Glaziers and Glassworkers

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 14, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 1119 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

GLAZIERS AND GLASSWORKERS Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 558 and PPG Industries, Inc. Case 17-CC-586 August 14, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND PENELLO On June 6, 1975, Administrative Law Judge David G. Heilbrun issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law-Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent , Glaziers and Glasswork- ers Local Union No. 558, Kansas City, Missouri, its officers , agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID G. HEILBRUN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Kansas City, Kansas, on March 27, 1975, based on an amended charge filed I January 31, and com- plaint issued the same date alleging that Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 558, called Respondent, acting through an officer and agent, violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by conversationally threatening a manager of PPG Industries, Inc., the Charging Party here- in called PPG, with damage or destruction of work per- formed or to be performed by PPG and with physical vio- lence. Upon the entire record in this case, including my obser- vation of the witnesses and upon consideration of oral ar- gument made by Respondent and posthearing briefs filed by General Counsel and PPG, I make the following: I All dates and named months hereafter are in 1975 , unless indicated otherwise. Where context warrants , 1975 may be shown. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 1119 R. D. Anderson Construction Co., Inc., called Ander- son, and PPG are corporations engaged in the construction industry as general contractor and glass installation con- tractor, respectively. Anderson's principal office is located in Topeka, Kansas, and PPG, operating nationally, main- tains a branch in Topeka. Anderson and PPG's Topeka branch each annually purchase goods valued in excess of $50,000 which are directly received 2 from suppliers located outside the State of Kansas. I find that Anderson and PPG are each an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Facts and Discussion Anderson is general contractor for the Topeka Public Library Extension, a job commenced approximately July 1974. Since that time a labor dispute (with picketing) has existed between Anderson 3 and both Carpenters' Local 1445 and Laborers' Local 142. Various subcontracting of the job was made, with glass installation awarded by An- derson to PPG. On January 3, two glaziers employed by PPG 4 were as- signed to take preliminary measurements for the job. They instead returned to the branch, advising Manager Hubert (Hugo) D. Townsend that "they couldn't work behind the picket." On January 8, Townsend sent a mailgram to Jack Zander, Respondent's business manager , claiming a viola- tion of the "current labor agreement" and requesting direc- tion of members to "work immediately" since "continued refusal" would result in "loss of the job" by PPG necessi- tating "immediate action to protect" interests. Zander re- plied telegraphically on January 10, advising that "hon- oring" of the Laborers' picket line was "individual activity" protected under the agreement with PPG and as such "no need" existed for Respondent to "arrange" a strike. Townsend met with all or most of his glaziers on January 9, 10, and 13, attempting to persuade them to perform as- signed work. At the meeting on the 10th, Townsend ad- 2 Receipt of such goods by Anderson occurs at various jobsites located within the State of Kansas. During 1974, Anderson purchased $52.231 worth of reinforcing steel and welded wire mesh from Carter-Waters of Kansas City , Missouri, and such goods were shipped from this named sup- plier directly to jobsites in Kansas including those at Topeka , Holton, Man- hattan , and Winchester . During February and March 1975, Anderson re- ceived $231,000 worth of previously ordered prefabricated concrete by direct delivery from Quinn Construction of Marshall , Missouri , to a Holton, Kansas, jobsite. 3 Anderson does not have "any contracts with labor organizations." 4 These employees are members of Respondent , which PPG recognizes as representative for its inside and outside glass-cutting and installation em- ployees and with whom it is party (via multiemployer bargaining ) to a col- lective-bargaining agreement covering such employees. 219 NLRB No. 177 1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD vised he had the right "to fire them ." S At the meeting on the 13th , the three glaziers present requested that Town- send wait so they could "give [him] an answer the next morning." At approximately 1:30 p.m . on January 13, Zander ap- peared at Townsend 's office and a discussion ensued.6 Townsend testified that Zander alluded to Anderson's "union problems ," suggested the subcontract held by PPG be "give[n] . . . back ," stated "if you get the glass in we will get enough slingshots in town to make someone sorry," that "if you do it non-union , the fellows should be fairly big and mean . . . preferably [without] families" and that should Townsend attempt the work with installed sales salesman Richard (Pete) Chisam , they were probably "not big enough or mean enough ." Zander testified that his pur- pose in speaking with Townsend concerned "his proposed actions with respect to the employees ," that he stated any "non-union