Janesville Typographical Union No. 197

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 917 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

JANESVILLE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 197
Janesville Typographical Union No. 197, affiliated
with the International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO (Gazette Printing Company) and T.S.
Willis, General Contractor, Case 30-CC-65
November 20, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
On December 1, 1967, Trial Examiner John M.
Dyer issued his Decision 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 Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and briefs in support thereof. The Charging,
Party filed an answering brief to the Respondent's
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.,
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Janesville Typographical
Union No. 197, affiliated with the International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
I The Charging Party excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to
recommend that copies of the notice be mailed to all members of the
Respondent on the ground that the Respondent does not own or rent a
union hall where a copy of the notice can be posted . Because there is no
evidence in the record as made to support this allegation we reject this
exception at this time.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
917
JOHN M.DYER,Trial Examiner: T. S. Willis (herein Willis or
the general contractor) is the general contractor for the
construction of a new office building to house Gazette Printing
Company (herein called Gazette or the paper), publisher of
the Janesville Gazette, and its wholly owned subsidiary radio
station WCLO, on property adjacent to Gazette's present
building. Willis charged that Janesville Typographical Union,
No. 197, affiliated with the International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO (herein the Union or ITU), violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act by picketing a gate reserved
for employees of the general contractor, its subcontractors and
their suppliers at the construction site, and urges that the Act
is violated by picketing any and all parts of said construction
site. The General Counsel's complaint alleges only the
picketing of the reserved gate as a violation. While admitting
the picketing, the Union defends on the basis that the
construction of this new building is intimately related to the
jobs its members performed since when equipment is installed
in the Gazette's new building the net result according to the
Union will be the reduction in skills of the employees and
fewer jobs for its unit members.
All parties were accorded full opportunity to participate in
the hearing which was held Thursday, September 7,1 1967, in
Janesville, Wisconsin, and to examine and cross-examine
witnesses. Counsel for all parties have filed thoughtful and
helpful briefs which have been considered.
Upon the complete record in this case, which includes the
record made in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin during the Preliminary Injunc-
tion proceeding, I make the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESSES INVOLVED AND RESPONDENT'S
STATUS AS A LABOR UNION
Willis, a Wisconsin corporation engaged as a general con-
tractor in the building and construction industry at Janesville,
Wisconsin, during the past year purchased and received goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points located
outside the State of Wisconsin.
Gazette Printing Company is a Wisconsin corporation
engaged in the printing and publication of a newspaper at
Janesville , Wisconsin . Gazette subscribes to interstate news
services and advertises nationally sold products and in the past
year had a gross annual revenue in excess of $ 200,000.
Respondent admits and I find that Willis and Gazette are
each engaged in commerce or in operations affecting com-
merce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that it is a labor organization
as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
I All dates herein occurred in 1967 unless specified otherwise
173 NLRB No 137
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Issues
factors based on both population and economic factors and
including a projection of the growth to 2000 A.D. and what
Gazette would have to do to serve the area. The survey also
included recommendations regarding new equipment to take
Gazette to the projected necessary capacity. Based on the
study on its need for additional space, Gazette determined to
build a new building to house both the newspaper and its radio
station. According to General Counsel's Exhibit 4, a blueprint,
the plans for the new building were approved on August 16,
1966. Construction started in October, 1966.
According to the General Documents and Specifications,
General Counsel's Exhibit 3, which sets forth the terms and
specifications for the budding and a number of the contract
terms, the general contractor has control of the construction
site.
Under the General Conditions, Article 12a states that the
contractor shall protect all his work, both stored and installed,
from damage and the owner's property from injury or loss and
is liable for any damage caused by hun and is to protect all
adjacent property. Article 13 provides that the contractor
provide proper facilities for the access of the architect onto the
property. Other articles provide for insurance coverage, that
the contractor clean the premises, provide heat, light and
power and other facilities while the building is under construc-
tion and provide his own watchmen. Article 69 of the
Supplementary General Conditions provides that.
