United Brothd. of Carpenters Local 2064

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 881 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

UNITED BROTHD. OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 2064 881
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local
Union No. 2064 , affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America , AFL-CIO, and its Agent Jerome
Winkler ; Laborers' Union No. 1086 and its Agents
Harold LaShay and Eugene McEvoy and Westra
Construction , Inc. Case 30-CP-26
May 8, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On November 27, 1968, Trial Examiner Herbert
Silberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief. The Respondents filed exceptions
and a supporting brief and an answering brief to the
General Counsel's exceptions. The Charging Party
filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondents , United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local
Union No . 2064, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO , and its Agent Jerome Winkler ; Laborers'
Union No. 1086 and its Agents Harold LaShay and
Eugene McEvoy, their officers, agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERBERT SILBERMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on May 10, 1968, by Westra Construction, Inc.,
herein called the Company, a complaint, dated June 25,
1968, was issued alleging that the Respondents have
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 2(6) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In substance,
the complaint avers that: Respondents, who have never
been certified as the representative of any employees of
the Company, between February 14 and June 17, 1968,
picketed sites located at Juneau, Beaver Dam, and
Oakfield, Wisconsin, where the.Company was engaged in
the construction of buildings. The picketing continued for
more than a reasonable period, and in excess of 30 days,
and no petition was filed with the National Labor
Relations Board under Section 9(c) of the Act. The object
of Respondents' picketing was to force or require the
Company to recognize and to bargain with Respondents
as the representatives of the Company's employees and to
compel the Company's employees to accept or select
Respondents as their collective-bargaining representative.
Respondents in their answer denied generally that they
committed any unfair labor practices and aver as an
affirmative defense that Jerome Winkler, Harold LaShay,
and Eugene McEvoy acted solely in their representative
capacities as officers and agents of their respective labor
organizations and therefore are not individually
accountable for any of the activities alleged in the
complaint to be violations of the Act. A hearing in this
proceeding was held on September 16, 1968, in Waupun,
Wisconsin. Thereafter, briefs were filed on behalf of the
respective parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Westra Construction, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, is
a general contractor In the building and construction
industry. During the times material hereto the Company
was engaged in the construction of buildings at sites
located at Juneau, Beaver Dam, and Oakfield, Wisconsin.
During the year 1967, which is representative of the
Company's operations, the Company's revenues from its
business operations were in excess of $500,000 and, during
the same period, the Company received goods and
material valued in excess of $50,000 at jobsites located
within the State of Wisconsin which were shipped to it
directly from points outside the State of Wisconsin.
Respondents admit, and I find, that the Company is an
employer, within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE RESPONDENTS
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local
Union No . 2064, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO , herein called the Carpenters , and Laborers'
Union No . 1086, herein called the Laborers , are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
175 NLRB No. 147
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act. During the times material hereto Jerome Winkler
was a business agent of Carpenters and Harold LaShay
and Eugene McEvoy were business agents of Laborers.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Three jobsites of the Company were subject to
continuous picketing for various periods of more than 30
days without a petition having been filed under Section
9(c) of the Act and without any direct communication
between the Respondents and the Company . The issues
are whether , in the circumstances described below, there
were violations of Section 8(b)(7)(C) and whether each of
the Respondents named in the complaint may be found to
have engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
The three projects involved for which the Company was
the general contractor were : St. John's Lutheran Church
in Juneau , Wisconsin ; Campus Inn Motel in Beaver Dam,
Wisconsin ; and a warehouse for Mammoth Spring
Canning Corp . in Oakfield , Wisconsin . During the times
material hereto the Company employed laborers,
carpenters , and other classifications at each of these
projects . The Company has never been party to any
collective-bargaining agreement with any labor
organization.
The facts material to the alleged unlawful conduct at
each of the projects are as follows:
A. The Juneau Project
The Company staked out this job on December 28,
1967, and began active construction work 2 or 3 weeks
later . The project still was not completed as of the date of
the hearing.
