Local 307, Plumbers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 652 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 307 , Plumbers-United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada
(AFL-CIO); Local 697, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers; Northwestern Indiana Build-
ing and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
and Meyer Plumbing , Inc. Cases 13-CC-668,
13-CC-669, and 13-CC-670
December 31, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND BROWN
On June 5, 1970, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding
finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a brief in support thereof, and Counsel
for the General Counsel 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.
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, the briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations I of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that Respondents, Local 307, Plumb-
ers-United Association of Journeymen and Appren-
tices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada (AFL-CIO); Local 697,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; and
Northwestern Indiana Building and Construction
i In adopting the Trial Examiner's findings, we rely only on his
conclusions that the record as a whole establishes that the Respondents'
picketing was in support of direct appeals to Vail , the neutral general
contractor , to cease doing business with Meyer as the plumbing
subcontractor on the construction site Specifically, the facts show that the
Trades Council, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
MEMBER BROWN , dissenting:
Unlike my colleagues, I can find no basis for
concluding that the Respondents herein picketed for
an illegal secondary object of compelling Vail, the
neutral general contractor, to cease doing business
with Meyer Plumbing. There is, in fact, no evidence to
indicate that the objective was other than that stated
on the picket signs and the circular distributed by the
pickets-i.e., to publicize the fact that Meyer did not
conform to area standards and to secure the payment
of the going rate and benefits-and the Trial
Examiner relies on inferences and conclusions not
justified by his findings. While the incidents noted by
my colleagues in their footnote I did occur, a reading
of the Trial Examiner's Decision reveals that they
have been taken out of context and do not support the
finding for which they are utilized.
It is apparent that Plumbers Local 307 was engaged
in area standards picketing, and the Trial Examiner so
concluded in the third paragraph of part IV of his
decision. That Respondent knew that Meyer did not
and probably would not meet the area standards is
clear. But, there is no support for the further
conclusion in the same paragraph that the main
objective (or even an object) was to have Meyer
removed from the job. While Boyd, the general
contractor's official, was told that Meyer was
"unfair," this term was defined at all times as a firm
not meeting the current wages and other benefits in
the area and never as one not under contract with the
Union. Furthermore, at all times Boyd was told that
the way to have the pickets removed was for Meyer to
pay the area rates or for Boyd to get proof that Meyer
was paying the prevailing wage. It was only in
response to Boyd's inquiry as to whether, if Meyer
were not on the job, he (Boyd) would have any
problems that the Union stated that if Meyer were not
on thejob there would be no reason for picketing. But,
such a response is obviously true whatever the object
of the picketing might be. And, undoubtedly any
other response would be construed by my colleagues
(and I would be inclined to agree) as indicating that
the protest was directed to someone other than
Meyer. Thus, saying that if Meyer were removed there
would be no reason for picketing, and ceasing to
picket upon advice that Meyer was no longer on the
site, are meaningless in any efforts to determine
whether some underlying purpose existed. Further-
Respondents told Vail's official, Boyd, that Meyer was " unfair" , offered
him a list of "fair" plumbing contractors, asked Boyd whether he would
cancel his contract with Meyer and give it to a "fair " plumbing firm, and
indicated that if Meyer were replaced the pickets would be removed
187 NLRB No, 94
LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS 653
more, all discussions with the general contractor and
other neutrals concerning removal of the pickets were
at the neutrals' instigation and not upon request of the
Respondents, and the offer of a list of "fair"
employers which was made, was withdrawn as soon as
Boyd stated that Meyer's bid had been low and
certain of the "fair" employers had submitted bids
that were much higher Finally, there is no evidence
that any of the pickets directed any comments or
sought in any way to induce neutral employees not to
cross their picket line Nor is there any basis for
concluding that in fact any union representative
talked to Hobbs, the electrical subcontractor, the
testimony is that Hobbs told Boyd that either three
union representatives had been to see him or that one
had visited him on three occasions, which indefinite
testimony the Trial Examiner admitted for only a
limited purpose This leaves only the single inquiry
whether Boyd would replace Meyer, and this standing
alone is insufficient to warrant finding the unlawful
object in this case
The Trial Examiner's finding that the picketing was
for the purpose of inducing members of other labor
organizations to honor the picket line is set forth in his
footnote 5-clearly it is based on the mere fact of the
picketing itself To adopt such a conclusion would
