Building and Construction Trades Council, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 38 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hewitt's isolated interrogation of Snelling in March , his angry threats to Craig on
May 23, of "trouble," harder work , and possible discharge because of her union
activities , and Thomas' explanation to Snelling in August that Respondent had to
"fight back with everything" against the Union. Considering that the Meat Cutters
organization earlier waged a successful campaign in the store through the same agent
who represented the Union here, won an election , and Respondent promptly and
apparently amicably bargained and signed a contract with the Meat Cutters at the
very time that the campaign of the Union was reaching its "peak" according to Craig
and Snelling , I do not consider these three rather widely separated incidents as sub-
stantial evidence of a definite union animus or pattern of antiunion conduct warranting
remedial action . I shall therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices , as alleged in the complaint
herein, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act, to an extent which
warrants remedial action under the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the
entire record in the case, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Building and Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan
District ; John E. Deady, its Agent ; Excavating and Building
Material Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union
379, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Win-
wake, Inc.
Building and Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan
District and its Agent , John E. Deady and Winwake, Inc. Cases
Nos. 1-CC-293 and 1-CP-31. February 28, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 10, 1962, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) of the Act and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. He recommended
dismissal of the 8(b) (7) (C) allegations of the complaint. There-
after, the Respondent Council and the Charging Party filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Gen-
eral Counsel and Local 379 did not file any exceptions.
141 NtLRB No. 2.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, ETC. 39
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Rodgers and Leedom].
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations of the Trial Exam-
iner as modified herein.3
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. Respondent Building and Construction Trades Council of the
Metropolitan District, its officers, agents (including John E. Deady),
representatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
any individual employed by C. L. Guild Construction Co., Inc., Twin-
brook Concrete Corporation, Wakefield Ready-Mixed Concrete Com-
pany, Burlington Sand and Gravel Company, or any other employer
to engage in, a strike or a 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
service; and from threatening, coercing, or restraining the above-
named employers or any other person (including Winwake, Inc.) ;
where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Winwake,
Inc., to cease doing business with C. L. Guild Construction Co., Inc.,
i We correct the following inadvertent errors in the Intermediate Report:
1 "George Whitten" and "Whitten Bros., Inc" are, respectively , the correct names of
the individual and corporation referred to as "Whittem " and "Whittem Brothers , Incorpo-
rated" in the Intermediate Report.
2. "Lord Wakefield" rather than "Lord Winwake" is the correct name of the hotel which
was under construction on the project here involved during the period pertinent to this
proceeding
3. "Wakefield Ready-Mixed Concrete Company" appears to be the correct name of the
sand and gravel company referred to as "Burlington Sand and Gravel Company" in the
Intermediate Report.
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner that an object of Respondents ' picketing of the
construction site and the inducement of employees of Guild was to force the general
contractor to terminate his contracts with nonunion subcontractors , thereby violating
Section 8 ( b) (4) (B) of the Act. N L R B v. Denver Building and Construction Trades
Council, et al (Gould & Preisner), 341 U S. 675, 687-690. We also concur in the Trial
Examiner's conclusion that Respondents did not have an additional object of organizing
the employees of the nonunion subcontractors or of seeking recognition as their bargaining
representative and therefore that the picketing did not violate either Section 8(b) (7) (C)
or the second part of Section 8(b) (4) (B ). In view of the latter findings, the Chairman
and Member Leedom do not adopt the Trial Examiner's discussion of the impact of the
Moore Dry Dock Company rules ( 92 NLRB 547, 549 ) on the picketing in this case or his
finding that the subcontractors are the pnmary employers.
8 In the absence of exceptions by Local 379 , we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's
finding that it violated the Act.
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Twinbrook Concrete Corporation, Wakefield Ready-Mixed Concrete
Company, Burlington Sand and Gravel Company, Whitten Brothers,
Incorporated, Stewart Weatherhead, H. L. Wood, De Mone Brothers,
or any other employer or person.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at Respondent Council's business offices and meeting halls,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region,
shall, after being duly signed, be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members of affiliated unions are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director for
posting by Winwake, Guild, Twinbrook, Wakefield, and Burlington,
if willing, at all locations where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Excavating and Building Material Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 379, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, its officers, agents, representatives, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
any individual employed by Twinbrook Concrete Corporation, Wake-
field Ready-Mixed Concrete Company, Burlington Sand and Gravel
Company, or any other employer to engage in, a strike or a refusal
in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities, or to perform any services; and from threatening, co-
ercing, or restraining the above-named employers or any other person
(including Winwake, Inc.) ; where in either case an object thereof is
to force or require Winwake, Inc., to cease doing business with Whitten
Brothers, Incorporated, Stewart Weatherhead, H. L. Wood, De Mone
Brothers, or any other employer or person.
* 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."
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, ETC. 41
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at Respondent Local 379's business offices and meeting
halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 5 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First
Region, shall, after being duly signed, be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director for
posting by Winwake, Twinbrook, Wakefield, and Burlington, if will-
ing, at all locations where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it alleged a violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C)
by Respondent Building and Construction Trades Council of the
Metropolitan District and its agent, John E. Deady.
6 See footnote 4, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNIONS AFFILIATED WITH BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF C. L. GUILD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
TWINBROOK CONCRETE CORPORATION , WAKEFIELD READY-MIXED CON-
CRETE COMPANY , BURLINGTON SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY, AND
WINWAKE, INC.