In the morning of February 14, 1968, a picket arrived
at the project . Thereafter the project was picketed
continuously during the hours and on the days that the
Company's employees were at work until June 14, 1968,
when the picket was removed.'
From February 14 until March 21, 1968, the picket
carried a sign which read:
EMPLOYEES DOING CARPENTER WORK DO
NOT BELONG TO LOCAL 2064
The sign was printed except that the words "carpenter
work" and "2064" were handwritten on separate pieces of
paper which were pasted onto the sign.
On March 21, the same picket appeared at the project
with the same sign except that the words "labor work"
were substituted for the words "carpenter work" and the
number "1086" was substituted for the number "2064."
Thus, the sign as changed read : "EMPLOYEES DOING
LABOR WORK DO NOT BELONG TO LOCAL
1086."
On March 25, the sign was again changed . The new
sign consisted of a handprinted placard affixed to each
side of a stick . One side read:
'There are two entrances to the project. About April 16, 1968, a sign
was posted at each gate . One sign read that the gate was exclusively for
employees and suppliers of Westra Construction, Inc., and the other sign
read that the gate was exclusively for employees and suppliers of
contractors other than Westra Construction, Inc. After these reserved gates
were established the picketing was carried on at the Westra gate until May
7 when two pickets were assigned to the Juneau project. Thereafter, each
of the gates was patrolled by a picket.
EMPLOYEES OF WESTRA CONST. RECEIVE
SUBSTANDARD WAGES & BENEFITS
LABORERS LO. 1086
The other side read:
OUR ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH THE
SUBSTANDARD WAGES & BENEFITS PAID
BY WESTRA CONST. LABORERS LO. 1086
The picket, Elton McCaffrey, testified that he is a
member of Laborers Union No. 1086. He further testified
that on February 13, 1968, Laborers Business Agent
Eugene McEvoy informed him by telephone that
Carpenters needed a picket in Juneau . McEvoy offered the
job to McCaffrey, who accepted it. McEvoy gave
McCaffrey instructions as to where he should meet
Jerome Winkler , business agent for the Carpenters, in
Juneau. At their meeting Winkler gave McCaffrey the
sign which he carried.' McCaffrey carried the Carpenters
picket sign until he was discharged from the job by
Winkler.' According to McCaffrey's further testimony, he
then was hired by McEvoy to picket for the Laborers.
McCaffrey also testified that his instructions were that
he was not to stop anyone from crossing the picket line,
that if any inquiries were made of him , during the times
he carried the Carpenters picket sign he was to refer such
inquiries to Jerome Winkler, and during the times he
carried the Laborers picket sign he was to refer such
inquiries to Eugene McEvoy.
B. The Beaver Dam Project
The Company staked out the job at Beaver Dam,
Wisconsin, on February 5, 1968 , and began active work
on the project 1 or 2 weeks later.
On March 11 , 1968, a picket appeared at the project
and began patrolling the premises . He carried a sign
which read : "EMPLOYEES DOING LABORERS
WORK DO NOT BELONG TO LOCAL 1086."' On
'In his brief General Counsel states that "McEvoy ... gave McCaffrey
the sign which he was to carry on behalf of the Carpenters . Further, it
appears that both McEvoy and Winkler arrived together to instruct
McCaffrey as to his picketing duties. . ." Although McCaffrey's
testimony is not altogether clear and while General Counsel's quoted
assertion is not without some record support , upon review of all
McCaffrey's testimony , who was the only witness to testify about the
subject, I am of the opinion that the import of McCaffrey 's testimony was
that the latter met with Winkler alone and that Winkler , not McEvoy,
gave McCaffrey the Carpenters picket sign
'Elton McCaffrey testified that he stopped carrying the Carpenters
picket sign on March 8 . I do not credit McCaffrey regarding this date.
