District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS _oF AMERICA FOR THE CITY_ AND COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, MIS- SOURI AND VICINITY, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CARPENTERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND VICINITY and ARTCRAFT VENETIAN BLIND MANUFACTURING CO. Case No. 14-00-62. February 17,1955 Decision and Order On December 6, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup- porting brief. 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 In- termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America for the City and County of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, also known as The Carpenters' District Council of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicin- ity, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of MacDonald Construction Company or any other employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted 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 to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require MacDonald Construction Company or any other employer or other person to cease doing business with Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Co. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : 111 NLRB No. 111. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS 645 (a) Post at its St. Louis, Missouri, business offices, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate, Report marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, shall after being duly signed by an authorized representative, be posted by said Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 1 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this Order is en- forced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing there- on having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relar tions Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named Respondent Union, counsel for each of the above-named parties met in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 27, 1954, and entered into a recorded stipulation. In substance, said stipulation included: (1) Waiver of a hearing before a Trial Examiner; (2) submission of the record made in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of Missouri, Eastern District (Civil No. 9942), on September 7, 1954, as well as the pleadings and other formal documents in Case No. 14-CC-62, as the entire record in this proceeding be- fore the Board ; and (3) submission of the record thus made to the Chief Trial Ex- aminer for referral to a Trial Examiner for the preparation of an Intermediate Re- port. The parties also agreed that they would have until November 16, 1954, to file briefs with the Chief Trial Examiner. Thereafter, upon request of the Respondent such time was extended to November 29, and the Chief Trial Examiner designated this Trial Examiner to prepare an Intermediate Report . Despite the Respondent's request for extension of time for filing a brief, only a brief from General Counsel has been received. The complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent Union has en- gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) 1 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 126), herein called the Act. In substance, the complaint contends that in July 1954, the Respondent Union in- duced and encouraged the employees of a general contractor , MacDonald Construc- tion Company, to engage in strikes or concerted refusals to handle or work on com- modities of Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Co., or to perform services, an object thereof being ( 1) to force MacDonald to cease using the products of Artcraft or to cease doing business with it, and (2 ) to force MacDonald to assign the installa- 1 The relevant section of the Act states that "It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents . . . to engage in, or to induce or encourage the em- ployees of any employer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials , or commodities or to perform any services , where an object thereof is : forcing or requiring any employer or self -employed person to join any labor, or employer organization or any employer or other person to cease using , selling, handling, transporting , or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or 11 manufacturer , or to cease doing business with any other person... . 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of venetian blinds to members of the Respondent instead of members of an- other AFL affiliate, the Upholsterers' International Union. Upon the record submitted by stipulation in this case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE PRIMARY EMPLOYER Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Co. is a Missouri corporation, with its principal office and plant in St. Louis, Missouri, where it is engaged in the produc- tion, sale, and distribution of venetian blinds and related products. During the year 1953 it transported finished products valued at more than $1,000,000 from its plant in St. Louis to points outside the State of Missouri. The Respondent Union con- cedes that Artcraft is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. As described more fully below, Artcraft is the primary employer involved in the labor dispute giving rise to these proceedings. The Board has jurisdiction. (See United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, et al., 110 NLRB 206.) II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America for the City and County of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, also known as The Car- penters' District Council of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, and Local 113, Vene- tian Blind Workers, affiliated with the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Setting of events in issue This case stems from a long-standing dispute between two AFL affiliates as to which has jurisdiction over making and installing blinds. Specifically, it involves employees of general contractor MacDonald and employees of subcontractor Art- craft, during the construction of a hospital in St. Louis and at a time when the latter Employer, pursuant to contract with the former, began using its own employees in the installation of blinds. Artcraft's employees were represented by the duly certified Upholsterers, and at the material time some 6 or 7 members of the Respondent Carpenters were working for MacDonald, apparently on other construction at the same project. The Respondent's claim of jurisdiction and requirement that its officers, agents, and members observe the claim are described in its constitution, bylaws, and trade rules, applicable at the time of the dispute. Relevant portions are quoted: jurisdiction . . . shall . . . include all men engaged in . . . the fitting and hanging of all . . . blinds (and) . . . making and setting of all :. . blinds.2 Carpenters shall not erect any mill or cabinet work that has been made in a shop that does not have an agreement with the Brotherhood.3 Rule 44. When a non-union man comes on the job to do the work claimed by the jurisdiction of the U. B., the steward shall (with the cooperation of the members) endeavor to have him removed. Failing in this, the steward shall order al members to quit work. . Rule 45. It shall be the duty of all members working on a job to co-operate with the steward in performing his duties. . . . Any member violating any of the Rules 41 to 46, inclusive, shall be fined after due trial and conviction. The Respondent's acts, which General Counsel would have found violative of the Act, occurred in July 1954. B. Events in issue Artcraft's employees began installing blinds on the hospital project about July 19. That day Steward Perchbacher of the Carpenters approached one of Artcraft's em- ployees, Walter Niemczyk, and asked to see his card. Shortly thereafter, when Niemczyk and others started to hang blinds, Perchbacher came. to them and said, 'Sorry, fellows, I will have to ask you fellows to leave the job. This is Carpenters' 2 Quoted from "General Jurisdiction of Work. ," sections 5 and 6. 