Nassau and Suffolk Trades Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 180 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Mail to the said Regional Director a sufficient number of copies of said
signed notice to enable the employers, if they so desire, to post them at their places
of business where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director in writing within 20 days regarding the
steps that have been taken to comply herewith 26
z In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GLASS WORKERS UNION LOCAL No. 1220 AND UNITED
GLASS WORKERS LOCAL No. 188 AFFILIATED WITH BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS,
DECORATORS AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL , if requested to do so by Industrial Conference Board , sign and
execute the agreement reached on December 22, 1965, by and between said
Industrial Conference Board and Local No. 1220 with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment
for the following unit:
All journeymen glassworkers and apprentice glassworkers engaged in
handling, cutting , beveling, drilling, and setting glass, including installing
metal , wood, or plastic members in store fronts , metal doors , and frames,
who are employed by B & B Glass Company , Glass Sales and Service,
Inc., Milgard Glass Company, and Tacoma Glass Company, all located
in Tacoma, Washington.
GLASS WORKERS UNION LOCAL No. 1220 AFFILIATED
WITH BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , DECORATORS AND
PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
UNITED GLASS WORKERS LOCAL No. 188 AFFILIATED
WITH BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , DECORATORS AND
PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327
Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583-4532.
Nassau and Suffolk Building Construction Trades Council, AFL-
CIO ; Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO; Local 1205 , International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Theresa Garden Apartments , Inc.; Saxon Arms Construction
Corp . Cases 29-CC-38, 38-2, 09-CP-29, and 22-2. December 16,
1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 6, 1966, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
162 NLRB No. 13.
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK TRADES COUNCIL 181
Local Unions had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, 'as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent
Trades Council had not engaged in any unfair labor practice and
recommended dismissal of the complaint as to the Trades Council.
Thereafter, the Trades Council, Local 1205 of the Teamsters Union,
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and support-
ing briefs.
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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
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 these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is essentially a picketing case , in which several unions are accused of hav-
ing picketed with a secondary and therefore illegal motive in violation of Section
8(b)(4) of the Act , and/or for purposes of recognition but nevertheless in violation
of Section 8(b)(7) of the statute . The Government 's first step after investigating
the charges was to petition the Federal District Court for an immediate restrain-
ing order to stop the picketing . On that petition testimony was taken in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 17, 18, 20,
and 21 , 1966 , before Judge Jacob Mishler.
With the preliminary matter disposed of, the complaint , as finally amended, came
to hearing on due notice before Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci on March 8, 1966,
at Brooklyn, New York. The charges were filed in the names of Theresa Garden
Apartments , Inc., herein called Theresa , and Saxon Arms Construction Corp., herein
called Saxon , or the Charging Parties, and the complaint now names as Respond-
ents Nassau and Suffolk Building Construction Trades Council , AFL-CIO, herein
called the Council, Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO, herein called Local 138, and Local 1205 , International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , herein called Local 1205.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to participate.
After agreeing upon the formal documents-pleadings , prehearing motions and
related papers , rulings and replies-the parties stipulated that the merits of the com-
plaint be adjudicated in this proceeding upon the basis of the testimony and exhibits
offered and received before the District Court in the injunction proceeding in Janu-
ary. For this purpose the District Court official transcript of testimony and exhibits
were received in evidence here. Thereafter all three Respondents and the General
Counsel filed briefs with me, all of which have been considered.
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I had no opportunity to observe the witnesses ; from my study of all the exhibits,
and from my appraisal of the probative value of all of the oral testimony given by
all of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The issues presented
Of the major substantive allegations of the complaint , only one created no issue,
and that one is that the named Respondents are in fact unions. Accordingly, I find
that Nassau and Suffolk Building Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, Local
138, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, and Local 1205 , Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, are all three labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
The real issues to be decided are: (1 ) Ought the Board to exercise its jurisdiction
in this case in view of the nature and extent of the proof of interstate commerce
carried on by the employers involved? (2) Has it been proved that either Operating
Engineers Local 138 or IBT Local 1205, committed unfair labor practices ? and (3)
Is there sufficient evidence to support the broad allegation that the Construction
Trades Council was responsible for the illegal conduct, if it in fact took place?
The burden of proof resting upon the General Counsel in the injunction proceed-
ing was to show there was "reasonable cause to believe " these questions could be
answered affirmatively . The test here , at least so far as allegations of improper con-
duct are concerned , is different ; before it can be found any unfair labor practices
were committed , or that any particular labor organization was responsible for the
conduct, the assertion must be warranted by a preponderance of the substantial
evidence on the record as a whole. The question of sufficiency of proof is particu-
larly significant with respect to the allegation of wrongdoing charged to the Coun-
cil. Fifty-six construction trades union locals have combined to constitute the Coun-
cil, under regular rules of the AFL-CIO International ' Unions or Federations. Each
of the member locals has designated one or more of its business agents as "dele-
gates" to the Council , which in turn , pursuant to its own bylaws and regulations, is
governed by duly elected officers, of which there are six. Local 138, one of the
Respondents , is a member of the Council ; IBT Local 1205 , also a Respondent, is
not. The picketing, inducement of employees , and coercion of employers reflected
in the testimony appears as the conduct of representatives or agents of Local 138
and Local 1205 , as well as of a number of other locals affiliated with the Council.
There is no evidence that any officer of the Council said or did anything about what
happened . The theory of complaint as to the Council 's responsibility is one of infer-
ence , an argument that from the total activities of so many agents of so many local
unions that are associated with the Council , it follows that the Council, as an entity
apart , was necessarily a party to all that took place.
As to whether or not the Board 's jurisdictional standards have been met, the level
of proof required may be otherwise , but that matter is of no moment here because
there is direct, sufficient proof that the volume of business of employers immedi-
ately affected by the picketing and inducement or coercion alleged more than meets
the necessary requirements.
