Carpenters Union Local 701

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 1043 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

CARPENTERS UNION LOCAL 701
Carpenters Union Local 701, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America (AFL-CIO) and
Home Builders Association of the San Joaquin
Valley, Inc. Case 20-CC-917
April 10, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On January 19, 1970, Trial Examiner George
Christensen issued his Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions tq,,,1(he
Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in supportrof
the exceptions, and the General Counsel filed-an,
answering brief. 1 J "I J "
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) 41114e
National Labor Relations Act, as amended;"the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's
Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein , and orders that Respondent,
Carpenters Union Local 701, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America (AFL-CIO), its
officers, agents, and representatives , shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1:
"Cease and desist from threatening , coercing, or
restraining Oscar Spano & Son, David James
Construction Co., Stewart & Nuss, Inc., or any
other person engaged in commerce or an industry
'In the absence of exceptions , we adopt , pro forma , the Trial Examiner's
substantive findings and conclusions
'In the absence of any showing of other violations of Section 8(b)(4Xi)
and (ii )( B) by Respondent, we have modified the breadth of the
Recommended Order, although retaining the prohibition against picketing
any other secondary employers where an object is to force or require them
to cease doing business with the primary employer Cf Plumbers & Pipe
Fitters Local 142 (Cross Construction Co, Inc ), 169 NLRB No 113 In
all other respects, we find, contrary to Respondent's contention , the order
is appropriate and within the terms of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (u)(B) of the
Act
1043
affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to
force or require Spano, or any other person, to
cease doing business with Juel Ansiel, or to force or
require Ansiel to recognize or bargain with the
Carpenters as the representative of its employees in
the absence of certification under Section 9 of the
Act as the representative of such employees."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2:
"Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging
any individual employed by Oscar Spano & Son,
David James Construction Co., Stewart & Nuss,
Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in
any industry affecting commerce, to engage in a
strike or refusal to perform any services or handle
or work on any goods, articles or materials where
an object thereof is to force Spano, or any other
person, to cease doing,business with Juel Ansiel or
to force Ansiel to recognize or bargain with the
Carpenters as the representative of its employees in
the absence of a certification under Section 9 of the
Act as the representative of such employees."
3. Substitute the following for the two,paragraphs
of the notice:
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain
Oscar Spano & Son, David James Construction
Co., Stewart & Nuss, Inc., or any other person
engaged in commerce or an industry affecting
commerce for the purpose of requiring Spano, or
any, other employer, to cease doing business with
Juel Ansiel, or to force or require Juel Ansiel to
recognize and bargain with our organization as
the representative of his employees in the absence
of a certification under Section 9 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, as their
representative.
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any
employees employed by Oscar Spano & Son,
David James Construction Co., Stewart & Nuss,
Inc., or any other employer engaged in commerce
or in any industry affecting commerce to engage
in a strike or refusal to perform services or handle
or work on any goods, articles or materials for
the purpose of forcing Spano, or any other
employer, to cease doing business with Ansiel or
to force Ansiel to recognize and bargain with our
organization as the representative of his
employees in the absence of a certification under
Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, as such representative.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Trial Examiner: The Examiner
held a hearing at Fresno, California, on December 2,
11969,' to try issues raised by a complaint' issued on
All dates refer to 1969
'In the course of the hearing , the Examiner granted the General
Counsel's motion to amend paragraph VII of the complaint by adding the
words "and /or other agents " after the word "Horn "
181 NLRB No. 167
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
September 19 based upon a charge and amended charges
filed on August 8, September 3, September 10 and
September 15 by the Home Builders Association of the
San Joaquin Valley, Inc (Association). It is alleged that
Carpenters Local 701 (Carpenters) violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (Act) by picketing Oscar Spano & Son
(Spano), a general contractor, in order to force Spano
either to cease doing business with Juel J Ansiel, a
nonunion subcontractor employed by Spano, or to require
Ansiel to recognize the Union as the exclusive
representative of his employees as a condition for
continuing to work for Spano. The Union by its counsel'
filed an answer denying all allegations of the complaint
other than the allegation that the Union at all times
pertinent was a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act
The General Counsel and Charging Party appeared at
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to examine
witnesses, to introduce documentary evidence, and to file
briefs The General Counsel has submitted a brief and a
motion to correct the transcript The motion is granted °
Based upon his review of the entire record, observation
of the witnesses and perusal of the brief submitted, the
Examiner makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I COMMERCE AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
On June 12, Spano was awarded an $837,655 contract
to construct 50 public housing units at Pinedale,
California (project), by the Housing Authority of Fresno
County in conjunction with and with financing by the
United States Housing and Urban Development Agency
(HUD) One of Spano's wholly owned subsidiaries, P.A L.
Distributors, annually purchases goods and materials
valued in excess of $350,000 from sources outside of
California, and distributed goods and services valued in
excess of $75,000 to M & L Plumbing and Heating,
another wholly owned subsidiary of Spano and a
subcontractor on the Pinedale project, and other
subcontractors working on the project.
