Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Building & Construction Trades Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 1115 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LANE-COOS-CURRY-DOUGLAS COUNTIES, ETC. 1115
confer upon the Employers a right to terminate and withdraw during the contract
term for a specific reason while denying him that right at the end of the contract term
for that same reason . Such a holding makes no sense in either law or logic.
If further evidence of the intention of the contractors and the Union is needed it
may be found in the testimony which establishes that the membership of the multi-
employer group varied with the award of the city of Boston contracts. McMorrow,
president of Local 379, testified that the number of Employers signing the bargaining
contract had been reduced in 1964 from 11 to 8 and that every Employer who had
bargained and signed with the Union in 1962 except Marinucci Brothers had received
a city contract. The correlation between these contracts is further indicated by the
fact that the bargaining contract executed on April 1, 1964, was for a 4-year period
and provided for a yearly wage increase. The city of Boston contract was a 1-year
contract with an option to the city to renew over a period of 3 years and provided that
upon renewal the city should absorb 75 percent of the wage increase. Under these
circumstances I find that the cases which determine when and under what circum-
stances an employer may timely withdraw from a multiemployer unit are unrelated
to the situation presented here. It is my conclusion that the contingency which
would have bound Howard to the terms of the contract-an award to it of disposal
territory by the city-never came into being. Whether there is a special taint of
munificence attached to the contracts with the city which made the bargaining contract
feasible is an issue which need not be reached but that possibility is not precluded by
the record. It is common knowledge that not all municipal administrations regard
frugality as a civic virtue.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Local 379 is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Building & Construction
Trades Council and Willamette General Contractors Associ-
ation . Case No. 36-CC-130. November 23,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 25, 1965, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his
Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in. the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a brief in support of the exceptions, and the Charg-
ing Party filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 [Chairman M'IcCul.loch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
155 NLRB No. 88.
'1 116 DECISIONS OF `NATIONAL" LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
:: The Board- has considered= the Trial Examiner's Decision: and the
entire record ? in this "ease, including the exceptions and briefs, and
hereby adopts the findings, `conclusions; and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to Section . 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Reconin ended Order of the - Trial Examiner; as modified
herein, and . orders that the Respondent , Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas
Counties, Building &.Construction " Trades Council, its officers , agents,
and representatives, shall take the. action set forth in the Trial Exam-
iner's Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Paragraph 1(a) shall be modified-to read as follows :
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of Hill,
its subcontractor, or any other employer engaged in-commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike-or a refusal
in the course of his employment. to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work oil any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities or to perform any services, or threaten-
ing, coercing, or restraining Hill, its subcontractors, or any other
person engaged in commerce or- in an industry affecting com-
merce, where in either case an object thereof is forcing or_ requir-
ing Hill or any other employer or self-employed person to enter
into any agreement which-is prohibited by Section 8(e).
2. The first indented paragraph of the notice attached to the Trial
Examiner's Decision is amended= to read:
WE WILL NOT engage. in, or induce or encourage employees of
Hill, its subcontractor, or any other employer engaged in com-
merce" or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike
or a refusal in the course of his -employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, or
threaten, coerce, or restrain Hill, its subcontracts, or any other
person engaged in commerce or in all industry affecting corn-
inerce, where in either case an object thereof is forcing or requir-
ing Hill or any other employer or self-employed person to enter
into any agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e).
1 The parties entered into a stipulation with respect to the facts in this ease and waived
their right to a hearing before the Trial Examiner.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE - - -
This proceeding , brought under Section 10(b) of the Act, was submitted for deci-
sion by Trial Examiner David F. Doyle pursuant to a stipulation of fact by the parties
'LANE-COOS-CTIRRY-DOLGLAS COUNTIES, ETCH 1117
executed on May 21, 1965. The complaint -herein- was issued by the Regional
Director for Region 19, Seattle, Washington, on April 13, 1965, and the answer of
the Respondent was duly filed on May 25, 19651
Thereafter, on May 21, counsel for.. .the parties executed the stipulation inevidence
which states the following:
1. The parties hereto agree to submit this case directly, without a hearing, to a
Trial Examiner for the issuance of a Decision of the Trial Examiner containing
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations.
2. The parties further stipulate that they = waive the taking of testimony or
the submission of additional evidence before a Trial Examiner.
3. The charge, the amended charge, the Complaint,_the Affidavit of Service of
the charge, amended charge and Complaint, the Answer, the contract referred to
in paragraph VIII of the Complaint and attached hereto as Exhibit A, and this
Stipulation constitutes the entire record of the case and no oral testimony is
necessary or desired by any of the parties.
4. This Stipulation is made without prejudice to any objection that any party
may have as to the relevance or materiality of any of the-facts contained in the
stipulated record of this case.
5. The- parties request that the Trial Examiner to whom this case is assigned
set a time for the filing of briefs with him.