McCaffrey's testimony reveals that he was uncertain in his recollection of
the events about which he testified . For instance , after he stopped carrying
the Carpenters picket sign he began to carry a picket sign for the
Laborers His description of the sign he carried for the Laborers differed
from the photograph of the sign which was introduced in evidence. In
general, McCaffrey impressed me as being an unreliable witness. On the
other hand , Dewey Westra , who impressed me as being a truthful witness,
testified that he first saw McCaffrey carrying the Laborers picket sign on
March 21, 1968. Westra further testified that although he did not
necessarily visit the jobsite every day, the longest lapse between his visits to
the project was only a few days. Thus , even if the sign change had taken
place immediately after Westra 's last visit to the project prior to March
21, it still was more than 30 days after the picketing began.
40n March 11 , 1968, the two entry approaches into the project were
posted with signs . One sign read , "This Gate Exclusively for Employees
and Suppliers of Westra Cons't Co." and the other sign read , "This Gate
Exclusively for Employees and Suppliers of Contractors other than Westra
Cons't."
UNITED BROTHD. OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 2064 883
March 25, the sign was changed as it had been at the
Juneau project. One side of the sign read, "Employees of
Westra Const. Receive Substandard Wages & Benefits
Laborers Lo. 1086," and the other side read, "Our Only
Dispute is with the Substandard Wages & Benefits Paid
by Westra Const. Laborers Lo. 1086." The picketing
continued until mid- or late-June 1968. The project was
completed in early September 1968.
Supplemental Memorandum to the Subcommittee on the
Separation of Powers Committee on the Judiciary, United
States Senate, reprinted in 69 LRR 157, 167-171. It is
thus unnecessary to restate those principles here
However, I shall briefly discuss several questions raised in
the briefs submitted by the parties.
1. Joint venture
C. The Oakfield Project
The Company commenced work at the Oakfield,
Wisconsin, project about February 13, 1968.5 Laborers
began picketing the project on March 18, 1968, when a
picket arrived carrying a sign similar to the signs carried
at the other two projects. The sign read: "The Employees
Doing Laborers Work Do Not Belong To Lo. 1086." As
in the case of the other two projects the sign was changed
on March 25, to a two-sided placard. One side read: "Our
Dispute is Only with the Sub-Standard Wages and
Conditions Paid by Westra Const. Laborers Lo. 1086."
The other side read: "Employees of Westra Const.
Receive Sub-Standard Wages & Conditions Laborers Lo.
1086." This project was continuously picketed until the
latter part of May 1968. The project was completed about
June 5, 1968.
D. Refusals to Cross Picket Lines
During the picketing of the three projects employees of
the Company's subcontractors or suppliers on various
occasions refused to drive their vehicles across the picket
lines established at the projects. In addition, on one
occasion, two employees of Overhead Door, Inc., who had
a subcontract to deliver and install an overhead door,
made a delivery but refused to make the installation of the
door which they had brought to the project. Listed below
is a schedule showing the date of each such incident, the
jobsite where the refusal to cross the picket line occurred,
and the name of the subcontractor or supplier for whom
the employees involved worked.
SUBCONTRACTOR
DATE JOBSITE OR SUPPLIER
February 15 Juneau Beaver Ready Mix
February 27 Juneau Beaver Ready Mix
March 11 Juneau Cooke and Brown
April I Oakfield Overhead Door, Inc.
April 9 Oakfield Fond du Lac Concrete
April 10 Beaver Dam Pannetti Stone Company
May 6 Oakfield Reetz Ready Mix
May 7 Juneau Spancrete, Inc.
May 8 Juneau Wisconsin Brick Company
May 8 Oakfield Beaver Ready Mix
May 10 Juneau Wisconsin Brick Company
May 10 Oakfield Beaver Ready Mix
May 14 Oakfield Beaver Ready Mix
May 24 Juneau Wisconsin Brick Company
E. Conclusions
The general principles applicable to this case recently
have been authoritatively summarized by the Board in its
'The two entrances to the project were posted with signs on March 13,
1968. One sign read : "This gate exclusively for employees and suppliers of
contractors and sub-contractors engaged in construction of the new
Mammoth warehouse including . Westra Construction ." The other sign
read. "This gate exclusively for employees of Mammoth Spring Canning
Corp. and persons or employees making deliveries to or from Mammoth."