mean that every instance of common situs picketing
necessarily includes the unlawful objective of appeal-
ing to neutral employees to honor the picket line and
to refrain from performing their duties for their own
employer Such a holding would be in direct conflict
with the holding of Moore Dry Dock2 that common
situs picketing may be lawful if it conforms to the
standards there set forth in the absence of evidence
which indicates some other prohibited object No
such evidence exists here Accordingly, I would
dismiss the complaint in its entirety
2 Sailors Union of the Pacific A FL (Moore Dry Dock Company) 92
NLRB 547
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE F FREY, Trial Examiner The issues in this case,
which was heard before me at Chicago, Illinois, on
February 19, 1970, with all parties appearing by counsel,
are whether the above-named Respondents herein desig-
nated in order as Plumbers 307, Electrical Workers 697,
and the Council, picketed ajobsite of Vail Rubber Products
Corporation (herein called Vail) in furtherance of a dispute
of Plumbers 307 with Meyer Plumbing, Inc (herein called
Meyer) and thereby induced employees of Hobbs Concrete
Construction Company, Inc (herein called Hobbs) and
other employers to strike or refuse to perform services for
their employers, and threatened and coerced Vail, Hobbs,
anu other employers, all with the object of forcing and
requiring Vail and other persons to cease dealing in the
products of or doing business with Meyer, and to do
business only with an employer employing members of
Respondents, so that Plumbers 307 thereby violated
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 29 U S C Sec 151, et seq (herein called the
Act), and all Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of
the Act The issues arose on a complaint consolidating the
above cases and issued December 30, 1969, by General
Counsel of the Board through the Board's Regional
Director for Region 13,i and answer of Respondents which,
as amended, admitted jurisdiction but denied the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices At close of the trial all
parties waived oral argument, but written briefs filed by
General Counsel and Respondents have been carefully
considered by me in preparation of this Decision
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor on the
stand, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE EMPLOYERS AND THEIR BUSINESSES
Meyer is an Indiana corporation engaged in residential
and commercial plumbing and heating installation work in
Hammond and other cities in Indiana During 1969, Meyer
had a direct inflow of materials and products valued in
excess of $50,000
Vail is an Indiana corporation engaged in warehousing
industrial rubber products in Hammond, Indiana, and
Hobbs is an employer engaged in the concrete construction
business in Hammond and other cities in Indiana
Respondents admit, and I find, that Meyer, Vail, and
Hobbs are each employers within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and persons engaged in commerce
or in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEIR AGENTS
Each of Respondents is, and at all times material herein
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act, and George B McCarthy, as
business agent, is and has been an agent of Plumbers 307,
Harold P Hagberg as business manager , Harold C (Cy)
Mendelsohn as assistant business manager, and Robert
Schumann as assistant business manager, are and have
been agents of Electrical Workers 697, and Sam F Spitale,
as president, is and has been an agent of the Council within
the meaning of Section 8(b) and 2(13) of the Act Plumbers
307 and Electrical Workers 697 are members of the
Council
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On October 13 or 14, 1969, Vail began construction of a
warehouse facility in Hammond , Indiana (herein called the
i The complaint issued after Board investigation of various charges filed
in the three cases by Meyer on November 10 and 14 1969
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jobsite) On September 26, 1969, it engaged Meyer as the jobsite from October 23, 1969, through December 9,
subcontractor for installation of plumbing fixtures at the
jobsite, and on October 1 engaged Hobbs as subcontractor
for installation of concrete flooring and awarded the
electrical work to A & W Electrical Service Inc (herein
called A & W) At all times material herein Plumbers 307
has had a labor dispute with Meyer, but none with Vail,
Hobbs, or A & W
Hobb's employees began concrete work and Meyer
began plumbing work at the jobsite on October 14 1969
On October 22, Sam F Spitale, president of the Council,
called William A Boyd, president of Vail, and learned from
him that Vail was the owner and general contractor at the
jobsite He reminded Boyd that all work done on buildings
in that area was done by members of the building trades
unions, and he hoped that would continue On further
questioning he learned that Vail subcontracted the concrete
work to Hobbs and electrical work to A & W He
commented that both concerns were `fair contractors"
When Boyd told him Meyer had been awarded the
plumbing contract because he had the lowest price Spitale
said Meyer was "not a fair contractor in the area Boyd
asked what that meant, and Spitale said a "fair contractor"
meant someone who "was fair with us " and who paid the
prevailing wages established in the area ', he commented
that Meyer did not pay those wages, but employed
"foreigners" and "exploited" them by paying them only
about $4 an hour 2 Boyd replied he did not know about
that, and that his only responsibility was to put up a
building for Vail at the lowest competitive cost, and he did