Owner's Equipment
Owner shall have the right, whenever in his judgment the
building is so far constructed as to make it feasible, to go
into and upon any floor and into any part of the building,
at any time, to place his equipment therein and to do all
necessary work of every kind to fully place the equipment
and other appliances in the building for the operation of the
building. The Owner will perform the work and place the
equipment in the building so as to interfere as little as
practicable, consistent with the due execution of the
Owner's work, and the work of the Contractors in
constructing and completing the building.
Thus the construction site and the building are under the
jurisdiction and control of the general contractor with the
provision that the owner can place his equipment in the
building when the building is sufficiently completed to enable
him to do so.
T.S. Willis was the successful bidder for the general contract
and has some 20 subcontractors and various suppliers for this
job. From the time construction commenced Willis had a sign
at gate 5 restricting entrance to the construction site to
authorized personnel, and used part of the Gazette parking lot
as a construction site, among other things mixing mortar there
It is conceded that employees of Willis and the subcontractors
entered or left the construction site through any of the
available entrances, those being the parking lot gate 4, gate 5
and gate 6, and occasionally hopped over or through the snow
fences. At least one time some equipment was lifted by crane
over the plywood barricade on East Milwaukee Street into the
construction site.
There is no indication from either the physical layout or
from the evidence received, that Gazette or WCLO employees
used or would have used entrances 5 or 6, since to do so would
have taken them out of their way in entering or leaving the
Gazette building. One exception to this is that Gazette General
At the intersection of East Milwaukee Street and South
Parker Drive, Gazette occupies a building which extends some
50 feet along East Milwaukee Street and approximately 100
feet along South Parker Drive.2 The main entrance is at the
corner of East Milwaukee Street and South Parker Drive and in
these proceedings was designated entrance No. 1. Entrance No.
2 is at the corner of the building extending along East
Milwaukee Street and is or was principally used by employees
of the radio station. The entrance designated No. 3 is at the far
corner of the building going south on South Parker Drive and
is mainly used by employees of Gazette. Immediately next to
the Gazette building on South Parker Street is a building
approximately 35 feet wide (along South Parker Street) and
135 feet deep, owned by the Janesville Printing Company
which is not related to Gazette. However Gazette does lease
the basement of the Janesville Printing Company building and
adjoining this building is a parking lot owned by Gazette,
extending some 115 feet along South Parker Drive and
approximately 165-170 feet deep. The entrance to this
parking lot was designated as No. 4.
Immediately adjacent to the Gazette building on East
Milwaukee Street is the construction site. An entrance to the
construction site at that point was designated No. 6. According
to testimony this entrance was closed about the time picketing
started at Gazette.
Immediately adjacent to entrance 2, and starting by
entrance 6, is a plywood barricade with a fabricated pedestrian
walkway which runs east on East Milwaukee Street to the
corner of South Division Street. Proceeding around the corner
and south on South Division Street is a snow fence which sets
off the construction site from the public sidewalk and runs
some 90 to 100 feet to gate No. 5, the principal entrance to
the construction site. South from gate 5 is the driveway behind
the Parker Pen Company building The Parker Pen Company
property is somewhat "L shaped" and takes up the remainder
of the block along South Division Street, west along the street
paralleling East Milwaukee Street and back again on South
Parker Street to the corner of the Gazette parking lot
Present plans call for the destruction of the existing Gazette
building when the new construction is completed and the
Gazette and radio station WCLO move into the new building.
This will leave the new building situated in the center of the
block of East Milwaukee Street with approximately a 50- to
60- foot side lot on either side of it to South Division Street on
the east side and to South Parker Street on the west side.
The Gazette has recognized the ITU as the collective-
bargaining agent for its composing room employees for
approximately 15 years, although according to the parties,
there has not been a written contract between them in that
time.
In 1964 Gazette management was acutely aware of its lack
of space in all departments of the newspaper including the
news room and the composing room, according to the paper's
present general manager, Johnson. Gazette had Technical
Services of Denver, Colorado, perform a study involving an
analysis of the market area of Southern Wisconsin from growth
2 The physical distances described herein are estimates from a
architect's rendering of the area G.C. Exh. 4.
JANESVILLE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 197 919
Manager Johnson visited the construction site almost daily
until the strike occurred. Johnson was charged with the
responsibility of checking the building for Gazette and through
the architect initiated some changes as construction proceeded.
