PLUMBERS (HANSON PLUMBING)
United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of
the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada; and United Associa-
tion of Journeymen & Apprentices of the
Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada , Local 444 and T. S. Hanson
Plumbing . Case 32-CB-665
23 December 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
Upon a charge filed 29 November 1979 by T.S.
Hanson Plumbing (Hanson), the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board issued a
complaint and notice of hearing 17 January 1980
against the Respondents. Hanson filed an amended
charge 27 March 1980, and the Regional Director
for Region 32 issued an amendment to the com-
plaint and notice of hearing 31 March 1980. The
complaint alleged that' the Respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act by fining members
Charles Cox and Walter Huth because they crossed
and worked behind a picket line established by
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 1622, at a construction jobsite on
which Cox and Huth were employed by Hanson.
Copies of the charges and complaint were duly
served on the Respondents and Hanson. On 25 and
30 January 1980 the Respondents filed their an-
swers to the complaint denying the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
On 9 February 1981, , Hanson, the Respondents,
and the General Counsel filed with the Board a
Stipulation of Pacts, with certain attachments, and
moved to transfer this proceeding to the Board.
The parties agreed that the stipulation and attach-
ments constitute the entire record in this case and
that no oral testimony or other exhibits are neces-
sary or desired to be introduced by any of the par-
ties. The parties waived. a hearing before an admin-
istrative law judge and the issuance of a decision
and recommended order by an administrative law
judge, and they stated a desire to submit this case
directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and a Decision and Order.
On 15 April 1981 the Board issued an order
granting the motion, approving the stipulation, and
transferring the proceeding to the Board. Thereaf-
ter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed
briefs.
1231
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
Upon the basis of the stipulation and the briefs,
the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY
Charging Party Hanson, a sole proprietorship,
has an office in Danville, California, where it is en-
gaged as a plumbing contractor in the building and
construction industry. In the operation of its busi-
ness, Hanson annually purchases and receives
goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000
from suppliers who purchased and received the
goods in substantially the same form from suppliers
located outside the State of California. It is admit-
ted, and we find, that at all times material here,
Hanson is, and has been, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act. Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act for the Board to assert juris-
diction here.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulate, and we find, that United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada (the International), United Asso-
ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local 444 (Local 444), and
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 1622 (the Carpenters), are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Stipulated Facts
At all times material here, Hanson was engaged
as a plumbing subcontractor at a construction site
at Western Avenue in Union City, California. Ath-
ejen Building Construction (Athejen) was engaged
as the general contractor at the Western Avenue
jobsite. About 22 March 1979 the Carpenters com-
menced picketing at the site in furtherance of its
primary labor dispute with Athejen. There is no
contention here that the Carpenters' picketing was
unlawful. Hanson did not employ any employees
represented by the Carpenters, and at no time has
the Carpenters had a labor dispute with Hanson.
277 NLRB No. 137
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 130ARD
Respondent International and Respondent Local
444 have not at any material time been engaged in
a labor dispute with Athejen , and neither Respond-
ent has picketed at the Western Avenue jobsite.
Hanson 's employees at Western Avenue were rep-
resented by Local 444 . These included Local 444
members Charles Cox and Walter Huth , who, on
22 and 23 March 1979, crossed the Carpenters'
picket line and performed their regular plumbing
duties for Hanson . There is no evidence that a re-
served gate system was established at the site.
On 26 April 1979 Local 444 fined Cox and Huth
$1000 each because they had violated the Local's
bylaws and working rules and the International's
constitution by crossing and working behind the
Carpenters ' picket line . Subsequently , the Interna-
tional ratified the fines pursuant to the internal
union discipline procedure provided in the Interna-
tional's constitution.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that the Respond-
ents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by fining Cox and
Huth because such discipline induced the employ-
ees to refuse to perform services for a neutral em-
ployer , Hanson, with an object-proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(B) -to cause Hanson to cease doing
business with the primary employer , Athejen.
The Respondents assert that the fines assessed
against Cox and Huth were a purely internal union
matter privileged under the proviso to Section
8(b)(1)(A). In this regard, the Respondents argue
that fining its members for crossing lawful primary
picket lines of sister unions serves the Respondents'
legitimate interest in obtaining cooperation from
those sister unions if the Respondents require aid in
any future strike or boycott activity. They contend
that inasmuch as the Act permits employees of neu-
tral employers voluntarily to honor a lawful pri-
mary picket line, it cannot be unlawful for the Re-
spondents to enforce its legitimate sympathy strike
policy by requiring its members who are employees
of neutrals to avail themselves of the Act's protec-
tion.
