Centralia Building & Construction Trade Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 803 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

CENTRALIA BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL S03
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 2375, Pile-Drivers, Bridge,
Wharf and Dock-Builders, Rig Builders, Drillers, and Rotary Helpers, Marine
Divers and Tenders, or in any other labor organization, by discharging or refus-
ing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to join or assist the aforesaid
union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized in Section $(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make William B. Perry whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as
a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
ELCO CORPORATION,
Employer.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204.
Centralia Building & Construction Trades Council and Pacific
Sign & Steel Building Co., l[nc. Case No. 19-CP-8.3. Novem-
ber 15, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 2, 1065, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer 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 Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision with
a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings made
by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
155 NLRB No. 80.
212-809-G O-vol. 155-52
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has considered the Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
CHAIRMAN MCCuLLOCH took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding with all parties represented was heard before Trial Examiner
William E Spencer in Seattle, Washington, on May 28, 1965, upon a complaint of
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, the latter herein called
the Board, dated February 26, 1965, and the duly filed answer of the Respondent
Union. The complaint, based upon a charge filed January 19, 1965, and an amended
charge filed February 3, 1965, by Pacific Sign & Steel Building Co., Inc., herein called
Pacific or the Company, alleged in substance that the Respondent violated Section
8(b) (7) (C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act,
by picketing Pacific for more than 30 days without the filing of a petition under Sec-
tion 9(c) of the Act, with an object of forcing Pacific to recognize and bargain with
it and forcing Pacific's employees to accept Respondent as their collective-bargaining
representative. The Respondent admitted the picketing, admitted that it had not been
certified by the Board as representative of any of Pacific's employees, denied that the
said picketing had a proscribed object, and asserted as affirmative defense that the
picketing had as its sole object the maintaining of area standards established under
union contracts. The General Counsel and the Respondent argued the issues orally.
Upon the entire record and my observation of witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Pacific, a Washington corporation, is engaged at Chehalis, Washington, in the
manufacture, sale, and installation of plastic neon signs and the erection of steel
buildings. During the past year, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
it has purchased and received goods, materials, and supplies valued in excess of
$50,000 from directly outside the State of Washington.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The scope and character of the picketing
Allegations of the complaint, admitted in Respondent's answer, establish the fol-
lowing facts.
About December 9, 1964, Respondent threatened to picket Pacific, and about
December 14 began picketing Pacific at the site of a building which Pacific was con-
structing for Western Farmers Association. The said picketing was enjoined by a
State court from about December 15 to about December 28. Respondent resumed
picketing about January 5, 1965, and continued until employees of Pacific left the
jobsite uncompleted about January 8.
About January 12, 1965, Respondent began picketing a construction site where
Pacific was erecting a building in Chehalis, Washington, and has continued said
picketing when Pacific has had employees working at said jobsite.
The text of the picket signs in all instances of picketing read, on the front of the
placard: "Substandard Wages and Benefits Destroy our Higher Union Standards"
and, on the back of the placard: "Employees of Pacific Neon Sign & Steel Building
Co Do Not Receive Prevailing Wages and Benefits."
CENTRALIA BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 805
As a consequence of the picketing thus described, individuals employed by various
contractors and/or subcontractors engaged on the same projects with Pacific, have
been induced not to perform services for their respective employers and not to trans-
port goods or make deliveries to or pick up deliveries from Pacific.
At no time material has Respondent been certified by the Board as representative
of any of Pacific's employees.
The aforedescribed picketing has been conducted for more than 30 days without
the filing of a petition with the Board under Section 9(c) of the Act for an election
of bargaining representatives of Pacific's employees.
The conclusionary allegation is that by the picketing described above, Respondent
sought to force or require Pacific's employees to accept or select Respondent as their
collective-bargaining representative, in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.'
The Respondent, while denying said allegation, admitted that an object of its picketing
of Pacific was to force or require Pacific to sign the following agreement, entitled
"Settlement Agreement," which, after a preamble describing Pacific and the Respond-
ent as "desiring to settle all disputes, controversies and disagreements," provided:
1. The above named Employer will pay to its (Building & Construction)
employees a total amount either by way of wages or fringe benefits equivalent
to the amount of the total economic package being received by employees work-
ing under the Union Agreement. When and if increases or decreases are nego-
tiated in the aforesaid industry agreements, the Employer's total economic pack-
age aforesaid shall be increased or decreased by the equivalent amount.
2. The Employer agrees to permit the Union and-or its Accountants to exam-
ine the Employers records which relates to the economic benefits received by its
employees. Such inspection shall take place on Company premises. Such inspec-
tion shall be permitted on one occasion per month.
3. The Union agrees that picketing of the Employer Party to this agreement
in protest of the alleged failure of the Employer to pay prevailing wages and eco-
nomic benefits will not be resumed during the terms of this agreement.
4. The Employer or the Union shall have the right to terminate this agreement
by serving written notice upon the other party ten (10) days in advance of termi-
nation date. The Agreement shall be effective commencing on 19_.
Accompanying the aforesaid so-called settlement agreement was a covering letter
which stated in material part the Union's position and argument on protecting and
maintaining the prevailing wages and fringe benefits existing under its contracts with
employers; stated that it had come to its attention that Pacific was not maintaining
the standards established in union contracts, and therefore "Unless you are willing
to meet the union standards in the treatment of your employees, we shall have no
choice but to publicize the fact that such employees are working for wages which are
less than, and under conditions which are inferior to, union wages and conditions,
and that such situation jeopardizes the maintenance of our standards. This publicity
will be in such manner and by such means as is permitted by law." In its concluding
paragraphs the letter further stated:
This letter should not be construed as a request for recognition. Neither this
Council nor any of the affiliates of the Centralia Building and Construction
Trades Council of Lewis County, State of Washington, represents a majority of
your employees and accordingly we do not seek to bargain with you or to execute
a contract with you.