General Counsel and Charging Party contend that the
picketing by the Carpenters and Laborers in this case
constituted a joint venture so that (at least at the Juneau
project) the picketing of one should be deemed the
picketing of the other. The evidence upon which they rely
is that Elton McCaffrey succesively picketed the Juneau
project for both unions; the picket signs he carried for the
two unions were virtually the same, the only differences
being that the words "LABOR WORK" were substituted
for the words "CARPENTER WORK" and the number
"1086" designating the Laborers was substituted for the
number "2064" designating the Carpenters; and after the
Carpenters had stopped picketing the Juneau project, on
occasion, its business agent, Jerome Winkler, was
observed in the vicinity of the project in conference with
the Laborers business agent. These facts do not amount to
proof of a joint venture. There is no direct evidence in this
case as to what, if any, arrangement existed between the
two unions relative to picketing the Company. Of the
possible assumptions from the facts the one most
favorable to the joint venture argument is that the
Carpenters were seeking to organize the carpenters on the
job and the Laborers were seeking to organize the
laborers on the job and in an effort to circumvent Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, through some understanding
between them, the two unions arranged for the successive
picketing of the project.` However, even if true, such
cooperation between the two unions to achieve their
similar but separate objectives do not constitute them joint
adventurers or agents of each other.'
2. Object of the picketing
The principal evidence in this case regarding object are
the signs which the pickets carried . General Counsel
contends that the signs carried prior to March 25, 1968,
alone demonstrate an objective within the cognizance of
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. I agree.' "[A] statement on
a picket sign that an employer does not employ members
of a labor organization clearly imports an object of
`On the evidence before me it would not be reasonabid to assume that
the Carpenters were picketing to organize the laborers on the job for the
Laborers or vice versa.
'While the criteria for finding a joint venture - particularly by labor
organizations in pursuit of organizational or recognitional objectives - are
somewhat amorphous, at the minimum , there must be an association
together of two or more persons "in the prosecution of a common plan or
enterprise " See International Organization of Masters , Mates & Pilots of
America v . N.L.R.B., 351 F 2d 771, 777-778 (C.A.D.C) Coordinate
activity and cooperation between two unions if for separate ends do not
constitute them joint adventurers although in some circumstances one
might be the agent of the other . See also Construction , Production &
Maintenance Laborers Union Local 383 (Colson and Stevens), 137 NLRB
1650, affd . 323 F.2d 422, 427 (C A. 9)
'It is thus unnecessary to pass upon Charging Party's argument that an
organizational objective may be inferred from the fact that the picketing
was conducted in a manner that would appeal "to employees of unionized
suppliers and contractors qua unionized employees and not qua members
of the public."
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization. "' Respondents assert that "[i]n most
cases where violations have been found, this objective is
demonstrated by evidence other than picketing." While
this may be true, I disagree with Respondents' further
argument that General Counsel has not met the burden of
proving the object of the picketing by limiting his evidence
to the language on the signs. The projects were picketed
for some purpose. Picket signs are intended to advertise
the purpose, or the object, of the picketing. Unless the
General Counsel attempts to prove that there was a
purpose for the picketing not revealed by the language of
the signs, it is unnecessary to adduce evidence in addition
to the language of the sign to explain the object of the
picketing. Here the signs used by Respondents prior to
March 25 by their language indicated an organizational
objective. As Respondents offered no evidence to establish
any other objective, the General Counsel has met the
burden of proof in that respect.' °
3. Change of objective
Respondents argue in their brief: "Even if the original
sign did demonstrate an organizational or recognitional
object, there is no proof that this object was not
abandoned when the final sign was used. There is nothing
wrong with a union giving up a fruitless organizational
effort and turning to a publicity campaign in hopes of
salvaging something from its activity, and the Record in
this case supports that explanation just as easily as it does
the allegations in the Complaint."
