Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 993 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ETC. 993
of surveillance to one of its employees ; and by threatening employees with discharge
if they engage in union or concerted activities , Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By assisting , contributing to the support of, and interfering with the adminis-
tration of the Committee , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondent has not engaged in any other unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO;
and Local 639, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO and Bendix Radio Division of The Bendix
Corporation
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO;
and Local 639, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO and Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc . Cases Nos. 21-CC-
467 and 21-CC-467-2. September 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 18, 1962, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent 'filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in this case, including the ex-
ceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
' Member Fanning notes that the instant dispute was the subject of a 10( k) hearing in
Cases Nos 21-CD-106-1 and 21-CD-106-2, and that he concluded that no jurisdictional
dispute, within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (D) and 10 ( k), was involved . See 138
NLRB 716 For this reason, the views set forth in his dissenting opinion in A ,'hur
Venners Co-inpavy, 137 NLRB 828, do not- come into play Member Fanning adopt, the
findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except insofar as the
Trial Examiner found that an object of Respondents ' conduct, herein , was to force the
United States Signal Corps to cease doing business with The Bendix Corporation. In his
138 NLRB No. 105.
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The Board adopts the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.2
judgment the pressures exerted on the Signal Corps were for the purpose of compelling it
to intercede with The Bendix Corporation to conform its wage policies with requirements
of the Davis-Bacon Act, not to force a cancellation of the Bendix contract . See Local 101,
International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO ( Eta-Iloktn & Galvan, Inc.), 133
NLRB 1728.
in the notice to be posted by Respondent, the penultimate sentence below the signa-
ture is changed to read 'This notice must remain posted for 00 consecutive days from
the date of posting, . ." instead of stating "60 days from the date hereof."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on December 8, 1961, by Bendix Radio Division of The
Bendix Corporation and a charge filed on December 11, 1961, by Ets-Hokin & Gal-
van, Inc., the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a complaint on December 28, 1961,
against International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Local
639, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Respondents here-
in, alleging violations of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) and 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the
Act. In their duly filed answer Respondents, while admitting certain allegations
of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Morton D. Fried-
man at Los Angeles, California, on February 6, 1962. All parties were represented
at the hearing and were affored full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant
evidence, to cross-examine, to present oral argument, and to file briefs with me.
The parties waived oral argument. Briefs were filed by counsel for the General
Counsel and by counsel for Bendix Radio Division of The Bendix Corporation.'
Upon consideration of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, and upon
my observation of each of the witnesses,2 I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS
(a) Bendix Radio Division of The Bendix Corporation (herein called Bendix),
a Delaware corporation with its principal office in Towson, Maryland, and plants,
branch 'offices, and places of business in various States of the United States, including
a place of business at Camp Roberts , California , is engaged in engineering, manu-
facturing , installing , and testing electronic equipment and communications systems.
In connection with its operations at Camp Roberts, during the year immediately
preceding the issuance of the complaint herein , a representative period, Bendix
shipped to Camp Roberts, California, goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 from points and places outside the State of California.
(b) Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc. (herein called Ets-Hokin), a California corpora-
tion, with its principal office in San Francisco, California, and places of business in
various States of the United States, including a place of business at Camp Roberts,
1 After the hearing closed , counsel for the General Counsel formally moved to make
certain corrections in the transcript of the hearing herein . There being no opposition to
the said motion , the transcript is corrected as follows:
Page 9 , line 11, substitute "and" for "in" (the second word on the line) ; page 135.
line 7, substitute "contained" for "contacted"; page 135 , line 23, substitute "on"
for "off"; page 140, line 9 , substitute "lead" for "leave"; page 150, line 10, sub-
stitute "3rd" for "30th" ; page 159, line 7 , substitute "October" for " November"
2 Unless specifically indicated to the contrary, any credibility evaluation I make of the
testimony of any witness appearing before me is based, at least In part , upon his de-
meanor as I observed it at the time the testimony was given . Cf. Bryan Brothers Pack-
ing Company, 129 NLRB 285 . To the extent that I indicate that I do not rely upon or
reject in part or entirely the testimony of any given witness, it is my intent thereby to
Indicate that such part or whole of the testimony, as the case may be, is discredited by m,^
J'ic1.s,n Maintenance Corporation 126 \LRII 115, 117, footnote I
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ETC. 995
California, is engaged as an electrical constructor in the building and construction
industry. During the year commencing February 21, 1961, in connection with its
operations at its Camp Roberts place of business, Ets-Hokin shipped goods and
materials to Camp Roberts from points outside the State of California valued in
excess of $50,000.
