Denver Building and Construction Trades Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 318 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find, accordingly, that the ILA was not and is not lawfully
entitled to force or require Cargill to assign the work of
operating winches and spouts by electrical controls in the
loading of grain at Cargill's grain elevator , Port of Albany,
New York, to members of the ILA rather than to employees of
Cargill who are members of the AFL. However, we are not,
by this action, to be regarded as "assigning" the work in
question to the AFL. $
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case , the Board makes the following deter-
mination of dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act:
1. International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1294
(Independent) is not and has not been lawfully entitled to force
or require Cargill, Inc., to assign the work of operating the
winches and spouts by electrical controls in the loading of grain
at Cargill's grain elevators at the Port of Albany, New York, to
members of the ILA rather than to employees assigned by
Cargill to perform such work.
2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, the Respondent (ILA) shall notify the
Regional Director for the Second Region in writing as to what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply withthe terms of this
Decision and Determination of Dispute.
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Determination of Dispute.
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL:
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL
AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 24,
AFL; BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND
PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 79, AFL;
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPREN-
TICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL UNION
NO. 208, AFL; UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 1351,
AFL; INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND
COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL. UNION
NO. 720, AFL; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 9, AFL; UNITED ASSO-
CIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE•UNITED
STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL UNION NO. 3, AFL, and
JOHN R. PEARSE. Case No. 30-CC-20. April 21, 1954
108 NLRB No. 66.
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 319
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 18, 1953, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett
is sued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding,
finding that all the Respondents , except Respondent Carpenters,
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of the Act and recommending that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents
had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices
and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the com-
plaint . Thereafter , the Respondents ( except Carpenters ) and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has con-
sidered the Intermediate Report , the exceptions andbriefs,and
the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with
the following additions and modifications:'
1. In the absence of exceptions , we adopt the Trial Exam-
iner ' s findings that Respondent Carpenters did not violate
Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) or 8 (b) (2) of the Act , as alleged in the
complaint , and that none of the Respondents violated Section
8 (b) (4) (B ) of the Act.'
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents $
violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) by picketing on July 31 , 1953, at
the entrance to the property of Climax Molybdenum Company,
with an object of (1) forcing Climax to cease doing business with
the primary employer, C . Ryan and Son , one of the contractors
employed by Climax on its property , and (2 ) forcing the various
other contractors and subcontractors on the Climax property to
cease doing business with Climax in order to force Climax to
cease doing business with Ryan.
The Respondents contend that even if an object of the picket-
ing on July 31 was to force Climax to cease doing business with
Ryan , it could not be found to violate Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) because
(1) Ryan was not an independent contractor but an agent or em-
ployee of Climax, and (2) in any event, Climax controlled Ryan's
wage rates , which allegedly precipitated the Respondent's dis-
pute with Ryan, and Climax was therefore not a neutral in that
dispute.
l The Respondents ' request for oral argument is hereby denied, inasmuch as the record,
including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the
parties.
2Our adoption of the Trial Examiner 's finding that the Respondents did not violate Section
8 (b) (4) (B ) is not to be construed as approving his views as to the impropriety of finding
such a violation by unions in the construction industry.
3As hereinafter used , the term "Respondents" does not include Carpenters.
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to (1), we agree with the Trial Examiner that Ryan was an
independent contractor, notwithstanding the fact that Climax'
engineers laid out the work to be done by Ryan on a particular
job as the job progressed, and notwithstanding the fact that it
was the practice of Ryan to consult with Climax before in-
creasing wage rates for those employees whose wages were
reimbursable by Climax under the cost-plus. features of its
contracts with Ryan. There was no evidence that Climax
objected to any increase proposed by Ryan, or that Climax was
consulted with regard to the initial setting of Ryan' s wage rates.
Moreover, apart from this matter of wage increases , Ryan had
complete autonomy in dealing with its employees, about 50 in
number; all the earth-moving and other extensive equipment
used by Ryan on Climax' jobs was owned by Ryan; and, upon
the entire record, we find that Climaxdidnot reserve the right
to, and did not in fact, exercise such control over Ryan's
method of operation as to preclude a finding that Ryan was an
independent contractor.4
As to (2), we do not believe that such negative control as
Climax may have been authorized to exercise over increases
in Ryan's wage rates, without more, constituted Climax an
"ally" of Ryan within the scope of the rule heretofore enun-
ciated that the picketing of an ally of a primary employer does
not violate Section 8 (b) (4) (A).6 Nor are we satisfied, upon the
entire record, that it was Ryan's wage structure, rather than
its nonunion status, which precipitated the dispute between the
Respondents and Ryan.
In any event, even if we assumed, arguendo, that the picketing
on July 31 did not violate Section 8 (b) (4) (A) insofar as it con-
stituted inducement of employees of Climax, we would still find,
for the reasons stated by the Trial Examiner, that such picket-
ing for an unlawful objective violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) at
least insofar as it induced and encouraged employees of the
various contractors and subcontractors on the Climax prop-
erty, other than Ryan, to engage in a strike or concerted re-
fusal to work.