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 engage in , or induce or encourage any individual
employed by C. L. Guild Construction Co., Inc., Twinbrook
Concrete Corporation , Wakefield Ready-Mixed Concrete Com-
pany, Burlington Sand and Gravel Company, or any other em-
ployer, to engage in , a strike or a 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 , NOR WILL WE threaten , coerce, or re-
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strain the above-named employers or any other person (including
Winwake, Inc.), where an object thereof is to force or require
Winwake, Inc., to cease doing business with Whitten Brothers,
Incorporated, Stewart Weatherhead, H. L. Wood, De Mone Broth-
ers, or any other employer or person.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
OF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(JOAN E. DEADY, Agent for the above-named
Council)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. La-
fayette 3-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF EXCAVATING AND BUILDING MATERIAL
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 379,
AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA AND TO ALL
EMPLOYEES OF TWINBROOK CONCRETE CORPORATION, WAKEFIELD
READY-MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY, BURLINGTON SAND AND GRAVEL
COMPANY, AND WINWAKE, INC.
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 engage in, or induce or encourage any individual
employed by Twinbrook Concrete Corporation, Wakefield Ready-
Mixed Concrete Company, Burlington Sand and Gravel Com-
pany, or any other employer , to engage in, a strike or a refusal
in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, services,
materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, NOR WILL
WE threaten, coerce, or restrain the above-named employers or any
other person (including Winwake, Inc.), where an object thereof
is to force or require Winwake, Inc., to cease doing business with
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, ETC. 43
Whitten Brothers, Incorporated, Stewart Weatherhead, H. L,
Wood, De Mone Brothers, or any other employer or person.
EXCAVATING AND BUILDING MATERIAL CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 379,
AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. La-
fayette 3-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Winwake, Inc., on July 19, 1961 , the General Counsel
issued a consolidated complaint on August 24, 1961, alleging that Respondents
Building and Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District , and its agent,
John E. Deady, and Excavating and Building Material Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers , Local Union 379, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B)
of the Act and that the Council , and its agent , Deady, had also engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
After the filing of the charges, the Regional Director for the First Region , pursuant
to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act, petitioned the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts for injunctive relief against the above-named
Respondents . On September 7, 1961, the district court granted a temporary restrain-
ing order.
After the filing of answers to the consolidated complaint herein on behalf of all
of the Respondents , the cases came on for hearing before Trial Examiner Owsley Vose
at Boston , Massachusetts , on September 18, 1961 . At the hearing, the parties
stipulated that the transcript of the testimony, including various sipulations presented
to the district court in the injunction case, should constitute a part of the record in
the present proceedings . The motion of Respondents Council and Deady to amend
their joint answer was granted . After the close of the hearing , the General Counsel
and Respondent Local 379 filed briefs with me which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Winwake , Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, is a general contractor engaged in
the construction , among other buildings , of the Lord Winwake Hotel at Wakefield,
Massachusetts . It purchases materials and supplies from out-of-State sources of
a value in excess of $50 ,000 annually . C. L. Guild Construction Co., Inc ., a Rhode
Island corporation, having its principal office at East Providence , Rhode Island, has
the piledriving subcontract on the hotel project . It does business outside the State
of Rhode Island of a value in excess of $50 ,000 annually . Twinbrook Concrete
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Corporation of Waltham, Massachusetts, has furnished some of the concrete used in
the hotel project at Wakefield. Twinbrook annually receives materials from out-of-
State sources valued in excess of $50,000 each year. Whitten Brothers, Incorporated,
has a subcontract to furnish labor and truckdriving work for the job. H. L. Wood
has been awarded the plumbing subcontract, Stewart Weatherhead, the masonry
subcontract, and De Mone Brothers the subcontract for the erection and removal
of the forms for the concrete work. Of all the subcontractors on the project, only
Guild employs members of, and recognizes, a labor organization affiliated with the
Council. I find that Winwake, Guild, and Twinbrook are employers engaged in
commerce and/or in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of the Act,
and that it is appropriate to exercise jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Respondent Council and the Respondent Local 379 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The Respondent John E. Deady,
secretary-treasurer of the Respondent Council, is an agent of the Council within the
meaning of Section 8(b) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. The walkout by members of Carpenters and Pile Drivers Local Union No. 56
on June 14, 1961
After receiving a report from a business agent of a carpenters' local to the effect
that there was "a non-Union condition" on the Winwake hotel job, Council Secretary
Deady went to the jobsite on June 14, 1961, and had a discussion with the business
agents of several other local unions affiliated with the Council, including Robert
Howe, business agent of Carpenters and Pile Drivers Local Union No. 56, about the
presence of nonunion men on the job. Thereafter, Howe suggested to David Hig-
gins, the shop steward of Local 56, that they "shut the job down."' Howe then an-
nounced this decision to the piledrivers. They stopped work about 9:30 a.m, but
remained on the job until 12:30 p.m. to see if the matter could be "straightened out."
The piledrivers, however, returned the next morning, Thursday, June 15, and worked
all day.
2. The discussions prior to the Council's establishment of the picket line
When George Whittem, the treasurer and one of the owners of Winwake, was
informed of the walkout early on Wednesday, June 14, he returned to the project
and immediately began trying to reach Deady by telephone. Whittem finally got
in touch with Deady about 8 o'clock that evening. At that time, when asked what
the trouble was, Deady said, "We didn't like the conditions," and when pressed as
to what particular conditions, replied, "You are running non-Union." Whittem
replied, "Well, I don't show any discrimination against anybody. I run an open shop.
I don't care what my subcontractors are, whether they are Union or non-Union, as
long as they do their lob." Deady rejoined, "I am going to teach you a thing or
two; I will show you how to run the job." The conversation ended with Deady
agreeing to meet Whittem at the jobsite at 8 a.m. the following morning, Thursday,
June 15.