C. Discussion and Conclusions
This case requires us to decide whether a union
may enforce a sympathy strike by fining its mem-
bers who fail to honor a lawful primary picket line
where those members work for a neutral employer
on a common situs which does not have a valid re-
served gate system . We find such conduct to be
unlawful.
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act proscribes labor or-
ganizations from restraining or coercing employees
in the exercise of their right to engage in or refrain
from engaging in concerted activities . The proviso
to Section 8(b)(1)(A), however, provides that the
restrictions on union conduct set forth in that sec-
tion do not impair "the right of a labor organiza-
tion to prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition or retention of membership ." In Scofield
v. NLRB, 394 U. S. 423 , 430 (1969), the Supreme
Court instructed that the proviso means that a
union is "free to enforce a properly adopted rule
which reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs
no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws,
and is reasonably enforced against union members
who are free to leave the union and escape the
rule." We have no difficulty with the proposition
that unions have a legitimate interest in having
members honor picket lines, whether in direct fur-
therance of a primary labor dispute or in sympa-
thetic support of the primary union . We also recog-
nize that there are situations in which a union may
lawfully enforce this legitimate interest by fining
members who have crossed picket lines.' The criti-
cal inquiry here required by the Scofield test, how-
ever, is a determination as to whether the Respond-
ents' fining of members Cox and Huth impairs a
policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws,
specifically the policy against the application of
secondary pressure' on neutral employers embodied
in Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. If this policy is im-
paired, the proviso to Section 8(b)(l)(A) affords no
protection to the Respondents.
The direction of the Respondents ' fines exclu-
sively at employees of an undisputedly neutral em-
ployer clearly discloses an objective proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(B). A union which induces neutral
employees to stop working "must take responsibil-
ity for the `foreseeable consequences of its con-
duct.1"2 Here, the Respondents knew that Cox and
Huth worked for an employer, Hanson , that was a
neutral in the Carpenters' primary dispute with
Athejen. A natural and apparent object of the Re-
spondents' fining of Cox and Huth was to force
them to stop working for the neutral Hanson and
in turn to cause Hanson to cease doing business
with Athejen.
In this regard , the conduct at issue is factually
indistinguishable from the conduct considered by
the Board in Sheet Metal Workers Local 252 (S. L.
Miller), 166 NLRB 262 (1967). There, the Board
found that a union not involved in any primary dis-
pute violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) by fining mem-
bers employed by a neutral subcontractor for cross-
ing and working behind another union 's lawful pri-
i See , e.g., NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg, Co, 388 U S . 175 (1967); Ma-
chinists Lodge 284 (Morton Salt), 190 NLRB 208 (1971)
2 Longshoremen ILA v. Allied International, 456 U S 212 , 224 (1982)
PLUMBERS (HANSON PLUMBING)
mary picket line directed at the general contractor
on a common construction situs. The Board explic-
itly rejected the union 's contention that because the
fines were assessed pursuant to its lawful rules and
regulations the discipline was a matter of only in-
ternal union concern , and therefore protected by
the proviso to Section 8(b)(l)(A). The only differ-
ence between S. L. Miller and this case is that here
the complaint alleges a , violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) rather than Section 8 (b)(4). Proof of a
violation in each case nevertheless turns on the
same conduct disclosing an unlawful secondary ob-
jective.
Neither here nor in S . L. Miller did the parties'
stipulation of facts refer to the existence of a re-
served gate for neutrals at the common situs.