B. Jurisdiction of the Board
The underlying dispute which gave rise to this proceeding was between a man
named Albert Villani , who, through a number of corporate arrangements , is engaged
in the construction business and in 1965 was building two groups of apartment
houses in Long Island, New York, on the one hand , and several construction trade
and teamster locals on the other. Villani operates nonunion . One of the building
projects, started in March , is in the name of Saxon Arms Construction Corp.; the
other was begun in September , in the name of Theresa Garden Apartments Inc. Vil-
lani and his wife, sole owners of the stock of these two corporations as well as offi-
cers and directors of both , operate the two as a single integrated business with about
100 employees used interchangeably between the two building sites. There was one
general manager , Mike Cortes, and .one superintendent , Salvatore Russano, in direct
charge of both jobs.
As an adjunct part of his business , Villani also owns a warehouse facility located
at 12 Wisconsin Court , also in Long Island . Apparently , for one reason or another,
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK TRADES COUNCIL 183
he also finds it expedient to utilize other corporate setups for collateral aspects of
his construction work. Majestic Modular Co., E.Q. Equipment Corp., and Kalma
Construction Co., are additional companies he uses.
At the time of the picketing and other union conduct under examination here, in
the fall of 1965, Villani was buying ready-mixed concrete from Able Ready Mixed,
Inc., herein called Able. There was union pressure brought upon Able to interrupt
its deliveries to the Theresa and the Saxon projects; in consequence Villani bought
the stock, or at least a controlling interest in the Able Company, and called his new
holding, or delivery operation of ready-mixed concrete, Crusher Concrete Co.
During the year 1965 a considerable amount of materials and supplies were pur-
chased for the Theresa and the Saxon buildings directly from out-of-State sources
and delivered-much of it in Villani's own trucks-from points in New Jersey
straight to the two projects. Original invoices received in evidence show purchases
of $32,923 worth of plumbing supplies and fixtures from South Amboy, New Jer-
sey. Tile in the amount of $2,500, as evidenced by a single statement, came from a
supplier in Camden, New Jersey. There are also in evidence copies of sales delivery
slips for lumber purchased from National Milling Co., of Pennsauken, New Jersey;
these total $19,157. A major portion of the briefs of all three Respondents, as well
as of the entire 4-day hearing in the District Court, is devoted to an attack upon the
sufficiency of evidence concerning this direct inflow of goods to the construction
projects. The Respondents argue that the complaint must be dismissed on jurisdic-
tional grounds because there is no competent evidence that at least $50,000 of sup-
plies or products were delivered to the two building projects during 1965 from out
of State.
As to the materials brought from South Amboy and Camden, New Jersey, total-
ing about $35,500, there is no question as to the sufficiency of the proof. Villani
and his job superintendent testified that they were unable to locate the original
delivery slips of the lumber totaling almost $20,000, purchased from Pennsauken,
New Jersey. Because these records had been misplaced, the construction company
requested National Milling Company, in New Jersey, to furnish it with duplicate
copies of those records. The copies of delivery records, with amounts of lumber and
sheet-rock, together with price totals, received in evidence, were prepared while the
injunction hearing was going on, by National Milling and sent to Brooklyn for that
purpose. The reliability of those documents as evidence of out-of-State deliveries in
fact made, is strengthened by the testimony of Mike Cortes, the general manager,
whose duty it is to approve payments for all deliveries of supplies and materials at
the construction sites. He testified unequivocally that all the material indicated by
those delivery slips in fact went into the two buildings in question, that all payments
were approved by him in the normal course of his duties, and that he knew for a
fact all of this material had been delivered to these sites from New Jersey. More-
over, a search of the builder's offices did reveal two original delivery slips; one is
for $984 dated November 30, 1965, and the other for $2,282, dated October 22.
These delivery slips, originals in the hands of the builder, dovetail precisely with
two of the group of copies made by National Milling later. Considering the size of
the two projects-a total cost of $1,400,000-a ceitain looseness in the method of
doing business-many of these bills were paid by a finance company whose checks
apparently were not immediately available to the builder itself-plus evidence of
deliveries being made to the warehouse location instead of the jobsite in order to
avoid the very stoppages incidental to the picketing that was going on, I think all of
the foregoing, fairly appraised, suffices for a finding, which I make, that at these
two jobsites together the builder received materials valued in excess of $50,000 dur-
ing the year 1965 directly from out-of-State sources. On this basis, pursuant to
Board precedent, its jurisdictional standards have been met, and the case is properly
before the Board now.
There is further completely adequate basis for exercising jurisdiction here entirely
apart from all the foregoing . This is a secondary boycott case, in which the Board
looks to the interstate aspects of the business of the secondary as well as the pri-
mary employers for measurement of its jurisdictional standards., And the question
is determined by the allegations of the complaint, as distinguished from what deter-
minations or factual findings final appraisal of the evidence of illegal conduct may
or may not warrant . In their efforts to compel Villani's construction corporations to
1 Madison Building and Construction Trades Council, William Arnold, at al (H d K
Lathing Co .), 134 NLRB 517.
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
use union employees, the Respondents are charged with having brought pressure
upon South Shore Builders Supply Co., a supplier of building supplies, upon Andrew
Carlson and Sons, Inc., producers and distributors of precast underground drainage
facilities, and upon other secondary employers doing business with Theresa and
Saxon.
Harold Rubin, manager of South Shore Builders, testified directly, and I find no
reason for not crediting him, that in 1965 his company grossed over half a million
dollars in lumber sales, and that all its lumber, valued in excess of $50,000, came
to it from out-of-State sources. Henry Carlson, president of Andrew Carlson and
Sons, Inc., also testified directly and credibly that during 1965 his company grossed
over $8 million in sales, and purchased directly from out-of-State sources steel val-
ued at about $50,000 and cement worth about $100,000. As alleged in the com-
plaint, and as found below, union agents threatened South Shore with picketing If
it did not discontinue shipments to Theresa and Saxon, and when that company
refused, in fact picketed the South Shore premises. Also alleged and as proved,
union agents induced employees of Andrew Carlson not to work at the Carlson
yards, for the purpose of compelling Carlson to stop doing business with Theresa
and Saxon. In each of these situations, according to the complaint, the union activ-
ity was integrated with and sympathetic with the picketing of the construction sites
themselves.