The next morning Deady met with Whittem as planned. Also present on this
occasion were George Donaldson, a Guild supervisor, Business Agent Howe, and one
other man. Deady asked Wluttem how he was going to run the job. Whittem
answered, "Open shop. . I can't run it non-Union, I would be discriminating
against the Union, and that I can't do. I am running it open shop, and I don't
care whether a man is Union or non-Union as long as he does his work." Deady
immediately turned to Howe and "screamed, `You heard it. We have got to protect
our trades. If you (Whittem) are going to run non-Union men with Union men, we
certainly are going to the higher-ups and we will stop you We will have no non-
Union men on this job'." Donaldson inquired what should be done "to rectify the
' This is the testimony of William Norflett , one of the members of Local 56 employed
by Guild, who was working on the hotel job on the morning of June 14 Business Agent
Howe testified that on this occasion he "simply stated that there was non-Union men on
the job site ." Norflett's testimony comports with the logic of the situation and is hereby
credited
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, ETC. 45
situation." Deady's reply was "get rid of" the nonunion subcontractors and "have all
Union men working on this job." 2
3. The Council's establishment of a picket line in front of the project on June 16
Council Secretary-Treasurer Deady admittedly established a picket line in front
of the Winwake hotel project at Wakefield on June 16, 1961. As a result of the
presence of the picket line , the piledriver members of Local 56 refused to report for
work on June 16.
The picketing continued from June 16 until September 6, 1961. Until July 24,
the legend on the picket signs read as follows:
THIS JOB UNFAIR
to the
A. F. of L.-C. I. O.
BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION
TRADES
Thereafter , the picket signs were changed to read:
THE WINWAKE CO. UNFAIR
to the
A. F. of L.-C. I. O.
BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION
TRADES
On June 20, 1961, Francis E. Silva, Jr., attorney for Winwake, approached Deady
as he was carrying a sign on the picket line. Silva asked Deady what he was doing
there and what his purpose was. Deady pointed to the sign and said that the sign
spoke for itself. Silva then asked Deady what it would take to have the picket line re-
moved. Deady replied that "he wanted the job 100 percent union." Silva commented
that the job had already been subcontracted out and suggested that although there
were probably nonunion subcontractors on the job nothing could be done about it.
Deady replied that "they could be fired off the job." Silva replied that Whittem
did not do business that way. Silva then continued. "I understand then that what you
want here is that you want a 100 percent Union job and to the extent that we must
fire any non-Union subcontractors if we have them." Deady said, "Yes, that is right.
We are going to be either 100 percent in or 100 percent out. We got to protect our
rights and that is the way it is going to be." Then Silva asked , "What sort of a con-
tract . . ." and Deady answered , "I don 't want a contract . I want to be satisfied
it is going to be a 100 percent union job." 3
4. Local 379's support of the Council's picket line
a. Preliminary statement
As a result of the presence of the pickets outside the project, Winwake had difficulty
obtaining concrete. The drivers of Wakefield Ready-Mixed Concrete Company, Win-
wake's regular supplier of concrete for the project, refused to cross the picket line.
They are members of Local 42, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Consequently Winwake or-
dered concrete from other concerns, including Twinbrook, whose drivers are members
2 The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of George Whittem. With
the one exception discussed below, Deady and Howe made no effort to deny Wbittem's
testimony concerning this conversation with them . As found below, Deady's statements to
Whittem on this occasion are similar to statements made by Deady less than a week later
to Winwake's attorney, Francis E Silva, Jr., which Deady, in part at least, admits having
made Both Deady and Howe testified that Whittem 's response to Deady's initial inquiry
concerning his policy for running the job was , "Non-Union , open shop ." Deady, in his
testimony , displayed a poor memory even about certain comparatively recent events and
generally showed a tendency to be evasive and to engage in "double -talk" about matters
adversely affecting the interests of the Council I find that both Deady and Howe, in
their testimony , were stressing the aspect of Whittem ' s response to which they took strong
objection , and that their testimony does not accurately reflect the tenor of Whittem's
response as a whole.
3 The foregoing finding is based on Silva's credited testimony. Deady admitted that he
told Silva he wanted a 100-percent union job , and that he was out to protect the trades
Deady further testified that although he did not remember saying so , it was his intention
to continue picketing until he got a 100-percent union shop
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Local 379. It was stipulated at the hearing that the members of Local 379 are
under continuing instructions to respect all picket lines, and that these instructions
would cover the picket line at the Winwake project. On most of the occasions on
which Winwake poured concrete at the project, John Garvey, one of the business
agents of Local 379, was present in the vicinity of the picket line .4 Garvey, accord-
ing to Whittem's credited testimony, would stand in the middle of the street and
would appeal to the drivers to respect the picket line.
On June 28, Winwake ordered a number of loads of concrete from Twinbrook.
Three trucks were used in making the deliveries. Louis Vassalotti, one of the
owners of Twinbrook, drove one of the trucks. Two of Twinbrook's regular drivers,
members of Local 379, drove the other two trucks. The next day Twinbrook's
drivers informed Vassalotti "they wouldn't go across the picket line again."