In early 1967 the ITU requested and initiated bargaining
negotiations with Gazette which continued until June 23,
1967. Some 3 weeks before that date the Union took a strike
vote and authorized a strike. During negotiations the parties
discussed the new machinery and systems which were to be
installed in the new building. Basically Gazette planned to
install a Goss offset printing press and to switch from its
present hot lead sterotype machines to a new cold process
using photo composition work. This change would affect some
of the jobs in the composing room although others in the ITU
unit would apparently continue their same work. Gazette
described the new equipment and what plans it had made to
train the employees and use them on this equipment. The
Union stated that although at first Gazette did not agree to
guarantee jobs to all of the unit employees, during later
negotiations it agreed that none of the employees in the unit
would be laid off when they moved into the new plant. The
Union maintains that it was unable to get a reasonable
agreement with Gazette in regard to permanent job security
and felt that since Gazette would not agree to a clause
involving reproduction of work by the old method, of that
work being done under the new method (basically a make-
work clause for members of the unit) and because it felt that
the skills required in the use of new equipment would be less
than that required on the old equipment and that by using
such new equipment its members would become progressively
less skilled in their crafts, it could not reach a satisfactory
contract. Therefore the Union struck on June 23 because it
could not reach what it considered a meaningful agreement on
job security as well as wages and other conditions of
employment. From June 23 until July 10 the ITU picketed
only in front of entrances 1, 2, 3, and 4, skipping over the
Janesville Printing Company building.
Prior to the strike, Gazette newspapers were picked up on
the curb on South Division Street. When it learned of the
strike vote, Gazette decided it would facilitate matters and
avoid confusion with picketing if the newspapers were picked
up by the distributors at some point other than the street.
Gazette engaged Willis to dig a tunnel from the basement of
Janesville Printing Company to the parking lot, utilizing an old
coal chute, so that newspapers would be taken from the
Gazette building through the basement of Janesville Printing
Company to the parking lot. Distributors thereafter picked up
papers by coming through gate 4 onto the parking lot. When
the picketing started Gazette management verbally instructed
its employees not to go on the construction site and posted a
notice to that effect throughout the Gazette building including
the radio station. Thereafter the only person who went on the
construction site was General Manager Johnson and he ceased
his visits on July 10 On July 14, Gazette wrote all of its
suppliers, advising them that all deliveries to Gazette would
have to be made through the main entrance on East Milwaukee
Street (gate 1) or the entrances on South Parker Drive (gates 3
and 4), and that deliveries through the construction site were
prohibited.
On July 10, ITU pickets began picketing at gate 6, and east
along Milwaukee Street and south on South Division Street to
and including gate 5 Willis filed a charge with the Board on
July 10, alleging a secondary boycott under Section 8 (b)(4)(i)
and (n)(B) This charge was dismissed by the Regional Director
on the ground that the sign restricting entrance at gate 5 to
authorized personnel was not specific enough under the terms
of the G. E case 3 On July 13 a new sign was erected at gate 5
which stated that the gate was reserved exclusively for
employees of the general contractor, employees of its subcon-
tractors and suppliers and that employees of Gazette Printing
Company and persons making deliveries to Gazette must use
other gates or entrances The door at gate 6 was boarded over
with a plank and thereafter with a sheet of plywood A snow
fence was placed across half of the parking lot with a sign
restricting use of the construction site premises to the general
contractor, its subcontractors and suppliers The ITU con-
tinued to picket gate 5 after the new sign was placed and the
present charge was filed on July 14, while the dismissal of the
original charge was appealed to the General Counsel The
picketing from July 10 until the injunction issued was 100
percent effective, with employees of Willis and the subcon-
tractors leaving the construction site and not returning while
pickets were at gate 5.
An injunction under Section 10 (1) of the Act was sought in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin in a hearing before Judge Doyle on July 21. The
judge granted an injunction restricting the picketing of gate 5
and since that time the ITU has picketed to within 8 or 10 feet
of gate 5 on South Division Street and has picketed the
remainder of the construction site on South Division Street
and gate 6.
