross the picket line and refused in the regular course
of their employment to perform services for their employers on said job and con-
tinued to refuse until the employees of Richard H. Still Company were removed
from the job pursuant to the letter agreement between Mobley and Still dated August
11, 1953, and quoted in full, supra. Again the evidence shows that these employees
approached the Kress job that morning individually or in small groups and refused
to cross the picket line after seeing the picket sign. There is in this record no testi-
mony concerning any inducement or encouragement to the employees to strike either
individually or through their unions other than the picket sign itself. Again no words
were exchanged by and between the picket and the employees. And, as in the case
of the other two stoppages here in question the picket was placed by the Respondent
on its own authority and without the approval of the Building Trades Council.
Included among the employees who so refused to cross the picket line and to
perform services for their employers were plumbers, sheet metal workers, carpenters,
pipe coverers, electricians, and laborers.
B. Conclusions
1. The picketing of March 2 and August 11
This case really poses the question as to whether a union involved in a labor
dispute with a subcontractor engaged with other employers on a construction project
may legally picket that subcontractor at the project without running afoul of Section
8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
Under the evidence presented here, there can be no question but that the Respond-
ent had a legitimate labor dispute with the Association and with the individual paint-
ing contractors on the projects picketed. There, can be no question but that the
Respondent picketed these subcontractors at the site of the primary dispute, which
also happened to be the common job situs of several other contractors who were in
no way otherwise connected with the dispute. The general contractor and the other
subcontractors using this common situs qualify as neutrals and, until the picketing
began, were not involved in the dispute.
It is these neutral employers whose only connection with the dispute is geographi-
cal which caused concern and trouble in this type of case. Except for them there
could be no question but that the Respondent could legally picket members of the
Association employed at the job site as this was obviously primary picketing at the
situs of the primary dispute carried on in traditional fashion and, as such, in no way
a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) .'
At this point it might be well to point out that the Association argued in its brief
that the picketing was illegal as its object was to force the Association to execute a
contract with the Respondent "without benefit of negotiation" and under the threat
of preventing the Association and its members from doing business in Augusta if it
refused. The undersigned cannot agree. While the contract proposal was originally
s N. L. R. R. v. The International Rice Milling Co., Inc., 341 U. S. 665.
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 1177
submitted as a "sign this agreement or else" proposition with the "or else" expressed
as a threat to force the Association and its members out of business in the Augusta
area, the undisputed facts further show that the Respondent and the Association
did, in fact, bargain in regard thereto on and off until November 12, 1953, and
especially from July 3 to July 18 when the Respondent secured the promise of the
Association to sit down with it and bargain over the contract. This finding is further
buttressed by the fact that the Association never filed a refusal-to-bargain charge
against the Respondent and, in addition, at the hearing its attorney expressly dis-
avowed any desire or intention to try any such charge against the Respondent.
Respondent 's object was, contrary to the Association's contention, the legal one of
attempting to secure a contract with the Association and its members. Thus, it
must be found that the Respondent's object in picketing the subcontractor was a
legal one.
It is now settled law from court and Board decisions that Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
prohibits secondary-but not primary-action. At least until we put the prime
and subcontractors into the picture here, the picketing in all three instances is obvi-
ously primary picketing carried on by traditional means for a legal object and thus,
in itself, legal.
However, on March 2 and August 11, the Respondent's picket carried a sign
reading "This job is unfair to Painters' Union No. 1730" in front of the entrances
used in common by employees of both the neutral and the disputant contractors.
As the Respondent had no dispute with any of the contractors on the jobs except
Reynolds and Still, this blanket description of the whole job as being unfair to the
Respondent showed unmistakably the Respondent's object of broadening the area
of conflict to the neutral employers with the object of forcing those neutral employ-
ers, and especially the general contractors, to cease doing business with the "unfair"
subcontractor. This broadening of the area of dispute to the neutrals crosses the
boundary between primary strike action and secondary strike action because the
neutrals are one party removed from the primary dispute.
In addition there was evidence, at least in the August 11 incident, of encourage-
ment and inducement to employees of the other employers to cease work in concert
to further that objective of forcing the general contractors to cease doing business
with the unfair subcontractors.
Thus, on both March 15 and August 11 an object of the Respondent in picketing
with signs declaring "This job is unfair" was to force the prime contractor to cease
doing business with the unfair subcontractor by inducing and encouraging the em-
ployees of the other contractors on the job site to cease work in concert. Such is
secondary activity, and, as such, is in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the
Act and therefore illegal 4
2. The picketing of September 21-22
However, the picketing which occurred at the entrance to the Kress job on Sep-
tember 21-22 stands on a different footing. On this occasion there is absolutely no
evidence of any encouragement or inducement to employees of either the prime or
subcontractors to act in concert, through the Union or otherwise. This picket line
was authorized solely by the Respondent Union without, so far as this record dis-
closes, any approval or assistance from any other union.`
On this occasion the picket sign bore the legend: "R. H. Still Unfair to Painters'
Local #1713." Although the Association in its brief refers to this change on the
picket sign as "word shuffling," "cute trick," and "chicanery," the Respondent thereby
made it clear to all concerned that its quarrel was with the "unfair" painting con-
tractor only, an obvious attempt to prevent the widening the area of dispute to include
the neutral employers using the common job situs. This affirmative act of modifying
the legend is convincing evidence that the Respondent was doing all in its power to
keep the dispute localized to the primary employer at the primary situs of the
dispute. Thus, there was no appeal to employees of the neutral employers using
the common situs to cease work for the purpose of forcing those neutrals to cease
doing business with the unfair subcontractor. The object here was merely to adver-
tise the Respondent's dispute with the "unfair" subcontractors in the traditional
manner used in any primary dispute at the situs of that primary dispute.
