Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 952 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cause of the recent innovation of this program, no plan for advanced
wage classifications has been formulated. During working hours,
these individuals are not allowed to work on Government contract
jobs and may not work overtime. Their continued employment is
dependent upon whether their prison supervisors consider that their
progress is satisfactory. In the circumstances of this case, we find
that there is an insufficient community of interest between the con-
victs and the other employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit.
We shall therefore exclude them.
C. Relatives: The Petitioner would exclude the brother and the son
of the president of the Employer. The Employer would include
them. The president's brother is employed as a salesman. As the
parties stipulated to exclude salesmen from the unit, we shall exclude
the brother. The president's son is a trainee who is serving a proba-
tionary period in which it will be determined whether he possesses
the qualifications for a managerial position with the Employer. We
shall therefore exclude him.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within tb-
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All employees at the Employer's three production locations in Char
lotte, North Carolina, including the over-the-road and sales drivers,
production and maintenance employees, shipping and dock employees,
Baxter Hoffman, Fred Hope, Keith Ledbetter, and Frank Kiziah, but
excluding office clerical employees, guards, watchman, professional
employees, salesmen, convicts, the brother and son of the Employer's
president, Don Huffman, H. C. Green, Fred Green, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act, and all employees employed at the
Employer's retail branches.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 See The Baltimore Transit Company and The Baltimore Coach Company, 92 NLRR
1260, 1261.
International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 825, AFL-
CIO, and Peter Weber , its Business Manager and Buildinm
Contractors Association of New Jersey
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825, AFL-
CIO, and Peter Weber, its Business Manager and Building
Contractors Association of New Jersey. Casf s Nos. 2I-CC-
179(1-rd) and VCR-538(1-2). January 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 14, 1963, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter-
mediate Report in ' the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
145 NLRB No. 96.
INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 825 953
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with supporting briefs.
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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
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, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following modification : .
The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to in-
clude in his conclusions of law a conclusion that the Respondents by
striking to obtain the subcontractor clause violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B) as well as Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act.
We find merit in this exception.
In his concluding findings, the Trial Examiner found that the
Respondents by threats of strike and by striking in August and No-
vember to force the acceptance of the subcontractor clause violated
paragraph (B) as well as paragraph (A) of Section 8(b) (4) of the
Act.' However, apparently by inadvertence, he failed to make a sim-
ilar conclusion of law. We agree that the Trial Examiner's factual
finding supports the exception, and conclusion of law No. 7 is modified
accordingly.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825, AFL-CIO, Peter Weber, its
business manager, and all its other officers, representatives, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner restraining or coercing the Building Contrac-
tors Association of New Jersey in the selection of persons to act as
negotiators in its behalf for the purpose of collective bargaining.
'Amalgamated Lithographers of America (Ind.), 130 NLRB 985, enfd. 309 F. 2d 31
(C.A. 9), cert. denied 372 U.S. 943 ; Construction, Production, etc., Local 383 ( Colson
and Stevens Construction Co.), 137 NLRB 1650, 1652, enf. denied 323 F. 2d 422 ( C.A. 9) ;
see also Meat and Highway Drivers etc . Local 710 ( Wilson & Co. ), 143 NLRB 1221;
Southern California District Council of Hod Carriers etc., Local 345 (Swimming Pool
Gunite Contractors Group etc .), 144 NLRB 978 . The record also shows that in further-
ance of their objective of forcing the Association to agree to the subcontractor clause the
Respondents induced the employees of certain identifiable subcontractors performing work
for members of the Association to engage in work stoppages with an object of forcing the
contractors to accept a contract containing the subcontractor clause.
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any manner restraining or coercing any employer-member
of said Association in its exclusive selection of that Association as
his or its representative for the purpose of collective bargaining.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with the duly designated rep-
resentative of said Association, with respect to employees in the unit
found appropriate herein, by restraining and coercing the Association
and its employer-members in the selection of their bargaining repre-
sentative; and by threatening to strike, and by striking, individual
members of the Association in order to force them to withdraw bar-
gaining authority from the Association and to enter into individual
contracts with the Union. The bargaining unit is :
All employees of employer-members of Building Contractors As-
sociation of New Jersey who are engaged as operators of the equip-
ment described in Appendix B to the Intermediate Report.
(d) Giving effect to the individual contracts with the contractors
named in footnote 4 of the Intermediate Report, which it executed with
them under circumstances described in the Intermediate Report, or any
modification, continuation, extension,,or renewal of such individual
contracts.
(e) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of the
Gaskill Company, Linde-Griffith Company, or Long Excavating Com-
pany, or any employer-member of the Association, or any other
employer, to engage in a strike or work stoppage, or threatening,
coercing, or restraining any employer-member of the Association, or
any other employer, by a strike, where in either case an object thereof
is to force or require said employer to enter into any agreement which
is prohibited by Section 8 (e) of the Act.
(f) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of the
Gaskill Company, Linde-Griffith Company, or Long Excavating Com-
pany, or any other employer, to engage in a strike, or threatening,
coercing, or restraining any employer-member of the said Associa-
tion by a strike, where in either case an object thereof is to force or
require any employer-member of the Association, or any other em-
ployer, to cease doing business with any other persona
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the duly designated
representative of the above-named Association so long as the Union
remains the representative of the employees in the unit found above
2 The broad restraints imposed upon the Union by this Order are necessary not only
because of the nature and extent of the violations found herein, but because of its "demon-
strated disregard of the Act by its record of like violations against persons with whom it
had disputes [thereby making] it necessary in order to prevent it from continuing, with
impunity, to violate the secondary boycott sections of the Act ." Local 825 , International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, and Peter Weber, 138 NLRB 279, and cases cited
in footnote 2 thereof.
INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 825 955
to be appropriate, with respect to pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other terms or conditions of employment, and if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post in conspicuous places at all of its offices, meeting halls, and
at all places where the Union customarily posts its notices, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region,
shall, after being duly signed by Peter Weber and Local 825's au-
thorized representative, be posted by Local 825 immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for the Twenty-second Region, for posting by Gaskill Com-
pany, Linde-Griffith Company, Long Excavating Company, and all
other employers involved in this proceeding, they being willing, at
all locations upon their or other premises where notices to their em-
ployees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
8 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 "A Decision and Order " the words "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 825, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL-CIO
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, as amended, you are notified that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce Building Con-
tractors Association of New Jersey in the selection of its negotia-
tors or representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce employer-
members of the above Association in the selection of that Asso-
tion as his or its exclusive representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the said Asso-
ciation, as the bargaining representative of employees in the unit
found appropriate herein, by restraining and coercing the Asso-
ciation and its employer-members in the selection of their bar-
gaining representative; and by threatening to strike, and by
striking, individual members of the Association in order to force
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them to withdraw bargaining authority from the Association and
to enter into individual contracts with the Union.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the individual contracts heretofore
entered into with the contractors next hereafter named, or any
modifications, continuation, extension, or renewal thereof : Frank
Briscoe Company; Joseph L. Muscarelle, Inc.; Salmond Con-
struction Company; Walter Kidde Constructors, Inc.; Mahony-
Troast Construction Company; Wigton-Abbott Corporation;
Becker Construction Company; Fred J. Brotherton, Inc.; Arthur
Venneri Company.
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage employees of
Gaskill Company, Linde-Griffith Company, Long Excavating
Company, or any other employer, to engage in, a strike or work
stoppage, or threaten, coerce, or restrain any employer-member
of the above-named Association, or any other employer, where,
in either case, an object thereof is to force or require said em-
ployer to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by Sec-
tion 8(e) of the Act, or to cease doing business with any other
person.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-
named Association so long as we remain the representative of
the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit with respect
to pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a sighed agreement . The bargaining unit is :
All employees of employer-members of Building Con-
tractors Association of New Jersey who are engaged as
operators of the equipment described in Appendix B to the
Intermediate Report.
LOCAL 825, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated----- ----------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
(PETER WEBER, Rustiness Manager)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 614 National Newark Building, 714 Broad Street, Newark,
New Jersey, Telephone No. Market 4-6151, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
I
INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 825 957
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed in Case No. 22-CC-179 (1-2) on August 8, 1962, by Building
Contractors Association of New Jersey, herein called the Association, the General
Counsel, on September 11, 1962, issued a complaint alleging that Respondents
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825, AFL-CIO, hereafter referred
to as the Union, and Peter Weber, its business manager, engaged in specifically alleged
activities prohibited by Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. In brief, the complaint in
that proceeding alleges that both Respondents engaged in said violative conduct
by threatening to engage in and engaging in a strike against employer members of
the Association to compel and require them to enter into a collective-bargaining agree-
ment containing a so-called subcontractor clause, the effect of which was to have the
Association members cease or refrain from handling, using, or otherwise dealing in
the products of other employers or to cease doing business with other employers or
persons.
Upon additional charges filed by the Association in Case No. 22-CB-538 (1-2)
on August 8, 1962, the General Counsel, on October 23, 1962, issued a complaint
alleging that the same Respondents engaged in conduct proscribed by Section 8 (b) (1)
and (3) of the Act. Briefly, the complaint in that proceeding alleges that, during
collective-bargaining negotiations between the parties, Respondents restrained and
coerced the Association and its employer-members in the selection of their bargaining
representative, and that Respondents failed to bargain in good faith by threatening
to engage in and by engaging in a strike against employer-members of the Association
in order to compel the Association to incorporate in its collective-bargaining agree-
ment the same subcontractor clause described above. Respondents filed their
answer in both cases denying the commission of any unfair labor practice. On
October 23, 1962, the Board's Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
ordered that the two proceedings be consolidated.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner David London on
various dates between November 7, 1962, and March 26, 1963, at which all parties
were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and
to adduce relevant evidence. Motions, on which ruling was reserved during the
hearing, are disposed of in accordance with the findings and conclusions that follow.
Though the Union asked for, and was granted, an extension of time to file a brief
herein on or before May 15, 1963, it has failed to do so. Briefs submitted by the
General Counsel and the Association have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and my observation of the witnesses as they
testified herein, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS
The Association, a New Jersey corporation, is an association of employers named
in the attached Appendix A who are engaged in the building and construction industry
in New Jersey and other States of the United States. For many years, the Association
has been authorized by its employer-members to conduct collective-bargaining
negotiations on their behalf and to enter into collective-bargaining agreements cover-
ing their respective employees and has, accordingly, negotiated collective-bargaining
agreements with Respondent Union and other labor organizations.
During the year preceding the issuance of the complaints herein, these employer-
members performed building and construction services valued in excess of $1,000,000
of which also in excess of $1,000,000 was performed in States of the United States
other than the State of New Jersey. During the same period, the employer-members
of the Association purchased building and construction materials valued in excess
of $100,000 from points located outside the State of New Jersey and caused the same
to be shipped to their places of business and other points in New Jersey. I find that
the members of the Association are employers engaged in commerce, and in an
industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of the Act.'
II. THE RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union, during all times relevant herein, was, and presently is, a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and Peter Weber was, during
the same period , its business manager and agent.
' N L.R.B. v. International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 571 , 317 F. 2d 638
(CA 8).
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Association and the Union have for many years engaged in collective-
bargaining negotiations to govern the terms and conditions of employment of work-
men employed by members of the Association . The last agreement between the
parties, executed on May 3, 1960 , covering the operators of specifically described and
limited equipment , was scheduled to expire on June 30 , 1962. On March 22, 1962,2
the Union wrote to Paul J . Brienza, managing director of the Association , calling his
attention to the expiration date of the existing agreement between the parties and
expressing a desire to enter into negotiations for an agreement to take effect on the
following July 1.
The first meeting between the parties occurred on April 6 at the Union 's head-
quarters . Appearing on behalf of the Association and its employer -members were
Brienza, Vincent J. Apruzzese , and Richard J. Casey, respectively general counsel
and assistant general counsel for the Association , and all of whom had previously
been authorized by the Association to negotiate on its behalf with the Respondent
Union . Also in attendance at this meeting on behalf of the Association was Wilhelm,
its president . Appearing on behalf of the Union were Peter W. Weber, its business
manager; Leo Brach , his executive aide; Reardon , the Union 's president ; and about
15 business agents or business representatives of the Union.