b. Local 379s July 12 strike against Twinbrook
Winwake placed another order with Twinbrook for the delivery of concrete on
July 12. Since his drivers refused to cross the picket line, Vassalotti drove the truck
himself, making eight or nine trips. As he was leaving the project at noon to obtain
another load, Local 379 Business Agent Garvey spoke to him. Garvey first asked
Vassalotti where the regular driver of the truck was. Vassalotti explained that there
was no regular driver, that he had quit. Garvey then asked Vassalotti, "Don't you
know you are breaking down conditions here." Vassalotti replied, "Gee, I don't
know anything about it," and pulled on out of the jobsite.5
Upon leaving this jobsite, Vassalotti drove to the plant of the Burlington Sand
and Gravel Company to obtain the cement, sand, and gravel used in making con-
crete. Business Agent Garvey of Local 379 and O'Brien of Local 42 got in a beach
wagon and followed Vassalotti to the plant. While Vassalotti's truck was being
loaded, Garvey and O'Brien approached John Sefchuk, the loader at the plant. Gar-
vey asked Sefchuk if he was loading a Twinbrook truck. When Sefchuk said yes,
Garvey inquired whether he was a member of the Union. Sefchuk replied that he
had a withdrawal card. Garvey angrily retorted, "Well, you will never get in my
Union again." O'Brien, of Local 42, added, "you will be blackballed out of 42 also
for loading the Twinbrook truck." 6
Not long after 1:30 p.m that day, Business Agent Garvey appeared at the office
of the Twinbrook plant. Pointing to the garage where two trucks were parked,
Garvey asked Stanley Colentuno, Twinbrook's treasurer, where the drivers for the
trucks were. When Colentuno replied that one was on vacation and the other is in
court, Garvey announced, "Well, I am pulling your men out on strike." When Colen-
tuno asked, "What for, John," Garvey answered "No contract." 7 Garvey then went
down to Twinbrook's batch plant to inform the men there of the strike.
On a subsequent trip back to the Burlington plant for another load, Vassalotti was
notified that he was to call Twinbrook's office. When he did so, Treasurer Colentuno
4 This is the testimony of George Whittem, which I credit. Garvey admitted that he
had gone out to the picket line "a few times," but disclaimed any interest in it. Under
all the circumstances of the case, I do not credit his disclaimer
5 This is Vassalotti's credited testimony. Garvey similarly testified that he asked
Vassalotti on this occasion "where was the driver that belonged on the truck " However,
Garvey further testified that he also asked Vassalotti whether he knew that he was violat-
ing the contract by driving the truck himself, and that Vassalotti had answered that
Local 379 did not have a contract with him. According to Garvey, he rejoined, "Well, it
is about time you had a contract." Vassalotti, when questioned about Garvey's testimony
above set forth, denied that Garvey had accused him of violating the contract by driving
the truck, and he further testified that he had not told Garvey that he had no contract
with Local 379. The contract did not, in fact, contain any prohibition against owners
driving trucks. Vassalotti credibly testified that when he was shorthanded for one reason
or another he had very frequently driven the trucks himself, without any objection being
made by Local 379. As hereinafter found, in Garvey's conversation with Stanley Colentuno,
the treasurer of Twinbrook, shortly thereafter, when Garvey went out to the Twinbrook
plant to call the men out on strike. Garvey made no mention of Vassalotti's driving in
violation of the contract as being a cause of the strike. Under all the circumstances, I do
not credit Garvey's testimony in this regard, and find that the conversation occurred as
stated in the text above.
6 The foregoing findings are based on Sefchuk 's undenied and credited testimony.
4 Colentuno further credibly testified that Garvey did not mention Vassalotti's driving
of the truck on this occasion. Garvey was not questioned concerning his conversation
with Colentuno on this occasion. Consequently, Colentuno's testimony in this regard is
undenled.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, ETC. 47
informed him that the men were out on strike. When he asked Colentuno what the
reason was, Colentuno replied, "Mr. Garvey just said we have no contract."
The strike was settled on the following day as a result of discussions which took
place during the negotiations between Local 379 and a local association of employers
in the ready-mixed concrete business. The prior contract, which had also been ne-
gotiated upon a multiemployer basis, had expired on April 30 and the parties were in
the process of negotiating a new contract. Pending the execution of the new agree-
ment, the parties undertook to maintain in effect the terms and conditions of the
expired contract. While this was not expressly agreed to, all parties understood that
these were the conditions under which the men would continue working.
At the bargaining meeting on July 13, which was held at the office of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service in Boston under the auspices of Commissioner
Sullivan, the employer and union representatives were seated in separate offices.
Attorney John J. Delaney, Jr., who represented the employers, went to the union
representatives and raised the question of the Twinbrook strike, asserting that the
employers "were reluctant to talk any further until something was worked out in
regard to this problem " Delaney mentioned the Winwake situation, and asked
whether that was a cause of the strike against Twinbrook, pointing out that if the
strike against one of the employers was part of the union strategy in the current
bargaining, then the employers would have to take appropriate action. However,
as Delaney stated, if the strike was "for some matter other than that, we didn't
quarrel." Frank McMorrow, the president and one of the business agents of Local
379 and who was representing Local 379 in the negotiations, said that he did not
know what had brought about the strike against Twinbrook, but that he would find
out from his associate, Business Agent Garvey. Before he called Garvey,
MeMorrow asked Delaney whether "Twinbrook would agree that it would not in
the future make deliveries" to the Winwake project. Delaney returned to the em-
ployer representatives and put the question to Vassalotti, one of the owners of Twin-
brook. Vassalotti replied that he could not agree that Twinbrook would not make
any future deliveries to Winwake, that all he could say was that he personally "would
not operate the truck," and that Local 379 should know that its members would not
cross the picket lines When Delaney went back and reported Vassalotti's answer
to McMorrow, the latter made a telephone call, as a result of which the strike was
settled.
5. Local 379's August 4 strike against Twinbrook
Winwake ordered concrete from Twinbrook a third time about August 4. Vassa-
lotti informed Whittem that he could not drive the truck himself, that his men would
not cross the picket line, but that Twinbrook could borrow a truck without a driver.
