Local 636, Plumbers and Pipefitters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 189 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LOCAL 636, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS
Local 636, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO and Mechanical Contractors Association
of Detroit, Inc. Case 7-CC-435
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On August 13, 1968, Trial Examiner Alvin
Lieberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding , finding that Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices as 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
Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision , and a supporting
brief. The Charging Party filed a brief in support of
the Trial Examiner's Decision and in answer to
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 this case , and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner as modified herein.
The issue in this and related cases in determining
whether a union by its conduct has violated Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act' is whether the dispute is
between the union and the person against whom the
union ' s action is directed or between the union and
another person . This issue can be resolved, as
recently stated by the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit,' by a consideration of two questions: (1)
What was the union seeking? (2) Was the person
against whom the union directed its action in a
position to do anything about it?
As we agree with the Trial Examiner that it is unnecessary to reach the
question of historical practice , we do not adopt his further finding that the
piping work here involved has not historically and traditionally been
performed at the jobsite . See and compare N.L.R.B. v. International
Longshoremen 's Association , (Bd of Harbor Commissioners ), 331 F.2d
712, 719 (C.A. 3).
Section 8(bX4) provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a
labor organization "(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any
individual ... to engage in a strike or a refusal . . . to use, manufacture,
process . or otherwise handle or work on any goods ... or to perform
any services , or (ii) to threaten , coerce, or restrain any person engaged in
commerce ... where in either case an object thereof is :... (B) forcing or
requiring any person to cease using, selling , handling , transporting, or
otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or
189
Page Plumbing was the mechanical contractor
involved in the construction of an additional
building for Holy Cross Hospital. The engineer and
architect retained by the Hospital specified in their
plans that room heating and cooling should be
provided by factory-piped fan coil units.' All
bidders, including Page, were advised of this
specification and submitted their bids in reliance
thereon . The specifications further provided that the
architect was to supervise the work and that he
"shall interpret the Specifications . and shall
decide all other questions in connection with the
work."
Although aware of the specifications, Respondent
insisted to Page that the latter ' s employees, who
were members of Respondent , were entitled to
fabricate and install certain piping on the fan coil
units in accordance with the collective-bargaining
contract between Respondent and an association of
which Page was a member . The contract provided
that "all pipe two inches (2") and under and all
hanger rods are to be cut, threaded , and installed by
employees on the job ." Inasmuch as the contract
between Page and Holy Cross Hospital required
Page to perform all work "in strict accordance with
the specifications," Page was without power to
comply with Respondent 's request . However, in an
attempt to satisfy Respondent, Page did propose to
the architect that the piping of the fan coil units
provided for in the specifications be fabricated at
the construction site. The architect rejected the
proposal and insisted that the units be shipped to
the job preassembled , as required by the
specifications . Thereafter , as conceded by
Respondent and found by the Trial Examiner,
Respondent induced the employees of Page at the
Holy Cross Hospital job site not to handle the
manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person .
'Beacon Castle Square Bldg Corp. v. N.L.R. B., 406 F .2d 188 (C A. 1).'
'In agreeing with the Trial Examiner that the specification required that
the fan coil units be prepiped, we rely on the following facts: ( 1) Noble, the
mechanical engineer , prior to drawing up the particular specification
involved here, consulted with several manufacturers concerning the
arrangement of the valves and piping in a single compartment and the
ability of the manufacturers so to prepipe the units , and thereafter included
those able to prepipe in the list of approved manufacturers. (2) Noble, at
the time of drawing up the specification , intended that it require prepiping.
(3) Nelson , the architect, and Noble agreed ,, in conferences concerning the
specifications , that the fan coil units be prepiped . (4) Noble, during the bid
period , advised contractors that the specification required prepiping. (5)
Page understood at the time he submitted his bid that the specification
called for prepiping . (6) The end pocket valves, which the specification
clearly required to be installed by the manufacturer of the fan coil units,
are incorporated in and held in place by the associated or end pocket
piping, and this is the normal way in which the valves are installed in the
fan coil unit . (7) A prototype prepiped fan coil unit was delivered to the
construction site and was there repiped by Respondent 's members in
accordance with instructions from Page to provide (a) that the end pocket
piping be in position for connection to the permanent piping , and (b) that
the valves be easily accessible for maintenance purposes; the improved unit
was then returned to the manufacturer for use as a prototype in the
manufacture of identical units which could be used interchangeably
throughout the building, interchangeability being an underlying reason for
requiring prepiping . (8) Noble subsequently visited the manufacturer's
plant for the purpose of instructing the manufacturer as to the
acceptability of the piping.
177 NLRB No. 14
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
factory-preassembled fan coil units.
It is obvious from the foregoing facts that Page,
although willing to do so, was powerless to comply
with Respondent's demand. As the Hospital through
its architect would not relax or change the
specifications for the job , a strike against Page
would be fruitless in terms of achieving
Respondent's objective, unless Page's customer, the
Hospital or its architect, was thereby persuaded to
change the contract specifications so as to permit
Page's employees to fabricate certain piping on the
job. In the real and practical sense Page was a
neutral; it was caught between the conflicting
demands of the Respondent and the Hospital, and
was without power to resolve the conflict in the
manner desired by Respondent. Section 8(b)(4) of
the Act was intended to protect "employers in the
position of neutrals between contending parties."'
Inasmuch as Page was incapable of complying with
Respondent's demands, an object of Respondent's
conduct directed at Page must inevitably have been
to cause Page to rescind its contract and thus cease
doing business with the Hospital, a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.'
In deciding that Page was not the primary
employer, we have used the "right to control" test.'