Weber, who acted as spokesman at all the meetings he attended , orally presented
40 to 45 demands on behalf of the Union , including what is generally known, and
will hereafter be referred to, as the subcontractor clause. When Brienza firmly ex-
pressed the Association 's opposition to that clause, Weber told him that the Associated
General Contractors of New Jersey, hereafter referred to as AGC, another organiza-
tion composed of road and heavy duty contractors as distinguished from building
construction in which members of the Association are engaged , had such a clause
in their agreement , and that he would not give the Association any better conditions
than were obtained by the other organization . Brienza, nevertheless , asked that all
of the Union 's demands be reduced to writing and Weber agreed to do so.
On or about April 27, Weber sent Brienza the Union 's written "negotiation de-
mands." Among these 45 demands was the subcontractor clause, and a further
demand that the new agreement be combined with the provisions of the existing AGC
agreement , except where the 45 listed items were inconsistent with such provisions.
The existing agreement with the AGC was later furnished to the Association and
contained the following critical subcontractor provision:
The Employer agrees that he will not subcontract any of his work which is
covered by the terms of this Collective-Bargaining Agreement to any sub-
contractor , unless said subcontractor agrees in writing to perform said work
subject to all terms and conditions of this Agreement between the Employer
and the Union, and adopts and ratifies said Agreement.
The parties met next on May 31 at which meeting, and practically at all others
that followed, the Association was represented by Brienza , Apruzzese, and Casey.
At this meeting Weber threatened to cease negotiations with the Association com-
mittee and demanded that the Association be represented not by its then duly ap-
pointed committee , but by contractors , personally . He further warned that unless an
agreement containing the subcontractor clause was concluded by July 1 the Union
was "going to strike" on that day. The Association committee again rejected the
demand for such a clause . Little else was discussed at this meeting other than that
the Association would answer the Union 's 45 demands in writing . Brienza did so
by letter on June 1 specifically rejecting the subcontractor clause and enclosing therein
a copy of a proposed contract.
Pursuant to agreement , the parties met at Atlantic City on June 7 where Weber
again told Brienza that he did not want to negotiate with him or the Association's
lawyers. When Brienza remonstrated that he had answered the Union 's 45 de-
mands, had submitted a proposed agreement , and that his committee was ready
to continue negotiations , Weber told the committee that he had thrown both
Brienza's answer to the Union 's demand and the Association 's proposed agree-
ment "out the window." Weber also stated that "he was going to meet with in-
dividual members of [the] Association ," negotiate a separate agreement with them,
and repeated , several times , that unless a contract with the subcontractor clause
was signed by July 1 there would be a strike.
All references to dates herein are to the year 1962 unless otherwise noted.
INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 825 959
At the next meeting on June 21, Weber again repeated his threat not to meet
with the duly appointed negotiators for the Association but, after conferring with
Commissioner Bello of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service who was
present, agreed to enter the conference room. There , when Bello asked the parties
to state their position , Brienza explained the Association's objections to the sub-
contractor clause. Weber, in turn , stated that the clause was being demanded
"because they had it in the contract with the heavy duty contractors and they were
not going to give [the Association ] any better agreement ." Though Bello caucused
twice with each of the parties, no apparent progress was made. Instead, Weber
announced that he would not meet with the Association committee and that a strike
would be imposed . At this meeting, Weber again stated "that he was going to meet
with individual members of [ the] Association and have them sign this agreement,
because he knew that he could get them to sign [it ] and if they didn 't sign . . . he
was going to strike them."
On June 21 , following the conference of that day , Brienza wrote to Weber ex-
pressing regret that no progress had been made in the meeting on that day be-
cause of Weber's refusal to recognize the Association 's duly appointed committee.
Weber, apparently having through undisclosed means been brought to a realization
that he could not dictate to, or require , the Association to designate a bargaining
committee satisfactory to him, wrote to Brienza on June 22 completely reversing
his previously announced decision not to negotiate with Brienza , Apruzzese, and
Casey, and expressing a willingness to meet with these three representatives.
The parties met again on June 29 , together with Bello, who arranged for that
meeting at the request of the Association . Weber, however , did not attend this
meeting. Instead Leo Brach , executive aide to Weber, and William Duffey, a
union business agent , acted as its principal spokesmen . Both Brach and Duffey
stated "that the subcontractor clause was number 1 . . . a must, that either [the
Association ] would sign a contract with this clause or there would be no contract."
The Association representatives asked how serious the Union was with respect
to its written demand of April 27 for a 5-hour day with daily pay equal, approxi-
mately, to the currently existing pay for an 8-hour day , noting that the Union was
not "negotiating a 5-hour demand with the heavy duty and road contractors." To
this, the union representatives replied: "Let's discuss the subcontractor clause, and
if we settle the subcontractor clause, we can get down to the other factors." Dis-
cussion of other proposals of both parties ensued , including several separate caucuses
with Bello. All effort to reach agreement on other items failed , however, because
of the Union's insistence "that the subcontractor clause be included."
During the first week in August , members of the Union engaged in a strike at
the jobsites of the Frank Briscoe Company , Belli Construction Company, Mahony-
Troast Company , Becker Construction Company, Fred J. Brotherton Construction
Company, and the Joseph L. Muscarelle Company, all of them members of the
Association . The charges in the instant proceeding were filed and served on
August 8.
John D. Lawrence , Inc., is an employer engaged in the general building con-
struction business and has been a member of the Association since 1954 . In June
1962 , the Del E . Webb Company , also a member of the Association , subcontracted
a portion of its general contract for the building of a gypsum plant for the Flint-
kote Company in Camden , New Jersey , to the Lawrence Company which required
the latter to install concrete foundations , reinforcing steel , fill dirt, floor slabs, and
masonry work . The Lawrence Company subcontracted a portion of this contract
for fill dirt to the Gaskill Construction Company who employed members of the
Union on this work.
On August 1, William Lawrence , secretary-treasurer of the Lawrence Company,
was approached on the jobsite by Thomas Grace, business representative for the
Union , and Patrick Reidy, lead engineer or master mechanic on the Flintkote job.