(c) At all times material to this proceeding, Bendix and Sylvania Electric Products
Co., Inc. (herein called Sylvania), were prime contractors engaged in the construc-
tion of -a satellite tracking station at Camp Roberts, California, for the United States
Army Signal Corps Research and Development Laboratory. Said project, known
as Project Advent, is a research and development project involving an active satellite
communications system which when completed will provide rapid, dependable, and
secure military communication and which has a substantial impact on the national
defense. Bendix is and has been engaged on the said project to supply the com-
munications electronics and equipment that comprise the communication end serv-
ing the satellite, and to engineer, manufacture, install, calibrate, test, and later
operate and maintain a portion of the ground station at Camp Roberts, California.
Sylvania is engaged on said project and it is and has been engaged on said project
in the construction of the facilities and the electrical controls of the antenna and,
as part of its work, has subcontracted electrical installation work on said Project
Advent to Ets-Hokin.
From the foregoing I conclude that Bendix, Sylvania, and Ets-Hokin are em-
ployers and persons engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I further conclude that it
would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
II. THE STATUS OF THE RESPONDENTS
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL-CIO and Local 639, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein collectively called
Respondents or the Union, concede that they are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
1. Did the Respondents' activities constitute inducement and encouragement of
Ets-Hokin employees to refuse to perform work for their employer?
2. Did the Respondents' activities constitute threats, coercion, or restraint against
Bendix and/or Ets-Hokin?
3 if the answer to "1" or "2" or both is in the affirmative, was an object thereof
to force or require Ets-Hokin to cease doing business with Sylvania in order to
force Sylvania to cease doing business with the Signal Corps and thus require the
Signal Corps to cease doing business with Bendix?
B. The facts
As stated above, Bendix and Sylvania are prime contractors in the construction
and installation of the electronic equipment and the housing for such equipment
at the United States Army Signal Corps Satellite Communications Installation known
as Project Advent at Camp Roberts, California. Ets-Hokin, an electrical sub-
contractor for Sylvania, began its work at the Project in February 1961 and was
in full-scale operation at the time of the events herein. By arrangement with Re-
spondent Local 639, the latter was to supply Ets-Hokin with electricians for the
work at Project Advent.
On October 27, 1961,3 John Coxsey, Ets-Hokin's site manager, advised Harold
Morris, Respondent Local 639 business manager and job steward, that Bendix would
shortly begin work on the Project Coxsey showed Morris a report of a recent work
stoppage by IBEW, involving Bendix at a phase of Project Advent located at Fort
Dix, New Jersey. At the same time, Coxsey asked Morris whether some way could
be found to avoid a similar work stoppage at the Camp Roberts Project As a
result of this conversation, Morris telephoned IBEW International Representative
Johnson and informed him of the conversation with Coxsey. Johnson suggested a
meeting of all involved parties including IBEW and Local 639, Bendix, Sylvania, and
the Signal Corps.
$ All dates herein are In 1961 except as specially noted
662353-63-vol 138-64
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 28 Coxsey spoke to Morris and during the conversation asked Morris
what the Union had decided to do when Bendix came on the job. Morris replied
that the Union "would ignore Bendix' presence until after the meeting" because it
"had made up its mind it was not going to have any problem until after the meeting
was held." 4
International Representative Johnson, not being able because of illness to complete
the arrangements for the meeting , called upon International Representative Lester
Morrell to take over. At one point on October 31, Coxsey called Morrell and after
having spoken to Morrell turned the telephone over to Eugene E. Holmen, Bendix's
personnel administrator. Morrell told Holmen that "he wanted to have a meeting
on Friday to discuss the possibility that a work stoppage may occur, not that
the Union was behind it, but that the men might be disgruntled and leave the job." 5
After arrangements were completed, a meeting was held on Friday, November 3.
Attending were representatives of the Union, Bendix, Ets-Hokin, the Signal Corps,
and a representative of the United States Mediation and Conciliation Service who
acted as chairman. A discussion of the primary dispute ensued.6 At various points
in the discussion the following remarks were made by Union International Representa-
tives Morrell and Otto A. Rieman:
Morrell: "The Union must fight to protect our interest."
"Perhaps for the sake of the defense program and our people, there can be
some understanding so things can be done smoothly. Even if it is only 1 day,
it can be harmful."