not know who was "fair" with Spitale and who was not
Spitale asked who was doing the carpentry, painting,
heating, and air-conditioning work on the job Boyd said
those contracts had not yet been awarded Spitale said he
would have the business agents of the unions give him a list
of "fair" contractors in the area in these trades, including
the plumbing trade Boyd said he had no objection to that
Spitale said there would be a meeting of the Council that
night where the matter of the plumbing contractor was sure
to come up, and asked if Boyd would be interested in
hearing the results of the meeting Boyd said he would be
Spitale said Boyd would hear from him
On or about October 21, Business Agent McCarthy of
Plumbers 307 noticed a Meyers truck with two workmen on
the jobsite, when he was checking working conditions at
another, unionized building project across the street from
the Vail jobsite He decided to picket the Vail jobsite, so
called union counsel and secured approval for use of picket
signs and handbills which Plumbers 307 had used
previously in its dispute with Meyer Plumbers 307 picketed
2 As Spitale explained to Boyd at the November 5 meeting discussed
below and McCarthy admitted in testimony the prevailing wage was the
union wages (and working conditions ) established in the area by
negotiations between the building trades unions and contractors In this
period the basic union scale for plumbers was $6 30 an hour
S Both Spitale and McCarthy in testimony defined a fair plumber or
fair contractor as an employer who paid the prevailing wage and
observed the prevailing working conditions in their area and a union
plumber or contractor is one who agrees with the union to pay such wages
and observe such working conditions
t I find the above facts from stipulated facts and credible testimony of
Boyd as corroborated in part by admissions of Spitale and McCarthy I do
1969, using a picket sign which read as follows
MEYERS PLUMBING
-INC -
FAILS TO MEET PREVAILING
WAGES & CONDITIONS
THIS NOTICE
is addressed only to the Public It is not addressed
to any employers or employees, nor is anyone
asked to cease doing business with anyone Please
read handbill which spells out purposes of
patrolling
PLUMBERS
UNION 307
AFL-CIO
While picketing that Respondent distributed a handbill,
copy of which is attached hereto as "Appendix D " When
the picketing started, employees of Hobbs were the only
craftsmen working at thejobsite
Late on the afternoon of the 23rd, Spitale called Boyd,
told him that the matter of the plumbers had come up at the
Council meeting, and "the men were very angry " Boyd
replied that was evident, as there was a picket line on the
job Spitale said he would have McCarthy call Boyd the
next day to give him a list of "fair plumbers " On the
morning of the 24th, McCarthy called Boyd, saying he did
so at the request of Spitale, and that he had a list of "fair"
plumbers 3 Boyd named four plumbing contractors besides
Meyers, and asked if they were "fair" plumbers McCarthy
said they were Boyd said he had received bids from them
which were 2 or 2-1/2 times larger than Meyer's bid He
asked McCarthy what he meant by a "fair" plumber, and
McCarthy replied "fair with us" After Boyd explained the
other bids, McCarthy replied "there is no sense in sending
you the list then "4
On the afternoon of October 23, Boyd was advised by
Hobbs that union business agents had visited the jobsite,
and that he would have to stop work as soon as his men
finished unloading a concrete truck on the site When that
was finished, Hobbs' men stopped work, and apparently
did not resume work during the picketing 5
On or before November 4, Stephen Lloyd, an officer of A
& W, asked Boyd if he had any objection if Lloyd called
not credit testimony of the two union agents at variance therewith because
both were confused and McCarthy gave self contradictory testimony
about the dates of their talks with Boyd The inference that McCarthy
must have started his economic action at the jobsite on or after October 21
but not earlier is also compelled by his patent inability to explain why he
waited over a week after his claimed observation of the Meyer truck at the
site before starting his picketing For the same reason as well as Spitale s
argumentative attempt to place his talks with Boyd about October 14 I do
not credit Spitale s placement of the talks with Boyd on that date nor his
claim that Boyd said the plumbing contract had not been let or that Boyd
of his own accord asked for a list of fair contractors
I find these facts from uncontradicted testimony of Boyd Since
LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS 655
Electrical Workers 697 to find out if the picketing problem
could be solved, because A & W was unable to work while
the picketing continued .6 Boyd said he had no objection.
On Tuesday morning, November 4, Lloyd called Mendel-
sohn at the office of Electrical Workers 697 to seek his
assistance in solving the picketing problem, indicating that
Boyd was agreeable to a meeting with Spitale and
McCarthy. Mendelsohn telephoned Boyd, saying he
understood Boyd had a problem on the jobsite, and asked
Boyd to outline it. Boyd told him of the picketing by the
Plumbers, after he had given the plumbing work to Meyer,
the low bidder, and that A & W was his electrical
subcontractor. Mendelsohn said he would discuss the
problem with agents of the various unions meeting that
morning, to try to find a solution to the problem. At close of
a council meeting held that morning, Mendelsohn told
Spitale about the picketing, and said Lloyd would like them
to meet with Boyd, and requested Spitale to set up a
meeting of himself, Mendelsohn, and McCarthy with Boyd.