Grace, in Reidy's presence , told Lawrence that he would not be able to supply his
corporation , or any of its subcontractors , with members of the Union unless he
signed an agreement which by its terms would require the Lawrence Company
to be bound by the provisions of the contract then being negotiated by the Union and
AGC. The Lawrence Company is not a member of AGC, and has never authorized
that organization to bargain on its behalf . Lawrence told Grace that he did not
have the authority to sign the requested agreement and that the Association han-
dled the Lawrence Company's labor problems.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That same day, Jake Gaskill, superintendent for the Gaskill Company and a mem-
ber of the Union, told Lawrence, in the presence of Grace and Reidy, that he would
not be able to supply fill dirt the next day because he could not get engineers to
operate the necessary machinery. Gaskill told Lawrence that he had a job on
another project and that the best thing for him, Gaskill, would be to pull his men
off the Flintkote job until the dispute was settled, or when things "cooled off."
Lawrence questioned Grace and Reidy about Gaskill's remarks but received no
reply other than the demand that he sign the AGC agreement. On August 2,
Gaskill's men who were working on the Lawrence job did not appear and remained
off the Flintkote job until August 13, 1962 3
On August 6, Joseph H. Muscarelle, Inc., a member of the Association, was en-
gaged in constructing a warehouse at Wayne, New Jersey, on which job three mem-
bers of the Union were employed. On that day Charles Muscarelle, its vice
president, met in his office with William Duffy, business agent for the Union, at
the latter's request. There, Duffy handed him a copy of an agreement that the
Union had with the AGC and told him that unless it was signed their job "would
not be able to operate." Muscarelle refused to sign the agreement and indicated he
would refer the matter to the Association. Although there was work available
for them, the three union members did not report for work at the Wayne job during
the following 3 or 4 days.
In August 1962, the Mahony-Troast Construction Company, a member of the
Association, was engaged as general contractor in erecting a building for the Mead
Corporation in Jersey City, New Jersey. Part of the work on that job had been
sublet to Linde-Griffith and Long Excavating Company who, collectively, employed
five operating engineers , members of the Union.
On August 6, John J. Pierson, a business agent of the Union, came to the Mead
job and told all the engineers "they would have to knock off." Following this con-
versation with the men, they called their employers on the telephone and informed
them "that they were told to stop work." The engineers did not report for work
during the day and week that followed although work was available.
During the period August 1 to 8, when the threats to impose a strike were made
upon members of the Association as found above, and while the work stoppages or
strikes heretofore described occurred, several members of the Association met with
union officials for the purpose of negotiating individual contracts. On August 8, the
Association, having been advised of these activities, filed the charges that commenced
the instant proceedings.
On August 9, William Kelly, an officer of the Frank Briscoe Company, and repre-
sentatives of several other members of the Association who had suffered work
stoppages during the preceding week, met at a noon luncheon with the board of
directors of the Association to consider their plight. Kelly stated that his company
"could not withstand any strike for any prolonged length of time," a sentiment ex-
pressed by other members of the Association who were present The directors
agreed that the Association was cognizant of their individual problems and could
not ask them to withstand strike pressure "until they went broke." While it was
agreed that these individual members would negotiate with the Union individually,
or as a small group but not as representatives of the Association, and that the posi-
tion of the Association would not be compromised, no suggestion was made that
these members were withdrawing from the Association.
Later in the afternoon of the same day, August 9, Weber sent a telegram to the
Board's Regional Director reading as follows:
A 30-day truce has been effected between Local 825 International Union of
Operating Engineers and William Kelly chairman of the Master Builders of
the Building Contractors Association of N.J. First meeting on negotiations
will be convened soon as committees are designated.
Immediately following the dispatch of this telegram, members of the Union who
had engaged in the work stoppages returned to their employment. The Union there-
after negotiated with the committee of individual contractors who had met with the
Association's board of directors on August 9 and, on October 2, executed a master
agreement , referred to by the parties as the "Kelly contract," on behalf of the nine
8I do not credit Gaskill's testimony that the men remained away from work during
that period because no work was available.
INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 825 961
individual contractors named in the margin,4 all of whom were members of the
Association and some of whom had been the subjects of earlier strike action.
This agreement contained the subcontractor clause that had been rejected by the
Association.
Though individual Kelly contracts were thereafter signed by some of these con-
tractors, the Becker Construction Company, for whom the aforementioned com-
mittee purported to act and who had been subjected to the Union's strike action in
August, at first declined to sign such an agreement because it had never authorized
the Kelly group or committee to bargain on its behalf. When, however, John L.
Becker, Jr., its president, was told by Pierson, the Union's business agent, that the
only way he could have members of the Union continue working on its projects was
to sign such an agreement, he executed the Kelly contract.
On October 31, Weber sent a telegram to the Association and all its members,
advising that unless an agreement was reached by November 5 "strike action" would
be taken. Following receipt of that telegram the Union and the Association met on
Friday, November 2, but without reaching agreement on any matter other than that
the parties would meet again on November 5. The Union's representatives, how-
ever, agreed that an effort would be made by the union representatives to hold off
any strike action as threatened in Weber's telegram of October 31, at least until the
parties met again on November 5. Weber's threat of October 31 was, nevertheless,
carried out on the morning of November 5 when, according to his own testimony, a
"work stoppage [was] directed at members of the [Association] .. that didn't
have an agreement" with the Union.
On Sunday, November 4, John English, the Union's shop steward at a building
being constructed at Trenton, New Jersey, by the Simon Belli Company, a member
of the Association, was engaged in making certain safety tests of equipment which
could not be undertaken during the workweek, and which would enable the engineers
to resume work on the following morning. Though English and other engineer mem-
bers of the Union appeared on the job the next morning, all of them refused to work,
saying repeatedly: "No contract, no work." These engineers operated the hoists
which were the only means of getting supplies to the upper floors of the 14-story
project; their failure to operate the hoists resulted in the layoff of about 40 other
employees.
When the parties met later in the day, on November 5, the Association's repre-
sentatives complained of the strike that was imposed earlier on that day. During
the discussion that followed, the Association was told that it would have to sign the
contract including the subcontractor clause or else accept Respondents' demands
for a 5-hour day at a rate of pay equal, approximately, to what had formerly been
paid for an 8-hour day. When the Association refused to sign the contract contain-
ing the subcontractor clause they were told "that's the end of it," and that the Union
would negotiate no further.