Upon assignment of the case to me, I ordered that briefs- be submitted by the parties
prior to June 21, 1965.- Pursuant to this order, counsel for the General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the- Charging Party, -all submitted excellent briefs which were of
much assistance to me These briefs have been carefully considered.
Upon consideration of the documents. in the stipulated-record and the briefs of
counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS op.-TACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THEASSOCIATION AND OF BILL
It is admitted by the pleadings that Willamette General Contractors Association is
an association of employers engaged at Salem, Oregon, and -vicinity, as general con-
tractors in the building and construction industry. The Association was organized and
exists for the purpose, among other things, of negotiating and-entering into collective-
bargaining agreements on behalf of its employer-members who so authorize it, with
the collective-bargaining representatives of their employees. The emploer-members
of the Association annually purchase materials and supplies directly from' outside the
State of Oregon valued in excess of $50,000.
Willis A. Hill is a general contractor in the building and construction industry
with his principal office and place of business at-Salem, Oregon. Hill is an employer-
member of the Association. During the past year, in the course and conduct of. his
business operations, -Hill performed services valued in excess of $50,000, for Stayton
Canning Company Cooperative, at Stayton, Oregon, which enterprise annually pro-
duces.and-shipsgoods valued in excess of $50,000 directly out of the State of Oregon.
Upon these facts it is found that the Association and Hillare now, and have been,
at all- times material herein, employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act, engaged -in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONINVOLVED
The pleadings admit that Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Building & Construc-
tion Trades Council is a labor organization within the meaning of Section2(5) of
the Act.
I In this Decision, Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Building & Construction Trades
Council is referred to as the Union or the Respondent; Willamette General Contractors
Association, as the Association ; and the general contractor involved in this case, Willis
A. Hill, as Hill; the General Counsel of the Board and his representative at the hearing,
as the General Counsel ; the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board; and the
Labor-Management Relations Act, as amended, as the Act. All dates in this Decision are
in the year 1965 unless specified otherwise.
The original charge herein was filed by an officer of the Association on January 16, and
a first amended charge was filed by the same officer of the Association on March 6.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ` RELATIONS BOARD
:II: TEE-UIVEAIR LABOR PRACTICES
- A. The-issue
-, The-complaint. alleges and the General Counsel contends that the Unionviolated
Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act by demanding that Hill, the contractor,
execute a contract containing a certain provision, and by picketing to induce Hill to
sign such a contract.
In its duly filed answer, the Union claims that its conduct was lawful in all -respects.
B. The undisputed facts
There is no .dispute about the facts since-they are established by the documents
enumerated in the stipulation of the parties. It is undisputed that Willis Hill is a con-
tractor and members of the, Association who prior to January 5, 1965, began the con-
struction of a bookstore adjacent to the campus of the University of Oregon at Eugene,
Oregon. It is undisputed that since January 5, 1965, the Union has demanded that
Hill enter into and execute a. collective-bargaining agreement with the Union desig-
nated as the "Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council Articles of
Agreement." Article IX of that document contains, the following provision:
It is further agreed that -no employees working under this Agreement need ...
cross any picket line or enter any premises a. which there is a-picket line author-
ized by the Council; or any other Building & Construction Trades Council or
authorized by any Central Labor Council, or handle, transport or work upon
or with any product declared unfair by any of such councils.
It is admitted that on January 12-and 15• the Union threatened to picket Hill's-book=
store "jobsite- unless Hill executed the-above agreement, -includiing article IX thereof.
On January 18, the Union started to picket the bookstore construction site, using
picket signs which bore the following legend,
W. HILL JOB
Working Conditions Less Than
Enjoyed-by Unions Affiliated With
LANE-COOS-CURRY DOUGLAS- COUNTIES
- BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL -
No Dispute With Any Other Contractor
-Exists on This Job.
It is undisputed that as a consequence of the Union's picketing and appeals, employ-
ees of Hill and other employers have refused to work. on the picketed jobsite.
Concluding Findings
The -General :Counsel contends.-that article- IX is violative of Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and, (ii)-(A) of the Act because it would require Hill to cease and: refrain. from
handling, using, selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of _._.other
employers, and from doing. business. with- other persons in violation -of Section
8(b)(4)(i), (ii)_,: subparagraph (A) of the Act. -
The General: Counsel's position is premised on the Board's decisions in Los-1. ngeles
Building &Construction "TradesCouncil, et al. (Portofino Marina), 150 NLRB -1590,
and Cement Masons Local Union No. 97, AFL-CIO (Interstate Employers), 149
NLRB 1127. In each of the -cited cases, the Board had occasion to examine a con-
tract provision which was substantially the same as article IX in this case.