McCarthy agreed, so he, Spitale, and Mendelsohn went to
Boyd's office about 1 p.m., after a preliminary call to set up
a meeting. Boyd did not show up due to other business, but
called Mendelsohn later, apologized for his absence, and
then arranged to meet with the three agents the next day at
the office of Electrical Workers 6.97.
Boyd met with the three agents above on the afternoon of
November 5; Schumann and Hagberg of Electrical
Workers 697 and a Mr. Wilson of the Carpenters' Union
were also present. At the outset, Boyd outlined Vail's
business and the purpose of its new Hammond building in
answer to questions of Hagberg, and explained that his
added job of acting as general contractor for it was new to
him. He then mentioned that Meyer had the plumbing
contract, and referred to the picketing at the jobsite and the
problem it presented. Spitale told Boyd that members of the
unions represented at the meeting would not work with
Meyer plumbers, because he did not pay the prevailing
wage in the area, and his plumbers did not have skill
acquired by men who went through the apprentice program
of the Plumbers Union. Boyd replied that if he was
obligated to use only subcontractors whose employees were
members of their various unions, this jobsite had been
known to contractors in Illinois and Indiana as far back as
June, when Vail had solicited bids for the various jobs, so it
was the responsibility of Spitale to give him in June a list of
those contractors whose employees would work with each
other, so that Boyd could have made a choice, but it was
now November. Hagberg asked if Boyd knew whether or
not Meyer was "a member of the Plumbers Union." Boyd
said he did not know that, any more than about any other
contractors on the job, he only asked each if he was licensed
to operate in Hammond. Boyd then asked what could be
done about the problem of the pickets, asking "if Meyer
was not on the job, would I have any problems?" Spitale
referred this to McCarthy who replied that if Meyer were
not on the job, there would be no reason for picketing.
There was some discussion of the union apprentice
programs and prevailing wages for this job. Boyd asked
what "prevailing wages" were, and Spitale indicated they
were the union wages and working conditions established
in the area by negotiations between the craft unions and
contractors, so that contractors would be in a position to
bid jobs "on a fair and honest basis," and area workmen
could make a decent living. Spitale said Meyer hired
"foreigners" and workers not familiar with the prevailing
wages in the area, and paid them only $4 an hour, and that
they did not understand that if they were journeymen
plumbers they could get more money if they requested the
prevailing wage. Boyd asked if the pickets would be
removed if Meyer paid the prevailing wage, and McCarthy
replied that if it was proven to him that Meyer paid it, he
would remove the pickets.
Hagberg then asked Boyd if he would be willing to cancel
the Meyer contract and give the balance of that work to a
"fair" plumber. Boyd replied that this was not a "fair"
question, that there must be some other alternative.
Hagberg asked McCarthy if he knew of any other solution.
McCarthy replied he could not think of any, other than to
cancel the contract and give it to a "fair" plumber. Boyd
commented that he had received bids from some contrac-
tors he assumed were "fair," but their bids were more than
2 or 2-1/2 times larger than that of Meyer. McCarthy
commented that Meyer's bid was too low.
Spitale asked Boyd if he would object to placing the
remaining subcontractors with "members of the Building
Trades." Boyd replied that if Spitale would give him a list of
those members, he would send them specifications for bids,
and if they were competitive, he would not hesitate to place
contracts with them. At this point, the union agents held a
private caucus, after which Spitale told Boyd that
McCarthy had indicated that the way to remove the pickets
was to get proof that Meyer was paying the prevailing wage,
and that the only solution was to cancel the Meyer contract
and give the balance of the work to a "fair" plumber. Boyd
replied that he did not think this was a fair solution, any
more than it would be fair to cancel the contracts of all
union contractors and give them to nonunion contractors.
At the request of Spitale, McCarthy showed Boyd a list of
"fair" plumbers. Boyd looked it over, recognized some
contractors on it as having submitted bids, so he told the
agents who they were and the amount of their bids, and also
stated that several on the list had refused to bid. McCarthy
and Hagberg then left the room, and Spitale told Boyd an
impasse had been reached, and suggested that he go home
and "sleep on it," and check with Meyer about proof of
payment of the prevailing wage, and give McCarthy the
information. Boyd suggested that McCarthy should also
"sleep on it" and maybe Spitale could prevail on him to
remove the pickets. Spitale said he would call Boyd in a few
days about it. On the way out of the meeting, Boyd met
Mendelsohn, told him about the discussion, and suggested
it would be better for him to call McCarthy. Mendelsohn
Spitale had advised Boyd on October 22 that Hobbs was a "fair" or union
contractor, it is a fair inference that his employees refused to cross the
picket line of Plumbers 307 as soon as it was set up. It is a well-known fact
of industrial life, recognized by the courts, that one of the main purposes
and usual effect of a picket line set up by one labor organization is to
induce members of other labor organizations to honor it by not crossing it,
which in most instances results in a refusal of members of the latter unions
to work for their employers behind the picket line. See I.B.E. W. Local 501
v. N.L.R.R., 341 U.S. 694,703,704; U.M.W. District 12 (Truax-Traer Coal
Co., Inc.), 177 NLRB No. 27.