On November 14, both Respondents appeared in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey in an ancillary proceeding brought by the Board's Regional
Director, pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act, to obtain a temporary injunction
against both Respondents to enjoin the conduct of which complaint is made in the
instant proceeding before me. With the court's approval, the parties stipulated that
the striking employees would return to work, and that negotiations would be resumed
without reference to any subcontractor clause pending the decision of the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit on the validity of such a clause which had been
challenged in another proceeding before another district court judge in the same
district.
The parties met again on November 19 and December 10, at which meetings
agreement was reached on several items. At the latter meeting, however, Weber
stated that the Association was "not going to get any different type of contract than"
the so-called Kelly contract, containing the subcontractor clause. The final con-
ference was held January 8, 1963, at which Weber repeated that the Association
would have to sign the Kelly contract or there would be no contract at all. Upon
that ultimatum, the meeting, and all further negotiations, were ended.
* Frank Briscoe Company ; Joseph L. Muscarelle, Inc , Salmond Construction Company ;
Walter Kidde Constructors, Inc ; Mahony-Troast Construction Company, Wigton-Abbott
Corporation; Becker Construction Company, Fred J. Brotherton, Inc ; Arthur Venneri
Company
734-070-64-vol. 145-62
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concluding Findings
The findings entered above pertaining to the bargaining negotiations and the posi-
tions taken thereat by the respective parties are based on the composite testimony
of Brienza, Apruzzese, and Casey, which I credit. Their testimony was given in a
direct and straightforward manner inducing confidence in its truthfulness, a char-
acterization not engendered by, and completely lacking in, the testimony of Weber,
the Union's principal spokesman, and Brach, his executive aide.
Not only was the testimony of each of these latter two witnesses contradictory in
many respects, and extremely evasive on others, but their conduct at, and their
attitude toward, the proceeding which the printed record cannot reflect, at times
bordered on contemptuousness. In addition, the events that followed the various
bargaining sessions , the threats of strike, the ensuing work stoppages, and the execu-
tion of the Kelly contracts, all lend credence to the testimony of Brienza, Apruzzese,
and Casey, and discredit that of Weber, Brach, and other witnesses at variance with
that of the witnesses which I have credited.
On the entire record I find that on May 31, 1962, and continuing thereafter, at
least until June 22, the Union and Weber restrained and coerced the Association
and its employer-members in the selection of their collective-bargaining representa-
tive, and failed and refused, in good faith, to bargain collectively with the duly
designated representatives of the Association, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (1) (B)
and (3) of the Act .5
The testimony conclusively establishes that the Association, which the Union by
its letter of March 22 recognized as collective-bargaining representative for its
employer-members, had designated Brienza, Apruzzese, and Casey to negotiate in its
behalf. In that state of the record, it was incumbent upon the Union to accept the
designation of those individuals in exactly the same manner as an employer must
accept the choice of a labor organization in the selection of its bargaining representa-
tive or representatives. Neither party may coerce or restrain the other in the selec-
tion of its or their representatives. Both parties "must be free of pressure in choosing
[their] representatives for collective bargaining." Portland Stereotypers' & Electro-
typers' Union No. 48 (Journal Publishing Co.), 137 NLRB 782.
The Union and Weber likewise violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) and (3) of the Act
by threatening to strike, and by striking, individual members of the Association in
order to force them to withdraw bargaining authority from the Association "and to
enter into individual contracts with the [Union at a time when] it was obligated
to bargain for an associationwide agreement with the [Association]." The West-
chester County Executive Committee, etc. (Builders Institute of Westchester), 142
NLRB 126; Hoisting & Portable Engineers Local Union #701 etc. (Cascade Em-
ployers Association, Inc.), 141 NLRB 469. No evidence was offered that any of
these individual contractors had withdrawn bargaining authority from the Associa-
tion. Indeed, representatives of John D. Lawrence, Inc., The Belli Company, Becker
Construction Company, and Joseph H. Muscarelle, Inc., testified affirmatively that
their membership in the Association remained unabated.
There can be no doubt that the Union might lawfully have struck the members of
the Association in order to achieve its legal objectives, or for breaking a legal stale-
mate or impasse in its negotiations with the Association, but it is equally clear and
well settled that it could not lawfully strike or otherwise coerce the Association
employer-members with an object of causing them to break off from the Association
and execute individual contracts with the Union. By the threats of strike, and the
5 This section, in pertinent part , reads as follows.
SEC. 8. (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
(1) to restrain or coerce . . . ( B) an employer in the selection of his rep-
resentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances ;
a ! i t n t t
(3) to refuse to bargain collectively with an employer,
! R • i f t
(d) For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of
the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet
at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment , or the negotiation of an agreement . . .
INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 825 963
(ensuing work stoppages which had for their objective the decimation of the estab-
lished associationwide employer unit, both Respondents violated Section 8(b) (1) (B)
.and (3) of the Act.
There remains for consideration on this phase of the case the General Counsel's
-motion made near the close of the hearing, and on which ruling was reserved, to
amend paragraph 7 of the complaint in Case No. 22-CB-538 as specified in said
motion and its originally attached Appendix B, both pertaining to the appropriate-
ness of the unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
The complaint in that proceeding, as issued, alleges that operators of a large
amount of equipment, described in detail by Appendix B attached to the complaint,
,constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. By his motion to amend,
,the General Counsel seeks to substitute a new Appendix B, identifying the operators
,of a smaller number of pieces of equipment than were identified in the original
Appendix B, and urges that the motion should be granted for the reason, inter alia,
that to do so would merely conform the pleadings to the proof. The motion is
hereby granted.
All the events with which we are concerned herein were prompted and initiated
.by the Union's letter of March 22, 1962, asking that negotiations for a new collective-
bargaining agreement be commenced. That letter recognized that the parties were
.then bound by their agreement of May 3, 1960, and which would expire on June 30,
1962. It follows, therefore, that until the unit established by that agreement was
,changed, or at least challenged, the parties must have contemplated and intended
that their ensuing negotiations would be for the unit agreed upon and established
by them in their 1960 agreement.