This is the most readily available analytical tool in
deciding the primary-secondary dichotomy and
conforms, we believe, with the Congressional intent
in proscribing secondary boycotts. It has received
the approval of a number of Courts of Appeals." As
explained by Judge Prettyman:'
. The basic criterion is, as the statute (Section
8(b)(4)) specifically provides, the object, or
objects, of the union action. So the problem is:
What was the object? The Board has held several
times that, if a union demands that a contractor
do something he is powerless to do except by
ceasing to do business with somebody not
involved in the dispute, it is manifest that an
object of the union is to induce this cessation of
business . The courts to which this problem has
come have agreed with the holdings.
We think this is rational and proper reasoning.
Recently the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit'° expressed the view that the teachings of the
Supreme Court's opinion in the National Woodwork
'National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn v N L. R B. 386 U S. 612,
625.
'Pipe Fitters Local No. 120 (Mechanical Contractors ' Association of
Cleveland, Inc.), 168 NLRB No. 138 , Local 5, Plumbers (Arthur Venneri
Company), 137 NLRB 828, enfd . 321 F.2d 366 (C A.D C.), cert. denied
375 U.S. 921, International Longshoremen 's Association (Board of Harbor
Commissioners ), 137 NLRB 1178, 1182 , enfd . 331 F.2d 712, 717 (C A. 3)
'Idem.
'National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn v N L.R B. 354 F.2d 594
(C.A. 7); Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council , U B. of C v N L.R B.
339 F.2d 142 (C.A. 6); N.L.R B. v. International Longshoremen's
Association , 331 F.2d 712 (C A. 3); Local 5, Plumbers (Arthur Venneri
Company) v. N L R B, 321 F. 2d 366 (C.A.D.C ); N.L R B. v Enterprise
Association , 285 F 2d 642 (C A. 2)
'Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council , U.B of C v. N.L R.B., 339
F.2d 142, 145 (C A. 6)
case" indicate that "right to control" in and of itself
can no longer be considered of decisive significance.
We do not agree with this reading of the National
Woodwork opinion. The National Woodwork case
as it came before the Supreme Court involved only
a situation where the contractor against whom the
respondent union struck had the power either to
fabricate doors on the jobsite or purchase
prefabricated doors. He elected to do the latter.
That case before the Board also involved an
allegation that the respondent union had violated
8(b)(4)(B) by striking other contractors whose
contracts with the owners of the construction
projects involved specified that the contractors
should furnish and install prefinished doors. The
Board held that the union's refusal to permit
handling of these doors was a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(B).' 2 The court of appeals affirmed this
finding." The union did not seek review thereof. In
the light of this situation the Supreme Court said
that the Board's "right to control" doctrine was not
before the Court.' ° It seems to us, therefore, that the
words used by the Court in rationalizing its holding
must be considered exclusively in the light of the
question before it. It would be anomalous to argue
that, although the Court expressly stated that it was
not determining the validity of the "right to
control" test, it nevertheless rejected that test.
Therefore, until the Supreme Court explicitly
decides to the contrary, the Board will continue to
use the "right to control" test in appropriate
circumstances in determining whether an unlawful
secondary boycott exists."
Accordingly, we find, in agreement with the Trial
Examiner, that by its conduct vis-a-vis Page,
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.
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
"American Boiler Manufacturers Association v N.L.R B., 404 F 2d 556
(C.A. 8)
"National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn v. N L R .B, supra.
"Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia, U.B C. & J of A
(National Woodwork Manufacturers Association ), 149 NLRB 646.
"National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn v N L R.B, 354 F 2d 594
(C.A. 7).
"National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn v N L R B , supra at 616,
fn. 3.
"In Beacon Castle Square Building Corp v N L R B, supra, a
decision handed down subsequent to the Supreme Court ' s opinion in
National Woodwork , the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition
for review of a Board order ( 170 NLRB No. 126) dismissing a complaint
alleging 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) violation and in doing so applied the "right to
control" test. It is true that in a footnote "moreover" argument , the court
referred to the Eighth Circuit's decision in American Boiler Manufacturers
Assn , in support of its Decision, but this was dictum
LOCAL 636, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS
orders that Respondent, Local 636, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALVIN LIEBERMAN , Trial Examiner : The trial in this
proceeding , with all parties represented , was held before
me in Detroit , Michigan , on several days between April 8
and May 3 , 1968, upon a complaint of the General
Counsel issued on March 18, 1968,' and respondent's
answer.' In general , the issue litigated was whether
respondent violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act. Particularly , the questions for decision are as follows:
1. Did an object of respondent' s inducement of
employees of Page Plumbing and Heating Company
(herein called Page Plumbing ) to refuse to handle or
install factory piped fan coil room heating and cooling
units in a hospital under construction at which Page
Plumbing is the mechanical contractor fall within the
proscriptions of Section 8(b)(4)(B ) of the Act?
2. A subsidiary question relating to respondent's object
is: Did the architectural specifications for the construction
of the building in question require the installation of
factory piped fan coil room units by Page Plumbing.
Upon the entire record ,' upon my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor while testifying , and upon
careful consideration of the arguments made and the able
briefs submitted by the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
There are three entrepreneurial entities involved in this
proceeding. They are Holy Cross Hospital, Franciscan
Sisters of Michigan, Inc. (herein called Holy Cross
Hospital ), for whose account a hospital building is being
erected in Detroit, Michigan; Page Plumbing which was
awarded the contract to perform the mechanical work,
including the installation of fan coil room units, on the
building under construction ; and Schemenauer
The complaint was issued on a charge filed on March 5, 1968, by
Mechanical Contractors Association of Detroit , Inc. (herein called the
Association).