3 Quoted from unnumbered page opposite p. 41, same document. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS 647 work." Another Artcraft employee, Pfingsten, objected to this request of the Car- penters' steward, and said, "We have jurisdiction over the blinds." Perchbacher said he was wrong, and insisted that the Carpenters had jurisdiction. Pfingsten said he would call the local office of the Upholsterers. Artcraft's employees then left the job. Upon Artcraft's instruction, Pfingsten and its other employees returned to the job on July 23. The Carpenters' steward again approached them, and told them they would have to leave the job, that the work belonged to the Carpenters. Artcraft's employees, however, did not leave the job. Perchbacher then went to MacDonald's superintendent, Roy Gall, and again (having registered a similar protest with him on July 19) complained that the Up- holsterers were hanging the blinds. Gall again pointed out that he had no control over it "since we had a signed contract for that division of work." The steward told him flatly that unless Artcraft's employees were taken off the job the Carpenters would leave. Soon after noon of the same day Perchbacher again went to Gall, this time accompanied by the Carpenters' business agent, McDaniels. McDaniels warned Gall that if the Upholsterers continued to hang the blinds the Carpenters would walk off, and in Gall's presence instructed Perchbacher to have the Carpenters work until 1 o'clock, to bring in company tools. At 1 o'clock Perchbacher told the Carpenters, "We'll walk off, pick up your tools and we'll go." The Carpenters thereupon walked •off the job and did not return until a week later, July 30. During the week's interim, while the Carpenters did not work, the Respondent's secretary-treasurer, Erwin C. Meinert, communicated with William R. MacDonald, head of the general contracting firm, and tried to persuade him to get Artcraft to sublet its contract, so the Carpenters could hang the blinds. Meinert also, according to his own testimony, tried to get MacDonald to withdraw its contract with Artcraft.4 Also during the week's interim, charges were filed with the Board, and the Re- spondent was informed of them. C. Conclusions The foregoing findings of fact lead to the conclusion that Steward Perchbacher and Business Agent McDaniels, officials of the Respondent Carpenters, induced em- ployees of MacDonald to engage in a "concerted refusal in the course of their employment . . . to perform any services," an object thereof being to force MacDonald "to cease doing business with" Artcraft.5 (The quoted language is from Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.) The Respondent Carpenters is plainly responsi- ble for such conduct on the part of its agents. (Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487 at p. 1507.) Upon such conclusions it reasonably should follow, without further comment, that the usual "cease and desist" recommendations be made. As noted above, in the "Statement of the Case," although counsel for the Respond- ent obtained from the Chief Trial Examiner an extension of time within which to file his brief, no brief was filed. Consideration of contentions opposing those of Gen- eral Counsel must be limited, therefore, to those set forth in the Respondent's answer. In that answer, outside of denial of factual allegations-determined, in effect, to be without merit by the foregoing findings of fact-the sole claim appears to be that the complaint should be dismissed because, since July 30, the conduct complained of has not been engaged in, and the Respondent's secretary, Meinert, promised that in the future it will not be repeated. The latter contention is wholly without merit. In Lakeview Creamery Company, 107 NLRB 601, the Board pointed out: "The Board and the Courts have repeatedly held that the cessation of an unfair labor prac- tice does not render a case moot," and cited Consolidated Edison Co. v. N. L. R. B., 305 U. S. 197, 230. Moreover, in this case, not only does it appear that the Respond- •ent's remedial action was taken after it was informed of the filing of the charge, raising the natural question as to whether its action was voluntary or impelled by fear of legal consequences, but also there is no showing in this record that the intrinsic and inherent evil of the trade rules, quoted above, binding upon both stewards and members, have in any way been altered. Upon another occasion 4 At the hearing, before the court, the following colloquy occurred between Meinert and counsel for the Respondent Q. Did you tell him (MacDonald) to withdraw or attempt to withdraw any con- tracts with Artcraft' A I told him to ask him if they would. I didn't tell him that he should. Q Mr MacDonald said that he could not, is that correct' A. Well, substantially ; he said he was tied up. 5N. L. it. B v. Denver Bldg & Construction Trades Council, et at , 341 U. S. 675, enfg. 82 NLRB 1195 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD another official may decide differently than the current secretary now promises, in his application of such rules. In summary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the preponderance of the evidence sustains the allegations of the complaint, and that by the conduct above described the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Sec- tion 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection with the operations of Artcraft set forth in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce V. THE REMEDY It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in concerted action violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. It will therefore be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Co. is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica for the City and County of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, also known as The Carpenters' District Council of St. Louis, Missouri and Vicinity, is a labor organ- ization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in concerted action where an object thereof was to force or re- quire MacDonald Construction Company to cease doing business with Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufacturing Co., the Respondent Council has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Appendix NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF ST. Louis, MISSOURI AND VICINITY, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CARPENTERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND VICINITY Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela- tions Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of MacDonald Construction Company or any other employer to engage in, a strike or a con- certed refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities , or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require MacDonald Construction Company or any other employer or other person to cease doing business with Artcraft Venetian Blind Manufactur- ing Co. DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA FOR THE CITY OF ST . Louis, MISSOURI AND VICINITY, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CARPENTERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND VICINITY, Labor Organization. Dated- --------------- By---------------------------------------------- (Title of officer) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.