On June 30, Spano subcontracted all framing work at
the project to Juel Ansiel (Ansiel) at a contract price of
$50,400 Spano subcontracted the cement finishing at the
project to David James Construction Co (James) and the
supply of ready-mix concrete to Stewart & Nuss, Inc. (S
& N)
Respondent by its answer admitted that the Carpenters
Local 701 was a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act at all times pertinent. Based upon the foregoing,
the Examiner finds and concludes that Spano, Ansiel,
James and S & N were employers engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce and Carpenters
Local 701 was a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (5), (6) and (7) of the Act at all times
pertinent
'Mr Van Bourg did not appear at the hearing but filed a formal answer
to the complaint On December 3, the Examiner received a telegram at his
office in San Francisco purporting to be from Mr Van Bourg stating that
the Union chose not to appear in order to conserve its financial resources
'Correct the spelling of Counsels' names to read "Wertz" and "Alan"
on page 1. change "M & L" to "P A L " on page 5, line 23, change
"indivated" to "indicated" on page 16, line 23, change "carrying" to
"conducted" on page 18, line 9, change " Mnday" to "Monday " on page
38, line 23, change "what" to "which " on page 40 , line 3, change "set" to
"out" on page 45, line 8, change "studs" to "stakes " on page 45, line 12
It THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary
The vacant lots on which the 50 housing units which
comprised the project were scheduled to be built were
widely scattered, inasmuch as they were interspersed
among and between existing homes and buildings over a
37-block area
Spano, the general contractor, exercised general
supervision over the project and contracted out all the
furnishing of materials and work on the project As
heretofore noted, he subcontracted the framing work to
Ansiel, the cement finishing work to James and the supply
of cement to S & N. James and S & N employed union
labor. Ansiel was nonunion
B. Picketing at Sites AA, BB, and Z
Ansiel commenced work at the project on about July
12 Toward the end of July, the Carpenters began to
picket the sites where Ansiel's employees were working
carrying signs identifying Ansiel as "unfair" to the Union
and stating , inter alia, that the Carpenters were seeking
recognition as the representative of Ansiel's employees or
an agreement covering them. So long as the Carpenters
confined its picketing to the sites where Ansiel's men were
working, this created no problem for Spano, inasmuch as
he could schedule Ansiel's work at sites where none of the
other union subcontractors were at work and Ansiel's
nonunion men worked behind the picket line
Picketing and work continued in this manner through
Tuesday, August 5 At that time, Ansiel's employees were
working at sites AA, BB, and Z, which were adjacent.
Ansiel's employees were scheduled to work only at those
sites through the balance of the week.
C The Threat to Picket Site T
A cement pour was scheduled for August 6 at site T,
which is approximately 8 blocks (about 1/2 mile) from the
area where Ansiel's men were scheduled to work James'
cement masons and laborers and S & N's drivers were the
only subcontractor employees scheduled to work at site T
on August 6.
During the afternoon of August 5, a representative of
the Teamsters Local 431, which represented S & N's
drivers, telephoned S & N's dispatcher, informed him
there was a sanctioned picket at the project, and that the
S & N drivers would not make any further cement
deliveries to the project. The dispatcher relayed this
information to James D White, vice president of S & N
At about 3 30 p m. on August 5, White also received a
letter signed by the secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local
431 stating that picket sanction had been granted by
Teamsters Joint Council 38 and Teamsters Local 431 to
Carpenters Local 701 against Ansiel.5 White immediately
telephoned a representative of Teamsters Joint Council 38,
who stated that the Carpenters had a dispute with Ansiel
at the project and all the crafts, including the Teamsters,
had sanctioned a work stoppage at the project in support
of the Carpenters White then telephoned Oscar Spano,
'Under the provisions of Stewart and Nuss' agreement with Teamsters
Local 431, Local 431 was obligated to inform the Company by 4:00 p m
of the day previous that it would refuse to make a pour on the following
day
CARPENTERS UNION LOCAL 701
president of Spano & Son, and related the preceding
matters to him Spano informed White that Ansiel was
scheduled to work only at sites AA, BB and Z on August
6, that the August 6 pour was scheduled to occur at site
T, that there wasn't any picket at site T, and requested
that White go ahead as scheduled with the pour. White
acquiesced
D. Picketing at Site T
On the morning of August 6, White went to site T prior
to the time work was scheduled to commence (7 a.m.). He
observed a picket at site T carrying a sign identifying the
picketing organization as Carpenters Local 701,
proclaiming that Ansiel was unfair and that the
Carpenters were seeking recognition as the representative
of Ansiel's employees. White talked to the picket, who
identified himself as John Horn, business agent for the
Carpenters. White observed the presence of several of
James' employees and talked to James' foreman, Jack
Eurich Eurich announced that none of the cement
finishers were going to work on the cement pour in view
of the picketing. White then telephoned his dispatcher and
told him not to dispatch any trucks to the project and to
direct the trucks scheduled for the site T pour to other
jobs. No Ansiel employees were present at site T either
before or after the 7:00 a.m. starting time at the project,
and worked that day only at sites AA, BB and Z.