If the entire record showed nothing more concerning interstate commerce than
the business carried on by South Shore Builders and Andrew Carlson, exercise of
the Board's jurisdiction would be warranted here.
C. The activities of business agents
With the sole exception of Edmund Bovarski, business agent of Respondent Local
1205, who was called as a defense witness by his local union, no other union repre-
sentative or agent appeared at the hearing to contradict any of the testimony given
by the General Counsel's witnesses relating to the activities of spokesman for a
number of local unions. The following facts set out immediately below, therefore,
rest upon uncontradicted, candidly given and fully credited testimony of employ-
ees and management representatives of various employers.
1. Strike at Able Ready Mixed, Inc., and pressure upon it not to deliver
to the Theresa and Saxon building projects.
At the very start of September, George Becker, business agent of Teamsters
Local 282, affiliated with the Respondent Council, called Able's approximately six
ready-mix truckdrivers on strike. Able recognized no union, and was making deliv-
eries to Theresa and Saxon. Some drivers quit, some did not and continued delivery
to the two projects. As early as September 3 Becker told James Share, secretary of
Able, he had "better not" deliver to Theresa or Saxon for it would make it "harder
on myself when I want to settle because I am going against the trade Council and
all the trades that are on strike there."
A few weeks later, after picketing had started at the Theresa and Saxon building
sites, and when Able's drivers were nevertheless making deliveries across the picket
line, Share, sitting in his automobile near the jobsite, was approached by James
Duffy, business agent of Respondent Local 138, Whitey Bovarski, president of
Respondent Local 1205, and one Burns, business agent of the Carpenters, also affil-
iates of the Council. They asked Share not to make deliveries "to this job because
they are on strike," and one of them-Share was not sure which-added "don't I
know that all the trades are on strike?"
Share also testified that in December Villani, owner of Theresa and Saxon, bought
the shares of the Able Company "due to the Union."
2. Picketing of the Theresa and Saxon jobsites
On September 3 Business Agent Becker went to Mike Cortes, general manager of
Theresa and Saxon, and said he wanted Cortes not to purchase concrete from Able
because "Able was on strike." Cortes answered he was nonunion and Able was non-
union, and so long as Able continued deliveries he would continue to buy the con-
crete. Becker then told Cortes "if you don't stop taking concrete from Able Ready-
Mix, I will go to the trade Council and I will have this job bottled up."
On September 9 Business Agent Duffy appeared at the Theresa site accompanied
by six or seven other persons. His companions stood across the street when Duffy
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK TRADES COUNCIL 185
approached Cortes and said "I would like to talk with you . . . about having the job
go union with the trade Council "; Duffy pointed across the street to where his asso-
ciates were gathered , and asked if Cortes was interested in "making a deal ." Cortes
answered he had been nonunion a number of years and would so remain , and told
Duffy to go away. Duffy then said: "Well, if we can't get together I will have pick-
ets on this job and all the members of the trade Council will picket and that no sup-
plies would come on the job and no subcontractors or anything." Cortes testified
that in the group across the street he recognized George Babcock and Chauncey
Bartow, both business agents of the Carpenters Local, and delegates from the
Plumbers and Laborers locals whom he only knew by "face" but not by name.
That same day, in the afternoon, four pickets appeared; 2 weeks later two pick-
ets started patrolling the Saxon project three -quarters of a mile down the road. The
picketing continued, usually with only two men at a time at each location, around
the clock, until interrupted by the Federal court injunction in the beginning of Feb-
ruary 1966. They patrolled, at each location, the entrance to the premises used by
all employees and delivery trucks. The signs they carried read as follows.
TO THE PUBLIC
THIS EMPLOYER
DOES NOT EMPLOY
MEMBERS of or
HAVE A CONTRACT
WITH AFL-CIO
The signs never changed until about January 1, when the injunction petition was
filed in court; the words "Saxon Arms" were then added to the picket signs in
crayon.
3. Effective inducement of employees of neutral employers not to work
Interstate Contractors, Inc., sells sheet rock and dry wall to the construction trade;
it had a contract to deliver $14,000 of such materials to the two jobs. Michael
Petrulli , president of Interstate , testified that his employees are represented by the
Carpenters and the Painters of the AFL-CIO Locals, that in September they made
regular deliveries to Theresa and Saxon, and that thereafter his employees refused
to make further such deliveries.
John Fogarty is an installer employed by the New York Telephone Company; he
is also shop steward for Local 1108 , which represents the telephone company
employees. He arrived at the Saxon project on September 23 to work, saw the two
pickets, and was told by one of them "the Building Trades Council was behind this,
they were . . . had authorized this." He refused to cross the picket line and did not
work. Fogarty returned again to work here as assigned on September 27, again saw
the pickets, and again refused to work. This time a picket told him "they were from
the plumbers Local." Fogarty told his men not to work across the pickets' line, and
thereafter all telephone work was performed on Saturdays by supervisory personnel
of the telephone company. Thomas Clemens , also a telephone company installer,
said he too quit work at the Theresa project because of the picketing.
Giannone Services is a trucking company which sells sand and gravel for con-
struction . Some of its employees are members of IBT Local 282 , and the Company
also has a contract with Respondent Local 138 covering its engineers . On Septem-
ber 19, John Giannone arrived at the Saxon project with four or five of his trucks to
make deliveries . Becker, business agent of 282 , was there and told him "you can't
haul here no more because we've got a picket line here." Giannone ignored him.
Duffy, of Local 138, then approached and said "Don't haul here no more because
they don't belong to the Union ." Giannone completed his deliveries but never
again crossed the picket line . Shortly thereafter Saxon Corporation wrote to Gian-
none asking that he deliver more fill ; Giannone telephoned Duffy to ask for permis-
sion to make at least one more delivery, Duffy said no, and Giannone never deliv-
ered the goods.
4. Union appeals for secondary assistance away from the primary status
Andrew Carlson and Sons, Inc., the manufacturer of precast underground drain-
age equipment , has a contract with Respondent Local 138, one with Laborers Local
1298, and another with an Independent Truck Drivers Union . Its employees refused
to load trucks with material to be delivered to the Theresa and Saxon jobs, and
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when Henry Carlson, the president, asked William Betz, a laborer and Local 1298
shop steward, whether Carmine Genova of Local 1298 had directed him not to load
such trucks, Betz answered: "indirectly, yes."