'During the trial the complaint and answer were revised in several
respects . Insofar as the complaint is concerned paragraph 9 was amended
to remove the designation of employer from Holy Cross Hospital and to
allege only that it is a person within the meaning of those sections of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), set
forth in the paragraph; paragraph 11 was amended by striking the
following names and designations opposite those names- Don McNamara,
Tom Williams , Pete Boyle , and Bill Palmer; paragraph 18 was stricken in
its entirety ; and the following paragraph was substituted for paragraph 20
On or about March 4 , 1968, two pre-piped Schemenauer fan coil units
to which were attached the Robertshaw valves , according to the
specifications referred to in paragraphs 12, 13, and 16 above, were
transported to the Holy Cross Hospital jobsite.
Upon the amendment of the complaint paragraphs 8, 9, 11, and 20 of the
answer were amended to admit the correspondingly numbered paragraphs
of the amended complaint , and paragraph 18 of the answer was stricken.
'Issued simultaneously is a separate order correcting the stenographic
transcript of this proceeding in several respects [Omitted from
publication]
191
Manufacturing Company (herein called Schemenauer), the
manufacturer of the fan coil room units which Page is to
install in the hospital building.
Holy Cross Hospital owns and operates a hospital in
Detroit, Michigan. The hospital building presently being
built will, when completed, serve as an addition to Holy
Cross Hospital ' s existing facility.
Schemenauer is engaged at Holland, Ohio, in the
manufacture and sale of fan coil heating and cooling units
and related equipment. Schemenauer annually sells and
ships directly to customers located outside the State of
Ohio, products valued at more than $50,000.
Page Plumbing, a member of the Association, the
charging party in this proceeding, is a machanical
contractor in the building and construction industry,
whose place of business is located at River Rouge,
Michigan. During 1967, a representative period, Page
Plumbing purchased and received in the State of Michigan
products valued at more than $50,000 from suppliers
located in other States. Page Plumbing bought goods and
supplies worth more than $50,000 from vendors located
outside the State of Michigan for use in connection with
its work at the building being erected for Holy Cross
Hospital.
On the foregoing facts I find that Holy Cross Hospital
is a person within the meaning of the Act.' I further find
that the assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the
Board is warranted. S. M. Kisner, et al., 131 NLRB 1196,
1198-00; Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85;
McAllister Transfer, Inc., 110 NLRB 1769, 1771-72.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Briefly this case concerns itself with the refusal,
concededly induced by respondent, of employees of Page
Plumbing to handle fan coil units manufactured by
Schemenauer or to install them, in rooms of a hospital
building being erected for Holy Cross Hospital because
they were not piped at the construction site, but, instead,
arrived there with factory attached piping measuring 2
inches and less in diameter.
The complaint alleges , and the General Counsel and the
Association argue,' that respondent's inducement of the
employees in question not to install the factory piped fan
coil room units was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the
Act` for the reason that the piping of the units was not
within the control of Page Plumbing. This argument, in
turn, rests upon the General Counsel's contention that the
architectural specifications, which form part of Page
Plumbing's building contract with Holy Cross Hospital,
require Page Plumbing to furnish and install factory piped
fan coil room units.
'For a discussion of the impact upon commerce of the hospital industry
generally , see Butte Medical Properties, etc.. 168 NLRB No. 52
'As the arguments of the General Counsel and the Association are
similar they will be referred to as the General Counsel's contentions
'Section 8(b)(4)(B), commonly referred to as the Act's secondary boycott
provision , reads as follows:
Sec. 8....
(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents -
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Claiming that its object in inducing employees of Page
Plumbing not to handle the factory piped fan coil room
units did not fall within the proscription of Section
8(b)(4)(B ) of the Act, respondent contends that it did not
violate that section . The object of its inducement , argues
respondent, was to enforce its collective-bargaining
agreement with Page Plumbing which provides for jobsite
piping of such units when , as here, the pipe measures 2
inches or less in diameter . The purpose of this provision,
respondent asserts on brief, is the permissible one of
preserving "for job site pipefitters [such as those employed
by Page Plumbing] . work they have historically and
traditionally performed at job site."
Respondent' s position concerning the architectural
specifications is that they do not, as the General Counsel
urges , require Page Plumbing to furnish and install
factory piped fan coil room units. Alternatively,
respondent contends that even if they do contain such a
requirement this, alone , is insufficient to deprive Page
Plumbing of control over the piping.
B. Preliminary Facts and Conclusions
1. Respondent' s collective-bargaining contracts with
the Association
Since about 1958 respondent's collective-bargaining
contracts with the Association, binding upon Page
Plumbing and the Association's other members , contained
provisions requiring pipe of a certain diameter to be cut,
threaded , and installed by pipefitters at construction sites.
Article XI of respondent' s current agreement with the
Association states, in this respect , that "all pipe two
inches (2") and under and all hanger rods are to be cut,
threaded, and installed by employees on the job." Similar
language has appeared in collective -bargaining contracts
between respondent and associations of plumbing and
mechanical contractors since about 1941, and respondent
has sucessfully resisted efforts to delete it.