I N. L. R. B . v. The Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341 U. S. 675.
B The Association cites provisions from the constitution and bylaws of the Aiken-Augusta
Building Trades Council apparently as proof of the inducement of union members to re-
spect picket signs. A reading of these provisions proves that they are applicable only in
cases of strikes called by the Building Trades Council-not in cases, such as this, of a
strike called by an International union . Thus , such provisions are immaterial here.
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The question thus becomes whether the fact that the locus of the dispute happens
to be a site used in common by the employer engaged in the particular labor dispute
publicized as well as by employees of neutral employers make such picketing illegal.
In the recent case involving Hoosier Petroleum Company Inc., 106 NLRB 629, a
common situs case, the Board said:
The Trial Examiner nevertheless found that the picketing was protected
because Floyd maintained a regular place of business on Hoosier Pete's prem-
ises. However, as in the case of a labor dispute which had an ambulatory
situs, such as that present in the Moore Drydock case," where, as here, the
primary employer has a regular place of business on the premises of another
employer, the competing rights of a union to picket at the location of the labor
dispute and of a secondary employer to be free from picketing in a controversy
in which it is not directly involved cannot be absolute. It seems not unreason-
able to require in such a situation that the picketing clearly disclose that the
dispute is with the primary employer.12 Plainly, such a requirement does not
curtail the Union's right to publicize its dispute with a primary employer while
at the same time it avoids unnecessary interference with the neutral employer's
business.
As discussed above, the Respondent did not conduct its picketing activities
in a manner which clearly showed that they were directed against Floyd and
and not Hoosier Pete whose business, as a consequence suffered.
"Moore Drydock Company (Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL), 92 NLRB 547,
standards approved in N. L. R B. v. Service Trade Chauffeurs etc., 191 F. 2d 65 and
199 F. 2d 709 (C. A. 2).
12 Richfield Ott Corporation, supra.
In that case the Board held that the picket sign which read "On strike Jesse Floyd,
Haulers for Hoosier Pete," as well as certain picket line activities directed against
Hoosier Pete, revealed an intention to convey the idea tq Hoosier Pete's customers
that Hoosier Pete was directly involved in the Respondent's labor dispute with Floyd.
The picketing, thus, became secondary activity as directed against a neutral em-
ployer and thus prohibited by Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
The undersigned can perceive no reason or logic which would prevent the Union
from picketing a primary employer at his place of business during a labor dispute
between the two even though, by chance, the primary employer's place of business
happened to be one used in common with other and neutral employers so long as
the Union made it clear by its picketing and its sign that its dispute was solely with
the primary employer and not with the neutral employers using the common situs.
Otherwise, the mere chance that the primary situs of a dispute happened to be used
in common by some employers who are neutrals in the dispute would prevent the
Union from being permitted to publicize its labor dispute against the primary em-
ployer. Such a rule would be contrary to the intent of Congress, and, in addition,
would nullify the provision of the Act guaranteeing the right to strike.
Unlike the Hoosier Pete case, there is here affirmative evidence that the pickets
spoke to no one nor made any motions, signs, or signals other than to march stolidly
back and forth at the entrance to the project carrying the above described sign.
The Association argued that the picket sign was a sign or signal to the other union
employees employed at the common situs to concertedly cease working in order
to force their employers, especially the prime contractor, to cease doing business
with the unfair subcontractor. As the Association correctly points out, union men
traditionally are loath to cross the picket line of a sister union-but that is a
traditional aspect of an economic conflict applicable even to primary disputes not
involving a common situs. Yet the Act clearly protects the right to picket despite
that traditional aspect of the picket sign. The Respondent clearly complied on
September 21-22 with all the criteria of legal picketing set forth in the Moore Dry-
dock case. There is no logic or reason for a requirement of stricter rules in a com-
mon situs case than are set forth in the aforementioned case for the ambulatory
situs cases. It would seem that the only other rule for common situs cases would
be a complete prohibition against picketing, a prohibition which would appear to be
contrary to the intent and the wording of the Act.
There was here, as in the Rice Milling case, no case made out for a concerted
cessation of work by the employees. Whether to work or not was a matter to be
decided by each individual employee as he, himself, approached the picket line. Thus
the picketing of September 21-22 appears to have been in compliance with the Act
and the rulings of the court and the Board as well as in conformity with traditional
practice.
THURSTON MOTOR LINES, INC. 1179
The undersigned, therefore, finds that the picketing of the Respondent at the
common situs at the Kress job on September 21-22, 1953, was primary, and not
secondary, and, therefore, did not violate Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth above, occurring in connection with the
operations described in section 1, hereof, 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 certain unfair labor practices,
the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Georgia State Council,
Augusta Chapter, Augusta, Georgia, is engaged, and during all times material herein
was engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers,of America, Local Union
No. 1730, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Since March 2, 1953, and August 11, 1953, Brotherhood of Painters, Decora-
tors & Paperhangers of America, Local Union No. 1730, has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
of the Act, by engaging in and encouraging the employees of members of the Asso-
ciation and employees of other employers to engage in a concerted 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, an object thereof being to force or require Clarence Mobley Construc-
tion Company and Gilbert & Cooper Construction Company, or any other em-
ployer to cease doing business with the employer members of Painting and Decorat-
ing Contractors of America, Georgia State Council, Augusta Chapter.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, Local Union
No. 1730, has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the
Act, by picketing at the S. H. Kress & Co. store in Augusta, Georgia, on September
21-22, 1953.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
THURSTON MOTOR LINES , INC. and CURTIS MC CURDY.
CA-703. September 3, 1954
Decision and Order
Case No. 11-
On June 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman, issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent also
filed a brief.
109 NLRB No. 172.