3. We find, further, that, in addition to the picketing on July
31, certain of the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) by
the conduct described below:6
a. On July 31, Buscietta, business agent of Respondent Hod
Carriers, induced 4 employees of Intermountain Builders, 1 of
the contractors on the Climax property, to leave their work and
4See Oklahoma Trailer Convoy, Inc., 99 NLRB 1019; Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc.,
106 NLRB 629; Claremont Development Co., 106 NLRB 611.
5Cf. Irwin-Lyons Lumber Co., 87 NLRB 54, 56; Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of
Architects, 75 F. Supp. 672 (S. D N. Y., 1948). In the Irwin-Lyons case both employers
were under substantially the same ownership and control. In the Metropolitan case the
primary employer had transferred struck work to the secondary employer.
6 The Trial Examiner made no findings with respect to the three incidents described here-
inafter in the text. However, the evidence on which we rely as to these incidents is undisputed
in the record.
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 321
picket . Hod Carriers , through its agent , Buscietta , thereby
induced the 4 employees to engage in a concerted refusal to
work for their employer , who was a neutral in the primary
dispute between the Respondents and C . Ryan and Son. As an
object of this action was to force Intermountain Builders to
cease doing business with Climax in order to-force Climax to
cease doing business with Ryan , we find that Respondent Hod
Carriers thereby violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) of the Act.
b. As a result of a restraining order issuedby a State court,
the picketing at the entrance to the Climax property ceased
after July 31. However , many of the employees of the con-
tractors and subcontractors on the Climax property failed to
work not only on July 31 , but also during part or all of the
following week. This was true in the case of the ironworkers
employed by Utah Crane & Rigging Co. After abstaining from
work on July 31, a Friday , they returned to their job site on the
following Monday , August 3. Thereupon , the job superintendent,
Match , called Fitzwater , business agent of Respondent Iron-
workers , and asked if the men were going to work . Fitzwater
answered only that " the thing hadn't been settled up there."
Match then turned over the phone to Travers , Respondent Iron-
workers' job steward , who asked Fitzwater , " Do we work?"
Fitzwater replied , "It isn ' t settled up there . I dont know what
in the hell you are going to do. " Turning to the other iron-
workers , Travers said , " That's it. I guess we go home,"
whereupon all the ironworkers left . Two days later, Super-
intendent Match called Fitzwater and asked him if the men
could go back to work. Fitzwater answered in the affirmative.
Thereupon , Match notified the employees that he had instructions
from their union that work was to be resumed the next
morning, and they promptly returned to work. It is clear from
the foregoing , and we find , that Business Agent Fitzwater's
evasive answer to Travers ' query about going to work was
regarded by the latter as a signal for the men to quit work,
and that it was so intended by Fitzwater.
In any event , taking the view of the matter most favorable to
Respondent Ironworkers , Fitzwater , in effect , left it to the
discretion of Travers whether or not he and the others were to
resume work. In the exercise . of this discretion , Travers in-
structed the others to quit work . In so doing he was acting
within the scope of authority thus delegated to him by Re-
spondent Ironworkers through its business agent, Fitzwater.
We find , therefore , that Respondent Ironworkers , through its
duly authorized agents , induced and encouraged the employees
of Utah Crane & Rigging Co ., a secondary employer , to engage
in a concerted refusal to work on August 3, with an object of
forcing it to cease doing business with Ryan, thereby violating
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
T The Trial Examiner found that Respondent Ironworkers was responsible for the picketing
on July 31 because ofratificationofsuchpicketing by Fitzwater . This finding as to Fitzwater's
authority to bind Respondent Ironworkers is not challenged by Respondent ' s exceptions.
339676 0 - 55 - 22
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
c. On the same day that he had the foregoing telephone con-
versation with Fitzwater, Steward Travers went to the job site
of Sterling Steel and Supply Co., another Climax contractor,
and told ironworkers employed there that there was "supposed
to be an imaginary picket line." Sterling's ironworkers did not
work for several days thereafter. We find that this statement
implied that, despite the disbanding of the pickets as a result
of the court order, Respondent Ironworkers still desired its
members to act as if the picketing were still in effect. We find
therefore that by this conduct of Travers, Respondent Iron-
workers induced and encouraged employees of Sterling to engage
in a concerted refusal to work, with the same unlawful object,
in violation of 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.'
4. The Trial Examiner found that the picketing by the Re-
spondents on July 31 was for the ultimate purpose of causing
Climax to terminate its contract with Ryan, a nonunion con-
tractor, and to replace Ryan with a contractor employing only
Union members. In view of this, the Trial Examiner concluded
that by such picketing the Respondents violated not only Section
8 (b) (4) (A) but also Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act, which, in
effect, forbids unions to attempt to cause an employer to
discriminate against an employee because of membership
or nonmembership in a union . Respondents except to this
finding.