2. Pipefitters' historical and traditional work
Respondent refers to article XI of its current agreement
and similar provisions in previous agreements as clauses
preserving for its members "work they have historically
and traditionally performed at job site ."' In this
connection , William Kelly , respondent's business manager,
testified that upwards of 80 percent of jobsite work
performed by pipefitters is "on pipe two inches and
under ." However, there is no breakdown in the record as
to how much of this work consists of installing in
buildings under construction main and branch pipelines,
with which this case is not concerned , and how much of
r • r • s
(4) (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed
by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his
employment to use, manufacture, process , transport , or otherwise handle
or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform
any services; or (ii) to threaten , coerce, or restrain any person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where in either case an
object thereof is:
r • * r
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using , selling, handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer,
processor, or manufacturer , or to cease doing business with any other
person , .. Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be
construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary
strike or primary picketing;
this work is devoted to the piping of auxiliary equipment,
as typified by fan coil units, the possible relevancy of
which has already been discussed.'
On the other hand, the record shows that a variety of
equipment containing factory piping measuring 2 inches or
less is regularly handled and installed in buildings without
disturbing the factory piping by pipefitters qualified to
pipe the units involved at the jobsite. Thus, even the fan
coil room units involved in this proceeding contain factory
piping of less than 2 inches , technically known as
crossover piping , and coils,' which piping , respondent
admits in its brief, pipefitters "have never performed in
the field." Furthermore, the record also shows that other
types of factory piped equipment , including boilers,
chillers, sterilizers, refrigeration units, and ceiling heating
panels, are likewise handled and installed in buildings by
pipefitters leaving the factory piping undisturbed.
Accordingly, I cannot find on this record that piping of
the type concerned here is , as respondent asserts "work
[pipefitters] have historically and traditionally performed
at job site."
3. The specifications
About 1964 LaVern J. Nelson, an architect, was
engaged by Holy Cross Hospital to design an addition to
its existing hospital . With the agreement of Holy Cross
Hospital , Nelson retained James P. Noble , a mechanical
engineer , to assist him in preparing the mechanical plans
and specifications and to supervise their execution.
At conferences for the development of the mechanical
concept for the hospital addition Nelson and Noble both
agreed that room heating and cooling should be provided
by factory piped fan coil units . Noble then drew the plans
and specifications for the mechanical work, which, from
time to time, he reviewed with Nelson . These covered,
among other things the new buildings ' plumbing, heating,
air conditioning , and ventilating systems and made
provision for room heating and cooling by fan coil units."
The introductory language of the specifications relating
to the room heating and cooling units states that the
"[c]ontractor shall furnish and install , where shown on the
plans, fan-coil room units manufactured and equipped as
follows." They then describe the components of the units;
such as, the cabinet , coil, fan , etc., and conclude with the
following language:
'In view of the fact, as I find below , that the architectural specifications
for the hospital under construction required Page Plumbing, the
mechanical contractor , to install factory piped fan coil room units, a
finding on the question of whether piping of the type appearing on such
units has "historically and traditionally" been performed by pipefitters at
jobsites, becomes unnecessary. National Woodwork Manufacturers
Association , 149 NLRB 646, 658, aft in this respect 354. F.2d 594 (C.A.
7). Such a finding , however , would have been necessary in the event of a
determination that the architectural specifications did not preclude Page
Plumbing from piping the units at the construction site National
Woodwork Manufacturers Association , et al, v. N L R. B, 386 U.S 612,
616, 646. For this reason evidence was received as to the historical and
traditional work of pipefitters and its inclusion of construction site piping
of equipment exemplified by, but not limited to, the fan coil units supplied
by Schemenauer for installation by Page Plumbing . This evidence having
been received, a finding on this point will be made for such value as it may
have.
'See in. 7
'These units also contain a combination of pipe , known as end pocket
piping, also measuring 2 inches or less in diameter.
' The mechanical specifications were received in evidence as G C Exh.
3. This exhibit will, as the occasion arises , be referred to in this Decision
as G.C. Exh. 3.
LOCAL 636, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS 193
Unit manufacturer shall install automatic pneumatic
temperature control valves furnished by Control
Contractor and shall provide all associated piping
including a non-rated stop valve (optional - rated gas
valve) on supply and return... .
Approved products shall be Schemenauer, American
Air Filter, Carrier, or approved equal."
The mechanical specifications also provide that the
architect shall supervise all work, and that he "shall
interpret the §pecifications . . . and shall decide all other
questions in connection with the work."'=
Upon the completion of the mechanical plans and
specifications early in 1966 they were submitted to
contractors and bids were invited. During the bidding
period, which closed in May 1966, Noble, the engineer
who prepared the plans and specifications, conferred with
several mechanical contractors, including Page Plumbing.
In the course of his conferences with the contractors
Noble discussed the entire job with them and answered
their questions concerning his interpretatio of the plans. In
this connection, Noble, as he related, advised the
contractors, when the subject arose, that "the
specifications called for prepiped [fan coil] units."
Not only did Noble advise contractors during the
bidding period that the fan coil room units were to be
"prepiped," but he also gave his interpretation of his
specifications from the witness stand. "It provides," he
testified, "that the manufacturer of the fan coil unit
furnish, install the control valves and the piping in
connection with if This as a completed, prepiped,
prewired unit will then be shipped to the contractor."
Noble further testified that in drawing the specifications
for the units, "it was [his] intent to provide for prepiping
... and preassembly."
Nelson and Edward Page, president of Page Plumbing,
which pursuant to contract with Holy Cross Hospital is
performing the mechanical work involved in building the
addition to its hospital, gave similar testimony as to the
meaning of the specifications relating to the fan coil room
units. Thus, Nelson, who as architect, it will be
remembered, is specially designated in the specifications to
be their interpreter "and to decide all other questions in
connection with the work" stated that he "was aware that
when the specifications were written [the fan coil room
units] were to be prepiped." In the same vein Page, who
signed the bid submitted by Page Plumbing on the basis
of which Page Plumbing was awarded the mechanical
contract, said that "the specification called for fan coil
units to be furnished with control valves and associated
piping, factory installed"; that it was his "understanding
[when he submitted the bid] that there was to be
prepiping"; and that "there wasn't any doubt in [his]
mind" as to this.