Winwake accepted Vassalotti's offer and obtained a driver from one of the Whittem
companies. This driver, who was not a member of Local 379, made deliveries to the
hotel project. Later that day Twinbrook needed a truck in which to make some de-
liveries of concrete. It hired a truck and a driver for this purpose from the Rosen-
field Company. The driver furnished was not a member of Local 379. After Garvey
received a telephone call informing him of these events, he went out to Twinbrook's
plant and informed Vassalotti that he was calling Twinbrook's men out on strike.
When Vassalotti asked the reason for the strike, Garvey answered, according to
Vassalotti, "no contract," and he also mentioned the fact that Twinbrook had leased
out the truck without a Local 379 driver. Garvey inferentially denied having men-
tioned Twinbrook's lack of a contract as an explanation for the strike. He testified
that he called Vassalotti's attention to the fact that Twinbrook's leasing of the
truck, under the circumstances then existing, was a violation of the contract, and
that Vassalotti replied that he had no contract with Local 379. According to Garvey's
testimony, he then observed as follows- "Well, it is about time you had a contract " 9
The only provisions in the contract which have to do with the leasing of trucks are
the following:
'This is the mutually consistent and credited testimony of Delaney and Vassalotti
McMorrow also testified that it was agreed that Vassalotti would not operate a truck.
McMorrow, when asked whether he had made any demand in that conversation that
Twinbrook cease doing business with Winwake, replied that he had not. However,
Delaney had not testified that MeMorrow had made a demand that Twinbrook cease doing
business with Winwake. Under the circumstances , I do not regard McAforrow's testi-
mony in this regard as being in conflict with the testimony of Delaney and Vassalotti
about McMorrow's raising the question whether Twinbrook would agree not to make any
future deliveries to Winwake.
e Vassalotti specifically denied that Garvey had mentioned the leasing of the equipment
as a violation of the contract.
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When outside vehicles are engaged, they shall be operated by members of
Local #379 in good standing and shall receive the following prevailing rate
of wages established in this Agreement.
Outside vehicles shall not be engaged if the Company has available equipment
of its own.
I find it unnecessary to resolve the conflict in the testimony as to the explanation
given Vassalotti at the time of the strike on August 4, for even accepting Garvey's
version, I find, for reasons more fully set forth below, that one of Local 379's
objections to Twinbrook's leasing of the trucks was the fact that Twinbrook had
leased the truck to Winwake which was thwarting its efforts to support the Council's
picket line. In this posture of the case it is immaterial that Local 379 also objected
because, in its view, Twinbrook was breaching its contract with Local 379.
The Twinbrook employees remained out on strike until after August 8, on which
date the employees of all the other employers involved in the multiemployer bargain-
ing went out on strike to enforce their contract demands. The parties finally nego-
tiated a contract settling this strike on August 11. Immediately after this agreement
was reached, Local 379 Representatives McMorrow and Garvey urged that Vassalotti
"ought to straighten out [Twinbrook's] little problem." When Vassalotti disclaimed
the existence of any problem, McMorrow argued, "We have to talk about it if
you want to go back to work. We can hold up the contract " 10 After reproaching
Vassalotti about his driving of trucks and about Twinbrook's leasing of trucks with-
out a Local 379 driver, McMorrow sought Vassalotti's agreement on three matters.
Vassalotti's credited testimony in this regard is as follows:
So he (McMorrow) said, "Well, you won't go there (to the Winwake hotel
project) again," and I said, "No, we won't go there again; the job is finished
as far as we are concerned."
He said, "You won't drive," and I said, "No, I won't drive."
And he said, "You won't lease the trucks to him again," and I said, "All
right, I won't lease the trucks to him again." But I said, "At the time the job,
as far as I know, is finished with the concrete." 11
With this understanding Local 379's second strike against Winwake was terminated.
B. Conclusions concerning the Council's unfair labor practices
Subsections (i) and (ii)(B) of Section 8(b)(4) make it an unfair labor practice
for a labor organization or its agents
(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 . . to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce,
or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where in either case an object thereof is:
(B) forcing or requiring any person . . . to cease doing business with any
other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize and
bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees... .
The evidence above set forth establishes that the Council objected to the presence
of certain subcontractors on the Winwake hotel project because of the fact that
they did not employ members of labor organizations affiliated with the Council,
that in furtherance of its objective of eliminating the nonunion subcontractors from
the job, the Council and its agent, Deady, induced the employees of Guild, the union
piledriving subcontractor on the job, to cease work on June 14, 1961, in an effort to
bring pressure on Winwake, the general contractor on the project, to terminate the
contracts of the nonunion subcontractors on the job. The Council had no dispute
10 Although the negotiations had been conducted upon a multiemployer basis in the past,
they had culminated in individual contracts between the Union and each employer repre-
sented in the negotiations.
11 McMorrow did not deny Vassalotti's testimony quoted above. However, his version
omits any reference to his seeking Vassalotti's agreement not to drive and not to go to
the Winwake project. Garvey, who was present during this conversation, was not ques-
tioned about it. In my opinion Vassalotti's testimony is consistent with the logic of the
situation as a whole, and in the absence of a specific denial of Vassalotti's detailed testi-
mony concerning this conversation, I find it worthy of credit.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, ETC. 49
with Winwake other than the fact that it did business with the nonunion subcontrac-
tors on the project. As found above, these included Whitten, general labor; Wood,
plumbing; Weatherhead, masonry work; and De Mone, erection and removal of
wooden forms for the concrete work. The evidence further shows that in support
of this same objective of bringing pressure upon Winwake to get rid of the non-
union subcontractors on the job, the Council, on June 16, 1961, stationed pickets
outside the project carrying signs which failed to indicate that the Council's primary
dispute was with the various nonunion subcontractors on the hotel project. The
picketing continued until September 7, 1961 The record also shows that as a result
of the Council's picketing, the employees of at least one of the suppliers of materials
to the project, Twinbrook, refused to transport them to the project Since neither
of the signs carried by the Council's pickets made it clear that the Council's primary
dispute was with the nonunion subcontractors, the picketing was not conducted in
conformity with the requirements for common situs picketing established in Moore
Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547, 549.