Morrell to Bendix's representative: "I thought I would be able to soften you
up. We would prefer to settle this across the table, but it is quite evident that
this can't be done."
Morrell: "The last thing we want to see is this job stopped."
Rieman: "It hasn't been easy. I didn't think we would be able to hold it until
Friday." [The day of the meeting] 7
The meeting failed to bring about an agreement between Bendix and the Respond-
ents. Thereafter, Business Manager Morris decided to picket the entrance to the
Project at Camp Roberts and before doing so discussed the matter at the Respond-
ents' counsels' office together with Respondents' counsel and International Repre-
sentative Rieman. After the discussion Morris had picket signs made and handbiils
printed, which handbills and picket signs were prepared by Respondents' attorney and
were shown to and approved by International Representative Rieman on November 8.
On Friday, November 10, Morris advised representatives of Ets-Hokin and the
Signal Corps and also the Ets-Hokin electricians working on the job that picketing
was going to begin the following Monday morning, November 13. Also on
November 10, Morris left his job as electrician for Ets-Hokin, and also his position
as job steward on the job, in order to enable him to set up a picket line on
November 13.
At approximately 7 a.m. on Monday, November 13, Morris and Johnson, the
International Representative, established a picket line at Gate 9 of Camp Roberts
by posting a picket sign on the side of the road.8 The picket sign read as follows:
* From the credited testimony of Coxsey.
r From the credited testimony of Holmen. Although this conversation occurred on the
telephone and the parties had never spoken to each other before and although Morrell
admitted only that this might have been the conversation in which he thought he was
speaking to Van Sant, the Signal Corps' agent, I credit Holmen because Morrell's version
of the conversation though vague was not necessarily inconsistent with Holmen's version
O The primary dispute concerned the issue bf whether the work Bendix was scheduled
to perform at the project was subject to the Davis-Bacon Act provisions requiring pre-
vailing area wage rates to be paid on construction work being performed for defense.
Bendix claimed its work was not construction, the Union claimed it was and that its
members were available to work for Bendix at area rates Bendix on the other hand
contended that its own employees working at the rates that Bendix had set were properly
in their jobs and that their jobs were not covered by Davis-Bacon.
7 From the testimony of Holmen given at an allied 10(k) hearing and admitted as an
exhibit in this proceeding . The Respondents did not offer testimony to controvert this
written testimony.
8 Gate 9 of Camp Roberts was the gate set aside for use of the contractors and their
employees who were working on Project Advent. Only those employed on the job were
allowed through this gate and the gate represented the point nearest the job at which
picketing could be accomplished.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ETC. 997
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BENDIX ENGINEERING CORPORATION UNFAIR
ELECTRICAL WORK BY BENDIX CORPORATION ON THIS JOB
1. IS NONUNION
2. DOES NOT MEET PREVAILING AREA WAGE
CONDITIONS & BENEFITS IN UNION
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTS
This is for information only. This is not a request for any employee to refuse
to work or to make any deliveries or pickups on this jobsite. This is not an
organizational or recognitional picket line.
IBEW LOCAL 639.
At the same time, Johnson and Morris distributed handbills. These handbills
were copies of telegrams sent by the Union to Bendix and the answer of Bendix
to the Union by which it was demonstrated that Bendix refused to comply with what
the Union claimed was the applicable portion of the Davis-Bacon ruling by the United
States Depaitment of Labor. There was no appeal in this handbill requesting any
employee to leave his work. Picketing with the distribution of this handbill was
continued from November 13 through December 6 by Morris occasionally accom-
panied by Johnson and one or two local members. The picketing each day com-
menced about 7 a.m., and ended at about 4:459 p.m. During this same period the
general starting time for Project Advent employees including Bendix was about 8 a.m.
Although there was no general quitting by employees of any of the contractors
on the job on November 13, 5 of the Ets-Hokin electricians, of whom there were
20 at that time, failed to report to work. Also a number of sheetmetal workers
employed by another subcontractor refused to cross the picket line and reported
for work several hours late evidently after having been instructed to report to work
by their own union. The Ets-Hokin electricians who did not work on November 13,
reported to work on the next day. On November 16, nine of Ets-Hokin electricians
were absent without an excuse. All but one of these electricians returned on the
following day, November 17, but on that day eight new unexplained absences occurred
among the Ets-Hokin electricians.9 On November 20, nine Ets-Hokin electricians
resigned without notice or explanation. However, at Coxsey's request, Morris
supplied replacements through Local 639's hiring hall as well as additional elec-
tricians who were needed on the job by Ets-Hokin. As a result, by December 6
Ets-Hokin had a complement of 58 electricians at Project Advent, all of them union
members and many of them members of the Respondent Local.