As our Order directed to Respondents' violations of Section
8 (b) (4) (A) will be adequate to remedy Respondents' unlawful
conduct, we do not deem it necessary to resolve the question
whether the same conduct also violated Section 8 (b) (2). For
this reason , we do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s finding of
such a violation.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
ents ( except United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union No. 1351, AFL), their officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging employees
of Climax Molybdenum Company or any other employer to en-
gage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to perform services for their employer where an
object thereof is to force Climax Molybdenum Company to cease
doing business with C. Ryan and Son.
8 The General Counsel contends that two other incidents after July 31 involving Respondent
Painters and Respondent Pipefitters constituted violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). However,
we find no violation with respect to those incidents. In the case of Painters, the alleged
inducement not to work was communicated only to one employee . In the case of Pipefitters,
there is insufficient evidence that the alleged inducement not to work was communicated to
any employees.
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 323
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their respective business offices copies of the
notice attached hereto as Appendix A.9 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of
each Respondent, be posted by said Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to their members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondents
to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region
signed copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix A for
posting, Climax and Ryan willing, at their plant and construction
operations, respectively, in places where notices to employees
of those concerns are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region
in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps they have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in-
sofar as it alleges that Respondents have engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8 (b) (4 (B) and Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act
and insofar as it alleges that United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1351, AFL, has com-
mitted any unfair labor practices.
Member Murdock, dissenting in part:
On this record I cannot agree that Ryan was an independent
contractor and Climax a neutral employer not involved in the
establishment of the hours of work, wages, and conditions of
employment of Ryan's employees. The record shows that Ryan
operated under a cost-plus contract. Necessarily, any increase
in the cost of labor was an increase that directly added to
Climax' s operating expenses . Indeed, both Ryan and Climax
admitted at the hearing that Ryan customarily consulted Climax
before increasing its wage rates and that Climax either approved,
or acquiesced in, the increases . The record shows that about a
month before the picketing in this case began Clifford Goold,
a representative of the Building Trades Council, approached
Resident Manager Frank Coolbaugh of Climax with regard to
organizing Ryan's employees. It is, I think, particularly
significant that Coolbaugh and not Ryan gave Goold permission
at that time to meet with Ryan's employees for the purpose of
discussing union organization . If Ryan were actually a com-
pletely separate employer what authority did Coolbaughhave to
9 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."
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
direct another employer's employees to listen to Goold? More-
over, after the picketing on July 31, which was directed to
raising the wages of Ryan's employees, Ryan discussed an in-
creas ' with Climax. The latter indicated its approval of an
increase . Thereupon , an increase was granted by Ryan, the
amount of which was reimbursed by Climax.
There is additional evidence in the record with regard to the
amount of control exercised by Climax over the work performed
by Ryan. For instance, Climax had the right to terminate Ryan's
services at any time. Ryan's contracts, even when in writing,
contained no specifications but required that he perform work
laid out for him by Climax engineers as the work progressed.
These engineers not only directed Ryan in the work he was to
do but told him how to do it.
The above evidence, in my opinion, sufficiently establishes
that Ryan and Climax were, at least, joint employers of the
employees who were the subject of the Respondents' dispute
at the Climax premises. I am therefore persuaded that the
picketing of the Climax premises on July 31, 1952, was primary
activity not proscribed by Section 8 (b)(4)(A). Nor do I believe
it was incumbent upon the Respondents , under the circumstances
of this case, to. seek permission to picket within the Climax
gates. Climax was the owner of the premises and, in the last
analysis, the party best able to settle the dispute over the al-
leged substandard wages paid Ryan's employees by agreeing,
as it subsequently did, to increase those wages . I would
therefore dismiss this portion of the complaint.
The complaint alleges, however, and the evidence reveals
that following the picketing the Respondents directly induced
employees of neutral subcontractors on the Climax premises
to cease work as a means of putting pressure on Ryan and
Climax. I must agree with the majority that in this respect the
Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A).
Member Beeson- took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF DENVER BUILDING AND CON-
STRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCI-
ATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON
WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 24, AFL; BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMER-
ICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 79, AFL; UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, LOCAL UNION NO. 208, AFL; INTERNATIONAL
HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION
OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 720, AFL; INTERNATIONAL
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 325
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 9,
AFL; UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMENAND APPREN-
TICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF
THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL UNION NO. 3,
AFL; AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM
COMPANY AND C. RYAN AND SON
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, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of
Climax Molybdenum Company, or any other employer, to
engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of
their employment to perform any services for their re-
spective employers , where an object thereof is to force
or require Climax Molybdenum Company to cease doing
business with C. Ryan and Son , or to force any employer
to cease doing business with Climax Molybdenum Company.
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL
Dated .............. By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON
WORKERS , LOCAL UNION NO. 24, AFL
Dated ................ By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS
AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
UNION NO. 79, AFL
Dated .. .............. By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE-
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, LOCAL UNION NO. 208, AFL
Dated ................ By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING
AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF
AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 720, AFL
Dated ................ By....................................................