As noted above in connection with my findings as to
the historical and traditional work of pipefitters, the fan
coil room units in question contain a combination of pipe
known as end pocket piping. The automatic pneumatic
temperature control valves mentioned in the specifications
are attached to, and held in place by, pipes within this end
pocket. As Kelly, respondent's business manager, testified
in this regard, he has never "seen a fan coil unit [of the
particular type under consideration here] in which [the]
"G C Exh. 3, pp. MAC-8 and MAC-9
"G.C. Exh. 3, "General Conditions," p. 2.
control valves are mounted any differently."
The contract between Page Plumbing and Holy Cross
Hospital, which was entered into on June 8, 1966,
provides in pertinent part, that Page Plumbing "shall
furnish all labor and materials and perform all work for
Mechanical Trades for: Additions to Holy Cross Hospital
in strict accordance with the specifications."
Following the contract's execution Page Plumbing ordered
factory piped fan coil room units from Schemenauer for
installation in the building being erected for Holy Cross
Hospital.
During the winter and spring of 1967 Edward Page,
president of Page Plumbing, and Kelly, respondent's
business manager , discussed the work which Page
Plumbing was to perform at Holy Cross Hospital's
addition. The principal topic of their conversations was
the architect's specifications for the fan coil room units.
On one occasion during this series of talks Kelly, as he
put it, told Page that respondent was "standing on the two
inch and under clause in [its] contract [with the
Association]," and that this "contract had been in
existence many years longer than this architect's
specifications and [he was] sure [Page] could get it
changed if we put enough pressure on." Kelly further
testified that "every time [he] saw" Page during this
period he informed Page that "when these [factory piped]
units came on the job ... we wouldn't unload them."
On May 5, 1967, following conversations between Kelly
and Edward Page, as set forth above, Page Plumbing in a
letter to Nelson, the architect, proposed that the piping of
the fan coil room units provided for in the specifications
be fabricated on the construction site. After several
consultations with Noble" concerning the proposal made
by Page Plumbing, Nelson rejected it and authorized
Noble to inform Page Plumbing of his decision. This
Noble did by letter dated September 22, 1967, in which it
was stated that "it is the decision of the Architect and my
decision as the mechanical engineer, that the specifications
shall stand and the . . . unit ... shall be shipped to the
job preassembled...."
In November 1967, an unpiped fan coil unit
manufactured by Schemenauer was received at the
hospital addition construction site. This was not a room
unit, but a ceiling unit, and, apparently, the only one of its
type for which provision was made in the architectural
plans.
Although the function of the fan coil ceiling unit and
the fan coil room units is the same, i.e., heating and
cooling, the ceiling unit is, as the testimony of Robert
Quinn" shows, different in size and composition from the
room units. There are further differences in the place, and
manner , of installation. Thus, the ceiling unit was installed
face down above a ceiling and the room units are to be
installed in an upright position inside the rooms.
The architectural plans call for the placing of this
unpiped fan coil ceiling unit above the ceiling of a room
which will serve as a physicians' lounge. It was installed
there by employees of Page Plumbing.
As noted, the General Counsel contends that the
specifications require the installation of factory piped fan
coil room units. Respondent takes a contrary position."
"Noble, it will be remembered , is the engineer Nelson engaged to assist
him in preparing the mechanical plans and specifications for the hospital
addition which Nelson designed for Holy Cross Hospital.
"Quinn is employed as a foreman by Page Plumbing He is a member of
respondent , which called him as a witness on its behalf.
"Although the relevant portion of the specifications appears earlier in
this Decision , it will be again set forth here for ready reference The
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The specifications are quite clear insofar as they
provide for installation by the manufacturer of the fan coil
room units of automatic pneumatic temperature control
valves . They are not so clear, and may be called
ambiguous , with respect to the piping with which we are
here concerned . In this regard , they state that the "Unit
manufacturer ... shall provide all associated piping." The
specifications having been incorporated in the contract
between Page Plumbing and Holy Cross Hospital, they
must be interpreted , as respondent recognizes on brief "by
accepted standards of contract construction."
There are a myriad of rules, some of which are set
forth in respondent ' s brief, by which contracts are
construed." However, "the primary rule for the
construction of contracts is that the court must if possible
ascertain and give effect to the mutual intention of the
parties ." City of Harlan , Iowa v. Duncan Parking Meter
Corporation , 231 F.2d 840, 841 (C.A. 8).
The parties to the contract here under consideration, of
which the specifications for the fan coil room units are a
part, are Holy Cross Hospital and Page Plumbing. The
ascertainment of their "mutual intention" is not difficult.
It can readily be found in the testimony given by Noble
and Nelson , representatives of Holy Cross Hospital, one
party to the contract , and Edward Page, who signed the
contract on behalf of Page Plumbing , the other party.
Noble, the engineer who, with the agreement of Holy
Cross Hospital , was retained by Nelson , its architect,
expressly testified that he intended in drawing the
specifications for the fan coil room units "to provide for
prepiping." Similar testimony was given by Nelson" and
Edward Page , the president of Page Plumbing.