That unit included only the employees engaged in operation of the equipment de-
scribed in the proposed substitute Appendix B. Indeed, the 1960 contract specifically
notes that no agreement was reached in the negotiations that preceded that contract
on the exercise of jurisdiction over the operators of other equipment listed in the
original Appendix B attached to the complaint. There is no suggestion in the long
transcript of testimony herein that the parties ever agreed upon any unit other than
the one established by their prior agreement. Instead, the testimony establishes
.almost, if not altogether, conclusively that the negotiations herein faltered not be-
cause of any disagreement concerning the established unit but only because of the
.adamant insistence by the Union that the subcontractor clause be made a part of
the agreement. In any event, no contention was made during the hearing or there-
after that the 1960 agreed-upon unit as described in the substitute Appendix B was
not, or is not, an appropriate unit. I affirmatively find that it is. It would make a
mockery of the Board's proceedings to allow what was apparently an inadvertent
drafting of the original Appendix B to the complaint to require a dismissal of sub-
stantial portions thereof because of that regrettable error, thereby leaving unremedied
serious violations of the Act.
I further find that it was the same unyielding demand by the Union for the sub-
contractor clause, and the Association's refusal to accept it, that prompted the
Union's threats of strikes and caused the work stoppages and strikes of August and
November heretofore found. With respect to the work stoppages of August, Weber
threatened, as early as June 7, that unless a contract containing the subcontractor
clause was signed by July 1 there would be a strike, a threat which was substantially
repeated on June 21. And, at the meeting on June 29, Brach, executive aide to
Weber, warned the Association "that the subcontractor clause was number 1 . a
must, that either [the Association] would sign the contract with this clause or there
would be no contract." This latter threat, when considered in context, and in light
of the events that followed, can only be construed as a threat of strike. Thus, with-
out any indication that the Union had withdrawn its demand for the subcontractor
clause, Weber, in his telegram of October 31 to the Association and its members,
warned that unless a contract was accepted by November 5, "strike action" would
follow .6
On the entire record, and my observation of the witnesses, I am unhesitatingly
convinced, and accordingly find, that the threats to strike, and the ensuing work
stoppages or strikes of August and November, were imposed by the Union to enforce
6 The findings heretofore entered, and especially those found in the preceding two para-
graphs, clearly negate Weber's bold and unblushing testimony that the work stoppages
were only the "voluntary" acts of the employees, as well as the defense pleaded in the
answer that both the impasse in the negotiations and the work stoppages or strikes were
.caused by failure to reach agreement on a shorter workweek, or similar economic issues.
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its unyieldingly demand upon the Association for the subcontractor clause, thereby
violating Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii)(A) and (B) of the Act?
While the proviso to Section 8(e) of the Act grants to a labor organization the
right to enter into a voluntary agreement with an employer for the subcontractor
clause in question, both the Board and the courts have held that it may not impose
such a clause by means proscribed in Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the
Act Construction, Production & Maintenance Laboiers Union Local 383, AFL-
CIO (Colson and Stevens Construction Co.), 137 NLRB 1650; Local Union 825,
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Nichols Electric Company),
140 NLRB 458; Building and Construction Trades Council of Orange County (Sulli-
van Electric Company), 140 NLRB 946; Hoisting and Portable Engineers Local
101 (Sherwood Construction Co.), 140 NLRB 1175; District No. 9, International
Association of Machinists v. N.L R.B., 315 F. 2d 33 (C.A.D.C.); Bakery Wagon
Drivers and Salesmen, Local Union No. 484 v. N.L.R B., 321 F. 2d 353 (C.A.D.C.).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the employer-members of the Association set forth in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce 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 the Union has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action deemed necessary 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. International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 825, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2 The employer -members of Building Contractors Association of New Jersey
named in the attached Appendix A are employers engaged in commerce, or an
industry affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3 A unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act is composed of all employees of employer -members
of the said Association who are engaged as operators of the equipment described in
the attached Appendix B.
This section, in pertinent part, reads as follows
SEC 8. (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
O k t E # O 4
(4) (1) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a
strike or a refusal in the course of his employment . to perform any services,
or (ii) to threaten, coerce, of restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commeice, where in either case an object thereof is:
(A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person . . . to enter
into any agreement which is prohibited by section 8(e) ;
(B) forcing or requiring any person . . . to cease doing business with any
other person .. .
C ♦ f f # E P
(e) It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any
employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express of implied, whereby
such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to . . . cease doing business with any
other person, and any contract or agreement entered into heretofore or hereafter
containing such an agreement shall be to such extent unenforcible and void:
Provided, That nothing in this subsection (e) shall apply to an agreement be-
tween a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry relating
to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be clone at the site of the con-
struction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building, structure, or other
work....
INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 825 965
4. The Union above described is, and has been at all times material herein, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing the said Association and its employer-members in
the selection of the Association and its duly designated negotiators as their repre-
sentative for the purpose of collective bargaining, the Union has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act.
6. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Association, as found above, the
Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (3)
of the Act.
7. By engaging, and by inducing individuals employed by the Gaskill Company
and other persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike
or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services, and by
threatening, coercing, and restraining employer-members of the Association all with
an object of forcing or requiring the Association and its employer-members to enter
into an agreement incorporationg the subcontractor clause prohibited by Section 8(e)
of the Act, the Union violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act.
8. By inducing individuals employed by the Gaskill Company to cease performing
services for their employer, and by threatening that Company to cease supplying it
with members of the Union, all with an object thereof to force or require it to cease
doing business with John D. Lawrence, Inc., the Union violated Section 8(b(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
EMPLOYER-MEMBERS OF BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY
Atlantic County
L C. Adams & Son Miller Masons
26 South Carolina Avenue Delaware and Adriatic Avenues
Atlantic City, New Jersey Atlantic City, New Jersey
Bougher Constr. Co. Neptune Contr. Co.
121 Ohio Avenue 194 N. California Avenue
Absecon, New Jersey Atlantic City, New Jersey
M. B. Markland Contr. Co. R. A. Prendergast & Son
1325 Boardwalk 3010 Sunset Avenue
Atlantic City, New Jersey Atlantic City, New Jersey
Mathis Co.
546 Guarantee Trust Bldg.
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Bergen County
Birch-Mont Inc. Jos. L. Muscarelle Inc.
639 Front Street Essex Street and Route 17
Teaneck, New Jersey Maywood, New Jersey
Frank W. Bogert Sovereign Constr. Co. Ltd.
