International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 5, A.F.L.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1128 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL 5, A.F.L. and VICTOR M. SPRYS, d/b/a
SPRYS ELECTRIC COMPANY. Case No. 6-CC-78. May
27, 1953.
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 5, 1953, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore, at
the hearing in the above-entitled proceeding, orally granted
Respondent's motion to dismiss the entire complaint in this
case. ' Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's ruling, with a supporting brief, and the
Respondent filed an opposing brief. The Board has considered
the Trial Examiner's ruling, the General Counsel' s exceptions,
and the briefs filed by the parties. The ruling is hereby af-
firmed.
The complaint alleged, in substance, that Respondent induced
and encouraged the employees of the three electrical contract-
ing firms, Devlin Electric Construction Company, Broadway
Maintenance Corporation, and M & M Electrical Company, to
engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to perform any services for their respective em-
ployers with an object of forcing the United States Army Corps
of Engineers to cease doing business with the charging party,
Sprys Electric Company, and that Respondent thereby violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. The ground of Respondent's
motion was that the United States Army Corps of Engineers did
not constitute an "employer" or "person" within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and that therefore this section is inap-
plicable. Respondent relied upon the Board's decision in Al J.
Schneider, 87 NLRB 99, 89 NLRB 2Z1, in which the Board held
that a State agency was not a "person" or "employer" within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), by applying to that section
of the Act the definition of those terms contained in Section
2 (1) and, (2). The Board has carefully reconsidered the prin-
ciples underlying its decision in that case, the pertinent legis-
lative history, and all relevant precedents, including the Court's
decision in the International Rice Milling case .2 Contrary to the
General Counsel's contention, and with due respect for the
opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in that case, the
Board is convinced, for the reasons set forth in the Schneider
case, that Congress has excluded Government agencies and
instrumentalities, both Federal and State, from the operation
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
complaint.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in the above-
entitled case be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
I As the statements of counsel at the hearing, together with the briefs submitted by the
parties, are sufficient , we hereby deny the General Counsel 's request for oral argument.
2 international Rice Milling Company, Inc. v. N. L. R. B, 84 NLRB 360, 183 F. 2d 21;
cert. requested on other grounds , granted, 314 U. S. 665, 71 S. Ct. 961.
104 NLRB No. 147.
11 S (.OVERNMENI PR11TI\(, OFFICE 0 - 1954