From the witness stand Betz related how on or about October 1, 1965, Carmine
Genova, Laborers Local 1298 business agent, had visited him at the Carlson prem-
ises and "briefed me on the situation in Bay Shore . . . there was a picket line out-
side of this particular Bay Shore job . . . he briefed me as to what was going on."
Betz added that "a delegate ... leaves it up to the shop steward to make his own
decision." Genova told Betz the pickets involved "several locals." Betz also quoted
the business agent as telling him that an engineer would inform me what trucks
would be coming to be loaded for the Bay Shore job. After Genova left, Betz talked
to his men-the other Carlson employees-and instructed them not to load the
trucks. They have not done so since.
Gunning, business agent of Local 138, spoke to John Clary, a crane operator
employed by Carlson, sometime during September. Clary, who alone testified about
what went on between him and his business agent, equivocated from time to time
in his story, but the following is directly part of his testimony. Gunning told him
the Saxon Arms job was being done nonunion; Gunning said this to him before the
trucks arrived to pick up supplies for Saxon; Clary refused to load those trucks
despite instructions from his superiors; and he refused to do this work because of
the labor dispute. At Saxon Arms, Gunning also told Clary to keep him advised,
and in consequence, Clary later reported that Carlson management had loaded
trucks for Saxon, and Gunning answered "he could do nothing about that."
With this Clary's own testimony, I think it clear the business agent told the
member not to work on any trucks destined for the Saxon project and that the rea-
son why Clary in fact refused to work and instructed other members of that union
not to do so was because of Gunning's instructions . Clary's insertion into his story,
at one point, that he told Gunning, during one of these conversations, that he and
other engineers had talked the matter over and decided not to load the trucks for
Saxon , and that the business agent answered "it was appreciated," cannot detract
from the direct finding, which I make, that the business agent induced a work stop-
page by his members at this location. Gunning was not called as a witness.
5. Secondary picketing at the premises of a neutral employer
South Shore Builders Supply Co. had a contract to deliver $3,000 worth of lum-
ber to the Saxon and the Theresa projects. This Company had a collective-bargaining
agreement in effect with Teamsters Local 522. In October Respondent Local IBT
1205 picketed the South Shore place of business for a 2-week period. Harold Rubin,
the company manager, recalled only that the pickets carried two signs and that "one
stated the carpenters union or council, and the other the teamster union."
Rubin testified that on September 28 three men came to his office-Chauncey
Bartow, business agent of the Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters,
Whitey Bovarski, identified on this record both as president Respondent Local 1205
and as secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 505, and a third person whom Rubin
did not know. The men inquired whether Rubin was selling materials to Theresa or
Saxon; he answered he was not. They then asked him not to sell to either of those
companies and left. On a Saturday shortly thereafter, the same three again visited
Rubin's office and accused him of having "sold the man material." Now Rubin
explained that what with 200 customers he did not know to whom he had sold,
and again denied knowledge of such sales. This time the men told him they "knew
how to take care" of him and went away. They were back again the following
Monday to tell him "there would be a picket line the next day" because he had
sold materials to Theresa and Saxon. The picketing started shortly thereafter.
With this picketing, Rubin stopped all deliveries to Theresa and Saxon. To what
extent the picketing of the Bay Shore premises interfered with other work there,
the record does not show. After the picketing started, Rubin communicated with
Teamsters Local 522, the bargaining agent of his employees, and because, as he
testified, "one union called off the other," the pickets were eventually removed.
To offset this direct testimony of secondary object in the picketing, Local 1205
called as a witness Edmund Bovarski, its business agent, who said it was he who,
together with Business Agent Bartow of the Carpenters and sometimes Whitey
Bovarski and one Salvio, also of Local 1205, went to the South Shore Company
three or four times. He admitted he had established the picket line but denied
having said anything about Theresa or Saxon when he spoke with Rubin. In view
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK TRADES COUNCIL 187
of Bovarski's total testimony, I do not credit his denial; Local 1205 was during
this very period also picketing Villani's warehouse facilities at 12 Wisconsin Court,
an operation which functioned as an integral part of his total construction work.
During these various visits by the several business agents to South Shore, and
while the picketing was going on, a demand for recognition was expressed. Rubin
said it was Bartow who asked to represent Carpenters, and the Company does use
lumber handlers; Bartow did not appear as a witness to contradict this testimony,
which I credit. Bovarski testified he demanded bargaining rights instead; he also
said Bartow talked during these visits but that there was no mention of Carpenters
and that he did not know why Bartow was there. In reply to repeated questions of
what Bartow was doing there, Bovarski's answers were evasive to the point of
incoherence. He also said flatly that throughout these events-from the start of the
picketing to the date of the injunction hearing in January-he had never spoken to
any of the South Shore employees at all. In complete reversal, he later testified:
"I signed the members up that worked for South Shore Builders Supply and after
I signed them up I wanted to take the men in with me to sit down as a negotiating
committee and when I arrived one morning there they no longer wanted to repre-
sent them."
6. Local 1205 picketing for recognition at 12 Wisconsin Court
On about October 19, 1965, Respondent Local 1205 established a picket line in
front of the warehouse facilities Villani operates at 12 Wisconsin Court. The picket-
ing continued without interruption from then to the start of February 1966, when
it ceased in consequence of the court injunction. The pickets carried signs reading:
"Employees of this Establishment are Non-Union Local 1205-International
Brotherhood of Teamsters." After the Government's petition for an injunction had
been filed in January the words "Majestic Signs" were for the first time added to
the picket sign.