324 Railroad Avenue 1325 Inwood Terrace
Hackensack, New Jersey Fort Lee, New Jersey
Fred J. Brotherton, Inc. Visbeen Constr. Co.
185 Atlantic Street 555 Goff le Road
Hackensack, New Jersey Ridgewood, New Jersey
Edmund H. Cheval Inc.
40-26 Broadway
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Burlington County
Blanding Constr. Co. Arthur H. Shaner & Son
Marne Highway-Maryland Avenue 201 E. Spring Garden Street
Rancocas Heights, New Jersey Palymyra, New Jersey
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A-Continued
Camden County
Costanza Contr. Co.
6219 Crescent Boulevard
Pennsauken, New Jersey
Cresco Bldrs. Inc.
6219 Crescent Boulevard
Pennsauken, New Jersey
John J. Donnelly Inc.
227 S. White Horse Pike
Audubon, New Jersey
T. J. Hessert Constr. Co. Inc.
1236 Chesterfield Road
Haddonfield, New Jersey
H. John Howman Co.
446 Haddon Avenue
Collingswood, New Jersey
Kehoe-Downs Inc.
5714 Crescent Boulevard
Pennsauken, New Jersey
Anderson Constr. Co. Inc.
274 Central Avenue
Orange, New Jersey
Becker Constr. Co.
361 Grove Street
Newark, New Jersey
Wm. L. Blanchard Co.
45 Poinier Street
Newark, New Jersey
Frank Briscoe Co.
P.O. Box 1114
Newark, New Jersey
Max Drill Co.
91 Halsey Street
Newark, New Jersey
Iorio Constr. Co.
110 Halsted Street
East Orange, New Jersey
Lewis Constr. Co.
14-22 Newark Way
Maplewood , New Jersey
B. J. Lucarelli & Co. Inc.
1100 McCarter Highway
Newark, New Jersey
S. Levy Co.
Broadway and Everett Streets
Camden, New Jersey
Paul Maxwell
17 E. Buckingham Avenue
Mount Ephraim, New Jersey
Thomas Moraca Inc.
1300 E. Kings Highway
Moorestown, New Jersey
Thomas Pagan Inc.
6825 Westfield Avenue
Pennsauken, New Jersey
Seybold Eng. Co. Inc.
1500 Kings Highway
Haddonfield, New Jersey
West Constr. Co. Inc.
20 W. Nicholson Road
Audubon, New Jersey
Essex County
Pellecchia Constr. Co.
50 Branford Place
Newark, New Jersey
Ricciardi Bldg. & Constr. Co.
641 Tremont Avenue
Orange, New Jersey
Spiniello Constr. Co.
249 Wallace Street
Orange, New Jersey
J. M. Straus & Co.
826 S. 20th Street
Newark, New Jersey
R. L. Trainer & Co.
16 Smith Street
Irvington, New Jersey
E. M. Waldron Incorporated
84 S. Sixth Street
Newark, New Jersey
Edward M . Waldron Incorporated
14 William Street
Newark, New Jersey
Zwigard Constr. Co.
10 E. Willow Street
Millburn, New Jersey
Gloucester County
John D. Lawrence Inc.
343 Hazel Avenue
Westville, New Jersey
Hudson County
Censullo-Burke Constr. Co.
Route 3 opposite Third Street
Secaucus , New Jersey
Deakman-Wells Co. Inc.
921 Bergen Avenue
Jersey City, New Jersey
Richards Constr. & Development Corp.
40 Journal Square
Jersey City, New Jersey
Salmond Constr. Co.
98 Midland Avenue
Kearny, New Jersey
Hunterdon County
Van Lieu & Van Horn, Inc.
P.O. Box 88
Flemington, New Jersey
INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 825 96T
APPENDIX A-Continued
Mercer County
Belli Co. Leonard Frost
2127 Hamilton Avenue Fifth Street, Prospect Heights
Trenton, New Jersey Trenton, New Jersey
Lewis C. Bowers & Sons Inc. Matthews Constr Co.
341 Nassau Street 296 Alexander Street
Princeton, New Jersey Princeton, New Jersey
N. A. K. Bugbee & Co. S. T. Peterson & Co. Inc.
Corner Oakland St. and Norman Ave. P.O. Box 705
Trenton, New Jersey Princeton, New Jersey
W. H. Courtney Nathan Putchat
2161 Nottingham Way 1963 Pennington Road
Trenton, New Jersey Trenton, New Jersey
Delaware Constr. & Landscape Co. John McShain, Inc.
242 E. Hanover Street 1750 N. Olden Avenue
Trenton, New Jersey Trenton, New Jersey
Wm. C. Ehret Tower Construction Co.
1723 N. Olden Avenue Box 28 , 90 Nassau Street
Trenton, New Jersey Princeton, New Jersey
Fowler-Thorne Co.
211 N. Montgomery Street
Trenton, New Jersey
Middlesex County
Wm. M. Connolly & Sons Frank Nora
P.O. Box 587 Pennington Road
New Brunswick, New Jersey New Brunswick, New Jersey
Crowell Engrg. Co. Inc. Michael Riesz & Co.
405 Main Street Fords National Bank Building
Metuchen, New Jersey Fords, New Jersey
Isaac Daniels Rule Constr. Co., Inc.
10 Locust Street 21 Washington Street
Carteret, New Jersey New Brunswick, New Jersey
Albert Garlatti Constr. Co. John N. Wester & Son
P.O. Box 372 Box 508, S. Main Street
New Brunswick, New Jersey Metuchen, New Jersey
J. T. Houseman, Inc. Wallace J. Wilck Co.
1 Leonard Street 1001 State Street
Metuchen, New Jersey Perth Amboy, New Jersey
L. Indri Constr. Co. Windsor Constr. Co.
313 S. Second Avenue P.O. Box 1126
Highland Park, New Jersey New Brunswick, New Jersey
Lanfrit Constr. Co. Gumina Bldg. & Constr. Co.