people" put on the job better be "good and tough," that "you (Townsend) and Pete (Chisam) are [not] that tough either," and that reference was made to "sling- shot or a pea shooter" and to the "better" circumstance of not having families. The issue involved is whether , within the meaning of Section 8(bx4Xii)(B) of the Act , Zander's conduct on Janu- ary 13 constituted threat (s), coercion , or restraint of PPG with an object of forcing or requiring it to cease doing business with Anderson . The respective versions of each participant to the conversation being litigated are highly similar . Disparity is resolved in favor of Townsend whose testimony appeared more reliable and without apparent embellishment or concealment. The fair meaning of Zander's purposeful utterances was to inject the element of physical risk to Townsend personally , to persons within the ambit of Townsend 's natural interest, to PPG 's property, and to persons PPG might later employ , in each case rela- tive to continued efforts at fulfilling PPG's contractual commitment to Anderson. The remarks clearly presaged harmful consequences alarming to an individual of ordi- nary prudence. Cf. Carpenters District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL- CIO (Apollo Dry Wall), 211 NLRB 291 (1974). These con- sequences included potential property damage to glass and subjection to personal physical violence , as alleged. The implications were not illusory, as inclination and apparent ability of fulfillment were both chillingly present in what was voiced with ample seriousness . An "objective and rea- sonable interpretation" of such statements is that taken as a whole, Zander's portion of the dialogue was uninnocu- ously menacing and a threat under Section 8(b)(4Xii). See Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 426, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironwork- ers, AFL-CIO (The Morrison Company), 214 NLRB No. 3 PPG's work was subsequently commenced by different persons em- ployed approximately March 1. 6 The two have had business dealings for over 10 years relative to both contract negotiation and administration . During 1974, Townsend chaired the bargaining committee of the three -member employer association and Zander recalled "quite a few" meetings in Topeka until such negotiations concluded in the fall. On the instant occasion , Zander gave no advance notice of his visit (his own office is in Kansas City , Missouri), but inferred by his testimony that the visit was not his "only business in Topeka that day-" 114 (1974). Surrounding circumstances do not equivocate this threat as the basically amicable relationship between these participants does not lend "congenial[ity]" to a spe- cific discussion when the background motivation and pug- nacious declarations by Zander were as shown. Cf. Local No. 695, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Mautz & Oren, Inc.), 209 NLRB 410 (1974). Respondent argues that "candid" talk about "sabotage" and "strong emotion" is a reality of construction industry labor-management relations with any violation technically present a trivial or isolated matter disposable under de min- imis principles . This understates the force of Zander's cho- sen words and would, if adopted, effectively nullify the Act's intendment of appropriately shielding neutral per- sons 7 from labor disputes in which they are not involved. Further, Respondent's contention that only an "[honest] fear" was voiced in this "tense situation" fails to recognize the obligation of Zander to disassociate himself from the natural thrust of actual remarks and "make clear [his] in- nocent intent." Reinforcing Ironworkers, supra. CONCLUSION OF LAW Respondent, by threatening , coercing, and restraining PPG, a person engaged in commerce or in an industry af- fecting commerce , by conduct found above, with an object of forcing PPG to cease doing business with Anderson, has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce with- in the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(B) of the Act. REMEDY I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusion of law and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER8 Respondent, Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 558, Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, and re- straining PPG Industries, Inc. or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require PPG Industries, Inc., or such other person to cease doing business with R. D. Anderson Construction Co., Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its Kansas City, Missouri, offices and meet- Townsend occupied a "high management" position relative to being the actual threatenee -agent of PPG. See Hoisting Engineers Local Union 10/ (Herrman 's Excavating, Inc.), 209 NLRB 59 (1974) s In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. GLAZIERS AND GLASSWORKERS ing halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish said Regional Director signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by PPG Industries, Inc., and R. D. Anderson Construction Co., Inc., if they are willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their em- ployees. 9In 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 1121 (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain PPG In- dustries, Inc., or any other person where an object thereof is to force PPG Industries, Inc., or such other person to cease doing business with R. D. Anderson Construction Co., Inc. GLAZIERS AND GLASSWORKERS LOCAL UNION No 558