Analysis and Conclusions
Responsibility of Respondents Local 138 and Local 1205; Illegal Objectives;
Violations of Section 8(b) (4) (B) and (7) (C)
Only two local unions are named Respondents in the complaint: Local 138 of
the Operating Engineers and Local 1205 Teamsters. It must be noted that the
picket signs carried at the two construction sites bore the legend only "AFL-CIO"
as the picketing labor organization, and did not in themselves identify any par-
ticular union more precisely. The picketing at 12 Wisconsin Court was admittedly
by and in the name of Local 1205, as was also the picketing of the South Shore
Builders Supply Company. Business agents of several other identified local unions
joined in activities incidental to the picketing at the two construction sites. In the
light of the posture of the eventual pleadings, limited to only two local union
respondents, participation in the events by these other union agents must therefore
be considered only to the extent that the resultant general appearance of things
warrants, or does not warrant, an inference that the total picture proves responsi-
bility of the Suffolk and Nassau Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO, as also alleged
in the complaint. For the moment, the liability of Local 138 and Local 1205 as
entities apart from the Council must be considered.
I find that, regardless of what other local unions may have also authorized the
picketing at the Theresa and Saxon projects, Respondent Local 138 was responsible
for it, and that, among other objects, its purpose was to force or require the two
contracting corporations to recognize and bargain with Local 138 for their employ-
ees, and to force or require employees of those companies to accept Local 138 as
their collective-bargaining representative. The first word that there would be any
picketing came when early in the morning of September 9, Local 138 Business
Agent Duffy appeared at the Theresa project and told General Manager Cortes he
wanted the job to "go union with the Trade Council." Cortes said flatly he would
remain nonunion and Duffy immediately promised he would "have pickets on the
job." True to Duffy's threat the pickets appeared after lunch. Later that month
Duffy was present at the picket line, in the company of two business agents of other
local union, when James Share, of Able Ready Mixed, Inc., arrived; the group told
Share not to make deliveries here because of the "strike." Jack Gunning, also a
Local 138 business agent, went to the Carlson Company place of business and told
his shop steward there that the Saxon Arms project was nonunion, and prevailed
upon him not to load for that destination.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That recognition as well as employee organization was among Local 138's pur-
poses is clear; there was no Board certification outstanding, no representation
petition was filed, and the picketing continued without interruption for several
months, well beyond the 30-day period mentioned in the statute. I find that by
picketing the Theresa and Saxon jobsites Respondent Local 138 violated Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.2
I also find that an object of the picketing by Local 138 at the construction sites
was to induce and encourage employees of neutral employers to cease work, and
thereby interrupt the business carried on between Theresa and Saxon and other
employers. To start with, this was a common situs situation . There were independent
contractors, or other employers, carrying on their usual business at these locations.
The picket sign did not identify the particular employer which was in dispute
with the picketing union. The fact that the words "Saxon Arms" were added to the
signs 4 months later, after the injunction petition was served, in no way alters this
critical fact. The appeal for employee cooperation by work refusal was not limited
to those of the primary employer, and therefore Local 138 cannot escape the find-
ing that it was as much a strike call to workmen of neutral employers as of
Theresa and Saxon .3 Employees of both the New York Telephone Company and
of Interstate Contractors refused to work because of the picketing. There were also
direct appeals from or near the picket line by Local 138 agents as well as by their
companions to neutral employers and their employees not to enter upon the prem-
ises. Thus, Business Agent Duffy was with other union agents when James Share,
of the Able Company, was told at the picket line not to make deliveries. Duffy
also told Giannone, at the very picket line, not to make any more deliveries to
these projects; Giannone acceded.
That there was a secondary and therefore prohibited object in the picketing is
also persuasively indicated by Local 138's resort to direct appeals away from the
picketed premises to cut off the builder's business dealings with his suppliers. Busi-
ness Agent Gunning's directions to his shop steward, Clary, at Andrew Carlson
and Sons, passed on through the steward to other Local 138 members employed there,
not to load trucks destined for Theresa and Saxon , constituted a straight induce-
ment of employees to strike in sympathetic support of the picket line. I find that by
Gunning's inducement of Clary, and other members of his union, who were
employed by Andrew Carlson, Local 138 violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the
Act.
I find that by picketing the Theresa and Saxon building projects Respondent
Local 138 violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, and by its agent's appeals to
Giannone and Share, Local 138 further violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
The fact Respondent Local 1205 authorized the picketing of the warehouse opera-
tions at 12 Wisconsin Court, supporting aspects of the construction projects, is
conceded. The General Counsel expressly stated at the hearing he does not con-
tend this activity was violative of the secondary boycott provisions of Section
8(b)(4) of the Act. He does contend that the picketing violated Section 8(b)(7)
(C). Here again the picketing union held no Board certification as bargaining agent
of any employees conceivably employed at this location, the picketing continued
from October through early January, and no representation petition of any kind
was filed with the Board. It is also conceded by Local 1205 that its purpose was
to organize employees.
The sole defense to the complaint allegation that by this conduct Local 1205
violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) rests on the assertion that the Union was seeking to
organize employees other than those associated with the Theresa and Saxon com-
panies, or who through some corporate name or other were employed by Villani
in connection with the erection of the two apartment house developments. At the
hearing Bovarski, the Local 1205 business agent, said his purpose in picketing
was to organize the employees of a company called "Majestic Modular Cabinet
Company"; in its brief Local 1205 says the pickets were aimed at the "Majestic
2 The fact that Local 1205 was engaged in like picketing at the Wisconsin Court ware-
house of the same companies seeking recognition for employees at that location, that a
Local 1205 business agent was once seen at the Theresa site picket line, and that another
of its business agents made appeals for secondary assistance at the premises of a neutral
employer, do not suffice to prove the further pinpointed allegation that Local 1205 also
authorized the picket lines at the two construction sites
3 Noore Dry Dock Company (Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL), 92 NLRB 547 , N L P.B.
v Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen S Helpers, 191 F.2d 65 (C A. 2).
