Painting and Decorating Contractors Association of Orange County, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 4 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

4 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exercise jurisdiction in regard to the business of any single member
of any one of these chapters who participate in or intend to be bound
by group bargaining.'
2. These chapters' members are California employers engaged in
the building and construction industry as painting and drywall appli-
cation contractors.
3. The facts presented show the members of these five chapters have
a combined direct outflow of more than $50,000, a combined indirect
outflow of more than $50,000; a combined direct inflow of more than
$50,000, and a combined indirect inflow of more than $50,000.
4. Any one of these four commerce factors satisfies the Board's dis-
cretionary nonretail jurisdictional requirements, which are applicable
to the employers concerned herein.2
5. It follows that the Board would assert jurisdiction with respect
to the operations of any single member of any one of the five chapters
mentioned in paragraph 1, above.
6.. It also follows that the Board would assert jurisdiction with ref-
erence to the business of any one of the five chapters mentioned in
paragraph. 1, above.
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that upon the
allegations submitted herein the Board would assert jurisdiction as
to the operations of any one of the five chapters mentioned in para-
graph 1 above, or any single member of any one of these chapters,
with respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of
the Act.
i Siernons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 84 ; Tri-Associated Drywall Contractors, Inc.,
etc., 131 NLRB 1077, 1078 ; ef. Carbondale Retail Druggists ' Association , 131 NLRB 1021.
2 Simons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85.
Painting and Decorating Contractors Association of Orange
County, Inc., a Corporation , et al. and 'District Council of
Painters No. 48. Case No. A 0-72. May 18, 1964
ADVISORY OPINION
A petition was filed with the National Labor Relations Board by
District Council of Painters No. 48, herein called Petitioner, for an
Advisory Opinion pursuant to Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter
Ralph E. Kennedy, Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of
the Board, herein called the Regional Director, upon the basis of his
investigation of unfair labor practice charges, later mentioned, which
147 NLRB No. 2.
PAINTING & DECORATING, ETC., ORANGE COUNTY, INC. 5
were filed with him, submitted a motion to intervene and a supple-
mental motion to intervene. Both motions are granted and the in-
formation contained therein is made a part of the record in this
proceeding.
In pertinent part, the petition and motions to intervene allege as
follows :
1. Affiliated with California Council of Painting and Decorating
Contractors of America, herein called P.D.C.A., are a number of em-
ployer associations, known as chapters, including Painting and Deco-
rating Contractors Association of Orange County, Inc., a corpora-
tion, herein called Orange County Chapter; Tri-County Chapter
Painting and Decorating Contractors Inc., a corporation, herein called
Tri-County Chapter; Tri-Associated Drywall Contractors Chapter of
Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Inc., herein called
Tri-Associated Chapter; Painting and Decorating Contractors Asso-
ciation Inc. of San Diego County, herein called San Diego Chapter;
and Desert Painting and Decorating Contractors of Palm Springs,
Inc., herein called Desert Chapter.' Each of these chapters is com-
posed of members who are California employers engaged in the build-
ing and construction industry as painting and drywall application
contractors. Each chapter conducts collective bargaining 'on behalf
of its members.
2. On or about April 3. 1963, collective-bargaining negotiations on
a multichapter basis began between Petitioner, on the one hand, and
Orange County Chapter, Tri-County Chapter, Tri-Associated Chap-
ter, San Diego Chapter, and Desert Chapter, on the other.
3. Collective bargaining continued on a five-chapter basis until early
October 1963, when Petitioner received a letter from San Diego Chap-
ter requesting separate bargaining with that chapter; thereafter, on
or about October 8, 1963, San Diego Chapter and Petitioner entered
into a collective-bargaining agreement.
4. A proceeding was instituted by Orange County Chapter, Tri-
County Chapter,.and San Diego Chapter in the Superior Court of the
State of California, for the County of Orange, Case No. 115,284,
against Petitioner; Painters Local No. 286 of Riverside, California;
Painters Local No. 333 of San Diego, California; Painters Local
No. 775 of San Bernardino, California; Painters Local No. 979 of
Pomona, California; Painters Local 1627 of Palm Springs, Cali-
fornia; Painters Local No. 1817 of Fullerton, California; certain in-
dividuals; and others. This State court suit was brought, in part, for
an injunction against picketing for certain allegedly. illegal objectives.
1 No response to the petition was filed herein. In a related proceeding , Case No. AO-70
[147 NLRB 1], Orange County Chapter, Tri-County Chapter , and others , filed a re-
sponse to the petition therein.
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The picketing was conducted at jobsites where certain members of
Orange County Chapter, Tri-County Chapter, and San Diego Chap-
ter were engaged in their contracting work.
5a. On behalf of P.D.C.A., Orange County Chapter, San Diego
Chapter , Tri-Associated Chapter, Tri-County Chapter, and Desert
Chapter, charges were filed with the Regional Director in Cases Nos.
21-CB-2145 and 21-CB-2145-2 on June 26 and July 3, 1963 , respec-
tively. These charges allege violations of Section 8(b) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act by Petitioner , certain of its affiliated
local unions , and certain individuals.
b. On behalf of Petitioner and its affiliated local unions , charges
were filed with the Regional Director in Cases Nos. 21-CA-5415,
21-CA-5415-2, 21-CA-5415-3, and 21-CA-5522 during June, July,
and August , 1963. These charges allege ' violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (5) of the Act by Orange County Chapter, Tri-County Chapter,
Desert Chapter, and Riverside Chapter, P.D.C.A.
c. On behalf ' of Petitioner , charges were filed with the Regional
Director in Case No. 21-CA-5614 in October 1963. ' These charges
allege violations of Section 8(a).(1) and (5) of the Act by Orange
County Chapter, Tri-County Chapter, and Tri-Associated Chapter.