Upon the facts summarized above, and the entire record, I find that the Council,
and its agent, Deady, by their actions in relation to the employees of Guild on
June 14, 1961, and by their picketing of the Winwake hotel project commencing on
June 16, 1961, have induced and encouraged the employees of Guild and Twin-
brook to engage in strikes and refusals to perform services and to transport mate-
rials, with an object of forcing or requiring Winwake, on the one hand, and Guild
and Twinbrook, on the other hand, to cease doing business with one another, and
of forcing or requiring Winwake to cease doing business with the nonunion sub-
contractors on the project 12 By engaging in such conduct, the Council and Deady,
its agent, have violated subsection (i) (B) of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act.
I find further that the Council, and its agent, Deady, by their picketing of the
Winwake hotel project, have threatened and coerced Winwake, on the one hand, and
Guild and Twinbrook, on the other hand, with an object of forcing or requiring
them to cease doing business with one another and with the further object of forcing
or requiring Winwake to cease doing business with the nonunion subcontractors on
the project. By engaging in such conduct the Council and Deady have violated
subsection (ii) (B) of Section 8(b) (4) Sheet Metal Workers' International Associa-
tion, Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Siebler Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.),
133 NLRB 650.13
The General Counsel contends that the Council's picketing of the project, as found
above, also violates Section 8(b)(7)(C) since it continued for more than 30 days
without a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act being filed with the Board, and
since, among the objectives of the picketing were both of the objectives forbidden
by Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act, namely, that of forcing or requiring the non-
union subcontractors with whom the Council had its primary dispute to recognize
or to bargain with the Council or one or more of its affiliated labor organizations as
the representative of their employees, and that of forcing or requiring the employees
of the subcontractors to accept the Council or one or more of its affiliated labor
organizations as their collective-bargaining representative 14
"While the General Counsel urges that the Council induced and encouraged the em-
ployees of Winwake, as well as those of Guild and Twinbrook, to engage in strikes or
refusals to perform services, there is insufficient evidence, in my opinion, to justify a find-
ing that Winwake itself had employees of its own engaged in construction work on the
project As far as the record shows, all of the construction work on the project was
being performed by subcontractors by virtue of their contracts with Winwake
is The Council and Deady urge in their motion to amend joint answer of Respondents,
in effect, that the picketing in which the Council engaged was for the purpose of protest-
ing (a) Winwake's alleged substandard wages and working conditions which they assert
are undermining the labor standards achieved by the Council's affiliated unions in
collective-bargaining contracts, and (b) Winwake's alleged policy of awarding subcontracts
to nonunion subcontractors Assuming, without deciding, that these contentions, if borne
out by the facts, would constitute a defense to the allegations of unfair labor practices
here involved, these Respondents have wholly failed to substantiate their contentions
with buttressing facts Accordingly, these contentions of the Council and Deady must
be rejected.
"Insofar as relevant here, Section 8(b)(7) makes it an unfair labor practice for a
labor organization, or its agents-
to picket . any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an em-
ployer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his
employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the record in this case I cannot accept the General Counsel's contention
that the Council's picketing had, among others, the recognitional or organizational
objectives forbidden by Section 8(b) (7) (C). The Council at no time sought
recognition of any of the subcontractors and, aside from the picketing, had no
communications whatever with the nonunion subcontractors. The Council's prac-
tice in situations like the present, according to Deady's credited testimony, was not
to approach the nonunion subcontractors at all, but rather to approach the general
contractor whose award policy was unfavorable to the Council, and attempt to
persuade him to change his award policy so as to give subcontracts to employers
who customarily used union men. This was the procedure followed by Deady in
this case. In my opinion the record fails to sustain the General Counsel's position
that an objective of the picketing was to force the subcontractors to recognize the
Council or to force the employees of the subcontractors to accept the Council or its
affiliated labor organizations as the bargaining representative of their employees.
Rather, the Council by its picketing was seeking to force or require Winwake to put
the nonunion subcontractors off the job entirely and replace them with union sub-
contractors. While, as found above, picketing for such an objective falls within the
ban of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, in my opinion it does not come within the
prohibition of Section 8(b)(7)(C) under the circumstances of this case. Accord-
ingly, the Section 8(b) (7) (C) allegations of the complaint will be dismissed.15
C. Conclusions concerning Local 379s unfair labor practices
As found hereinabove, Local 379 called the employees of Twinbrook out on
strike on July 12 and again on August 4. In addition, Local 379 threatened Sefchuk,
an employee of Burlington, as he was loading one of Twinbrook's trucks, that he
would be blacklisted by Local 379 for doing so. The complaint alleges that Local
379, and the Council as well, violated subsections (i )and (ii) of Section 8(b) (4) (B)
of the Act by engaging in the conduct summarized above. Insofar as the Council is
concerned, the record fails to establish such participation by the Council in the
activities of Local 379 against Twinbrook and Burlington as to warrant holding it
responsible therefor. Consequently, such allegations of the complaint against the
Council will be dismissed.