On December 7, picketing began at 5:20 a.m. by Morris and Johnson posting
the usual picket sign. However, they began distributing three new handbills to the
people who came in the gate, among them the Ets-Hokin electricians. The Ets-Hokin
electricians were scheduled to begin work at 6 a.m. that day. In his testimony
Morris stated that they began picketing at 5:20 a m. on that morning because
"the electricians were going to work at 6 o'clock-I don't know who else-but it
was dark at that time of day. But we had these three new handbills and we wanted
those handbills in on the job."
That morning none of the Ets-Hokin electricians passed the gate. They stopped,
were given the handbills, after which they turned their cars around at the gate
and left the site, not to return until a temporary restraining order was granted
approximately 2 weeks later.
The handbills which were distributed on December 7 by Morris and Johnson
were, in the main, very much of the same nature as the former handbills and to a
great extent merely advertised the basic dispute between the Union and Bendix.
However, one of the handbills, requesting that it be given to Bendix employees on
the jobsite, read as follows:
We ask Bendix employees to walk off this job . .
"Your only recourse to protect your rights and protect the wage scales in
this community is to stop work. Show Bendix that you mean business."
9 According to Coxsey, the Ets-Hokin site manager, the normal absentee rate up until
November 13, had been one or two at the most and then usually the Ets-Hokin manage-
ment was notified of intended absences before time.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Note
This handbill is directed only to Bendix employees. The law forbids Local
639 to ask employees of other employers to stop work and we have no desire
to violate the law.
The picketing and handbilling continued in much the same manner from Decem-
ber 7 through December 22 when it ended after a ,temporary restraining order was
issued by a United States District Court. During this period, the Ets-Hokin elec-
tricians failed to report to work at the Project. However, on December 7, upon
learning that no electricians had reported to the job Coxsey went down to the gate
where Morris was picketing and told the latter that he wanted men on the job
immediately and that after he made this request of Morris he was going to make it
official with a telegram. Morris answered him, "John, you have your job to do and
I have my job to do."
After this conversation Coxsey sent the telegram but Mortis did not refer any
electricians to the Project after that date until after the temporary restraining order
was issued. It should be noted that the record shows that Morris had never failed
to honor Coxsey's request for electricians before.io
On December 15, while the picketing was thus going on, a new handbill was
distributed by the Union. This handbill which was entitled "A Summary Statement
of the Dispute Between Bendix Corp. and Local 639, IBEW at Project Advent,
Camp Roberts" set forth, in part, as follows:
As a result of Bendix's recalcitrance, a number of employees on the job
have apparently become disgusted with the continued opposition of Bendix
to the Department of Labor's ruling and have left work. Local 639 has at all
times made clear to these employees the only dispute is with Bendix, and that
employees of other employers on the job are not being asked to stop work.
There are occasions, however, where woi king men, as individuals, can no longer
stomach working along side of employees who are acquiescing with their em-
ployer demands to circumvent the laws enacted by Congress by undercutting
the area wage scales. Here we have an employer who considers itself above
responsibility to an arm of the Federal Government. (Emphasis supplied.]
During the entire time in which the picketing occurred, Morris did not advise
the employees of Ets-Hokin or other subcontractors to cross the picket line or go
to work He admitted that when employees of Ets-Hokin and other subcontractors
asked him about it, he told them that there was nothing that he could tell them
and that all they could do was read the handbills or picket signs. However, when
further pressed he admitted that when they asked whether they should go in or
stay out, his direct answer to them was "That's strictly up to you." It should also
be noted that the record is barren of any evidence that any employee was ever
disciplined or penalized by the Union for either crossing the picket line at gate 9
or refusing to cross the picket line at gate 9
On December 23, having been informed of the temporary restraining order, Morris
inquired of Coxsey when the latter wanted the electricians back on the job, at the
same time offering to start getting the men back as soon as he possibly could. On
Tuesday, the 26th of December, a number of men reported back to work. Several
days thereafter Morris referred additional electricians to the job to Ets-Hokin.u
C. Analysis and concluding findings
1. The principal contentions
Counsel for the General Counsel, in agreement with the Charging Party, Bendix,
contends that the events as set forth above demonstrate that the Union's common-
situs picketing did not conform to the standards for such picketing laid down by The
Board in the Moore Dry Dock case,12 and that the picketing by Business Agent
Morris sand International Representative Johnson and the "thinly veiled exhortations"
in the handbills distributed by the pickets constituted inducement of the Ets-Hokin
electricians to refuse to perform services for the employer in order to force Ets-Hokin
to cease doing business with Sylvania and to thus eventually cause the Signal Corps
"As heretofore set forth , the Union and Ets-Hokin had an oral arrangement whereby
Ets-Hokin was to hire its electricians exclusively through the Union and the Union was
to refer electricians to Ets-Hokin upon Ets-Hokin's request
"From the credited testimony of Coxsey.