Moreover , contrary to the Respondent's conten-
tion, the absence of a reserved gate system does
not significantly distinguish this case from the
precedent cases cited by the General Counsel,
where reserved gates had been established for em-
ployees - of the neutral employers .3 Section 8(b)(4)
places a burden on labor organizations to conduct
themselves in primary disputes in such ways as will
not needlessly entangle neutral employer' s. The ab-
sence of a reserved gate may have the consequence
of extending the permissible physical limits of the
primary labor dispute on a common situs, but neu-
tral subcontractors on the situs remain neutrals pro-
tected by Section 8(b)(4) against conduct which
has a clear and direct proscribed secondary objec-
tive even when there is no reserved gate.4
Our finding today is also supported by Carpen-
ters Ventura County Council (Commercial Construc-
tors), 259 NLRB 541 ( 1981), in which the Board
found that a union engaged in a primary dispute
with a construction employer violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 8 (b)(1)(A) when it
fined members for working behind the union's
lawful primary picket line for a neutral subcontrac-
tor at a common situs . To permit the Respondents'
fines here would lead to the anomalous result that
a secondary union may attempt to influence em-
ployees of a neutral employer by means denied to
the primary union itself. Clearly , if a primary union
3 Electrical Workers IBEW Local 153 (Belleville Electric), 221 NLRB
345 (1975); Carpenters Orange County Council Local 2361 (Stewart Con-
struction), 242 NLRB 585 (1979), enfd 639 F 2d 789 (9th Cir. 1980), Gla-
ziers Local 1621 (Alameda Glass), 242 NLRB 1011 (1979), enfd 632 F 2d
89 (9th Cir 1980)
4 See Sailors Union (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547 (1950), New Orle-
ans Building Trades Council (Markwell & Hdrtz), 155 NLRB 319 (1965);
see also Los Angeles Building Trades Council (Sierra Development), 215
NLRB 288 (1974), where the Board found that a union involved in a pri-
mary dispute at a common construction situs with no reserved gate vio-
lated Sec 8(b)(4)(t)(B) by statements that had a "signal effect" of asking
neutral employees to honor its picket line, even though the Board also
found that these statements did not establish that the otherwise lawful
picketing itself had an unlawful secondary objective
1233
may not put such secondary pressure on neutral
employers at a common situs, then it follows that a
neutral union may not do so either.5
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall
order that they cease and desist therefrom and that
they take certain affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act.' We shall, among other
things, order that the Respondents rescind the dis-
ciplinary action taken against Charles Cox and
Walter Huth and that they refund to them any
moneys held on account of fines assessed, with in-
terest, in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel
Corp., 231 NLRB' 651 (1977).6 Based on the fore-
going, we hold that the Respondents' fining of Cox
and Huth was for a proscribed secondary objective
and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. T.S. Hanson Plumbing is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Respondents United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada and
its Local 444 are labor organizations -within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By imposing internal union discipline on
Charles Cox and Walter Huth, as described herein,
the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondents, United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada and
its Local 444, Washington, D.C., and San Leandro,
California, their officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
5 We emphasize that our finding here is restricted to the circumstances
presented, and we do not pass on the legality of sympathetic appeals by
secondary unions in situations involving employees of a primary employ-
er, employees making deliveries to a primary employer, and employees
engaged in work "related to" the operations of a primary employer See
NLRB v International Rice Milling Co, 341 U S 665 (1951), Steelworkers
(Carrier Corp) v. NLRB, 376 U S 492 (1964)
6 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Charging, trying, fining, or otherwise disci-
plining Charles Cox, Walter Huth, or any of its
members in order to induce or encourage them to
withhold their services from a neutral employer
with an object of forcing or requiring the neutral
employer to cease doing business with a primary
employer.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the disciplinary action taken against
Charles Cox and Walter Huth in order to induce or
encourage them to withhold their services from a
neutral employer with an object of forcing or re-
quiring the neutral employer to cease doing busi-
ness with a primary employer, and expunge from
their records any reference to that discipline.
(b) Refund to Charles Cox and Walter Huth any
moneys held on account of fines assessed them in
connection with the aforesaid disciplinary action,
with interest, as set forth in the section of this deci-
sion entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at their offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 32, after being signed
by the Respondents' authorized representatives,
shall be posted by the Respondents immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices- to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Sign and return to the Regional Director suf-
ficient copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix" for posting by T.S. Hanson Plumbing, if
willing, in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT charge, try, fine, or otherwise dis-
cipline Charles Cox, Walter Huth, or any of our
members in order to induce or encourage them to
withhold their services from a neutral employer
with an object of forcing or requiring the neutral
employer to cease doing business with a primary
employer.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the disciplinary action taken by
us against Charles Cox and Walter Huth in order
to induce or encourage them to withhold their
services from a neutral employer with an object of
forcing or requiring the neutral employer to cease
doing business with a primary employer, and we
will expunge from our records any reference to
that discipline.
WE WILL refund to Charles Cox and Walter
Huth any moneys held on account of fines assessed
against them in connection with the aforesaid disci-
plinary action, with interest.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEY-
MEN & APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMB-
ING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEY-
MEN & APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMB-
ING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA AND
LOCAL 444
' If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