With regard to the allegations of the complaint against Local 379, since there is
no question but that Local 379 called the strikes against Twinbrook, the principal
question on this phase of the case is whether the above conduct was in support of
an object proscribed in part (B) of Section 8(b)(4).16 Local 379 contends that its
July 12 strike and its threatening of Sefchuk, the employee of Burlington, which
occurred the same day, were in protest against Vassalotti's action in himself driving
a truck which Local 379 asserts was in violation of the contract, the provisions of
which the parties undertook to maintain in effect until the negotiations for a new
contract were completed. Local 379 contends that the August 4 strike resulted
from Twinbrook's leasing out of a truck without a driver who was a member of
Local 379, and also from its subsequent action that same day in leasing a truck
such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, unless such labor
organization is currently certified as the representaitve of such employees:
# R E L • • R
(C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under section
9 (c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days from
the commencement of such picketing: . . Provided further, That nothing in
this subparagraph (C) shall be construed to prohibit any picketing or other pub-
licity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public (including consumers) that
an employer does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor organi-
zation, unless an effect of such picketing is to induce any individual employed by
any other person in the course of his employment, not to pick up, deliver or
transport any goods or not to perform any services.
15 The reasoning hereinabove set forth is applicable to the further allegations of the
.complaint that the Council also violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act by picketing
the Winwake project with an object of forcing or requiring Winwake and the nonunion
subcontractors on the project to recognize or bargain with the Council or labor organiza-
tions affiliated with it. Accordingly, these allegations of the complaint are also dismissed.
16 The complaint also alleged that Local 379 had violated the Act by appeals to em-
ployees of Twinbrook not to perform services for their employer. At the hearing in the
injunction proceeding, however, the General Counsel stipulated that such appeals were not
to be construed as a violation of the Act. As stated above, this stipulation is a part of
-the record herein.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, ETC. 51
without a Local 379 driver from Rosenfield , another ready-mix supplier . Local 379
contends that these actions were in violation of the provisions of the contract which
the parties had undertaken to maintain in effect.
The leasing of the truck from Rosenfield without a Local 379 driver appears to
have been a breach of the understanding then in effect . However, for the reasons
set forth below , I find that this contract violation was not the only factor in the
strike at Twinbrook on August 4, and that an object of Local 379 in calling this
strike, like Local 379 's earlier strike against Twinbrook on July 12, was further to
assist the Council in its efforts to eliminate the nonunion subcontractors from the
Winwake project by bringing additional pressure on Winwake through Twinbrook.
Various circumstances cast light on Local 379's motives in calling the two strikes
of Twinbrook's employees . In the first place, it should be borne in mind that the
members of Local 379, which is the Excavating and Building Material Local, work
primarily around construction projects. Their interests are closely allied with those
of construction workers who are traditionally represented by the labor organizations
affiliated with the Council. Local 379 is not affiliated with either the Council or
the AFL-CIO. At the time of the strikes involved in this case , Local 379 had no
dispute whatever with Winwake or the nonunion subcontractors on the Winwake
project. Yet Local 379's actions throughout this case show that it was supporting
the Council in its controversies with the nonunion subcontractors on the Winwake
project.
Almost from the beginning Local 379's members respected the Council 's picket
line at the Winwake project . With the exception of June 28 , the first day on which
Twinbrook delivered concrete to the project, no member of Local 379, so far as
the record shows, crossed the Council 's picket line. Such action was in accordance
with Local 379's standard instructions to its members. While Business Agent Garvey
disclaimed any interest in the picket line , according to the credited testimony herein,
Garvey was seen in the vicinity of the picket line on most of the occasions on which
concrete was poured at the project . At times Garvey was observed appealing to
drivers approaching the project not to cross the picket line.
Business Agent Garvey's comment to Vassalotti as he was driving out of the
project on July 12, shortly before the first strike began, reveals Local 379's concern
about occurrences at the Winwake project and tends to refute Local 379's claim that
Vassalotti 's driving in alleged violation of the contract was the cause of the July 12
strike. Thus, Garvey stated to Vassalotti on this occasion that he was "breaking
down conditions" at the project . Nothing was said at this time about Vassalotti's
driving being in violation of the contract . Nor did Garvey make any mention of
Vassalotti 's driving of the truck in alleged violation of the contract when he went
to Twinbrook's plant that afternoon to call the men out on strike . All Garvey said
on this occasion , by way of explanation for the strike was "no contract."
Local 379's preoccupation with events occurring at the Winwake project is also
seen in an incident which occurred during the multiemployer negotiations for a
new contract . When the matter of the Twinbrook strike was brought up in the
negotiations , Local 379's president and business agent , McMorrow, while asserting
that he was uninformed as to the reason for the Twinbrook strike, nevertheless before
calling his colleague, Business Agent Garvey, for information about the matter,
inquired of the employers ' representative in the negotiations whether Twinbrook
would agree not to make any deliveries to Winwake in the future.
Under all the circumstances of the case , and bearing in mind that the fact that the
contract contained no prohibition against owners driving trucks and that Vassalotti
had himself driven trucks on numerous prior occasions , I find without merit Local
379's contention that the July 12 strike was in protest against Vassalotti's driving of
Twinbrook 's trucks in violation of the contract , and conclude that at least one of the
objects of the July 12 strike was to bring further pressure on Winwake in support of
the Council's drive to induce Winwake to get rid of the nonunion subcontractors on
the project , a goal which Twinbrook was frustrating in part, by its insistence on doing
business with Winwake.
With regard to the August 4 strike called by Local 379 at the Twinbrook plant, I
have found, in effect, that Twinbrook's breach of the contract provisions against
leasing trucks without Local 379 drivers was among the causes of the strike. How-
ever, for the reasons set forth below, I conclude that Local 279's August 4 strike was
motivated, in part, by the same considerations which impelled it to call the strike on
July 12, namely, Local 279's desire to assist the Council in its efforts to get rid of
the nonunion subcontractors on the Winwake hotel project by doing what it could to
deprive Winwake of the services of Twinbrook.