The defect in this argument is that there is no evidence,
apart from the language of the signs, suggesting that the
picketing after March 25 was solely for purpose of
publicity while there is evidence to the contrary." First,
direct knowledge regarding the purpose of the picketing is
within the control of Respondents. Had there been any
change of object at the time the pickets were changed,
Respondents readily could have offered evidence to such
effect. Their failure to do so is of significance, particularly
as the change of the signs occurred without any
interruption of the picketing. Second, Respondents would
have me find that after March 25 they were engaged in
so-called area standards picketing. However, Respondents
at no time communicated with the Company to ascertain
what wages and benefits it was paying its employees. How
then were Respondents able to advertise that the
Company was paying substandard wages and benefits.
Furthermore, no evidence was offered to show that the
Laborers was engaged in a drive, apart from seeking to
obtain recognition and bargaining rights, to compel
nonunion employers to meet prevailing pay scales and
employee benefits in order to protect its area standards
'Local Union 429, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Sam M Melson). 138 NLRB 460, 482. Accord : American
Federation of Grain Millers, Local Union No. 16, AFL-CIO ( Bartlett and
Company, Grain), 141 NLRB 974, 979; Local Joint Executive Board of
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union
(Crown Cafeteria), 135 NLRB 1183, 1185 In affirming the Board's
Decision in Crown Cafeteria the court of appeals observed-
The hard realities of union-employer relations are such that it is
difficult, indeed almost impossible , for us to conceive of picketing falling
within the terms of the proviso [to 8(b)(4XC)j that did not also have as
"an object" obtaining a contract with the employer . This is normally the
ultimate objective of any union in relation to an employer who has
employees whose jobs fall within the categories of employment that are
within the jurisdiction of the union , which is admittedly the situation
here.
Smttley d/b/a Crown Cafeteria v. N L.R.B., 327 F.2d 351, 353 (C.A. 9).
"See Board Decision in Crown Cafeteria, supra, 1185.
from being undermined. If the change of signs was
something other than a device to disguise the Laborers
continuing organizational object, Respondents would have
been able to adduce evidence showing a more far-reaching
effort on their part to maintain prevailing standards than
the mere picketing of the Company's three projects.
Third, the way the picketing was carried on after March
25 (as well as before that date) indicates that the object
was more to interfere with the Company's operations by
inducing employees of its suppliers and subcontractors to
refuse to make deliveries to the projects than it was to
publicize the Company's alleged substandard pay scale
and benefits. This is evidenced by, among other facts, the
following: (a) The pickets changed the pattern of their
activities when trucks approached the jobsite in order
more effectively to discourage the operators from driving
into the project. Thus, Dewey Westra testified without
contradiction that at the Juneau project the picket
normally did not patrol across the entrance gate unless a
truck was approaching, and at the Beaver Dam project the
picket spent most of his time behind his car but patrolled
the entrance gate whenever a truck was headed into the
project. (b) The direct assistance of Teamsters
Representative Bill Renz was obtained in order to more
effectively discourage Teamsters members from driving
their trucks into the projects. Thus, on May 7, after
several trucks of Spancrete, Inc., had made deliveries at
the Juneau jobsite, Renz appeared. He stopped the next
truck of Spancrete, Inc., and spoke to the driver who then
refused to drive into the project. In all, on that day, the
drivers of three Spancrete trucks refused to drive into the
project. The next day, May 8, Renz appeared at the
Oakfield project where about 9:30 a.m. he stopped a truck
which had been dispatched to the jobsite by Beaver Ready
Mix to deliver concrete. When the driver of the truck was
asked by Robert Westra, secretary of the Company, why
he was not making the delivery, the driver replied that he:was threatened with a fine if he crossed the picket line."