The Charging Party maintained in this proceeding that the
picketing of the construction site at any point is a secondary
boycott within the terms of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) since
it feels such picketing violates the Moore Dry Dock4 standards
for common-situs picketing. Although this position is not
alleged a violation in the Complaint, the contention was
litigated by the parties.
General Counsel maintains that this is a reserved gate under
the terms of the Supreme Court decision in the General
Electric case and that the picketing should be allowed only to
a reasonable distance from gate 5, stating he does not feel that
8 to 10 feet is a reasonable distance. Both the General Counsel
and the Charging Party contend that construction work is not
related to the normal operations of Gazette and does not come
within those exceptions, pointing out that construction work
is used by the Supreme Court as an example of what would
not be in the normal course of operations.
The ITU deleted from its answer an allegation that Willis
was an ally of Gazette Printing Company, and as noted above,
acknowledges that it has picketed the construction site and
gate 5. It further acknowledged that the work performed by
the construction employees and that performed by unit
employees was not directly related or comparable work.
Respondent seeks to justify its picketing on the basis that
Willis in constructing the new building is replacing the basic
capital structure of Gazette, into which new machinery will be
placed which will have an adverse effect on Respondent's unit
members and although admitting there is no present relation-
ship between the jobs performed by the general contractor or
its subcontractors and the jobs in the ITU unit, insists there is
a future relationship of jobs to be performed in that building
3 Local 761 IUE v N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 667 . 4Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In its brief, Respondent states that its pickets did not realize
which should allow the ITU to picket such site to stop such
construction and come within the General Electric exceptions.
The Gazette replaced the striking employees and has
continued to produce the newspaper daily, Monday through
Saturday, as it has done for 122 years
until July 10, that the progress being made on the construction
of the new building plus the fact that replacements were in the
pickets' jobs, placed their jobs in severe jeopardy. They
determined at that point to picket the construction site in an
effort to halt construction of the new building and put
pressure on Gazette to meet Respondent's terms. Respondent
also argues that by halting construction of the new building, it
was seeking to preserve the jobs of its members and states that
this concept of work preservation comes within the meaning
and the holding of the Supreme Court in National Woodwork
Manufacturers Association v. N.L.R B. 386 U.S. 612.
There is no question that under the terms of the contract
the general contractor is building only the building and will
not, nor will any of his subcontractors or suppliers, install any
of the new equipment or machinery in the building. There are
one or two special purpose construction items the general
contractor has performed such as footings for the new Goss
press and rails for the cartage of newsprint to its storage area.
Thus the questions to be resolved here are whether Moore
Dry Dock or General Electric reserved gate standards are to be
applied or whether the General Electric exceptions include
future related work so that the picketing here is consonant
with General Electric and National Woodwork where it is an
effort to (ultimately) preserve unit jobs.
B. Argument and Analysis
Although Respondent's brief states that the pickets did not
realize until July 10 that they were facing the complete loss of
their jobs because they had been replaced by other employees
and that the continuation of the construction work meant that
the new machinery would soon be installed and their old jobs
(or some of them) in effect abolished and that their picketing
of the construction site was to preserve their jobs, this is an
afterthought and in reality an acknowledgement that the
primary picketing of Gazette from June 23 to July 10 was not
having the desired effect of hindering or stopping publication
of the newspaper and putting economic pressure on Gazette.
The basic reason for picketing the construction site was to stop
construction. It is well recognized that employees in the
construction trade usually honor picket lines and Willis
employees were 100 percent unionized. The picketing at gate 5
was 100 percent effective and none of the employees of the
general contractor or the subcontractors crossed the picket line
during the time it was at gate 5.
The pickets were aware at the time the strike began what
was planned in the way of installation of machinery and the
changes in the new building Therefore they knew at that
time what would occur in the plant ultimately if their views
did not prevail. The fact that their strike and primary picketing
was unsuccessful in halting the publication of the paper or
having a serious enough economic consequence is the only
added fact which was the impetus for the ITU to decide to
5 In Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union No. 584 (Old
Dutch Farms, Inc.), 146 NLRB 509, 515, the Board affirmed that "the
effect of Balsam's conduct in the long run was to jeopardize job
opportunities for the Respondent 's driver -salesmen members, such
circumstance ... does not warrant holding the Respondent's picketing
and strike action against Balsam lawful. In every secondary boycott
picket the construction site, and hope to halt the construction
and the eventual replacement of these employees on the new
machinery and thus the total loss of the strike.