(Representative) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS , LOCAL UNION NO. 9, AFL
Dated ................ By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE-
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, LOCAL UNION NO. 3, AFL
Dated ................ By.... . ...............................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act, is based upon charges duly filed by John R. Pearse, against the
various labor organizations named above in the caption, hereinafter referred to by their
local numbers, as the Building Trades Council, or jointly as Respondents, as the case may
be. Pursuant to said charges, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint on September 10, 1953, against Respondents, alleging that they had engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) and Section 8 (b)
(2) of the Act. Copies of the charges, the complaint, and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon Respondents.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that a group of contractors including John R. Pearse,
C. Ryan and Son, and Eagle Lake Gas Company, a subsidiary of Colorado Natural Gas and
Fuel Company, as well as other contractors, had entered into and were engaged in various
contracts for construction with Climax Molybdenum Company, herein called Climax, at the
premises of the latter at Climax, Colorado; that since 1951 Building Trades Council and
various local unions affiliated therewith had demanded that Ryan and Son, herein called
Ryan, and Eagle LakeGas Company bargainwith Building Trades Council as the representative
of its employees although none of Respondents had been certified as such; that some or all of
Respondents had demanded that Climax force Ryan and Eagle Lake to unionize their operations
or in the alternative that Climax cease doing business with Ryan and Eagle Lake, that on and
after July 31, 1953, Respondents by picketing and threats, had induced and encouraged the
employees of eight named construction companies, all contractors with Climax or subcon-
tractors for Climax, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to work, an object thereof
being to force these named contractors and subcontractors to cease doing business with Climax
in order to bring about the substitution of unionized employers for Ryan and Eagle Lake on
Climax construction and to compel Ryan and Eagle Lake to bargain with Building Trades
Council and/or its constituent locals, and that on and after July 31, 1951, Respondents had,
by picketing and threats, induced and encouraged the employees of Climax to engage in a
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 327
strike or concerted refusal to work with the object of forcing Climax to cease doing business
with Ryan and Eagle Lake and forcing Ryan and Eagle Lake to bargain with Building Trades
Council and/or its constituent locals.
Respondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No.
1351, AFL, herein called Carpenters or Local 1351, filed an answer wherein it alleged it was
not a member of Building Trades Council and denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices. The remaining Respondents filed an answer wherein they denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Leadville, Colorado, on October 6 and 7, 1953,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner, Martin S. Bennett, duly designated by the Associate
Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel who were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant
evidence. Motions by Respondents to dismiss the complaint were denied at the conclusion of
the General Counsel's case.-They were renewed at the close of the hearing, ruling was re-
served, and they aredisposed of by the recommendations hereinafter made At the conclusion of
the hearing, the parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally and to file briefs and/or
proposed findings and conclusions. Oral argument was presented and briefs were waived.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF CLIMAX AND RYAN
Climax Molybdenum Company is a Delaware corporation engaged in the mining and milling
of molybdenum ore at its plant and mill at Climax, Colorado. It annually ships molybdenum ore
valued in excess of ten million dollars from Climax to points outside the State of Colorado. In
addition, it has contracts with defense procurement agencies of the Federal Government, the
amount of which is in excess often million dollars. I find that Climax is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
Ryan and Son, a construction concern, has contracts with Climax for construction and other
operations on Climax premises which involve services in excess of $ 50,000 per annum. I
find, therefore, that the operations of Ryan affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.
See N.L.R.B. v. Cantrall Co., 201 F. 2d 853 (C.A.9) cert. den. 345 U. S. 996.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Denver Building and Construction Trades Council; International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 24, AFL; Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local Union No. 79, AFL; United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, Local Union No. 208, AFL; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union No. 1351, AFL; International Hod Carriers, Building and Common
Laborers' Union of America, Local Union No. 720, AFL; International Union of Operating
Engineers , Local Union No. 9, AFL; and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 3,
AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue
The issue presented herein is whether any or all of the eight labor organizations named
herein as Respondents had, by picketing, threats, or other conduct on and after July 31, 1953,
induced and encouraged the employees of Climax to strike or concertedly refuse to work,
and induced and encouraged the employees of construction companies under contract with
Climax or their subcontractors to strike or concertedly refuse to work, with the object of
forcing Climax to cease doing business with C. Ryan and Son and also forcing Ryan to bargain
with Respondents. The complaint also alleged identical conduct directed at Eagle Lake Gas
Co.; no evidence of any substance was presented as to the latter firm and the facts treated
hereinafter relate solely to Ryan.
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The situs
The Climax premises cover an area of 2 or 3 square miles some distance from Leadville,
Colorado. In addition to its mining and mill facilities, Climax maintains on the premises a
substantially self-sufficient community. At the time material herein, Climax was engaged in
a large expansion program includmgmill,residential, hospital, and school facilities. Numerous
contracts with 4 or 5 prune contractors were under way; as is customary in the construction
field, many subcontractors were working on these projects. While some construction workers
were able to acquire residential accommodations on the Climax premises, others, as well as
approximately 10 percent of Climax employees, did not live on the premises.
The Climax property is for the most part surrounded by a fence which has but one wide gate
in the vicinity of the State highway. Another gate is located a substantial distance away but it
is not utilized by any personnel and plays no part herein. As will appear, some of the Climax
property where work was being carried on by Ryan was not within the fenced area.