In Portofino Marina, supra,the Board-wrote as follows:
We further find that article H of the Laborers' agreement and article IX of the
Council's agreement, insofar as they provide in substance that no employee need
cross a picket line which is authorized by the Building and Construction; Trades
Council, or by certain other councils or central labor bodies, are violative of
Section 8(e) since the clauses in their broad scope can be read as applying to
unlawful secondary picketing.13 We also find that the remaining portion of
1 Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 'Union -No. 728, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, at at. (Brown Transport Corp.), 140 NLRB 1436, and Truck Drivers Union
Local No. 413, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America," at at. (The Patton Warehouse, -Inc.), 140 NLRB 1447, .both
cases enfd. in pertinent part, 334 F. 2d 539 (C.A.D.C.) ; Teamsters Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Union Local No. 386, at at. (California Association of E•mn-
plovers), 145 NLRB 1475. See also Hodcarriers and Construction Laborers' Union
Local No. 300, at at. (Fiesta Pools, Inc., and Universal Contractors, Inc.), 145 XLR.B
911, which appears to have involved the same agreement of the Los Angeles Build-
ing & Construction Trades Council as involved herein.
LANE-COOS-CURRY--DOUGLAS: COUNTIES, ETC.' - - 1119
article -H" which provides that an employee need not handle goods : which have
been declared "unfair" by the Council- i§: but another sanction made available AD
the Respondents to enforce the-unlawful clauses of its- agreement.1-4 --Accord
ingly, Respondents '-picketing to compel Portofino to. enter :into these agreements,
containing clauses which are proscribed by Section 8(e), violated Section 8(b)
(4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the= Act.
14 Cement Masons Local Union -No. 97, AFL-CIO (I-interstate Employers, Inc), 149
NLRB 1127.
The• Board's position in-Portofino Marina, supra," has been reiterated in later cases:?
Upon the stipulated facts and the authority of the cases cited above, - it is found
that the Respondent has violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Art.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMmERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection .with the operations of the employers- 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) (A), it is-recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
CGNCLUS.-ONS OF LAw
`1. Willamette General Contractors Association and Willis A. Hill are employers
,withinthe meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. and are engaged in commerce and in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(1), (6), and (7) and
8(b) (4) of the Act.
2. Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Building & Construction Trades Council is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing Hill's bookstore construction site with the object of forcing or
requiring Hill to enter into an agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e) of the
Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in-unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices. are. unfair labor practices affecting cor:-
merce within the meaning of-Section 2(6) and (7)°of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact `and conclusions of law,- and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recom-
mend that the Respondent, Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Buildl'ng & Construc-
tion Trades Council, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall..,-
I.-.tease and desist from- engaging in, or- inducing or coercing employees of Hill,
its subcontractors, or anyother-employer to engage in, a"strike or refusal in the
course of such individual's employment to- use or handle any materials or to -perform
any services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining Hill, its subcontractors, or any
other employer, by a strike or picketing wherein either case an object thereof is to
-force or require Hill to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e)
of the Act. =
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate-the
policies of the-Act:
(a) Post inconspicuous places at i.s business offices and-meeting halls, including all
places where notices to its members are customarily posted,. copies of- the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the
9 See Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council ( Couch Electric Company,
Inc., et al.), 151 NLRB 413 ; Drivers, SaZesmen, Warehousemen, Hilk Processors , Cannery,
Dairy Employees and Helpers Local Union No. 695, Teamsters (John B. Threlfall, d/ b/a
Threlfall Construction ), 152 _NLRB 577.
8 In- the event this Recommended Order be adopted 'by the Board; .the words "a Decision
and Order" shall be substituted- for the-words "the RecommendedOrder of a Trial.Exam=
finer" In the notice. - In the further event that the Board 's Order be"en€orced by a decree
of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States - Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision -and Order."
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 19
for posting by the Association and Hill, those employers being willing, at all locations
where notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith?
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt
of this Decision the Respondent notifies the Regional Director that it will comply
with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an
order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
4 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, In writing, within 10 days from
.the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce and encourage employees of Willis A. Hill,
general contractor, its subcontractors, or any other employer, to engage in, a
strike or a refusal in the course of such employment to use or handle any mate-
rials or to perform any services, or threaten, coerce, or restrain Hill, its subcon-
tractors, or any other employer, by a strike or picketing where in either case an
object thereof is to force or require Hill to enter into any agreement which is
prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT through our officers, agents, or representatives, or in any other
manner, maintain, enforce, or apply, or attempt to enforce or apply article IX of
"Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council Articles of Agreement"
to the extent found unlawful in this Decision.
LANE-COOS-CURRY-DOUGLAS COUNTIES BUILDING,
& CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
Labor Organization.
Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive clays from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 612 Lincoln
Building, 208 SW. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, Telephone No. 226-3361.
Shamrock Systems, Inc. and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local
Union No. 587, affiliated with United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-CA-2012.
Noveinber 23, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 24, 1965, Trial Examiner Boyd Leedom issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, fading that the Respond-
155 NLRB No. 104.