Respondent argues that the construction of the building is a
per se cause of the technological displacement of the strikers,
but this is not so The building is being constructed by the
general contractor without the placement of any machinery.
There are other interim steps before the strikers would be
technologically displaced, such as the purchase of new equip-
ment and its installation and making it operable. Finally the
job assignments on the new equipment would be the "coup de
grace" to their technological displacement.
The Union also argues that it may choose the strategy that
most effectively achieves the primary objective of work
preservation, and that here such strategy is the bringing of
pressure on the primary employer consciously designed to get
him to terminate, at least temporarily, a relationship with
another whose services to the primary threaten the job security
of the primary employees. But this was not the course chosen
here. The pressure here was not brought on the primary to get
the primary to terminate its relationship with the general
contractor. The pressure was exerted on the secondary general
contractor by picketing the construction site and the reserved
gate to get the contractor's employees and the employees of
the subcontractors to cease working and cause such secondary
employers to terminate their relationship with the primary
employer, a classic secondary boycott.
Respondent attempts to analogize its picketing of the
general contractor to a consumer boycott. Although picketing
of a product at a secondary location may be all right in given
circumstances, here the primary employer does not have any
product per se at the premises being picketed. At the
construction site a structure is being erected which eventually
will house the primary, but while the budding is being erected
it is the secondary employer's construction site over which he
has jurisdiction and which he must guard and protect while the
building is under construction. The only products there are the
secondary employer's products Pressure at that point then is
being brought only on the secondary with an ultimate effect
sought against the primary.
Respondent's main contention is that there is an ultimate
relationship between what the general contractor is doing in
erecting a building and the jobs at Gazette, in that once the
construction is completed and new equipment is moved in, the
unit jobs will be changed or possibly eliminated. In essence,
Respondent states because there is a future relationship it may
picket under the General Electric doctrine. However, such a
position would in effect negate the doctrine, since all work
performed on a primary employer's premises would in some
way contribute to the efficiency or profitability of the
employer's operations, or at least could be said to do so in
some manner or it would not in all likelihood be authorized by
the primary employer.5 If the primary employer were to get
no ultimate benefit from the construction it would not be
started. So, ultimate relationship or ultimate profitability or
ultimate replacement of a capital structure could not be the
test or else the Supreme Court was conducting an exercise in
futility in laying out the exceptions in the General Electric
case.
situation there can be rationalized some similar element of support by
the neutral third party to the primary employer disputant which
conflicts with the objectives and goals of the disputing union . To regard
the presence of some such element of support as sufficient to deprive
the third party of his neutrality to the dispute would be to rob the
secondary boycott provisions of the Act of all content and meaning "
JANESVILLE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 197 921
Although Respondent relies heavily on the National
Woodwork case, that case does not have a reasonable relation-
ship to the present one. There a contract clause existed
between the employer and its employees delimiting what work
would be done on a jobsite and setting out that certain work
would be done by these employees in preservation of their
traditional jobs. Here, the pnmary employer and the Union
were engaged in negotiations with the ultimate objective of the
Union being to secure a similar clause, but Respondent was
unable to bring sufficient pressure on the primary to secure his
agreement on the terms Respondent desired. It then brought
primary pressure against him by striking his premises,
apparently including locations where his papers were redis-
tributed or delivered. When the primary activity failed to
produce a desired result Respondent then brought pressure
against another employer who was not either an ally or
engaged in doing the primary's work, but was neutrally
engaged in constructing a building. This is not direct activity to
preserve unit work. This is activity aimed at a secondary source
to prevent it from performing an action which may be
followed by actions of other employers with the ultimate (not
direct) end of preserving work.