The production and maintenance employees of Climax are represented by Local 24410,
Federal Labor Union, AFL. There was no labor difficulty or dispute at the time material
herein between Climax and its employees.
2. The status of Ryan
Ryan is primarily an earth-moving contractor and has enjoyed contracts with Climax for
various types of work for 14 or 15 years. Its main office is in Lakewood, Colorado, a suburb
of Denver. In July of 1953, Ryan had approximately 50 employees substantially all of whom were
employed on a group of contracts with Climax. It appears that Ryan is the only nonunion con-
tractor engaged in construction on the Climax premises; that employees of the other con-
struction firms on the premises have been organized by labor organizations affiliated with
Building Trades Council, including Respondents; and that the difficulty of Respondents with
Ryan dates back at least until 1952. Respondents concede herein that they do not represent
the employees of Ryan; in addition, events in the previous year, 1952, disclose that the em-
ployees of Ryan were not receptive to union organization.
Thus, in August of 1952, as Business Representative and Secretary Clifford Goold of
Building Trades Council admitted, Goold sought a meeting with Resident Manager Frank
Coolbaugh of Climax in order to explore the possibility of Building Trades Council and its
affiliates organizing Ryan's employees. Coolbaugh took the position that Ryan was an in-
dependent contractor and that he would not approach him on the matter. He offered how-
ever to permit Goold to meet with Ryan employees on Climax premises in the plant recre-
ation hall in order to discuss union organization. The offer was accepted and soon after-
wards some 30 to 40 employees of Ryan were addressed on 1 occasion by 1 or more labor
representatives concerning the benefits of union membership. The results were unsatisfactory
and this attempt to organize the employees of Ryan was apparently abandoned. There was no
further activity, either by contact of Climax or Ryan, until the summer of 1953.
B. The picketing of July 31, 1953
During the summer construction season of 1953, the substantial utilization of nonunion labor
by Ryan became a matter of concern to Goold and some if not all of Respondents. Ryan, as
had been the case for some years, had a large number of contracts with Climax, totaling
$ 400,000 to $ 500,000 in 1953.
On the morning of July 29, Building Trades Council held a meeting which was presided
over by Goold. Present were business agents of the various craft unions affiliated with
Building Trades Council including all of Respondents save Carpenters Local 1351 which is
not a member of Building Trades Council. Although the minutes of that meeting list Business
Agent Fitzwater of Respondent Ironworkers Local 24 as among those present, he testified
that he actually was not; it is unnecessary to resolve this for Fitzwater later ratified the
decision arrived at. According to the minutes, the authenticity and content of which are not
disputed.
After Discusing (sic) the Sub Standard wages being paid by Mr. C. Ryan and Son and
the Eagle Lake Gas Company at Climax Molybdenum Co. site, a Motion was made and
seconed (sic) that pickets be placed on the project for Sub Standard wages Friday
morning July 31. The Motion carried.
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 329
Goold personally composed the language which was to appear on the picket signs. The
signs read, according to Goold's uncontroverted testimony, that "C. Ryan and Son and Eagle
Lake Gas Company were unfair to the Building Trades Council because they were paying sub-
standard wages." I find that this was the only type of sign carried by the pickets who, pur-
suant to the vote at the meeting of July 29, did picket on July 31.
One other matter maybe treated at this point prior to a consideration of the actual picketing.
This relates to a meeting on Climax premises held on the evening of July 29. During that day
there was a walkout by members of Ironworkers employed on construction at Climax; this
stemmed from causes unrelated to the issue under consideration herein and appears to have
resulted from a jurisdictional dispute over the claim that other crafts were performing work
claimed by members of Ironworkers to be within their craft jurisdiction. As a result thereof,
a meeting was arranged for that eveningata Climax conference room between representatives
of the various contractors working at Climax and Business Agent Fitzwater of Ironworkers.
Several members of the industrial relations department of Climax were also present in what
I find to have been an effort to promote labor peace on urgently needed construction. These
included Director of Industrial Relations Fred Hardy, Resident Construction Engineer George
White, and one Conwell of the new construction department of Climax. Fitzwater was accom-
panied to this meeting by Gould. Substantially all contractors engaged in construction at
Climax were represented, although Ryan and Eagle Lake were not.
The various contractors present and Fitzwater came to an amicable agreement concerning
the Ironworkers' dispute; Gould took no part in this discussion. However, at its conclusion,
Gould brought up a new topic; he stated that certain contractors on the property were paying
"sub-standard wages" and maintaining "sub-standard working conditions." Conwell asked
Gould if he was referring to any of those present. Goold replied that he was not, but that they
might all be affected in the future unless the situation was changed.
Industrial Relations Director Hardy proposed that a separate meeting then be held on this
new matter and he, together withConwell, White, and Gould, immediately proceeded to Hardy's
office; Fitzwater joined the group sometime later. Gould admitted to Hardy that he had been
referring to Ryan and Eagle Lake. He stated that it would be desirable if steps were taken to
unionize the employees of Ryan to which Hardy replied that Climax would exert no pressure
upon its contractors on the subject of unionization.