12 92 NLRB 547.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ETC. 999
to cease doing business with Bendix. As evidence of an additional violation counsel
for the General Counsel notes the failure by Morris, after December 7, to refer
any electricians to the Ets-Hokin job despite the mutual arrangement for exclusive
referral by Local 639.
The Respondents, pointing to the care with which the handbills were addressed
to Bendix employees, and the admonition on the picket signs and in the handbills
that the employees of employers other than Bendix were not being asked to refuse
to work, contends that all of its activities were for ,the legitimate primary objective
,of forcing Bendix to conform to area wage levels and that the picketing conformed
to the Moore Dry Dock standards for common situs picketing as interpreted by
recent Board decision; 13 that in any event, the General Counsel has not presented
substantial evidence that -an object of the picketing was to force Ets-Hokin to cease
doing business with Sylvania in order to set forth the chain reaction which would
eventually cause the Signal Corps to cease doing business with Bendix.14 The Re-
spondent also contends that as the complaint did not allege as a violation the Union's
failure to refer electricians after December 7, and as the incident was not urged
as a violation until after the hearing, it cannot now be made the basis for a finding
of an independent violation.
2. Inducement and union responsibility
As noted above, the Respondents contend that the picketing and handbilling ac-
tivities conformed with the Board's decisional rules relating to common-situs picket-
ing. In support of this contention is the wording of the handbills and the picket
signs addressing the same to .the Bendix employees and consistently informing the
readers that no employees other than those working for Bendix were being 'asked
to cease working. In the absence of other evidence, the foregoing would unques-
tionably establish that the picketing and handbilling efforts constituted protected
dissemination of information and the attemped inducement of Bendix employees
would constitute lawful primary activity. However, there is other evidence in the
light of which the foregoing activity must be appraised.
While the handbills were addressed in each instance to Bendix employees, they
were distributed to all employees coming into gate 9, which was reserved for the
use of Project Advent contractors. However, on all those mornings the picketing
and handbilling began earlier than 8 o'clock, the starting time for Bendix employees,
and thp picketing and handbilling always commenced just a few minutes before
Ets-Hokin employees arrived at the gate. As evidence that this was not mere coin-
cidence but admittedly occurred by design there is Business Agent Morris' admis-
sion that, at least on December 7, the day of the general Ets-Hokin walkout, picket-
ing and handbilling began in time to assure that the Ets-Hokin electricians and
others would receive them in order to get the new handbills into the job.
The Respondent maintains that this picketing at times when Bendix employees
were not on the job was, nevertheless, protected, relying on the Board's recent
holding in Plauche Electric Inc.15 In that case the Board stated that under Moore
Dry Dock standards,16 picketing at a common situs is primary if, among other
things, the picketing at the common or secondary situs takes place while "the primary
employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs," and that such normal busi-
ness does not come to an end merely because the primary employer's employees
temporarily depart from the premises for lunch, coffee break, or other personal
need. However, here, the picketing always began a considerable time before the
primary employer, Bendix's employees were due to arrive at work, but also at a
time which would insure that the employees of a secondary employer, Ets-Hokin,
had to pass the pickets and receive the handbills. Therefore, I cannot conclude
that this was picketing during a temporary work interruption occasioned by personal
need as envisioned by the Board in the Plauche Electric case.
The Respondents further contend that the picketing at the times chosen pro-
vided the only means, though indirect, for getting the handbills to the Bendix em-
ployees who did not customarily stop at the gate where the pickets were stationed.
But, the record does not show that the Bendix employees used any means of ingress
other than gate 9. Nevertheless, even if there were merit in this last Respondents'
13 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861 , etc (Plauche
Electric, Inc), 135 NLRB 250
14 Relying on the court of appeals' decision in Retail Clerks Union Local 770, etc v.
N.L R B , 296 F . 2d 368 (C.A.D.C.).