In answer to the Charging Party's request that Respondent
not be permitted to picket the construction site, Respondent
urges that customers and suppliers of Gazette use East
Milwaukee and South Division Streets in going to entrances 1,
2, 3 and 4 (which are on East Milwaukee and South Parker
Drive) and that it would infringe its rights not to be able to so
inform Gazette customers and suppliers of its strike against
Gazette. To test the logic of Respondent's position we can
take it one step further. Since the three streets named intersect
other streets, it is logical to assume that customers and
suppliers of Gazette may use other streets as well in coming to
the Gazette building. Why then could not ITU claim the right
to picket on all other intersecting streets and roads, no matter
whose property they patrolled? The fact is that Gazette
customers and suppliers are informed of the strike by the
pickets at entrances 1, 2, 3 or 4 since each of those entrances is
picketed and Gazette customers or suppliers must use one of
those four entrances in entering premises controlled by
Gazette, no matter what streets or avenues are used in
approaching the Gazette building.
Picketing the construction site and near the entrance to gate
5 has another purpose and that is to be seen by the employees
of the contractor, subcontractors, and suppliers in an apparent
hope that they may refuse to work or make deliveries, and
thus neutrals would be enmeshed in the primary dispute.
From the facts here, it appears that Willis has control of the
construction site even though the property (and about half of
the pre-existing parking lot) is owned by Gazette. Under the
terms of the General and Supplementary General Conditions
of the contract Willis bears the responsibility for the property
not unlike a tenant under the conditions of a lease.
If the construction site instead of being adjacent were across
the street or one block away from the present Gazette
building, Respondent presumably would still urge the argu-
ments it makes about preservation of work and its ability and
need to inform the public about the strike on adjacent streets.
But such a position would illustrate more clearly that this is
not a true common situs problem. Here the general contractor
has charge of the property on which he is erecting a building,
must protect it, employe his own watchmen etc. and the
Gazette has charge of the property in which it operates and
continues its normal operations. It will not be until the
budding is so sufficiently completed that the Gazette (under
the terms of the Supplementary General Conditions) feels that
it can move some equipment into the new building and starts
to do so, that there will be a common situs in the ordinary
sense of the words. Even though the general contractor is using
a part of the parking lot, all of the space it occupies is denied
to the employees, customers and suppheis of Gazette. One
nught consider the ownership of the total property as a factor
in establishing the total premises as a common situs. Whether it
is or is not a common situs, Moore Dry Dock standards of
picketing should apply to these premises. Therefore since
Gazette can be picketed at gates 1, 2, 3, and 4, there is no
legitimate reason for the ITU to picket the construction site
and gates 5 and 6.
Basically the theory of the reserved gate is to allow
secondary employers and their employees to enter and leave a
site where a primary dispute exists, unhindered by pickets
appeals to them not to cross a picket line, at a gate set aside
for their use only, where the work being performed by them is
not directly related to the normal work of the primary
employer or if it were being performed while the primary
employer were engaged in normal operations would not curtail
those operations. Here the gate is specifically set aside, the
primary is engaged in normal operations despite the strike and
those operations are in no way curtailed by the work
performed and that work concededly is not directly related to
the pnmary employers normal operations.
Respondent claims that the reserved gate concept is violated
if secondary employees enter or leave the premises other than
by the reserved gate, truthfully claiming that secondary
employees have done so. But under the theory that the
reserved gate is in effect a convenience to allow secondary
employers and employees an area where they would not have
to cross a picket line to enter the premises, they are still free to
cross the picket line and enter the premises at other locations
if they desire to do so. The reservation is that the primary
employer's employees and suppliers not use that reserved gate
to escape the picket line.
Under my view of the present situation, the reserved gate 5
is legitimate secondary territory as is the whole of the
construction site, so that the General Counsel's theory of the
case is in effect embraced within the Charging Party's theory.
The Charging Party has asked that I deny the ITU the right
to picket the construction site even if Gazette's General
Manager Johnson goes on the premises to inspect the construc-
tion. But since Johnson is charged by the Gazette with the
responsibility of the construction site, such an inspection
would be within his normal duties, and a visit by him to the
site would be the same as any other Gazette employee
performing his normal duties there, a common situs, and
perhaps a breach of the reserved gate if he used it.