Commercial Ave. and Talmadge St. P.O. Box 386
New Brunswick, New Jersey New Brunswick, New Jersey
Monmouth County
Allen Bros. Inc. Walter C. Hurley Construction Co. Inc_
596 River Road P.O. Box 528
Fair Haven, New Jersey Asbury Park, New Jersey
S. J. Day Associates R.J. Construction Co.
Asbury Park Natl. Bank & Tr. Bldg. P.O. Box 56
Asbury Park, New Jersey Bradley Beach, New Jersey
Chas. B. Hembling & Son E. G. Robbins Construction Co. Inc.
15 Catherine Street 501 Washington Boulevard
Red Bank, New Jersey Sea Girt, New Jersey
Morris County
Bostrom Bros.
8 Ekstrom Street
Dover, New Jersey
Gallo Bros. Inc.
Port Morris Road
Netcong, New Jersey
Naef Builders, Inc.
Doublas Road, Green Village
Madison, New Jersey
Ernest R. Nordberg
P.O. Box 161
Mount Arlington, New Jersey
F. P. Schwarz & Co.
Laurelwood Drive
Mountain Lakes, New Jersey
968 DECISION' S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A-Continued
Ocean County
Simpson Construction Co.
P.O. Box 349
Toms River, New Jersey
Burgh Bldg. Co.
158 Washington Place
Passaic, New Jersey
The Ferguson Constr. Co.
152 Market Street
Paterson , New Jersey
R. Lomauro & Sons Inc.
350 Montgomery Street
Passaic, New Jersey
Mahony-Troast Constr. Co.
790 Bloomfield Avenue
Clifton , New Jersey
The B . D Malcolm Co. Inc.
141 Boonton Road
Wayne, New Jersey
Passaic County
Edward Reihl Co.
85 Delaware Avenue
Paterson , New Jersey
Senia Bldg. Constr.
687 E. 28th Street
Paterson , New Jersey
J. H. Steele Sons
48 N. Second Street
Paterson, New Jersey
Thomas Constr. Co.
165 Haledon Avenue
Paterson , New Jersey
Weny Bros. & Storms Co.
McLean Blvd and Ninth Ave.
Paterson , New Jersey
Somerset County
Carter & Blythe Constr . Co. Inc. Harold J. Dobbs, Inc.
6 W. Main Street 14 Dayton Street
Somerville, New Jersey Bernardsville , New Jersey
De Pietro & Mastrobattista Constr. Co.
Crestview Drive
Bernardsville , New Jersey
Sussex County
Jorgenson Constr . Co. Inc.
97 Moran Street
Newton, New Jersey'
Union County
Ali Bldg. Constr. Co.
319-331 Spencer Street
Elizabeth , New Jersey
Byrnes Bldg. Co. Inc.
554 Westfield Avenue
Elizabeth , New Jersey
C. Van Chamberlin Co.
15 Alden Street
Cranford , New Jersey
Dolb Constr. Co.
4 Park Street
Cranford , New Jersey
Hahr Constr. Co.
29 Grove Street
North Plainfield, New Jersey
Frank J . Hills Inc.
15 North Avenue
Garwood , New Jersey
Milne & Markert, Inc.
15-19 Steiner Place
North Plainfield , New Jersey
Plonner & Mengert Inc.
515 Lehigh Avenue
Union, New Jersey
Arthur Venneri Co.
300 N . Avenue E
Westfield, New Jersey
Wigton-Abbott Corp.
1225 South Avenue
Plainfield, New Jersey
Wilhelms Constr. Co.
119 Division Street
Elizabeth , New Jersey
Warren County
Coopersmith Bros Inc.
Fourth and Aurora Streets
Phillipsburgh , New Jersey
Louis Hajdu
River Road, Alternate Route 22
Alpha, New Jersey
INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 825 969
APPENDIX A-Continued
Out-of-State
Carl Buhr, Inc.
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York
Burns & Roe Inc.
160 W. Broadway
New York, New York
Collins & Maxwell Constr. Co.
600 Bushkill Drive
Easton, Pennsylvania
Wm. L. Crow Constr. Co.
101 Park Avenue
New York, New York
George A. Fuller Co.
57th Street and Madison Avenue
New York, New York
Irons & Reynolds Inc.
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York
Irwin & Leighton Inc.
1505 Race Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Walter Kidde Constructors Inc.
19 Rector Street
New York, New York
Stone Construction Co.
3831-33 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Toch Bros.
521 Fifth Avenue
New York City, New York
Turner Construction Co.
150 E. 42d Street
New York, New York
United Engineers & Constructors
1401 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Del E. Webb Corp.
P.O. Box 4066
Phoenix, Arizona
White Construction Co. Inc.
305 E. 45th Street
New York, New York
Wininger Constr. Co. Inc.
10 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York
Fegles Constr. Co. Inc.
2110 Nicollet Avenue
Minneapolis 4, Minnesota
APPENDIX B
Back hoes (all types), central power
plants (all types), concrete paving
machines, pavers 21E and over,
cranes (all types), derricks (land or
floating), draglines, elevator graders,
front end loaders (5 yards and over)
gradalls, mucking machines, shovels,
trench machines
A-frames, air compressors (3 in bat-
tery), boring and drilling machines,
cableways, cherry pickers, economo-
biles, front end loaders (2 yards, but
less than 5 yards) side booms, winch
trucks (hoisting)
Hoists (single and double drum), con-
crete tower hoists, shaft hoist (includ-
ing automatic cage hoists), caisson
hoists (open or closed caisson or any
other similar type machines)
Carryalls, pans, scrapers Uke's LeTour-
neau, DW's and similar type machines
Asphalt spreader, asphalt plant engi-
neer, boilers (irrespective of their
use), boom-type skimmer machines,
concrete breaking machines, concrete
pump, front end loaders (under 2
yards), locomotives, mixer (except
mixer of size 10-S or smaller-1
only), pavers under 21E, post hole
diggers, pumps (4-inch suction), roll-
ers (high grade finish), Seaman pul-
verizing machine, gasoline driven
welding machines, single Wellpoint
systems (including the installation
thereof)
Water operations:
On all powerboats used in conjunc-
tion with pipe line, river crossings
and all types of construction work.
Captain or tug master
Deckhand
Bulldozers and tractors (D8 or over),
graders and motor patrols , sweep-
ers and brooms
Bulldozer and tractor (under D8),
rollers (grade fill or stone base)
Firemen
Grease truck men
Oilers
Lead, foreman, safety engineer