The drivers for Beaver Ready Mix and Spancrete were
members of the Teamsters. Thus, it is apparent, in spite
of the appeal on the placards, that the picketing was not
directed towards achieving the limited purpose of
communicating to the public at large the Company's
alleged failure to meet prevailing union pay scales and
benefits, "but was also intended to be precisely that
`signal' to organized labor which Congress sought to
curtail."" As there was no substantial change in the
picketing tactics after March 25, except only to increase
the pressures upon the Company through the invocation of
greater support from the Teamsters and its members,
""We do not regard self-serving legends on picket signs as conclusive
evidence of the real objective of the picketing ." IBEW, Local 953
(Erickson Electric Company), 154 NLRB 1301, 1305 Accord. Operative
Plasterers ' and Cement Masons ' International Association , Local Union
No. 44 (Penny Construction Company, Inc.), 144 NLRB 1298.
"At the hearing I reserved ruling on Respondents ' objection to testimony
by Robert Westra , secretary of the Company , that on May 8, 1968, the
picket at the Oakfield project in response to Westra's question as to what
Business Agent Eugene McEvoy had said to him that morning , responded,
"Well, we have to get you into the union , you're taking too much work
from the union contractors." I find this testimony constitutes
impermissible hearsay concerning the Laborers object. There is no basis in
the record before me to find either that the picket had knowledge of the
Laborers object or that it was within the scope of the picket's authority to
make any statement regarding the subject. Accordingly, I sustain the
objection to the described testimony.
"Local 3, IBEW (Jack Picoult), 144 NLRB 5, 8, enfd . 339 F.2d 600
(C.A. 2).
UNITED BROTHD. OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 2064
there is little reason to believe that the Laborers had
abandoned their organizational objective with the change
of the picket signs.'
I find, contrary to Respondents, that their
organizational objective did not change on March 25,
1968, when the signs carried 7 the pickets at the
Company's projects were changed.'
4. The violations of Section 8(b)(7)(C)
I have found that the Carpenters from February 14,
until about March 21, 1968, picketed the Company's
Juneau project for an object within the contemplation of
Section 8(b)(7); namely, for the object of forcing or
requiring employees of the Company to accept or select
the Carpenters as their collective-bargaining
representative. Furthermore, no petition under Section
9(c) of the Act was filed within 30 days from the
commencement of such picketing and the picketing was
not subject to the exemption provided for by the second
proviso to Section 8(b)(7)(C) because an effect of the
picketing on three different occasions within that period
was to induce employees of Beaver Ready Mix Company
and Cooke and Brown, in the course of their employment,
to refuse to drive vehicles onto the project and to deliver
goods to the jobsite, which involved substantial
interference with the business activities of the Company.16
Accordingly, I find that Carpenters by reason of the
foregoing have violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. I
further find that Jerome Winkler, the Carpenters business
agent, who directed the establishment of the picket line,
directed the later abandonment of the picket line and to
whom all inquiries concerning the pickets were to be
directed, was an agent of the Carpenters within the
meaning of Section 8(b) of the Act and also has engaged
in the commission of the said unfair labor practices.
I also have found that the Laborers picketed each of
the three projects described above for periods of more
than 30 days and for a similar organizational objective.
The laborers also have not filed a petition under Section
9(c) and because an effect of the Laborers picketing was
to induce individuals employed by persons other than the
Company, in the course of their employment, not to
deliver goods to the Company's jobsites the exemption
provided for by the proviso to Section 8(b)(7)(C) does not
apply to its activities." I find, therefore, that the Laborers
have violated Section 8(a)(7)(C). I also find that its
business agent , Eugene McEvoy, who was responsible for
the establishment of the picket line and to whom all
"Hoisting and Portable Engineers Local Union 101 Operating Engineers
(Sherwood Construction Company , Inc.), 140 NLRB 1175; Teamsters,
Local Union No. 5 (Barber Brothers Contracting Co., Inc.), 171 NLRB 9.
"Construction , Shipyard and General Laborers Local 1207 (Alfred S.
Austin Construction Co., Inc.), 141 NLRB 283, 284-285; Local 3, IBEW
(Jack Picoult) , 144 NLRB 5. enfd . 339 F .2d 600 (C.A. 2).
"The fact that the deliveries ultimately were made by the officials of the
suppliers or by the Company 's employees who were assigned to do work
which normally would have been done by the employees of other
employers does not negate the "effect" of the picketing The exemption
provided by the second proviso to Section 8(b)(7XC) is inapplicable if "an
effect of such picketing is to induce any individual employed by any other
person in the course of his employment , not to ... deliver . . any goods. .
