United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Etc., Local 1281

UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, ETC., LOCAL 1281 549 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 1281, AFL-CIO and Richard Rapp and Harold ,Soule and Fuller Paint & Glass Company and Alaska Floors, Inc. Cases Nos. 19-CD-35,19-CD-36, and 19-CD-37. May 4, 1960 DECISION, DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE, AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING These proceedings arise under Section 10(k) of the Act, which pro- vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph 4(d) of section 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter- mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen . . . ." On December 9,1958, Richard Rapp and Harold Soule filed a charge alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. This charge alleged, in substance, that, in connection with the construction of the Government Hill school at Anchorage, Alaska, the Respondent had induced and encouraged employees of C & R Builders, Inc., to engage in a concerted work stoppage, with an object of forcing or requiring G & J Flooring Contractors, a subcontractor on this job, to assign the work of installing acoustical tile to members of the Respondent rather than to members of Painters Local 1140, to whom G & J had previously assigned this work. On December 10, 1958, Fuller Paint & Glass Company filed a charge alleging violations of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. This charge alleged, in substance, that the Respondents had (1) in August 1958 induced and encouraged employees of Tucker and Peterson at a project in Anchorage, Alaska, to engage in a concerted work stoppage, and (2) in October 1958 induced and encouraged carpenters employed by Alta Construction Company at a project at Elmendorf Air Force Base to engage in a concerted work stoppage, and that an object of the Respondent's conduct in each of these instances was to force or require Fuller to assign the installation of marlite and acoustical tile to members of the Respondent rather than to its own employees, to whom Fuller had already assigned the work. On December 11, 1958, Alaska Floors, Inc., filed a charge alleging violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. This charge alleged, in substance, that the Respondent had induced and encouraged carpenters employed by C & R Builders, Inc., to engage in a concerted work stoppage on a construction job for the Anchorage Telephone Ex- change, with the object of forcing Alaska Floors to assign the installa- 127 NLRB No. 79. 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of marlite to members of the Respondent rather than to its own employees. On February 16, 1959, the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region issued a notice of charges filed, with order of consolidation and notice of hearing. Thereafter on February 27, 1959, the Respondent and the Charging Parties in the above cases entered into a stipulation waiving a hearing, and in lieu thereof agreed that the evidence ad- duced, including the transcript of testimony, in the matter of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 1281, AFL-CIO, et al., Cases Nos. 19-CC-112, 117, 118, should be filed in this proceeding and be considered by the Board as evidence adduced in this proceeding. The parties also waived oral argument but re- served the right to file proposed findings of fact and/or briefs. On March 27, 1959, the Board approved the stipulation and transferred this proceeding to the Board. No briefs addressed to this proceeding have been received. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. We find that Fuller Paint & Glass Company and G &-, J Flooring Contractors are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. International Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper- hangers of America, Local 1140 , AFL-CIO, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local Union 1281, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The dispute:' The dispute here is caused by the efforts of the Respondent to ob- tain for its members the work of installing marlite and acoustical tile at certain projects. Both Fuller and G & J are parties to a valid col- lective bargaining contract with Painters , entered into on July 1, 1958, which was in effect at the time of the events herein, and which covers the disputed work. The Respondent has alleged that this work is within its jurisdiction . The facts as to the specific disputes here alleged are set forth below. Case No. 19-CD-35: C & R Builders, Inc., was the general con- tractor on the Government Hill School project. In early November 1958, G & J, which had a subcontract for the installation of marlite and other materials at this job, began to perform , assigning Rapp, one of its employees and a member of Painters, to the work. There were members of the Respondent working for the general contractor 'Our statement of facts follows our findings in the related proceeding involving the same Respondent in Cases Nos . 19-CC-112, 19-CC-117, 19-CC-118. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, ETC., LOCAL 1281 551 at this time and their job steward inquired of Rapp what his union affiliation was. Rapp stated that he was a member of Painters. That afternoon Ingram, the Respondent's business agent, came to the project, having been asked to do so by the general contractor, who feared a stoppage. When asked by the members of his union what to do, Ingram showed them a letter which allegedly conceded the dis- puted work to the Carpenters. Although Ingram told the men lie would have to replace them on the contractor's request if they left, shortly after speaking to him they all did leave. G & J did, there- after, assign another of its employees, a member of Respondent, to finish the work. Case No. 19-CD-36: This case involves two incidents-one at the Tucker and Peterson building in Anchorage, Alaska, and one at the Ehnendorf Air Force Base. With respect to the latter, which was also litigated in Cases Nos. 19-CC-112, 117, 118, the Trial Examiner found,2 and we agree, that the evidence does not establish the Re- spondent's responsibility for the stoppage there. We therefore do not base our determination herein on that incident. As to the other incident, in August 1958, Tucker and Peterson were engaged in re- modeling a building in Anchorage, employing members of Respond- ent. Fuller had a contract for the installation of acoustical tile, which it began to perform with Wainer and Flynn, its employees. After they had been on the job for 3 or 4 days, Ingram appeared at the job and told Peterson that the work belonged to Respondent. Ingram also talked to Mercer, the Carpenters steward at the job. The Car- penters told Peterson they would not work until the acoustical tile question was settled, and then left the jobsite. Thereafter Peterson and Willis (an official of Fuller) went to see Ingram at the Car- penters hall. Although Ingram denied that he had told the Carpen- ters to leave the job, there was also testimony that Mercer had told Peterson the walkout was pursuant to Ingram's instructions. After Wainer and Flynn were taken off the installation of acoustical tile the Carpenters returned to work. Case No. 19-CD-37: With respect to this incident, we have also adopted the Trial Examiner's finding, in Cases Nos. 19-CC-112, 117, 118, to which there is no exception, that the evidence does not estab- lish the Respondent's responsibility for the stoppage at the Anchor- age Telephone Exchange alleged herein. In these circumstances we shall quash the notice of hearing in this case. Contentions of the Parties The Charging Parties contend that by the conduct described above, the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Although 2 The General Counsel did not except to this finding 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondent filed no brief herein, it is clear that it denies responsi- bility for the conduct described above. Applicability of the Statute In proceedings under Section 10(k) of the Act the Board is re- quired to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated before proceeding with a determina- tion of the dispute out of which the alleged unfair labor practice has arisen. We have found here, in accordance with our findings in the related cases (Cases Nos. 19-CC-112, 117, 118) that the Respondent did in- duce or encourage employees to engage in work stoppages. It is also clear that an object of this conduct was to obtain for members of the Respondent work which had been assigned to members of Painters. There is therefore reasonable cause to believe that by this conduct the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. The dispute in this proceeding is therefore properly before the Board for determi- nation under Section 10(k) of the Act. Merits of the Dispute It is well established that an employer is free to make work assign- ments without being subject to pressure by a labor organization seeking the work for its members unless the employer is thereby fail- ing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employers performing such work, or unless an employer is bound by an agreement to assign the work in dispute to other employees. As Carpenters has no order, certification, or contract claim to the disputed work, we find it is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to force or require Fuller Paint & Glass Company and G & J Flooring Contractors to assign the disputed work to members of Carpenters rather than to their own employees who are members of Painters. We are not thereby to be taken as "assigning" the work to Painters. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE AND ORDER QUASH- ING NOTICE OF HEARING Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record the Board makes the following determination of dispute in Cases Nos. 19-CD-35 and 19-CD-30, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act. 1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 1281, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or re- quire G & J Flooring Contractors and Fuller Paint & Glass Company to assign the disputed work to its members rather than to G & J GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC., LOCAL NO. 21 553 Flooring Contractors and Fuller Paint & Glass Company's own employees who are not members of the Respondent. 2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, the Respondent shall notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writing whether or not it accepts the Board's determination of this dispute, and whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring G & J Flooring Contractors and Fuller Paint & Glass Company by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to as- sign the disputed work to its members rather than to employees assigned to that work by G & J Flooring Contractors and Fuller Paint & Glass Company who are not members of the Respondent. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the notice of hearing in Case No. 19-CD- 37 be, and it hereby is, quashed. MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Determination of Dispute, and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing. General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 21, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America ; Local 581, United Associa- tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL- CIO; Local 424, Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO; Local 607, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, AFL-CIO and Leo W. Riney. Cases Nos. 14-CC-113, 14-CC-144, 14-CC-145, and 14-CC-146. May 4, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On March 1, 1960, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Re- spondent 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 Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this 127 NLRB No. 80.