Goold then asked if Climax would obtain a union contractor to replace Ryan. The Climax
representatives replied that a union contractor by the name of Hesser had previously done
similar work for Climax but that he was engaged in construction elsewhere at the time. Gould
proposed, nevertheless, that Climax replace Ryan with a union contractor, stating that it would
be advisable for Ryan to cease operations at Climax "for a while." Hardy refused to agree to
any such proposal, claiming that it would amount to a breach of contract on the part of Climax
and the meeting ended. i
As found above, there is butonegatewhich is utilized by personnel of Climax and the various
contractors working on Climax premises. On the morning of July 31 pickets appeared at this
gate at approximately 6 a. in. Picketing continued throughout the day; although the actual
number picketing at any one time is not clear in the record, it appears that it varied from 2 to
3. Included among those who picketed were Business Agent Roy Steers of Engineers' Local 9
and Assistant Business Agent Fred Buscietta of Laborers' Local 720; the latter picketed for
a brief period during the morning. The signs carried by the pickets stated, as found above,
that "C. Ryan and Son and Eagle Lake Gas Company were unfair to the Building Trades Council
because they were paying substandard wages." I fmdthat this picketing was the picketing duly
voted by the Building Trades Council at its meeting held on the morning of July 29 and con-
curred in by all Respondents save Carpenter.
As for Ironworkers, it will be recalled that Business Agent Fitzwater testified that he was
not at this meeting of July 29, although the minutes thereof indicated the contrary. However, it
1The findings herein are based primarily on the testimony of Hardy, a clear and meticulous
witness, whose testimony I credit in full. He was substantially corroborated by White, and in
part by John Pearse and William Barnes. Fitzwater, who entered the second meeting late,
testified that he did not recall hearing Goold say anything about removing Ryan from the job,
although he admitted that they had discussed Hesser, as found above. Gould denied that he
urged Climax to get rid of Ryan, but admitted that they had discussed the possibility of re-
placing him with Hesser. Moreover, Hardy's version, attributing to Goold a proposal that
Ryan be replaced, seems the more probable inasmuch as Gould and Building Trades Council
had admittedly concluded that it was impossible to organize the employees of Ryan.
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is clear that he ratified and approved of this picketing. He was present at the meeting
held at Climax on the evening of July 29 when the Ryan matter was discussed. He
admitted that he knew the pickets were present on July 31 to protest against conditions
at Ryan. He personally observed picketing on July 31 and never disavowed it. Sig-
nificantly, although Ironworkers employed by Sterling Steel and Supply Company, a sub-
contractor for John Pearse, had not appeared at the job site, when Field Superintendent
Byron Hines of the Sterling Company asked Fitzwater whether the Ironworkers were
going to work and what Fitzwater proposed to do, Fitzwater merely replied, according
to Hines, "He couldn't tell them to go to work and couldn't tell them not to go to work."
This statement made in the face of the men having abstained from work perforce con-
stituted a ratification of their conduct; as I view it, his failure to disavow their conduct
and his equivocal reply constituted a ratification. Moreover, any doubt that this con-
stituted a ratification in the mind of Fitzwater is dispelled by the fact that although
he allegedly did not attend the meeting at which the picketing was voted he testified
that he would have approved the decision to establish the picket line had he been
there.
Either late Friday or sometime on Saturday a Colorado State court issued an order re-
straining picketing at the Climax premises. The record does not supply the precise time of its
issuance or the scope of the order. In any event, the case was removed to the United States
district court where it still remained as of the date of this hearing. There was, as a result,
no picketing after Friday, July 31. During the following week, however, most of the employees
represented by Building Trades did not report for work as was also the case with respect to
some of the Climax employees. Construction operations did not return to normal until
approximately Friday, August 7.
C. Analysis and conclusions
Initially I shall treat with Respondents' contention that Climax is not a neutral herein; that
Ryan is actually an agent of Climax rather than an independent contractor; that Climax is the
alter ego of Ryan; and that, as a result , Climax does not constitute "any other person" within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
However, Ryan is an independent entity in which Climax has no interest. The fact•that
Climax engineers inspect the progress of Ryan construction on Climax jobs does not detract
from Ryan's status as an independent contractor . The further fact that the contractual rela-
tionship between them is of long standing proves nothing in support of Respondents' claim
herein. In this respect, a prior case involving Building Trades Council is significant.
N. L. R. B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et aL, 340 U. S. 675. There the
Court overruled a similar contention directed to acontractor and subcontractor engaged on the
same project. That the contractor had some supervision over the work of the subcontractor,
did not, in the view of the Court, eliminate the status of each as an independent contractor or
make the employees of one the employees of the other. A similar result perforce follows
in the present situation where Climax and Ryan are obviously more removed from each other
than a contractor and subcontractor. See Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local Union No 135 (Hoosier PetroleumCo. Inc ), 106 NLRB 629, and Claremont Development
Co. et al., 106 NLRB 611. This contention is therefore rejected.