Lionel Richman , attorney , filed with the Regional Director a charge
in Case No. 21-CA-5666 on November 22, 1963. This charge alleges
violations of Section 8(a) (1) and ( 5) of the Act by. Orange County
Chapter and its members.
d. On behalf of Tri-County Chapter and Orange County Chapter,
charges were filed with the Regional Director in Cases Nos. 21-CA-
5671-1 and 21-CA-5671-2 on November 29, 1963. These charges
allege violations of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act by Desert
Chapter and San Diego Chapter , respectively.
e. On behalf of Tri-County Chapter and Orange County Chapter,
a charge was filed with the Regional Director in Case No. 21-CB-
2224 on December 4, 1963. This charge alleges violations of Section
8(b) (1) (B) and (3) of the Act by Petitioner and its affiliated local
unions.
f. On behalf of Tri-County Chapter, Tri-Associated Chapter, and
Orange County Chapter, charges were filed with the Regional Direc-
tor in Cases Nos. 21-CB-2241 and 21-CC-697 on January 10, 1964.
These charges allege violations of Sections 8(b) (1) (A) and ( B) and
8(b) (3) of the Act, and Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the
Act, respectively , by Petitioner and its affiliated local unions.-
6. Patrick Nagel , counsel for the five charging P.D.C.A . chapters
in Cases Nos . 21-CB-2145 and 21-CB-2145-2, by. letter dated. Au-
gust 2, 1963 , advised the Regional Director as follows:
PAINTING & DECORATING, ETC., ORANGE COUNTY, INC. 7
Regarding the interstate commerce data . . . please be advised
that during the past calendar year the dollar volume of perform-
ance of services to customers outside the State of California ex-
ceeded $50,000, the dollar volume of sales and performance of
services.to firms which, in turn, made sales to customers outside
the State of California exceeded $50,000, the dollar volume of
purchases of goods and-services from outside the State exceeded
$50,000, the dollar volume of purchases from firms which, in turn,
purchased those goods from outside California exceeded $50,000,
and the total volume of all sales and performance. of services of
the contractors represented by the above associations exceeded
$500,000.
In addition to the above, the dollar volume of national defense
work during the past calendar year exceeded $2,000,000, said
work being done on behalf of the Defense Department directly
and/or indirectly.
7. The Board in June 1961 asserted jurisdiction over Tri-Associated
Chapter (131 NLRB 1077) predicated upon the business operations
of Lamunyon Drywall Contractors, Inc., and Fletch Reynolds, Inc.,
who were members of this chapter.
On the above allegations, the Board is of the opinion that.:
1. Because collective bargaining between Petitioner, on the one
hand, and Orange County Chapter, San Diego Chapter, Tri-Associated
Chapter, Tri-County Chapter, and Desert Chapter, on the other, had
been conducted upon a five-chapter basis, these chapters should be
treated as a single enterprise for jurisdictional purposes; and the
combined commerce operations of all members of all five chapters
must be considered in determining whether the Board would exercise
jurisdiction in regard to the business of any single member of any one
of these chapters who participate in or intend to be bound by group
bargaining.2
2. These chapters' members are California. employers engaged in
the.builcling and construction industry as painting and drywall appli-
cation contractors.
3. The ' facts presented show the members of these five chapters have
a combined direct outflow of more than $50,000, a combined indirect
outflow of more than $50,000, a combined direct inflow of more than
$50,000, and a combined indirect inflow of more than $50,000.
4. Any one of these four commerce factors satisfies the Boa rd's dis-
cretionary nonretail jurisdictional requirements , which are applicable
to the employers concerned herein.3
' Siemons Mailing . Service, 122 NLRB 81, 84; Tri-A8soeiated Drywall Contractors, Inc.,
etc., 131 NLRB 1077, 1078; cf. Carbondale Retail Druggist8 ' Association , 131 NLRB 1021.
3 Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85.
S DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. It follows that the Board would assert jurisdiction with respect
to the operations of any single member of any one of the five chapters
mentioned in paragraph 1, above.
6. It also follows that the Board would assert jurisdiction with ref-
erence to the business of any one of the five chapters mentioned in
paragraph 1, above.
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that upon the
allegations submitted herein the Board would assert jurisdiction as
to the operations of any one of the five chapters mentioned in para-
graph 1, above, or any single member of any one of these chapters,
with respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of
the Act.
Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Abbey Auto Parts
Corp . Case No. 2-CP-9218. May 19, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 24, 1961, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions, and the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion together with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 Respondent's exceptions and brief, the Gen-
eral Counsel's cross-exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions,
and recommendations.
'Although the Trial Examiner apparently inadvertently found that Bethpage Auto
Parts, Inc., is located across the street from Abbey, whereas the record shows that it is,
in fact, located about 1% miles from Abbey, we find that the error had no effect on the
correctness of his ultimate findings or our concurrence therein. We also correct the Trial
Examiner's inadvertent statement giving May 4, 1963, instead of April 26, 1963, as the
date of the preelection conference.
147 NLRB No. 4.