6 1 infer that A & W was a "fair" or union contractor with union
employees, from Spitale's remarks about him to Boyd as found above.
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said he would. About 4 days later, Spitale called Boyd to
find out what had happened, and Boyd replied that no
progress had been made, that he had not called McCarthy,
but had gone to see the National Labor Relations Board.7
On December 9, 1969, after a hearing in the local United
States District Court in which General Counsel of the
Board failed to secure a preliminary injunction on a
petition against Respondents under Section 100) of the Act,
Boyd sent telegrams to Respondents advising them that as
of December 3, Meyer no longer had a contract at the
jobsite. Upon receipt of the telegram Plumbers 307
removed the picket line the same day. Boyd had begun
negotiations with another plumbing contractor on Decem-
ber 3, but did not sign a contract with him until January 3,
1970.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES, AND FINAL FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS THEREON
General Counsel argues in the main that the picketing by
Plumbers 307 and the actions of all Respondents at the
November 5 meeting amounted to unlawful pressure on
neutral employers, obviously Vail, with the illegal object of
forcing Vail to cease doing business with Meyer, a primary
employer with whom Plumbers 307 had a labor dispute.
Respondents reply that the picketing of Plumbers 307 was
at all times legal "area standards" picketing designed solely
to publicize Meyer's continued failure to meet area
standards in wages and working conditions, in terms
previously approved by the Board in two cases involving
this Respondent, one of them also involving Meyer."
Respondents also rely on a complete absence of actual
coercion of employees of neutral employers at the jobsite,
and an alleged absence of any action or remarks by any of
Respondents on November 5 or any other time indicating a
desire to eliminate Meyer from the jobsite, or which might
be construed to convert legal "area standards" picketing
into illegal conduct later.
If I accept the premise, as General Counsel seems to, that
the picket signs and handbills were a mechanical indication
of legal "area standards" picketing, it is settled that this is
only one circumstance to be considered, and that the
legality or illegality of the picketing and its object must be
found from consideration of the existence (or absence) of
prior and later facts and circumstances .9 Various actions
r The facts as to the November 5 conference are found from a
composite of credible testimony of Boyd, Spttale, McCarthy, Mendelsohn,
and Hagberg I do not credit the formal denials by the union agents of any
mention of cancellation of the Meyer contract , because of Spitale's and
McCarthy's admission that if Meyer was "off the job," the picketing would
stop, which is tantamount to saying that if his contract were cancelled, the
pickets would be removed Hagberg also admitted he and the other agents
may have mentioned the Meyer contract, besides Boyd, although he
professes not to recall the details of this, I also note that, in their carefully
worded, but at times self-contradictory versions of the meeting , none of the
agents, particularly Spitale, clearly stated that they offered the request for
proof from Meyer of payment of the prevailing wage as the only, or sole,
means to remove the pickets, but only as one way to do it, and I must infer
that they made even this suggestion with "tongue in cheek," so to speak,
knowing from the continuing labor dispute between Plumbers 307 and
Meyer that Boyd could never get Meyer to increase his wage scale or
working conditions to meet the union scale or standards I believe this
solution was stated only for the purpose of giving a semblance of legality to
the picketing as "area standards" picketing and by appearing to conform
their stated desires to the wording of the picket signs and the handbills, and
and remarks of Respondents' agents before and after the
picketing started strongly impel the conclusion that the real
objective of Respondents at all times was to force Vail to
cease doing business with Meyer so that he would cancel
his plumbing contract and award that work to a "fair" or
union plumber
At the outset, Respondents admit that Plumber 307 had a
long running labor dispute with Meyer because that
employer was not unionized and did not pay the prevailing
union wages nor conform to the union working conditions
in the area, as established by contracts between employers
and building trades unions affiliated with the Council. See
footnote 3, and cases cited in footnote 8 above. It is also
clear from the actions of Spitale before work started at the
jobsite that the council, acting for its member unions
including Plumbers 307 and Electrical Workers 697, was
vigilant to police all new construction projects in the area to
make sure that only union contractors adhenng to area
standards were employed thereon. Thus, when Spitale