The basic contention of Respondents is that this was a picket line directed solely at the
conditions existing on Ryan construction and that, as a result, it was a protected primary
activity for an object not prohibited under the Act. Respondents rely on the Board decision
in Moore Drydock Co., 92 NLRB547, inwhich the Board has established criteria for evaluating
the lawfulness of picketing at the premises of a secondary employer.
But there are several factors which, in my belief, distinguish this case from the above-cited
decision. The facts in the present case are almost identical with those in Richfield Oil Corp.,
95 NLRB 1191, where the Board found the conduct of the labor organizations involved to be
violative of the Act. There, the pickets carried signs stating only that the primary employer
(Superior) was unfair, but it was apparent trom the record that the picketing was also designed
to extend beyond the primary employer. Such is also the case here.
For the record discloses that Building Trades Council, which had been unable to organize
the employees of Ryan in 1952 and had, it appears, abandoned the venture, sought on July 29,
1953, to obtain the replacement by Climax of Ryan with a union contractor. Goold, in fact,
stated that it would be advisable for Climax to cease doing business with Ryan. And, it will
be recalled that earlier in the evening, before the group proceeded into the office of Industrial
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 331
Relations Director Hardy, Goold warned the other contractors assembled that they might be
affected unless Ryan working conditions were changed . These were nonunion working conditions
which Goold equated with "sub-standard working conditions."
Another item of evidence is, in my view, entitled to weight herein. The Moore Drydock
decision recognizes the right of a labor organization to picket at the premises of a secondary
employer. The crux of that doctrine is the fact that an ambulatory situs of the dispute has come
to rest at the premises of that employer . In the present case , Ryan had a number of contracts
with Climax, of which all but two were located within the plant gates at which the picketing
took place These two projects, although located onChmax property, were not within the gates.
I deem it significant that Respondents, although protesting the use by Ryan of nonunion labor
on all of his projects saw fit to picket only at a location where the picketing might affect the
employees of other contractors and subcontractors as well as those of Climax. Ryan was a
prime contractor and it does not appear that he utilized the services of subcontractors. Nor
is there any evidence that any Climax employees were working at these two projects or that
the employees of any other contractors or subcontractors were engaged there; in fact the
record would appear to indicate the contrary. Thus, picketing at these two jobs would not have
had any effect upon the employees of employers other than Ryan.
Another item is entitled to weight herein. The Board, in distinguishing the Richfield Oil
case from the Moore Drydock decision , took note in the latter decision that the picketing
union, prior to establishing the picket line, had unsuccessfully sought the permission of the
secondary employer to picket at the situs whereas in the Richfield case no such request was
made. The facts here are similar to the Richfield case.
Respondents at no time sought to obtain the permission of Climax to picket Ryan at the
various Ryan job sites within the gates, this permission to enter the premises being required
both under Company as well as national security regulations Although at the hearing Resident
Manager Coolbaugh testified that pickets would not be allowed to enter " without any reason,"
the fact is that the request was not made at the time material herein . Moreover , it will be re-
called that Climax not only had not demonstrated hostility to Respondents but, in fact, had been
most cooperative in the previous year when Building Trades sought to organize the employees
of Ryan. On that occasion, Coolbaugh proposed that Building Trades address Ryan employees on
Climax premises, and even provided facilities for the meeting which proved unsuccessful.
In view of the foregoing, I find that the picketing authorized by all Respondents save
Carpenters at the Climax premises was designed , at least in part, to force Climax to cease
doing business with Ryan and to force other contractors to cease doing business with Climax
in order to forceClimax to cease doing business with Ryan This was accomplished by inducing
third parties to refuse to enter Climax premises by the picketing of July 31 Thus the picketing
was for an objective proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act See N. L. R. B. v. Denver
Building and Construction Trades Council, supra; Richfield Oil Corp., supra, and Los
Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council et al., 105 NLRB 868. 2
The case against Carpenters involves other considertations, for that Respondent does not
belong to Building Trades Council and thereforedid not participate in the decision to establish
the picket line. The question posed is whether Carpenters ratified the establishment of the
picket line by the other Respondents and is therefore in pare delicto. See Howland Drygoods
Co , 85 NLRB 1037, enforced 191 F 2d 65 and 199 F. 2d 709 (C. A. 2).
The evidence which the General Counsel relies upon to implicate Carpenters herein is as
follows. According to Henry Stillwagon , general superintendent for Pearse , he telephoned
Business Agent Weaver of Carpenters between 6 and 7 a m. on July 31, asked him if he knew
there was a picket line at Climax , and asked whether it was all right to go to work . Weaver
replied that he had not been notified of any strike or picketing, this was the fact, although
reports of its imminence had come to his attention the previous evening from Union members
and a contractor . According to Weaver , he informed Stillwagon that the men could do as they
pleased; that "we" would not tell any of them that they were not to work, that they could work
if they wished , and that Carpenters had no part in the picketing. Stillwagon did not dispute
Weaver's version of the talk which I credit.