Declarations, such as these, as to the meaning of a
contract by the parties to it are entitled to great weight. 4
Williston, Contracts, 790 (3d ed .). Many courts, both
Federal and State , have spoken on this point to the same
effect . For example, in Kerfoot et al, v . Kessener et al., 84
N.E. 2d 190, 200, the Indiana Supreme Court stated,
"When a contract is ambiguous, the construction placed
upon it by the parties is of great weight in determining the
true meaning of the terms." Similarly, in Lambertz v.
Builders, Inc. et al., 331 P.2d 559, 563, the Kansas
Supreme Court held that "in determining the meaning of
an indefinite or ambiguous contract , the interpretation
placed upon it by the parties themselves is to be
considered by the court and is entitled to great, if not
controlling , weight." For further examples of like
holdings, see Tyler, et al. v. New York Telephone
Company, 192 F.Supp. 52, 57 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Field's
Will, 204 N.Y.S.2d 947, 949 (N.Y. App. Div.); and Wack
v. Wack, 74 N.Y.S.2d 435, 437 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
Ascribing to the testimony of Noble , Nelson, and Page
the great weight which the authorities hold it deserves, I
specifications (G.C. Exh. 3, pages MAC-8 and MAC-9) provide:
Contractor shall furnish and install , where shown on the plans, fan-coil
room units manufactured and equipped as follows.
* * * r s
Unit manufacturer shall install automatic pneumatic temperature control
valves furnished by Control Contractor and shall provide all associated,
piping including a non-rated stop valve (optional - rated gas valve) on
supply and return....
Approved products shall be Schemenauer, American Air Filter, Carrier,
or approved equal.
"See, for example , 4 Williston, Contracts, Ch. 22 (3d ed.); 3 Corbin,
Contracts, Chs. 24 and 25; and 17 Am. Jur.2d, 624-710.
"Inasmuch as Nelson was designated in the specifications as being the
person to "interpret" them , I attach special significance to his testimony in
this regard.
find that the specifications under consideration require
Page Plumbing to install factory piped fan coil room units
in the hospital addition under construction for Holy Cross
Hospital.
There is a further basis for this finding. As found
above, the specifications clearly state that the pneumatic
temperature control valves shall be installed in the fan coil
room units by their manufacturer. The evidence
establishes that these valves are incorporated in, fastened
to, and held in place by, the piping" which respondent
contends should be attached to the units by its members
at the construction site. To give effect to respondent's
contention in this regard would make it impracticable for
the manufacturer to install the valves . Inasmuch as the
installation of the valves by the manufacturer of the fan
coil room units is unambiguously set forth in the
specifications , logic impels their construction as also
requiring that the piping be installed by the manufacturer.
One of the arguments made by respondent in its brief"
is that the specifications should not be interpreted as
providing for factory piping of fan coil units because one
was received at the jobsite unpiped and was installed
without objection from Noble. However, this argument
overlooks the facts that the unit in question was a ceiling
unit, not a room unit , with the specifications for which we
are concerned ; that it is different in size and composition
from the room units ; and that it was mounted face
downward, whereas the room units are to be set in an
upright position inside the rooms in which they are to be
located.
C. Facts Concerning Respondent's Alleged Unfair
Labor Practices
As noted in the introductory portion of this Decision
the complaint alleges that respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act by instructing employees of Page
Plumbing not to handle factory piped fan coil room units,
manufactured by Schemenauer , when they arrived at the
construction site of the Holy Cross Hospital addition. The
complaint further alleges that as a result of these
instructions employees of Page Plumbing refused to
unload or handle these units at the site.
Although respondent ' s answer denied the foregoing
allegations of the complaint, in its brief respondent
conceded "that , pursuant to instructions pipefitters
employed by Page on the Holy Cross job did, on March
4, refuse to handle two Schemenauer prepiped fan coil
units."" Because of this concession particular findings will
not be made with respect to respondent's conduct. Instead,
it is generally found , paraphrasing where possible the
language of Section 8 (b)(4) of the Act, that respondent
induced and encouraged individuals employed by Page
Plumbing to refuse in the course of their employment to
handle and work upon the fan coil room units
manufactured by Schemenauer because they were piped in
Schemenauer ' s factory rather than at the construction site.
"The witnesses who gave testimony to this effect included Kelly,
respondent's business manager. As earlier set forth , Kelly stated on this
point that he has never "seen a fan coil unit [of the particular type under
consideration here] in which [the] control valves are mounted any
differently "
"Although I have not discussed all of respondent's arguments and
contentions each has been considered and studied.
"The complaint also alleges , and the answer denies , that respondent
advised a representative of the Association, the charging party, that it had
instructed employees of Page Plumbing "not to handle the Schemenauer
fan-coil units if they arrived prepiped ." In view of respondent's concession,
a finding as to this allegation would be surplusage.
LOCAL 636, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS
It is further generally found that in this manner
respondent restrained and coerced Page Plumbing.t'
D. Contentions And Concluding Findings Concerning
Respondent 's Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
In view of my findings as to the import of the
specifications which were included in the contract between
Page Plumbing and Holy Cross Hospital and as to
respondent' s conduct , my decision is governed by
Mechanical Contractors ' Association of Cleveland, Inc.,
(crossover piping incident ), 168 NLRB No . 138, and by
National Woodwork Manufacturers Association (Nason,
McDonnell , and Driscoll incidents ), 149 NLRB 646, 657,
658, affd. in pertinent part 354 F.2d 594 (C.A. 7). In
those cases it was held that where architectural
specifications included in a contract awarded to a
construction contractor provide for the installation of
building components manufactured in a certain way it is
violative of Section 8 (b)(4)(B) of the Act for a labor
organization to induce the contractor ' s employees not to
handle or work upon those items , or to threaten to refuse
to permit their installation , because of the manner of their
manufacture.