learned from his regular perusal of construction industry
reports about the Vail project, he indicated to Boyd that he
hoped all work on the job would be performed by workers
affiliated with the local building trades unions, expressed
approval of two of Vail's subcontractors as "fair" or
unionized contractors, but disapproved of Meyer who was
not, and offered to "assist" Vail by giving Boyd lists of
union contractors for plumbing and four other types of
work involved at the jobsite.t° McCarthy admitted he
began the picketing as soon as he saw Meyer equipment
and workmen at the jobsite, because union plumbers were
working in the area on a project across the street; as he does
not claim that any of these plumbers had any connection
with the Vail project, this reason does not make sense,
except to support an inference that his real desire was to
prevent payment by a nonunion contractor (with whom his
union was feuding) of wages lower than union wages at a
site in the area adjacent to a project where his members
were working; and since he and Spitale also admitted they
never tried to talk to Meyer before or after the picketing
began in an effort to find out what his current wage scale
was or to get him to pay the prevailing union scale , ii it is a
fair inference that McCarthy at all times was trying to
prevent a breach of the prevailing union working standards,
not by appeals to the public or negotiation with Meyer, but
by getting Meyer off the Vail job. This objective becomes
thus to hide the real purpose of the picketing, i e , to oust from a job which
was otherwise staffed by union workmen a single contractor who was
nonunion
" Plumbers Local Union 307 (Meyer Plumbing), 146 NLRB 888, and
Plumbers Local Union 307 (Zimmerman Plumbing & Heating), 149 NLRB
1361
q Local No 4, Hoisting and Portable Engineers, etc (0 DiMascio
Construction Corp), 167 NLRB No 123, NLRB v Local 25, IBEW
(Emmett Electric Co), 383 F 2d 449 (C A 2)
10 Spitale admitted he knew Meyer did not pay union wages from past
experience with Meyer , and information gathered from former employees
of Meyer who had joined Plumbers 307 McCarthy' s knowledge that Meyer
was nonunion came from the same source Spitale also admitted his
overtures to Boyd were in course of his normal duties as a council officer
to keep track of new construction in the area and offer his "services" to
contractors, particularly those new in the area, in the procurement of
subcontractors who pay the prevailing , or union wages
11 Both officials admitted their last information on the subject was
received from former Meyer employees about July. 1969
LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS 657
clearer from the remarks of Hagberg, Spitale, and
McCarthy at the November 5 meeting when they bluntly
suggested to and then told Boyd that the only solution to
the picketing problem was to cancel Meyer's contract and
give the remainder of that work to a "fair" or union
plumber. The clinching proof of this objective lies in the
fact that McCarthy removed the picket line as soon as he
received a mere telegram from Vail stating that Meyer was
off the job, without making any attempt to find out from
Vail of elsewhere who the new plumbing contractor was, or
whether he was a "fair" contractor; this supports the
inference that the main objective all along was to get the
nonunion Meyer off the job so that Vail would have no
alternative but to turn to a union plumber; the maintenance
of area standards was at most an incidental result which
Respondents clearly expected to flow from the elimination
of Meyer.
While I have found, contrary to Boyd's testimony, that
the three business agents did point at the November 5
meeting to the procurement of proof of Meyer's payment of
the prevailing wage as an alternate means of removing the
picket line, I have also noted the almost parrot-like
similarity of their versions of this portion of the meeting, in
contrast with their vagueness about the discussions on
prevailing wages, Vail's business, and other topics on which
Boyd testified clearly and impressively, which supports the
conclusion that their offer of the alternate solution was not
bona fide, but made with "tongue in cheek," so to speak, as
an obvious attempt to clothe the picketing, signs, and
handbills with an appearance of legality, although they
knew Plumbers 307 had been unable to force Meyer to
become "union" apparently since as early as 1963 (see
decision in 146 NLRB 888, issued April 1964), and hence
they must have known that Boyd had no means, legal or
otherwise, or chance to force Meyer under his subcontract
to conform to the higher union wage standards In addition,
the admitted failure of Spitale or McCarthy to contact
Meyer, the primary employer, about his known failure to
meet area standards is another strong indication that
Respondents' claimed objective of preserving area stand-
ards was a mere pretext. Local 480, IBEW (Gulf Coast
Building and Supply Company, Inc.), 172 NLRB No. 64;
Local 4, Hoisting, etc. (0 DiMascio Construction Corp.),
supra.