Likewise, we are not conducting an organizing campaign or seeking to pres-
sure your employees into joining a union. Federal and State Laws protect their
rights to voluntarily join or not to join, as they see fit and we respect that right.
We are interested only in seeing that you afford your employees the wages, hours
and working conditions which prevail in this area.
Pacific refused to execute the proposed agreement, and the picketing continued as
outlined above, with substantial impact on Pacific's business operations.
I Section 8(b)(7)(C) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to
picket or threaten to picket "any employer where an object thereof is . . . forcing or
requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their
collective bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified
as the representative of such employees, .
(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 com-
mencement of such picketing . . .
806 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Concluding findings
The picketing in question has been peaceful at all times. The placards or signs
used in the picketing conform in all material respects with what has been found
acceptable by the Board in area standards picketing cases.2 The Union's covering
letter submitted with its proposed settlement agreement disclaims recognitional or
organizational objectives. On the evidence, it appears that the Union made no sub-
stantial effort to ascertain Pacific's actual wage or employment standards before insti-
tuting its picketing, and the fact that it did later make a comparative survey of such
standards cannot reasonably be made to relate back to its objective at the time it
started picketing. There is also some evidence that agents of one or more of its
affiliated labor organizations approached either management or employees or both
with respect to union affiliation, but the evidence is not of such a substantial nature
as to be controlling or very significant. The substance of the case against the
Respondent lies in its proposed agreement to secure the execution of which admittedly
was an object of its picketing activities. We therefore focus our attention to the pro-
posed agreement.
Despite the disclaimers contained in the agreement's covering letter, enforcement
of the agreement itself, the object of the picketing, would in effect bind Pacific in the
matter of wages and fringe benefits to the terms of a collective agreement negotiated
by the Union and,other employers, presumably on a multiemployer basis, not only
as of the date the instrument was executed but in futuro. (Quoting from the proposed
agreement: "When and if increases or decreases are negotiated in the aforesaid indus-
try agreements, the Employer's total economic package aforesaid shall be increased
or decreased by the equivalent amount.") With such an agreement in effect, very
little would be left in the field of collective bargaining to a representative chosen by
Pacific's employees, and therefore the will and choice of employees when and if
exerted with respect to a bargaining agent would be thwarted and nullified. I think
the freedom,of employees to make their own choice in such matters cannot lawfully
be foreclosed in this manner. Nor can the, disclaimers in the letter accompanying the
proposed agreement prevail against the intent and effect of the agreement itself. The
label on a bottle and its contents are not always congruous: poison in a bottle is not
rendered harmless merely because the label declares it harmless. For all of these
reasons I am compelled to reject the able and spirited arguments of Respondent's
counsel, and find, as alleged in the complaint, that in its picketing of Pacific, described
above, the Responden,t violated Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Employer described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to remedy the unfair labor practices and
to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pacific is an Employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and the
Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 215) of
the Act.
2 While I know of no cases precisely in' point , there are numerous ' cases in which the
Board, with respect to informational or area standards picketing, has distinguished object
from pretext . For example see Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International
Association , Local Union No 44, AFL-CIO ( Penny Construction Company , Inc ), 144
NLEB x298, and cases cited therein The first decisional statement of an area standards
theory appeared in a Trial Examiner's decision in Local Union No. 741 , United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada , APL-CIO (Keith Riggs Plumbing and Heating Contractor ), dated
June 13, 1960 , 137 NLRB 1125
CENTRALIA BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL '807
2 By picketing Pacific's construction jobs in Chehalis, Washington, wfth'an object
of forcing or requiring Pacific to recognize or bargain collectively with' Respondent
as the representative of its employees, and with an object of forcing or requiring
Pacific's employees to accept or select the Respondent as their collective-bargaining
representative, although the latter has not been certified as the representative of said
employees and did not file a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act within 30 days
from the commencement of said picketing, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce • within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that Respondent, Centralia
Building & Construction Trades Council, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to
picket or cause to be picketed, Pacific Sign & Steel Building Co., Inc., where an object
thereof is to force or require said employer to recognize or bargain with the Respond-
ent, or any other labor organization, as the bargaining agent of Pacific's employees,
or forcing or requiring the employees of said Employer to accept or select the
Respondent, or any other labor organization, as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, in circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at its business offices, meeting halls, and all other places where notices to
members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall,
after being duly signed by a representative of'Respondent, be posted by said Resjiond-
ent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 19, signed copies of said notice
for posting by Pacific, if willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after
being signed by the Respondent, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for
disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith?
$ In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order"
' In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read. "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CENTRALIA BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket, Pacific
Sign & Steel Building Co., Inc , where an object thereof is forcing or requiring
said Employer to recognize or bargain with us or any other labor organization
as the bargaining representative of its employees, or forcing or requiring the
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the said Employer to accept or select us or any other labor orga-
nization as their collective-bargaining representative , in circumstances violative
of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
CENTRALIA BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington , Telephone No. 682-4553.
Rexall Chemical Company, a division of Rexall Drug and Chemi-
cal Company and International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-5002. Novem-
ber 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued
his Decision on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 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 to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the
Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.']
1 The telephone number for Region 1, appearing at the bottom of the Appendix attached
to the Trial Examiner 's Decision , is amended to read, Telephone No. 223-3358
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION ON MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed May 13 , 1965. by International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union. against Rexall Chemical
155 NLRB No. 83.