I am not here deciding what the rights of the parties will be
when and if Gazette moves equipment onto the construction
site while it is still under construction by the general
contractor. Such a movement, particularly if it is designed for
use by unit employees and in the manner of familiarization
with the equipment as Gazette laid out in its negotiations
(employees working a few hours on the new equipment in the
new building and the balance on the old equipment in the old
building) conceivably would make the whole of its property
the primary situs of the dispute and remove the reserved gate's
protection.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
In summary I conclude and find from the existing facts that
Respondent by picketing the construction site and reserved
gate 5, violated and violates Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (n)(B) of
the Act, since such picketing was designed to and did
encourage and induce individuals employed by persons
engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce who
were neutrals in the dispute between Gazette and Respondent
not to perform work or services (the work stoppage by
employees of Willis and the subcontractors induced by
Respondent's picketing from July 10 until enjoined and the
picketing of the construction site which continues) and that
further such conduct coerced and restrained such persons
engaged in commerce to cease doing business with Gazette.
The incident elicited by Respondent wherein Respondent
picketed Parker Pen Company as "an ally" to Gazette, when
Parker allowed a construction supplier to park a truck in its
driveway while the general contractor used a crane to move
equipment from the truck onto the new building would
certainly be an additional violation of the Act but since the
findings made herein are broad enough to cover such conduct I
make no separate finding on that act.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section II,
above, and therein found to constitute unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (ii)(B) of the Act, occurring
in connection with the business operations described in section
I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (n)(B)
of the Act, it is recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act
On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record,
I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. T. S. Willis and Gazette Printing Company are each
employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2 Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing gate 5 and the construction site where T. S.
Willis is engaged in constructing a building for Gazette Printing
Company, and by inducing and encouraging employees of T. S.
6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board , the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the
words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In
the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words "a n^:ree of the United
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Willis, its subcontractors and other employers engaged in the
construction of or in supplying materials for the construction
of the Gazette building, to engage in a strike or refusal in the
course of their employment to perform services, and by
threatening, coercing and restraining T. S. Willis, and his
subcontractors with an object of forcing or requiring T. S.
Willis and his subcontractors to cease doing business with
Gazette Printing Company, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Sections 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and upon the entire record in this case considered
as a whole, it is recommended that Janesville Typographical
Union No. 197, affiliated with the International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, inducing, or encour-
aging any individual or employee of T. S. Willis, its subcontrac-
tors and suppliers, or any individual employed by any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, piocess, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services, or from threatening,
coercing, or restraining T. S. Willis, its subcontractors and
suppliers or any other person, where an object is either to
force or require T. S. Willis or any other person to cease doing
business with Gazette Printing Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its business offices, meeting hall, and all other
places where notices to members are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of
said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 30, after being duly signed by representatives of the
Respondents, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for a period
of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members and employees
are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 30, signed
copies of said notice for posting by T. S Willis, his
subcontractors and suppliers, if willing, in places where notices
to employees are customarily posted.Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director shall, after being
signed by the Respondents, be forthwith returned to the
Regional Director for distribution by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps they have taken to comply herewith.7
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the
words "a Decision and Order."
7 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
JANESVILLE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 197 923
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF JANESVILLE TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION No. 97, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL- CIO AND TO EMPLOYEES OF
T. S. W ILLIS, ITS SUBCONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS ON
THE GAZETTE CONSTRUCTION JOB
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner
of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify you that.
Following a trial in which the Union, the Charging
Company, and the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board participated and offered their evidence, it has
been found that we violated the law and we have been ordered
to post this notice and to abide by what we say in this notice.
WE WILL NOT picket the Gazette construction site
controlled by T. S. Willis or seek to have employees of
Willis or any of his subcontractors or suppliers at this
construction site refuse to work or make deliveries there, in
an attempt to get T. S. Willis or any of his subcontractors or
suppliers to stop doing business with Gazette Printing
Company, nor will we threaten or coerce Willis, his
subcontractors or suppliers or others to try to get them to
stop doing business with Gazette Printing Company.
JANESVILLE TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION No.97,
AFFILIATED WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct-
ly with the Board's Regional Office, 2nd Floor Commerce
Building, 744 North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203,
Telephone 272-3879.