For these reasons, I conclude that Respondents' main
objective was to force Vail to cancel the Meyer contract,
thereby requiring it to cease doing business with Meyer, an
objective proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, and that
the existence of a secondary legal objective, such as
preservation of area standards, did not serve to absolve
them from the consequences of having an illegal objective.
N L R B v. Local 25, IBEW (Emmett Electric Co ), 383 F.2d
449, 453 (C A. 2)
As agents of the three Respondents in concert told Boyd
that the only solution to the picketing problem was to
cancel Meyer's contract and replace him with a "union"
plumber, a proscribed objective, their remarks constituted
threats, restraints and coercion within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(n) of the Act, for the plain implication of
their remarks was that the picketing would continue and
Vail would suffer economic loss through failure of
unionized employees of other subcontractors to work
during the picketing, unless Meyer were eliminated from
the job. Local Union No. 11, IBEW (L. G Electrical
Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766; United Association of
Journeymen, etc., Local 32 (A & B Plumbing, Inc.), 171
NLRB No. 66.
I also find and conclude that the picketing by Plumbers
307 for the proscribed objective aforesaid was well
calculated to, and in fact did, induce employees of neutral
employers to withhold their services, within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act, as well as threatening, coercing
and restraining Vail and other neutral employers within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act. On the latter
aspect, it is clear from testimony of Boyd and admissions of
Hagberg and Mendelsohn that the picketing, followed by
the coercive remarks of the three business agents on
November 5, caused Boyd to cancel the Meyer contract,
and also caused A & W, another neutral employer whose
employees were members of Electrical Workers 697, to
contact Mendelsohn and Hagberg and cause the latter to
initiate the discussions and meeting between Spitale,
McCarthy, and Hagberg and Boyd, as found above,
because A & W wanted a solution found to remove the
picket line so that its employees would work. L. G.
Electrical Contractors, Inc., supra; Plumbers & Steamfitters
Local No. 364, et als. (Ralph Duris Plumbing), 159 NLRB
563.
I also find and conclude that the three Respondents acted
in concert in pursuing the proscribed objective aforesaid,
from the time of the joint suggestions of their agents to
Boyd on November 5 about elimination of Meyer in order
to remove the picket line, which amounted to an adoption
of the picketing of Plumbers 307 by the other Respondents,
and an approval of continuance thereof unless Meyer was
cancelled out. Hence, it is clear that all Respondents are
jointly and severally liable from and after November 5,
1969, for the unlawful picketing and other conduct found
above for a proscribed objective, which violated the Act to
the extent found above.12
In summary, I conclude on all the above facts and
circumstances and the applicable law, that (1) by picketing
the Vail jobsite from October 23, 1969, onward, Respon-
dent Plumbers 307 engaged in, and induced and encour-
aged employees of Hobbs, A & W, and other persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities, or to perform any services, (2) that
Electrical Workers 697 and the Council engaged in the
same conduct from November 5, 1969, onward by adopting
the picketing of Plumbers 307, and by said picketing and
other conduct found above Plumbers 307, Electrical
Workers 697, and the Council, and each of them have
threatened, coerced, and restrained Vail and other persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, all with an object of forcing and requiring Vail and
12 In reaching the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, I have without merit
carefully considered other arguments made by Respondents, and find them
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other persons to cease using, handling, transporting or
otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing
business with Meyer. By such picketing and other conduct
described above, for the objective aforesaid which is
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, Respondent
Plumbers 307 has engaged from October 23, 1969 onward
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act, Respondents
Electrical Workers 697 and the Council have done the same
from and after November 5, 1969, and all Respondents
have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(n)(B) of the Act.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in Section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Vail
and Meyer described in Section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship 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.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B)
of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist
from such practices, and take certain affirmative actions
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Vail, Meyer, and Hobbs are employers engaged in
commerce or in industries affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(n)(B) of the Act.