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK TRADES COUNCIL 189
Cabinet Co."; for 21/z months the picket signs named no company at all, and when
one was added in January it read "Majestic signs." This affirmative defense, so to
speak, even assuming , contrary to the evidence, that it were based on fact, might
well require an unfair labor practice finding against Local 1205 nonetheless, for
its picketing would still have been organizational in purpose, without a Board cer-
tification, and longer than the statutory 30-day period without the filing of a repre-
sentation petition. But I do not reach that question, for I do not credit Bovarski's
testimony that he was attempting to organize another company' s employees, and
the record as a whole amply supports a finding that his real purpose was to force
into his union whatever employees the Theresa and Saxon companies had occasion
to send to this warehouse. Indeed, it is only the fact it was not shown any other
group of employees worked here at the time that precludes a finding of secondary
objective in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) also.
There is no definitive testimony that during the picketing here in question there
were workmen present at the Wisconsin Court location other than persons employed
by Villani for warehouse purposes, or by Theresa and Saxon to transport building
materials. There came a time, during the events, when Villani diverted deliveries
destined for the building projects to this warehouse instead for the very purpose
of avoiding the difficulty which the construction site picketing was causing.
Reference, by the witnesses, to these various trade names or companies using
the word "Majestic" in their title, resulted from the fact that over the years the
building at 12 Wisconsin Court was from time to time occupied in part by such
companies. There remained affixed to the building a number of signs reading,
among others, "Majestic Modular," "Majestic Signs," "Island Paving." One was
simply added to the Local 1205 picket sign in January. Bovarski selected another
and spoke of it at the hearing as the employer of the persons he sought to repre-
sent. Cross-examined as to details, he evaded or equivocated continuously. He said
he started the entire activity because of a name he saw on a sign on the building.
He then said he had seen two employees of such a company, on a truck one day,
but could not recall when. He avoided answering whether he had seen these before
the picketing started. He then added he had never obtained any signed authoriza-
tion cards from such employees; indeed he had not spoken to any of them-ever.
He never even inquired about the identity of the person who might be the employer
of such people. I do not credit Bovarski.
In contrast to his complete indifference to any other group of employees, it was
at this very time that Bovarski went to South Shore Builders Supply Co. to demand
that it stop doing business with the Theresa and Saxon projects. Together with one
Salvio, also a Local 1205 business agent, and Bartow of the Carpenters Union, he
told that company he was going to picket it, literally because it had refused to
heed the demand to stop making deliveries to Theresa and Saxon; and he did picket
South Shore.
I find that by picketing the warehouse at 12 Wisconsin Court, where Theresa
and Saxon employees, as well as other workmen collectively engaged through
Villani in support of the construction work, Respondent Local 1205 violated Sec-
tion 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
I also find that by Edmund Bovarski's threat to Manager Harold Rubin, and by
its picketing of the premises of South Shore Builders Supply Co., in October of
1965 Respondent Local 1205 violated Section 8(b)(4) (i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
The Building Trades Council as Respondent
To hold, as the complaint alleges, that the Nassau and Suffolk Building Trades
Council was responsible for all of the foregoing conduct of Local 138 and Local
1205, it would have to be said that the preponderance of the substantial evidence
on the record as a whole dictates the conclusion. I am of the opinion that it does
not, and I shall therefore recommend dismissal of the complaint with respect to
the Council.
This is the usual Building Trades Council, existing pursuant to internal regula-
tions of the Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, and carrying on
its function in accordance with its own rules of procedure. Fifty-six separate local
unions together constitute the Council, and from these unions, a total of 110
business agents are accredited from their own locals as representatives to the
Council. There are six officers of the Council: president, vice president, secretary-
treasurer, sergeant-at-arms, president-emeritus, and secretary-treasurer-emeritus.
The Council also has three trustees and an executive board consisting of 14 per-
sons. The record is silent with respect to the authority, duties, or responsibilities of
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any of the officers , trustees , or executive board members . It may be assumed that
the officers are agents of the Council within the meaning of the statutory phrase
"labor organizations or its agents ," which defines unfair labor practices chargeable
to labor organizations . No authority has been cited for rule of law that persons
designated trustees or executive board members , much less mere business agents
delegated to the Council, ipso-facto are agents ' whose activities per se bind the
Council.
There' is no evidence of participation, in any 'of the activities described through-
out the entire record, by any of the six officers of the Council. Indeed, no refer-
ence was made to any one- of them , either by name or office, by a single witness.
Nor is there direct testimony , or other proof, of advance authorization of any one
to act on behalf of the Council, nor ratification by that organization as such after
the events. Of all of the union agents'whose activities were described only one
was shown to occupy a dual position , and that one is Jack Gunning, business
agent of Respondent Local 138. Gunning is one of the 14 members of the Council's
executive board. He is the man who instructed the Local 138 shop steward at the
neutral premises ' of the Carlson Company not to work on materials destined for
Theresa and Saxon . Gunning spoke to the man as his business agent, he limited
his appeal to members of his own local , and there is not the slightest evidence
that he spoke in any other capacity or that anyone formed the impression he was
speaking on,behalf of anyone other than his own local. Gunning's activities that
day therefore cannot constitute proof of liability by the Council.4
' The General Counsel 's argument in support of the Council's responsibility is
substantially twofold. He makes the direct assertion that the business agent of any
constituent local, by virtue of his agency status within his own local, necessarily
is also the business agent of the Council, and therefore whatever he does binds
both his local and the parent organization . In this view, all the business agents-
110 of them-become agents of the Council, and the entire concept of membership
in a labor organization as distinguished from its officers or' managers ceases to
exist . The Board has rejected this broad contention .5
Although not,clearly articulated , there is ' a further implicit suggestion in the
General Counsel's brief that the very-fact of membership in the Council by its
component locals , clothes each of the separate unions somehow with an agency
role on behalf of the Council. Only one (Local 138) of the 56 locals is charged
with improper conduct at all; the second Respondent Local, Teamsters 1205, is
not affiliated with the Council. The law seems well settled that, as between a
Council and its constitutent locals, agency on the part of each to bind the other
does not flow automatically.°
The second contention urged by the General Counsel for a finding of liability
against the Council is an all-embracing argument that the widespread activities by
diverse local union, plus the personal participation by about 10 of the many busi-
ness agents delegated to the Council, supports an inference that in fact they were
acting not only in concert which each other but also pursuant to authorization by,
and as alter ego for, the Council itself.