.: ' See Hotel, Motel & Club Employees ' Union , Local 568 (Restaurant
Management , Inc.), 147 NLRB 1060, 1068-69.
"The exemption of the proviso , in any event, would not be applicable
after the signs were changed on March 25 to so-called area standards
signs. IBEW, Local Union No. 113 (LC.G. Electric, Inc.), 142 NLRB
1418.
885
questions regarding the presence of the pickets at the
projects were to be directed and who, from time to time,
personally participated in the picketing, was an agent of
the Laborers and also engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed as
to Respondent Harold LaShay. There is no probative
evidence in this record of his participation in any of the
alleged unfair labor practices.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the Company's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
Conclusions of Law
1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners,
Local Union No. 2064, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, by picketing and causing to be picketed
between February 14 and March 21, 1968, a jobsite of
Westra Construction, Inc., at Juneau, Wisconsin, with an
object of forcing or requiring employees of Westra
Construction, Inc., to accept or select Carpenters as their
collective-bargaining representative, although Carpenters
has not been certified as a representative of said
employees and did not file a petition under Section 9(c) of
the Act within 30 days from the commencement of said
picketing, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
2. Jerome Winkler, an agent of Carpenters, by reason
of his conduct in establishing and directing the aforesaid
picketing has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
3. Laborers' Union No. 1086 by picketing and causing
to be picketed between March 11 and June 1968, various
jobsites in the State of Wisconsin of Westra Construction,
Inc., with an object of forcing or requiring employees of
Westra Construction, Inc., to accept or select Laborers as
their collective-bargaining representative, although
Laborers has not been certified as the representative of
said employees and did not file a petition under Section
9(c) of the Act within 30 days from the commencement of
said picketing, has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
4. Eugene McEvoy, an agent of Laborers, by reason of
his conduct in establishing and directing said picketing
likewise has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. Harold LaShay has not engaged in any of the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint herein.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local
Union No. 2064, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, and its Agent Jerome Winkler, and Laborers'
Union No. 1086, and its Agent Eugene McEvoy, and the
respective officers , agents, and representatives of said
labor organizations , shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing , or causing to be
picketed , jobsites or other business premises of Westra
Construction, Inc., where an object thereof is forcing or
requiring any employees of Westra Construction, Inc., to
accept or select either Carpenters or Laborers as their
collective -bargaining representative , in circumstances
violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Carpenters and Laborers shall post at their
respective business offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notices marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix
B."" Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed
by said labor organizations ' respective authorized
representatives , shall be posted by them immediately upon
receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to their members are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondents to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. Unless the
individual Respondents , Jerome Winkler and Eugene
McEvoy, are no longer agents of the Respondent labor
organizations Winkler shall also sign the notice to be
posted by Carpenters and McEvoy shall also sign the
notice to be posted by Laborers.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 30 signed
copies of said notices for posting by Westra Construction,
Inc., if said Company shall be willing to post such notices,
at all places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted.
(c) Each of the Respondents shall notify the aforesaid
Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of receipt of this Decision, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps
Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS, LOCAL UNION No. 2064,
AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS 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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed Westra
Construction, Inc., or any of its jobsites for an object
of forcing or requiring any of its employees to accept or
select us as their bargaining representative in violation
of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS , LOCAL UNION
No. 2064, AFFILIATED
WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
(Business Agent)
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, Second Floor
Commerce Building , 744 North Fourth Street,
Milwaukee , Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-272-3861.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LABORERS UNION
No. 1086
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed Westra
Construction , Inc., or any of its jobsites for an object
of forcing or requiring any of its employees to accept or
select us as their bargaining representative in violation
of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
Dated By
LABORERS UNION NO.
1086
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
(Business Agent)
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, Second Floor
Commerce Building , 744 North Fourth Street,
Milwaukee , Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-272-3861.