At about 7:30 a. m., according to the uncontroverted and credited testimony of Weaver, he
proceeded to the Climax premises and saw 30 to 50 carpenters congregated outside the plant
gate Weaver informed them that Carpenters had no part in the picket line and that the men
2I deem it unnecessary therefore to treat with subsequent conduct by various Respondents
which the General Counsel offered as evidence of their support of the picketing carried on
for an unlawful objective.
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
could work if they wished; he added that Carpenters would not prefer charges against them if
they did so.
Weaver then entered the Climax premises and went to the Pearse job where he held a con-
versation with Stillwagon. According to the latter, he asked Weaver "if we could go ahead and
work" or "if he thought we would work today." Weaver replied, "I don't believe under the
circumstances I would." Stillwagon placed several Pearse employees who allegedly were
carpenters on the scene, Pearse, it may be noted, employs a number of the crafts in addition
to carpenters.
Weaver's version was that he informed Pearse that Carpenters had no part in the picketing,
that the men could work if they chose, and that he could not tell them to work or not He also
claimed that the only carpenters present were two foremen. I deem it unnecessary to resolve
this conflict for, even on the face of Stillwagon's version Weaver's reply to his query is at
best ambiguous and not necessarily directed to the employment of carpenters as contrasted
with a general consideration of the overall picture relating to all crafts that morning.
Members of Carpenters did not work that day but those of them scheduled to work on Saturday
did so and all carpenters employed on Climax premises returned to work on Monday, August 3.
On that date, Weaver again appeared at Climax and spoke to a group of his members who were
undecided whether to work or not. He informed them that Carpenters had no part in the dispute
and that so far as it was concerned the men could go ahead and work. The men proceeded to do
so. This is particularly significant because it was done in the face of expressions by business
agents and stewards of other Respondents during that week to the effect that an invisible picket
line still existed at Climax despite the cessation of picketing pursuant to the State court
injunction.
In view of the foregoing considerations, I am unable to conclude that Weaver's conduct con-
stituted a ratification of the unlawful picketing embarked upon by the other Respondents. He at
no time adopted the cause of the others, nor can it be stated that his conduct constituted a
ratification thereof in the face of an obligation, contractual or otherwise, to direct the men to
return to work which, under circumstances not present herein, might spell out legal responsi-
bility Accordingly, I shall recommend that the case against Respondent Carpenters be
dismissed
Turning to the 8 (b) (4) (B) allegation, I believe that the record warrants a dismissal thereof.
The facts heretofore found disclose that Respondents, save Carpenters, were attempting to
cause a cessation of business between Climax and Ryan within the meaning of Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) and not to achieve recognition as the bargaining agent of Ryan's employees, a hope which
they had abandoned in the previous year. In addition, in view of the general Board policy not to
conduct elections among construction firms. I am dubious that a violation of this section ought
to be found, as a matter of policy, in a situation where the processes of the Board are not
open to the labor organization involved for the purposes of achieving a certification which is
the crux of theviolation, this is to be distinguished from violations of other sections of the Act,
e g., where an uncertified labor organization has enforced closed shop conditions, that con-
stituting a violation independently of certification See e.g., N. L. R. B. v. Swinerton and
Walberg, 202 F 2d 511 (C. A. 9).
The complaint also alleges that the conduct of Respondents previously found to be violative
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Acc is also violative of Section 8 (b) (2) thereof. I believe this con-
tention has merit and for the following reasons. I have found that the picketing by Respondents,
save Carpenters, of Climax premises was for the ultimate objective of causing Climax to
terminate its contract with Ryan, a nonunion contractor, and replace Ryan with a union con-
tractor presumably employing members of Respondents. If this object were achieved and
Ryan's nonunion personnel were replaced by union personnel of other contractors, it is clear
and I find that this perforce would be a discrimination which would encourage union member-
ship on the part of Ryan personnel and thus constitute conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act. And, more particularly, Respondents by attempting under these circumstances "to
cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of " Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (2) thereof In so finding, I note
the broad definition of employee found in Section 2 (3) of the Act. I find therefore that Re-
spondents, save Carpenters, have by the above described picketing, as alleged by the General
Counsel, engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
IV. 'THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents , set forth in section III , above occurring in connection with the
operations of Climax and Ryan set forth in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and sub-
GERA MILLS 333
stantial 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents , save Carpenters , have engaged in conduct violative of Section
8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom , and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. See I. B. E. W. v.
N. L. R. B., 341 U. S. 694.
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. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council; International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 24, AFL; Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local Union No. 79, AFL; United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, Local Union No. 208, AFL; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local Union No. 1351, AFL; International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union
of America, Local Union No. 720, AFL; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No. 9, AFL; and United Association of_Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 3, AFL, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By engaging in picketing with an object thereof to force or require Climax to cease doing
business with Ryan and with a further object of forcing or requiring other employers to cease
doing business withClimax soas toforceor require Climax to cease doing business with Ryan,
Respondents, save Carpenters, have each engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondents, save Carpenters, by picketing for the objects described above have engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. Respondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No.
1351, AFL, has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
6. Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(b) (4) (B) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
GERA MILLS and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL. Case No. 2-CA-2905. April 21, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 30, 1953, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and supporting brief, and
108 NLRB No. 63.