In the sense that authorization by the Council may be proved indirectly by the
total circumstances , this is a logical argument and merits consideration regardless
of its eventual success or failure. Inquiry by such reasoning into the possibility of
a hidden design conceived and mastered-minded in the inner circle of the Council
invites almost a subjective reaction. Add or substract a few facts in any given total
picture, enlarge or reduce one or two pertinent factors and the answer changes.
At what point does suspicion become certitude? Here, 5 of the 56 local unions
evidenced an intent to force Theresa and Saxon to go union . Had there been instead
35 or 40, or even a majority of the total membership of the Council , the sheer
number element would be much more significant . If participation by only 5 points
4 In Building and Construction Trades Council of Tampa , 132 NLRB 1564 , one man was
both business agent of a constituent local and officer of the Council . The Board said : "The
contention . . . that the fact that Fritz was both agent of the Carpenters and the president
of the Council involved the Council in responsibility for his actions as business agent is
rejected It is clear that any person may hold office in more than one organization without
binding the others by his actions on behalf of any one of them "
5 Oertel Brewing Company and Louisville Brewing Association , 93 NLRB 530.
6 Pasco -Kennewik Building and Construction Trades Council ( Cisco Construction Com-
pany ), 111 NLRB 1255.
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK TRADES COUNCIL 191
-a finger of guilt at all 56, would, joint activity by 4 or 3, or even any 2 of the total
group, also serve to support the overall inference?
This total picture theory, however, is, also an attempt to support the complaint
by oblique reliance upon evidence which does not of itself prove agency. When
Business Agent Becker of Teamsters Local 282 (a Council member ) was rebuffed
by General Manager Cortes' insistence upon remaining nonunion , he added the
threat that he would go to the "Trades Council." A few days later Business Agent
Duffy, of Local 138 ( another Council affiliate ), tried again , and when he failed,
he told Cortes "all of the members of the Trades Council will picket." In his appeal
for cooperation from Able, the neutral cement mix supplier, Becker also said that
Able was "going against; the Trades Council." The weight to be given this sort of
proof of guilt by the Council must be considered in the light of the clear legal
precedent which holds that "it is, of course, well settled . . that agency and
authority cannot be proved by the hearsay statements of the alleged agent him-
self." Brownell v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co., 121 F.2d 239 (C.A. 1)•. See, also,
4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1078 (3d ed.): "It may be noted that the fact-of agency
- must of course be somehow evidenced before the alleged agent's declarations can
be received as admissions; and therefore . the use of the alleged agent 's hearsay
assertions that he is agent would for that purpose be inadmissible, as merely beg-
ging the very question."
These fundamental rules -of evidence are equally applicable to the uncontradicted
testimony of Police Sergeant Glosbrenner, that Business Agent Bartow of the
Carpenters Union told him, in explaining the picket line at the Theresa project,
that -"The building trades union is involved." No more persuasive,is the fact that
a person identified in the record only as a "business agent" tolda telephone com-
pany employee "the Building Trades Council was behind this," or that Business
Agent Genova, of Laborers Local No. 1298, told his shop steward at the Carlson
Company "all the unions" were picketing.
The total argument here , rests essentially on the fact that 10 business agents
were identified as active in the coordinated attempt to organize the construction
operations conducted by Villani, including the two building projects in process in
1965 and his warehouse business operated in conjunction with the buildings. The
business agents affiliated with the Council were Bartow, Bums, and Babcock, of
the Carpenters Union; Duffy and Gunning, of Operators Engineers Local 138;
Genova, of the Laborers; Becker, of Teamsters Local 282; and someone from the
Plumbers Union whose name never did appear. Together these represented 5 of
the 56 unions which formed the Council. In addition there were Edmund,Bovarski,
Whitey Bovarski, and Salvio, business agents of Teamsters Local 1205, not associ-
ated with the Council. To enmesh these last three with the Council is a flimsy
extension of the General Counsel's argument indeed
There are too many Board and court decisions turning on the very point that
local unions are separate entities , apart from any council or federation with which
they may be affiliated or combined, to permit a holding here, as the General Coun-
sel requests, which would virtually obliterate any distinction between the Respond-
ent Council and its members. I view the question of responsibility chargeable to the
Council as one of sufficiency of evidence , as in any unfair labor practice proceed-
ing. No witnesses were called by the Council or by any of its member locals to
refute the evidence received in support of the complaint. Suspicion apart, I am
nevertheless of the opinion that the record in its entirety falls short of proving a
prima facie against the Council.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents Local 138 and Local 1205, set forth in sec-
tion III, above , occurring in connection with the business operations of Theresa
Garden Apartments, Inc., and Saxon Arms Construction Corp., have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that they cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative
action of the type conventionally ordered in such cases to effectuate the purposes
of the Act.
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, 1
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ti
1. Theresa Garden Apartments , Inc., and the Saxon Arms Construction Corp.,
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondents Local 138 and Local 1205 are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
3. By engaging in, and by inducing and encouraging individuals employed by New
York Telephone Company, Interstate Contractors , Inc., and Andrew Carlson and
Sons, Inc., and other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting com-
merce, to engage in, a strike or refusals to perform services , and by interfering
with, restraining , or coercing, Able Company and Andrew Carlson Company, all
with an object of forcing these four companies to cease doing business with Theresa
and the Saxon Companies , Respondent Local 138 has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )(B) of the Act.
4. By picketing or causing to be picketed , the construction site of Theresa and
the Saxon Companies with an object of forcing or requiring those companies to
bargain with Local 138 as the representative of their employees , although Local
138 was not certified as their bargaining agent, without a petition having been filed
within 30 days of the commencement of such picketing , Respondent Local 138 has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(7)(C) of
the Act.