Thus, in Mechanical Contractors ' the Board stated in
this regard:
The Board of Education had specified in its contract
proposals that "cross-over" piping be factory installed.
Wrightco [the construction contractor ] therefore had no
choice but to contract with Trane [the manufacturer of
the item involved] for the installation of the
"cross-over" piping at the factory . The Board of
Education and not Wrightco was responsible for this
decision and only the former could change it. Wrightco
was a neutral as to this aspect of the pipe installation,
with the Board of Education being the primary
employer . Hence , the pressure exerted against
Wrightco, a secondary employer, to force the Board of
Education , the primary employer, to change its
specifications was secondary action which was unlawful
under Section 8(b)(4)(B).
Similarly, in National Woodwork the rationale for finding
a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B ) was spelled out in the
following language:
As the specifications required the use of precut or prefit
doors and the three contractors were required by
contract to follow the specifications . the work of
cutting out and fitting doors was thereby assigned by
the owners [of the projects] to the mill suppliers and the
general contractors were merely selected by the owners
to carry out this predetermined assignment. The
specifications thus effectively deprived these three
general contractors of control of the assignment of this
work and rule 17 [which provided for construction site
cutting and fitting of doors] of their contract [with the
District Council] therefore was no longer applicable.
They could not grant the District Council ' s request that
the work of cutting out and fitting doors be done on the
jobsite and were powerless to settle the dispute ....In
these circumstances , the effect which the District
Council' s conduct against the general contractors was
designed to produce was to force or require the
respective owners of the projects to reassign the
disputed work to the general contractors by agreeing to
"Effectively inducing a refusal to work constitutes restraint and coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4Xii). Baughan Plumbing and Heating
Company, Incorporated, 157 NLRB 20, 21.
195
change the specifications so as to eliminate the
requirement for precut or prefit doors and to compel
the three general contractors to change and reduce their
contracts with their respective mill suppliers ... and the
latter in turn with the door manufacturers . from
prefit and precut doors to "blank" or "blind" [doors].
Thus, the real targets of the District Council's conduct
were the respective owners of the three projects, the mill
suppliers, and the door manufacturers. The three
general contractors . were in these instances the
secondary targets against whom the pressure was
directed in the form of refusing to hang the precut and
prefit doors in an effort to achieve the other objectives.
Respondent's contention that the object of its conduct
was to enforce the provision of its collective -bargaining
contract with the Association relating to construction site
fabrication of pipe measuring 2 inches and under in
diameter is not well taken. Similar contract provisions
were present and noted by the Board in Mechanical
Contractors' and National Woodwork. With respect to
this it was stated in the latter, in which a contract
enforcement contention was also raised, "[t]he fact that
the District Council was also seeking to enforce the `will
not handle' provision of rule 17 of its contract with the
three general contractors , a provision ... previously found
to be a lawful work-protection or work-preservation
clause, `does not make lawful conduct, which in the
absence of such a provision, is prohibited by statute .. .
[Local 5, United Association of Journeymen, etc., 137
NLRB 828, 831]."'
Consideration of a related argument made by
respondent is appropriate at this point . Respondent asserts
on brief, as justification for its conduct, that it was
preserving "for jobsite pipefitters . . . work they had
historically and traditionally performed at job site." As I
have already stated, I am unable to find, on the record of
this case, that this is a fact. However, even had I found in
respondent's favor on this point it would have availed
respondent nothing . In National Woodwork a finding was
expressly made "that the tasks of cutting out and fitting
doors, has, at least customarily, been performed by
the carpenters, employed on the jobsite." Nevertheless,
the Board concluded, because of the specifications
requiring the installation of precut and prefit doors, that
the refusal of the labor organization there to permit
employees to hang those doors was a violation of 8(b)(4)(B).22
National Woodwork Manufacturers Association et al,
v. N.L.R.B., 386 U.S. 612, heavily relied on by
respondent in support of its position that its object is not
within the proscriptions of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act,
is patently not in point. That case, in pertinent part, was
an appeal to the Supreme Court from that portion of the
Board's decision in National Woodwork, affirmed by the
court of appeals," dismissing the complaint which issued
there insofar as it related to a refusal of a labor
organization to permit employees to hang prefit and
precut doors where their employer was not bound by
specifications in his construction contract to install such
doors." Not before the Court, as it explicitly noted," was
"Compare the Board 's conclusions in the same case that no violation
was involved in similar conduct respecting employees of a contractor,
Frouge, who was not required by building specifications to install factory
finished doors
"National Woodwork Manufacturers Association, et al, v N L.R.B ,
354 F.2d 594 (C.A 7).
"See In. 22.
"See In 3 of the Supreme Court's opinion , 386 U.S. 616.
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that section of the Board ' s decision in National
Woodwork in which a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) was
found on similar conduct respecting employees of
contractors required by architectural specifications to
install factory finished doors.
Respondent' s final argument , insofar as its object is
concerned , is, as stated in its brief, that the "Board's
right-to-control cases [cannot] foreclose all other inquiry
on objective ." This argument , on the soundness of which I
make no judgment , should more properly be addressed to
the Board , itself, or to higher authority rather than to a
Trial Examiner , whose duty it is to follow precedent
established by the Board . Prudential Insurance Company
of America, 119 NLRB 768, 773, reversed on other
grounds 361 U.S. 477.