16135 NLRB 250.
16 Moore Dry Dock, 92 NLRB 547, 549.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contention, there are other factors to be considered here beside the failure to con-
form to the Moore Drydock standard set forth above.
Thus, the wording of at least one of the handbills cannot be ignored. That hand-
bill, distributed by the same means as others on December 15, after noting that
some employees had left the job, stated
. there are occasions, however, where working men, as individuals, can no
longer stomach working alongside of employees who are acquiescing with
their employer demands to circumvent the laws inacted by Congress by under-
cutting the area wage scale..:.
In the light of the other factors herein cited, this excerpt, though taken out of
context, presents, if not a direct appeal to quit work, a strong enough suggested reason
to refuse to work to constitute a form of inducement.
But even this statement does not stand alone as a basis for finding of violation.
That all of the approximately 57 Ets-Hokin employees refused on December 7, at
the same time, to perform services for their employer and refused to return to work
until after the temporary restraining order was handed down, is still another factor
for consideration. While it is true that not every simultaneous quitting by employees
automatically gives support to an inference of a concerted refusal nor of inducement,
the concerted quitting here did not arise as an isolated matter. Rather, it occurred
in the context of all the other incidents hereinabove cited and hereinafter related.
Moreover, the very fact of mass quitting alone supplies persuasive evidence, suffi-
cient, in the absence of plausible and adequate contrary explanation, to support an
inference that the cessation of work was the outcome of strike or concerted action
aimed at a common objective.17 The record here provides no plausible or adquate
explanation to rebut that inference. And to be weighed in connection with this
quitting, is the Respondents' failure at all times during the picketing to make any
effort to disabuse Ets-Hokin employees of the notion that the picketing was to en-
courage them to cease performing services for Ets-Hokin.18
Also in connection with the foregoing I note the refusal by Morris to refer elec-
tricians to the Ets-Hokin job after the December 7 mass walkout by the Ets-Hokin
electricians. Coxsey asked Morris to have a crew report to the job and Morris
replied "John, you have you job to do and I have my, job to do." This failure to refer
continued during the entire period up to the granting of the restraining order. While
I do not find, because it was not alleged nor litigated, that this refusal to refer is
a separate violation of Section 8(b) (4) I do consider it as probative evidence tending
to show inducement and the Union's responsibility therefor.ls
Finally, as already noted earlier in this report, the first workday after the tem-
porary restraining order was handed down, almost all of the Ets-Hokin electricians
who had left the job on December 7 returned to work simultaneously. I cannot
believe that the men returned en masse only because, as individuals, they considered
themselves bound to do so by the force of the restraining order. I note that on
December 23, Morris asked Coxsey when he wanted the electricians to return to
the job and offered at the same time to start getting the men back or that he would
try to get them back as soon as he possibly could. This conversation and the fact
that the electricians did report to the job on December 26, the day that Coxsey
requested them, indicates the complete control that Morris and Local 639 had over
their electrician members.
I find that, cumulatively, the foregoing factors are sufficient to effectively establish
that the Respondents did unlawfully induce and encourage the employees of Ets-
Hokin to refuse to work for their employer. It is true that there is no direct evidence
presented that the Respondents issued a formal strike plea or notice but I find that,
nevertheless, a strike call issued in effect. Upon facts no more obvious than the
evidence here presented the Board has held that a strike may be called informally
stating that "the critical question is not how the Respondents gave the strike call but
whether, no matter how, they did give it." 20 Thus here, somewhere, somehow the
word went out. Whether it was by means of the somewhat provocative language of
17Local 760 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Roane-Anderson Com-
pa'ny ), 82 NLRB 696, 704
1s See General Truckdriver8, etc, Local 270 (Diaz Drayage Company,), 117 NLRB
885, 886.
19 Local 756 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (The Martin
Company ), 131 NLRB 1010, 1011.