2. Each of Respondents is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in, and inducing and encouraging
employees of Hobbs, A & W, and other persons engaged in
commerce or in industries affecting commerce, to engage
in, strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to
use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or
to perform any services, with the object set forth above,
Respondents and each of them have engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Vail and
other persons engaged in commerce or in industries
affecting commerce by means of picketing and other
conduct found above, all with the object set forth above,
Respondents and each of them have engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
,findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted
by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all
objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and the entire record in the case, I
hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondents, Local 307, Plumbers, United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada
(AFL-CIO), Local 697, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Northwestern Indiana Building
and Construction Trades Council, and their respective
officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns,
jointly and severally, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any
employees of Hobbs Concrete Construction Company,
Inc., A & W Electrical Service, Inc., or 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, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities, or to perform any services, and from
threatening, coercing, or restraining Vail Rubber Products
Corporation or any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an
object thereof is to force or require Vail Rubber Products
Corporation or any other person to cease using, handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to
cease doing business with, Meyer Plumbing, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is hereby
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their respective offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A,"
"Appendix B," or "Appendix C," as applicable.13 Copies of
said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 13, after being duly signed by authorized
representatives of Respondents, shall be posted by each of
said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by each for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Promptly after receipt of copies of said notices from
said Regional Director, return to him signed copies for
posting by Vail Rubber Products Corporation, Hobbs
Concrete Construction Company, Inc., and A & W
Electrical Service, Inc., if they be willing, at their places of
business, including the Vail jobsite at 6944 Parrish,
Hammond, Indiana, and all other,lobsites at which any of
said employers may be working within the territorial
jurisdiction claimed by said Respondents and each of them,
and all places where notices to employees of said employers
are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS 659
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken by Respondents to
comply herewith.14
14 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 A
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby advise all members of Local 307, Plumbers,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada (AFL-CIO), and Vail Rubber Products
Corporation, Hobbs Concrete Construction Company,
Inc., and A & W Electrical Service, Inc., and their
employees, that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce, or encourage
employees of Hobbs Concrete Construction Company,
Inc., A & W Electrical Service, Inc., or 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, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any
services, and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or
restrain Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where in either case an object of such
conduct is to force or require Vail Rubber Products
Corporation or any other person to cease using,
handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the
products of, or to cease doing business with, Meyer
Plumbing, Inc.
LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS,
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND PIPE
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND
CANADA (AFL-CIO)
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 881
U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
312-353-7572
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby advise all members of Local 697, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Vail Rubber
Products Corporation, Hobbs Concrete Construction
Company, Inc. and A & W Electrical Service, Inc., and
their employees, that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce, or encourage
employees of Hobbs Concrete Construction Company,
Inc., A & W Electrical Service, Inc., or 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, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any
services, and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or
restrain Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where in either case an object of such
conduct is to force or require Vail Rubber Products
Corporation or any other person to cease using,
handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the
products of, or to cease doing business with, Meyer
Plumbing, Inc.
LOCAL 697, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 881
U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South
Dearborn Street , Chicago, Illinois 60604 , Telephone
312-353-7572.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby advise all members of Northwestern Indiana
Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and
Vail Rubber Products Corporation, Hobbs Concrete
Construction Company, Inc. and A & W Electrical Service,
Inc, and their employees, that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce, or encourage
employees of Hobbs Concrete Construction Company,
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inc, A & W Electrical Service , Inc, or 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 , process,
transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles , materials , or commodities , or to perform any
services, and WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce, or
restrain Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce , where in either case an object of such
conduct is to force or require Vail Rubber Products
Corporation or any other person to cease using,
handling , transporting , or otherwise dealing in the
products of, or to cease doing business with, Meyer
Plumbing, Inc
NORTHWESTERN INDIANA
BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
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
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 881
U S Courthouse and Federal Office Building , 219 South
Dearborn Street , Chicago, Illinois 60604 , Telephone
312-353-7572
APPENDIX D
The peaceful patrolling is being done by Plumbers Local
Union No 307 of the AFL-CIO As a union we are, of
course , pro-union but this is not why we are picketing
True , we always like to see members of the union employed
not only because they are our members , but also because
we know that as the result of their intense training and
experience and the completion of a five-year apprenticeship
program these men are qualified to give the finest service
and perform work with the expert craftsmanship which
they have learned But we have an additional interest in our
area We believe it is our obligation along with other residents
of the area to maintain a certain standard of living A standard
of living comes from wages and conditions and we believe the
wages and conditions which permit the maintenance of our
standard of living and your standard are those which prevail in
the general area Once these wages and conditions which
prevail are reduced this means that the standard of living is
reduced and it is not only reduced for the mechanic but it is
reduced in the entire community as well because the
merchant , the professional man and anyone who business is
dependent upon the prevailing wage of the mechanic is hurt
when prevailing wages are not met And , this is why we are
patrolling Meyers Plumbing, Inc is not meeting prevailing
wages and conditions and this, in our opinion , represents a
threat to the entire community
This notice is addressed only to the public It is not
addressed to any employers or to any employees There is
no intent or attempt to induce or encourage employees of
any employer , or any person to engage in a refusal to work,
transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
materials and so on No one is requested to cease
performing any services No one is requested to cease doing
business with any one person There is no intent to have
any particular work assigned to anyone , nor is there an
intent to seek recognition or start bargaining
We believe that the people in this area should be familiar
with what is going on and that is the sole purpose of patrolling
Plumbers Local Union No 307
Affiliated with A F L -C 10