Page Plumbing being bound by its contract with Holy
Cross Hospital to install in the latter ' s hospital factory
piped fan coil room units , it follows, because Page
Plumbing could not control this aspect of its work, which
respondent disfavored, that respondent ' s conduct had an
object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B ) of the Act. I
conclude therefore , that respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of that section.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
Respondent' s activities set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of
Schemenauer and Page Plumbing set forth 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(B) of the
Act, my Recommended Order will direct respondent to
cease and desist therefrom and to take such affirmative
action as will effectuate the purposes of the Act. In his
brief, the General Counsel urges that I recommend an
order of a type broader in scope than that which is
normally entered in cases of this sort for the reason
respondent "has previously been found in violation of
substantially identical violations of the Act . Local 636,
United Association (Detroit Edison Co.), 123 NLRB
225." Without commenting on the General Counsel's
suggestion that the unfair labor practices which I have
found respondent engaged in here were "substantially
identical" with those present in Detroit Edison , I note that
the latter were engaged in by respondent more than 10
years ago . Because of this time lapse the General
Counsel ' s request is denied.
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. Holy Cross Hospital, Schemenauer and Page
Plumbing are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8 (b)(4)(B) of the Act.
2. Holy Cross Hospital is a person within the meaning
of Section 2(1) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
3. Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by Page Plumbing to engage in a strike and in a refusal in
the course of their employment to handle and work upon
factory piped fan coil room units manufactured by
Schemenauer , which Page Plumbing was required by its
contract with Holy Cross Hospital to install in an addition
to a hospital being erected for Holy Cross Hospital, and
by coercing and restraining Page Plumbing , an object
thereof being to force or require Page Plumbing to cease
using factory piped fan coil room units and to cease doing
business with Schemenauer and Holy Cross Hospital
respondent has engaged , and is engaging , in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices engaged in by respondent,
as set forth in Conclusion of Law 4, above , affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record in this case , I hereby issue the
following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Local 636 , United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or in any manner,
including orders , directions, instructions , requests, or
appeals , however given , made , or imparted , inducing or
encouraging any individual employed by Page Plumbing
and Heating Company or by any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage
in, a strike or in a refusal in the course of his
employment : ( 1) to handle or work upon factory piped fan
coil room units or related products where Page Plumbing
and Heating Company or such other person is required by
contract to use such products , or (2) to use , manufacture,
process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles , materials , or commodities or to perform
any services ; or in any manner, or by any means,
threatening , coercing , or restraining Page Plumbing and
Heating Company or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an
object of any of the foregoing conduct is to force or
require Page Plumbing and Heating Company or any
other person to cease using, selling , handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in factory piped fan coil
room units or related products , when required to do so by
contract , or to cease doing business with Schemenauer
Manufacturing Company or with Holy Cross Hospital,
Franciscan Sisters of Michigan, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended:
(a) Withdraw and rescind any and all orders, directions,
instructions, requests , or appeals pursuant to which
employees of Page Plumbing and Heating Company
refused at the site of the construction of an addition to a
hospital for Holy Cross Hospital, Franciscan Sisters of
Michigan , Inc., to unload , handle , work upon , or install in
said hospital addition under construction , factory piped
fan coil room units.
(b) Post at its office copies of the attached notice
LOCAL 636, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS 197
marked "Appendix ."" Copies of said notice , on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed by respondent ' s authorized representative,
shall be posted by respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members 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.
(c) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 7
signed copies of said notice in sufficient number for
posting by Page Plumbing and Heating Company, other
members of Mechanical Contractors Association of
Detroit , Inc., and Schemenauer Manufacturing Company,
they being willing , at all locations where notices to their
respective employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing , within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.r'
"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 Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"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
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 636 , UNITED
ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF
THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, TO
EMPLOYEES OF PAGE PLUMBING AND HEATING
COMPANY , SCHEMENAUER MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
AND TO EMPLOYEES OF ALL MEMBERS OF MECHANICAL
CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF DETROIT, INC.
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:
After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence it has been found that we violated
the law by committing unfair labor practices. Accordingly
we post this notice and we will keep the promises that we
make in this notice.
WE WILL NOT in any way order , direct , instruct, urge,
ask, persuade , or influence our members or other
individuals employed by Page Plumbing and Heating
Company to refuse to unload , handle , work upon, or
install factory piped fan coil room units or similar
equipment where Page Plumbing and Heating
Company is required by building specifications or
contract to install such equipment.
WE WILL NOT call a strike, or in any way order,
direct , instruct, urge , ask, persuade , or influence our
members or other individuals employed by Page
Plumbing and Heating Company or by any other
company to refuse to do any work , NOR WILL WE pu
pressure of any kind on Page Plumbing and Heating
Company or on any other company where our purpose
in doing any of these things is (1) to force Page
Plumbing and Heating Company or any other company
to stop using , selling , handling , transporting , or dealing
in factory piped fan coil room units or similar
equipment where Page Plumbing and Heating
Company or any other company is required to do so by
building specifications or contract ; or (2) to force Page
Plumbing and Heating Company or any other company
to stop doing business with Schemenauer
Manufacturing Company or Holy Cross Hospital.
WE WILL , and WE DO NOW, cancel , revoke, and
withdraw the orders and instructions given to our
members and other individuals employed by Page
Plumbing and Heating Company not to unload , handle,
work upon, or install factory piped fan coil room units
at the Holy Cross Hospital addition now under
construction.
WE WILL and WE DO Now, notify our members and
other individuals employed by Page Plumbing and
Heating Company that we have no objection to their
unloading, handling , working upon, or installing factory
piped fan coil room units at the Holy Cross Hospital
addition now under construction.
Dated By
LOCAL 636, UNITED
ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND PIPE
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(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 persons have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office , 500 Book
Building , 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit , Michigan
48226, Telephone 226-3200.