20 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (AFL) (The
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company ), 81 NLRB 1052, 1057, citing U.S. v. Inter-
national Union, United Mine Workers of America, 77 F. Supp. 563, 566.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ETC. 1001
the handbills, or the timing of the picketing, or any other way possible within the
ambit of the evidence presented is not important. Inducement may take any or all
of these forms which, upon the initiated, have the effect of inducing them to refuse to
work.21
There is one further phase of the question of responsibility which must be disposed
of here. Although the Respondents have not formally raised the issue as to whether
the International as well as Local 639 is accountable for the violations herein, I
find it essential to make a finding with regard to this issue. As shown in the
statement of facts above, both International Representatives Johnson and Rieman
and to a lesser extent Morrell participated in the activity of the Local. There is no
question but that such activity was undertaken in their capacities as International
Representatives. Nowhere do the Respondents make any contention that Inter-
national Representatives are not agents of and can bind, as such agents, the Interna-
tional. I especially note the negotiations which occurred at the meeting of Novem-
ber 13 in which Morrell and Rieman participated; the fact htat Johnson participated in
the picket-line activities and the fact that Rieman was present and gave his advice
with regard to the drafting of the picket sign and the handbills at the meeting in the
office of the Respondents' counsel. Accordingly, I find that the International was
involved with Local 639 as a participant in whatever activity occurred and accord-
ingly must share in the responsibility for whatever illegality was involved.
4
3. The object of Respondents' activity
Having found that the Respondents induced and encouraged the employees of Ets-
Hokin to refuse to perform services for their employer and having found that the
Respondents are responsible therefor I must now consider the objective of these
activities. The Respondents maintain that all of its activities had a lawful primary
objective, namely the forcing of the Bendix employees to cease performing for their
employer, with whom the Respondents had a primary dispute. The Respondents
also claim that all the picket-line and other activity constituted the lawful dissemina-
tion of information.
The facts which have bearing on the issue of object have been set forth above.
I note especially the November 13 meetings and the conversations which led up to
that meeting. Especially significant are Morris' remarks to Coxsey, Ets-Hokin's
site manager, that the Union would ignore Bendix's presence until after the meeting
because it had made up its mind that it was not going to have any problem until
after the meeting was held. Also indicative of the Respondents' object was the
statement by International Representative Morrell to Eugene E. Holmen, Bendix
personnel administrator, to the effect that Morrell wanted to have the meeting to
discuss the possibility that a work stoppage may occur, not that the Union was
behind it, but that the men might be disgruntled and leave the job. Also significant
are the remarks of the union i epresentatives at the meeting of November 3, wherein
Morrell stated that the Union had to fight to protect their interest; to the fact that
even if there were only going to be 1 day of striking such strike would be harmful;
Morrell's remark to Bendix's representative that he thought that the Union would
be able to soften Bendix up; that the Union would rather settle the matter across
the table but it was quite evident that this could be done; Morrell's remark to the
effect that the last thing the Union wanted to see was the job stopped; and Rieman's
remark to the effect that it had not been easy to keep the job from being shut down
stating that he did not think he would be able to hold it, presumably the walkout,
until the day of the meeting.
While I do not doubt that the Respondents would have been happy to see Bendix
adhere to the area wage rates and while one of ,the objectives of the inducement
and encouragement may have been to see that this was done, I also cannot find
the walkout of the Ets-Hokin employees as purely incidental. The facts heretofore
set forth are sufficient to establish that the activity of the Respondents were motivated,
at least in part, by the Respondents' desire to force Ets-Hokin to cease doing
business with Sylvania and to thereby force Sylvania and through Sylvania to force
the Signal Corps to cease doing business with Bendix for the purpose of forcing
Bendix to either conform to area wage standards, or to force Bendix off the job
or possibly to force Bendix to hire the members of the Respondent Union. While
a International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et at . ( Samuel Langer) v.
N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694 , 701-702. "The words `induce or encourage ' [ as used in Section
,8(b) (4) (A ), now Section 8(b) (4) (1 ) ( B) ] are broad enough to include in them every form
of influence and persuasion ." [Emphasis supplied 1
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the picketing might also have had other objects, interfence with Ets-Hokin could
have had no other objects, as the Respondents had no dispute with Ets-Hokin 22
4. The threats to Ets-Hokin and Bendix
The complaint also alleged that these Respondents threatened employers in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. It has been found that prior to the
meeting of November 3, Morrell told Holmen, Bendix's representative, that the
Union wanted a meeting to discuss the possibility that a work stoppage might occur.