The evidence showing Local 379's earlier support of the Council 's action against
Winwake and the nonunion subcontractors utilized by it on the project has been
70M06-64-vol. 141-5
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discussed above. That the August 4 strike was another instance of such support is
indicated by the similarity in the circumstances in which Local 379 took action
against Twinbrook. Twinbrook's relations with Local 379 were satisfactory and no
disruption of its work occurred unless Winwake was somehow involved. However,
on each occasion on which Twinbrook did business with Winwake, Local 379
promptly took action against Twinbrook. The morning after Twinbrook made de-
liveries to Winwake on June 27, Twinbrook's drivers notified it that they would not
cross the picket line again , and they did not thereafter do so. Twinbrook's deliveries
to Winwake on July 12 were immediately followed by the first strike. August 4 was
the next occasion on which Twinbrook had any dealings with Winwake. At this
time Twinbrook leased a truck to Winwake for the purpose of transporting concrete
to the project. This action was promptly followed by Local 379's second strike
against Twinbrook. The discussion on August 11, preceding the settlement of the
August 4, strike, reveal Local 379's continuing concern about Twinbrook's dealing
with Winwake. Thus, McMorrow insisted on this occasion that Vassalotti agree that
Twinbrook would not deliver to Winwake again and also not to lease trucks to
Winwake. Under all the circumstances, I conclude that Local 379 seized upon the
opportunity presented by Twinbrook's leasing of the truck to Winwake as an excuse
for again taking action against Twinbrook in aid of the Council's campaign to force
Winwake to replace its nonunion subcontractors.
Upon all the facts of the case, I find that Local 379 has caused the employees of
Twinbrook to engage in two strikes, the first commencing on July 12, 1961, and the
second on August 4, 1961, with an object of forcing or requiring Twinbrook to cease
doing business with Winwake, and of forcing and requiring Winwake to cease doing
business with the nonunion subcontractors on the project. I find further that Local
379, by its threats to blacklist Sefchuk, the employee of Burlington, has induced and
encouraged him to refuse to handle materials and to perform services, with an object
of forcing or requiring Burlington and Twinbrook to cease doing business with one
another and with Winwake, and of forcing or requiring Winwake to cease doing busi-
ness with the nonunion contractors on the Winwake hotel project. By engaging in
such conduct Local 379 has violated subsections (i) and (ii) of Section 8(b)(4)(B)
of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Council, its agent, Deady, and Local 379 have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices by engaging in, and inducing and encouraging indi-
viduals employed by secondary employers to engage in, strikes or refusals to perform
services, and by threatening, coercing, and restraining secondary persons for pro-
scribed objects, the recommended order will provide that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action which it is found is necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Winwake, Guild, and Twinbrook are each employers as defined in Section 2(2)
of the Act and each is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Whitten, Wood, Weatherhead, and De Mone are engaged in the building and
construction industry and, accordingly, are engaged in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act.
3. The Respondents Council and Local 379 are labor organizations as defined in
Section 2(5) of the Act. The Respondent Deady is an agent of the Council within
the meaning of Sections 2(13) and 8(b) of the Act.
4. The Respondents Council and Deady have violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (B) of the Act, by inducing and encouraging the employees of Guild and Twin-
brook to engage in strikes and refusals to perform services and to transport materials,
and by picketing the Winwake hotel project, thereby threatening and coercing Win-
wake, Guild, and Twinbrook, with an object of forcing or requiring Winwake, on
the one hand, and Guild and Twinbrook on the other hand, to cease doing business
with one another, and of forcing or requiring Winwake to cease doing business with
Whitten, Wood, Weatherhead, and De Mone.
5. The Respondent Local 379 has violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of
the Act by inducing and encouraging an employee of Burlington to refuse, in the
course of his employment, to handle materials and to perform services, and engaging
in strikes against Twinbrook, thereby threatening and coercing Twinbrook, with an
object of forcing or requiring Burlington, Twinbrook, and Winwake to cease doing
LOCAL 542, IUOE, AFL-CIO 53
business with one another, and of forcing or requiring Winwake to cease doing busi-
ness with Whitten, Wood, Weatherhead, and De Mone.
6. The aforesaid violations affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
7. Respondents Council and Deady have not violated Section 8(b) (7) (C) of
the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO and Joseph Paskert, Sr., Francis McCabe , Olin B. Watkins
and Elmhurst Contracting Co., Inc. (Division of Hagan Indus-
tries, Inc.), Party to the Contract
International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO; Jo-
seph J. Delaney, President ; Hunter P. Wharton, Secretary-
Treasurer ; William McAneny , Agent and Joseph Paskert, Sr.,
Francis McCabe and Elmhurst Contracting Co., Inc. (Division
of Hagan Industries, Inc.), Party to the Contract . Cases Nos.
4-CB-625-1, 4-CB-625-2, 4-CB-625-3, 4-CB-656-1, and 4-CB-
656-2. February 28, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 7, 1962, Trial Examiner Thomas F. Maher issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and are engaging in certain unfair
labor practices alleged in the consolidated complaint and recommend-
ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter
the Respondents 1 and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and briefs supporting such exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and
Brown].
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in these
cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following exceptions, additions,
and modifications :
1. For the reasons stated in the Intermediate Report, we agree with
the Trial Examiner that the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (2)
1 Respondent Local 542's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion,
the record, together with the briefs and exceptions, adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties.
141 NLRB No. 3.