5. By picketing or causing to be picketed the warehouse premises utilized by the
Theresa and the Saxon Construction Companies with an object of forcing or
requiring those companies to bargain with Local 1205 as the representative of
their employees , although Local 1205 was not certified as their bargaining agent,
without any petition having been filed within 30 days of the commencement of such
picketing , Respondent Local 1205 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
6. By engaging in, or by inducing individuals employed by South Shore Build-
ers Supply Co., and other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting
commerce , to engage in, a strike or refusal to perform services, and by interfering
with , restraining , or coercing , South Shore Building Supply Co ., with an object of
forcing it to cease doing business with Theresa and Saxon companies , Respondent
Local 1205 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )(B) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10 (c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A. Respondent Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO, Long Island, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by New
York Telephone Company, Interstate Contractors, Inc., Andrew Carlson and Sons,
Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting com-
merce, to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to per-
form services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining Able Ready Mixed, Inc.,
Giannone Services, Andrew Carlson and Sons, Inc., or any other person engaged
in commerce or an industry affecting commerce, where, in either case, an object
thereof is to force or require New York Telephone Company, Interstate Con-
tractors, Inc., Able Ready Mixed, Inc., Giannone Services, Andrew Carlson and
Sons, Inc., or any other person, to cease doing business with Theresa Garden
Apartments, Inc., and Saxon Arms Construction Corp.
(b) Picketing or causing to be picketed Theresa Garden Apartments, Inc., and
Saxon Arms Construction Corp., where an object is forcing or requiring said
companies to recognize or bargain with it as the representative of said companies,
in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK TRADES COUNCIL 193
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A."' Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 29, shall be duly signed and posted by Respondent Local 138
as soon as they are received, and they shall be kept in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all locations where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent Local 138 to insure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail or deliver to the Regional Director signed copies of the notice for
posting by Theresa Garden Apartments, Inc., and Saxon Arms Construction Corp.,
and Andrew Carlson and Sons, Inc. (if willing) in a manner corresponding to the
preceding paragraph.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith .8
B. Respondent Local 1205, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Long Island, New York, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by South
Shore Builders Supply Co., or any other person engaged in commerce or an
industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his
employment to perform services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining South
Shore Builders Supply Co., 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 South Shore Builders Co., or any other person, to cease doing business
with Theresa Garden Apartments, Inc., and Saxon Arms Construction Corp.
(b) Picketing or causing to be picketed the warehouse operations of Theresa
Garden Apartments, Inc., and Saxon Arms Construction Corp., where an object
thereof is forcing or requiring those companies to recognize or bargain with it
as the representative of those companies' employees in violation of Section 8(b)
(7) (C) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B." 9 Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 29, shall be duly signed by and posted by Respondent Local
1205 as soon as they are received and they shall be kept in conspicuous places,
including all locations where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent Local 1205 to insure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail or deliver to the Regional Director signed copies of the notice for
posting by Theresa Garden Apartments, Inc., Saxon Arms Construction Corp.,
and South Shore Builders Supply Co., in a manner corresponding to the preceding
paragraph.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
this Recommended Order, what steps Local 1205 has taken to comply herewith.'°
In the event that the Board adopts this Recommended Order, the words "a Decision
and Order" will replace "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner." In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
the words shall be, "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
8 Should the case go to Board Order, the written notification shall be given within
10 days from the Order. Should it go to court decree, it will be 10 days from the decree.
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a 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."
70 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 the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
264-047-67-vol. 162-14
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges the commission of unfair labor practices by Nassau and. Suffolk Building
Construction and Trades Council, AFL-CIO.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 138, INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage individuals employed by
New York Telephone Company, Interstate Contractors Inc., Andrew Carlson
and Sons, Inc., or any employer other than Theresa Garden Apartments, Inc.,
and Saxon Arms Construction Corp., to engage in, a strike or refusal in the
course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or
interfere with, restrain, or coerce, Able Ready Mixed, Inc., Andrew Carlson
and Sons, Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require any of these
companies to cease doing business with Theresa Garden Apartments, Inc., or
Saxon Arms Construction Corp.
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed Theresa Garden Apartments,
Inc., or Saxon Arms Construction Corp., where an object thereof is forcing
or requiring those employers to recognize or bargain with us as the repre-
sentative of their employees in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
LOCAL 138, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
.and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16 Court
Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone 596-5386.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 1205, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage individuals employed by
South Shore Builders Supply Co. or any employer other than Theresa Garden
Apartments, Inc., or Saxon Arms Construction Corp., to engage in, a strike
or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture , process,
transport or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials or com-
modities, or interfere with, restrain, or coerce South Shore Builders Supply
Co., where an object thereof is to force or require that company to cease
doing business with Theresa Garden Apartments, Inc., or Saxon Arms Con-
struction Corp.
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed the premises of Theresa Garden
Apartments, Inc., or of Saxon Arms Construction Corp. at 12 Wisconsin Court,
Bar Shore, Long Island, New York, where an object thereof is forcing or
requiring those companies to recognize or bargain with us as the representative
of their employees in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
LOCAL 1205, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
;Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO. 195
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16 Court
Street, Fourth Floor , Brooklyn , New York 11201 , Telephone 596-5386.
Fruehauf Trailer Company and Local 509, International Union of
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Charging Party' and Interna-
tional Union , Allied Industrial Workers of America , AFL-CIO;
and Local No . 976, affiliated with International Union, Allied
Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Parties in Interest.'
Case 21-CA-5571. December 16, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 9, 1966, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued his
Decision in this proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, as amended, and
recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, exceptions
and supporting briefs were filed by the Respondent, Charging Party,
Parties in Interest, and General Counsel, and answering briefs were
filed by the Respondent and Charging Party.
The National Labor Relations 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 with the
following modification.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent (1) did
not unlawfully refuse to bargain with UAW; 3 (2) did not unlaw-
fully assist AIW in connection with its Bandini acquisition; and (3)
did not unlawfully discriminate against individual employees by
failing or refusing to employ them. The Trial Examiner found that
Respondent: (1) violated Section 8(a) (2) by extending AIW's
Slauson contract to cover Respondent's employees at Fullerton; (2)
violated Section 8(a) (3) by applying the union-security clause of
i Herein UAW.
2 Herein AIW.
3 However, unlike the Trial Examiner (see footnote 14 of his Decision), we do not con-
sider the timing of the UAW's filing of its initial charge in this case significant.
162 NLRB No. 3.