Although he stated that the Union did not want it and that such work stoppage would
not be directly caused by the Union, it was clear that a work stoppage was being
contemplated at least as a possibility. Moreover, the statements above recited in
the preceding section made by Rieman and Morrell at the meeting of November 3,
further show that the Union was making at least veiled attempts to state that a
work stoppage might ensue if Bendix did not capitulate. Under these circumstances
and the fact that the Union called all of the possible interested parties together for
the meeting of November 3, I conclude and find that by these statements the Re-
spondents did threaten Ets-Hokin and Bendix with work stoppages with the object
of forcing Ets-Hokin to cease doing business as previously found
5. General conclusion
Upon the basis of the foregoing, and on the record as a whole I am persuaded,
and I find that between November 3, 1961, and December 22, 1961, the Respondents
engaged in and, by various means set forth above, induced and encouraged elec-
tricians employed by Ets-Hokin to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the
course of their employment to perform services for Ets-Hokin, an object thereof
being to force Ets-Hokin to cease doing business with Sylvania for the additional
purpose of forcing the Signal Corps to cease doing business with Bendix. I further
find that on the foregoing facts that the Respondents threatened Ets-Hokin with a
strike or refusal of its employees to perform services for Ets-Hokin with a like object.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Bendix, Ets-Hokin, Sylvania, and the Signal
Corps, set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead, and have
led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B)
of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and that
they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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. Bendix Radio Division of The Bendix Corporation, Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc.,
and Sylvania Electric Products Co., Inc., are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Local 639,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in, or inducing or encouraging individuals employed by persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or
refusal to perform services and by threatening, coercing or restraining persons en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with the object of forcing
or requiring Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc., to cease doing business with Sylvania Elec-
tric Products Co., Inc., and with the further object of forcing the Signal Corps to
cease doing business with Bendix Radio Division of The Bendix Corporation, th+u
Respondents have violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
22 1 also find that Respondents ' Insistence that Ets-Hokin attend the meeting of Novem-
ber 3 Is further evidence of this object
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ETC. 1003
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER -
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondents, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Local 639, International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, their agents, officers, successors and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual
employed by Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc., Project Advent, Camp Roberts, California,
or any other person, to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his employ-
ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials or commodities, or to perform any service, or to threaten,
coerce or restrain Bendix Radio Division of The Bendix Corporation and Ets-Hokin
& Galvan or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce where any object thereof is to force or require Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc.,
to cease doing business with Sylvania Electric Products Co., Inc., in order to force
Sylvania 'and other persons to cease doing business with the United States Army
Signal Corps and thus to force or require the Signal Corps to cease doing business
with Bendix Radio Division of The Bendix Corporation.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
purposes of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at their business offices, meeting halls, and all
places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix." 23 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for -the Twenty-first Region shall, after being duly signed by the authorized
representatives of the Respondents, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the said notice to the Regional Director,
Twenty-first Region, for posting, Bendix Radio Division of The Bendix Corporation
and Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc., willing, at all locations where notices to their respec-
tive employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director of the Twenty-first Region within 20 days from
the receipt of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply therewith 24
x' In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for "The Recommendations 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, "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an
Order" shall be substituted for "A Decision and Order "
21 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 therewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORK-
ERs, AFL-CIO; AND LOCAL 639, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF ETS-HOKIN & GALVAN, INC. AND
BENDLX RADIO DIVISION OF THE BENDIX CORPORATION
Pursuant to the Recommendations 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 give notice that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Ets-Hokin &
Galvan, Inc., or any other person, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course
of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle
or work on any goods, articles, materials or commodities; to perform any serv-
ices or threaten, coerce or restrain Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc. or Bendix Radio
Division of The Bendix Corporation or any other person where an object thereof
is forcing or requiring Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc. to cease doing business with
Sylvania Electric Products Co., Inc., in order to force Sylvania and other per-
sons to cease doing business with the United States Signal Corps and thus to
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
force or require the Signal Corps to cease doing business with Bendix Radio
Division of The Bendix Corporation.
INTERNATIONAL'BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
LOCAL 639, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone Number, Richmond 9-4711, Exten-
sion 1031, if they have any question concerning this notice of compliance with its
provisions.
Petrolane Gas Service, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 524. Case No. 19-CA-
2358. September 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 8, 1962, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter-
mediate 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 attached Intermedi-
ate Report Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.'
The Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
The 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 has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner as modified below 2
1 The Respondent filed with the Board a motion to reopen the record. This motion Is
denied as the issues raised therein are properly matters for the compliance stage of this
proceeding.
3 We agree with the Trial Examiner that, as of October 25, 1961, there was an appro-
priate two-man unit consisting of Heath and Hall. We further agree with the Trial
Examiner that Hall, but for his discriminatory discharge, would have been given work
138 NLRB No. 112.