Horn and other persons continued to picket site T from
August 6 through August 15. At no time during that
period were any Ansiel employees scheduled to work at
site T, nor did any Ansiel employees appear there.
E Cessation of Picketing
On August 15, Ansiel informed Spano that he had
agreed to sign a contract recognizing Local 701 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of his
employees. Picketing ceased that date. Spano ordered the
pour to proceed at site T. It was completed without
further incident
F Concluding Findings
It is clear the only parties to a primary dispute in this
case were Ansiel and the Carpenters Unsuccessful in its
efforts to secure recognition from Ansiel by picketing only
at times and sites where Ansiel's employees were working
at the project by the fact Ansiel's employees continued to
work while such picketing was conducted and unable to
cause a stoppage of work by the unionized employees of
the other subcontractors at the project by the fact no
union employees were scheduled to work where and when
Ansiel's employees worked, the Carpenters on August 6
shifted their picketing to a site and at times when only
union employees of subcontractors other than Ansiel were
working at the project
The shift in tactics brought the work on the project to a
halt, threatening to cause an overrun on the time
scheduled for its completion.' It also effectively prevented
Ansiel from completing his contract, for without the
preliminary foundation work installed the framing work
could not be accomplished. The tactical shift was effective,
for on August 15 Ansiel agreed to recognize and sign a
contract with the Carpenters covering his employees, the
picketing at site T ceased, and the project was completed.
'The contract requires completion in 210 days after execution of the
June 12 contract for the project
1045
The question is whether the picketing at site T, in the
absence of any Ansiel employees, constitutes prohibited
secondary activity under the Act
The Examiner finds that it does. The natural and
forseeable consequence' of the site T picketing was to
force two neutral employers, James and S & N, to cease
work for Spano, another neutral employer, in order to
pressure Spano either to substitute a union framing
contractor for Ansiel or to act as an agent of the
Carpenters by coercing Ansiel into recognizing the
Carpenters Picketing for such purpose, at times and
places where the primary employer disputant's employees
are not employed, clearly violates the Moore Dry Docks
standards.
The Examiner therefore finds and concludes that by its
picketing of site T at the project between August 6 and
August 15 in the absence of any Ansiel employees at such
site and times and thereby causing a cessation of work
there affecting James, S & N and Spano for the purpose
of coercing the latter into coercing Ansiel to recognize the
Carpenters as the representative of his employees, the
Carpenters violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'
1 Spano, James and S & N are employers engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce and the
Carpenters is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (5), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By picketing site T at the project during a period no
Ansiel employees were working there and causing a work
stoppage by employees of subcontractors other than
Ansiel, the Carpenters violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Carpenters have engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
( â–º i)(B) of the Act, the Examiner shall recommend that
they cease and desist therefrom in the future' and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is
recommended that the Respondent Carpenters be ordered
to
1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing or
restraining any persons engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce when an object thereof is to
force or require any other person to recognize or bargain
with the Carpenters as the representative of his employees
in the absence of certification under Section 9 of the Act
as the representative of such employees or to cease doing
business with any other person.
2 Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging any
individual employed by any persons engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike
'International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 11 (L G
Electric Contractors, Inc ), 154 NLRB 766
'Sailors Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Co ). 92 NLRB 547
'Inasmuch as the project is completed, the major purpose of an Order in
this case is prevention of future like conduct by the Carpenters
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or refusal to perform any services or handle or work on
any goods, articles or materials where an object thereof is
to force any person to cease doing business with another
person or to force any other employer to recognize or
bargain with the Carpenters as the representative of his
employees in the absence of a certification under Section 9
of the Act as the representative of such employees
3. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in the Carpenters business offices and meetings
halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'"
Copies of said notice on forms furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 20 shall be signed by an authorized
representative of the Carpenters and posted immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of 60
days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure
that the notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any
other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision
what steps the Carpenters have taken to comply herewith."
'°In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any
employer engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce for the purpose of forcing or
requiring any other employer to recognize and bargain
with our organization as the representative of his
employees in the absence of a certification under
Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, as their representative or to cease doing
business with another employer.
NEITHER WILL WE induce or encourage any
employees employed by any employer engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to
engage in a strike or refusal to perform services or
handle or work on any goods, articles or materials for
the purpose of forcing such employer to cease doing
business with another employer or to force another
employer to recognize or bargain with our organization
as the representative of his employees in the absence of
a certification under Section 9 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, as their representative.
CARPENTERS UNION
LOCAL 701 UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS & JOINERS
OF AMERICA (AFL-CIO)
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board 's Office,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco,
California 94102, Telephone 556-0335