Butchers' Union Local 563, Etc.

136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Butchers' Union Local 563, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO [Huntington Meat Packing Company, d/b/a Oxford Meat Co.] and Mon- arch Building Maintenance Co. Case No. 01-CC-418. Novem- ber 14, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On August 2, 1961, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report at- tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting 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 Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and finds merit in the' exceptions to the Intermediate Report for the reasons discussed below. Accordingly, the Board adopts only those findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner which are consistent with the Decision herein. The complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in conduct viola- tive of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. The Trial Examiner has found that Respondent did not thus violate the Act. As indicated, we do not agree with this finding of the Trial Examiner. The record shows that Oxford Meat Company, herein called Oxford, operates a meat processing plant at Vernon, California. -It has a bar- gaining contract with the Respondent in which the parties agree that '"only employees doing work that comes under the jurisdiction of the [Respondent] shall be allowed to perform work as provided for in this Agreement." The bargaining unit in this contract is described as con- sisting of "all production workers," but the wage scales appended to the contract provides an hourly rate for employees engaged in cleanup work. For an undefined time prior to April 3, 1961, Oxford contracted out its cleanup work to Hall's Sanitation and Maintenance Service, herein called Hall, whose employees were members of Respondent Union. As of about April 3, however, Oxford terminated its agreement with I-Tall and entered into a contract with Monarch Building Maintenance Com- pany, herein called Monarch, for the performance of cleanup work. Monarch's employees were not members of Respondent. Arthur -Eaton, a representative of Respondent, "Immediately voiced his objec- tions to the employment of Monarch on the ground that Monarch's :employees were not members of Respondent Union. On April 4, .134 NLRB No. 17. BUTCHERS' UNION LOCAL 563,, ETC. 137 Eaton warned Oxford's president that, if Oxford did not get the Hall crew back or hire cleanup personnel of its own, the Respondent would strike. On April 5, Oxford capitulated, and terminated its contract with Monarch. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent had "a clear contract right to have cleanup work performed by members of the bargaining unit" and that Respondent's threat to strike Oxford if the latter's con- tract with Monarch was not terminated was 'for the purpose of en- forcing a contractual right. Thus viewing the facts, he concluded that the strike threat did not have -"an object" proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). We think it manifest from the facts recited above, including Eaton's objections to the employment of Monarch employees because those employees were not members of Respondent and his threat to strike Oxford unless Oxford employed its own'cleanup personnel or rehired Hall's (who were members of Respondent), that "an object" of Re- spondent's strike threat was to force Oxford to cease doing, business. with Monarch, not because Monarch's employees were not in the bar- gaining unit, but because they were not members of the Respondent. Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) plainly proscribes a strike threat having such an object. Consequently, the contract in this case, however it may be interpreted, cannot serve as a defense to Respondent's con- duct. Accordingly, we hold Respondent in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in connec- tion with the operations of Oxford set forth in section I of the Inter- mediate Report, 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. THE REMEDY Having found, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist from the practices herein described, and take certain affirm- ative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, the Board rejects the Trial Examiner's Conclusion of Law numbered 3 and makes. the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By threatening to strike Oxford with an object of forcing Oxford to cease doing business with Monarch, Respondent has engaged in 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 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, Butchers' Union Local 563, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining Ox- ford Meat Company with an object of forcing or requiring -Oxford Meat Company to cease doing business with Monarch Building Main- tenance Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will ,effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and in all other places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap- pendix." 1 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di- rector for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after they have been signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, of the steps taken to comply herewith. CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. i In the event that this Order is enforced 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." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF BUTCHERS' UNION LOCAL 563, AMALGAM- ATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 threaten, coerce, or restrain Oxford Meat Com- pany where an object thereof is to force or require Oxford Meat BUTCHERS' UNION LOCAL 563, ETC. 139 Company to cease doing business with Monarch Building Main- tenance Company. BUTCHERS' UNION LOCAL 563, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-C10, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon the complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, this matter came on to be heard before Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster in Los Angeles, California, on June 5, 1961, with all parties represented. The complaint alleges that Butchers' Union Local 563, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, herein the Respondent, by threat- ening to strike Huntington Meat Packing Company d/b/a Oxford Meat Co., herein called Oxford, for a forbidden object; had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein the Act. 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 EMPLOYERS Oxford is engaged at Vernon, Califorma, in packing, processing, and distributing meat and meat products at wholesale. Oxford annually purchases and receives meat and meat products to a value in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of California and annually ships meat and meat products of like value to points outside that State. Monarch Building Maintenance Co., herein called Mon- arch, is engaged in the Los Angeles, California, area, in performing janitorial, build- ing maintenance, and cleaning services. On some date prior to April 3, 1961, Oxford engaged Monarch to perform cleanup work at the former's packing plant. I find that the operations of Oxford are in and affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent is a labor organization party to a collective-bargaining agreement with Oxford III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES For a period of time not given in this record Hall's Sanitation and Maintenance Service, herein called Hall, had an arrangement with Oxford whereby Hall sent in a crew to Oxford's plant at the close of each workday to clean the premises. The employees of Hall were members of the Respondent. Oxford terminated its agree- ment with Hall and entered into a contract with Monarch to have this work done Employees of Monarch came to the Oxford plant on April 3, 1961, to do cleanup work. Monarch's employees were members of another union. On April 3, Arthur Eaton, a representative of the Respondent, telephoned Oxford and objected to Monarch doing the cleanup work because Monarch's employees were not Respondent's members. On the same occasion Eaton spoke to Martin L. Klei- man, Monarch's president, and told Kleiman, after ascertaining that his employees were not members of the Respondent, that Monarch could not perform the cleanup work. On April 4, in a second telephone conversation, William Altschuler, Oxford's president, told Eaton that he did not desire to renew his arrangement with Hall. 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD When Eaton insisted that Monarch not be permitted to clean the plant, Altschuler said that he must retain Monarch until some other arrangement could be made. Eaton said that if Oxford did not get the Hall crew back or hire a cleanup crew of his own the Respondent would strike. Eaton did not testify. I credit Kleiman and Altschuler in their relation of what Eaton said. On April 5, Oxford capitulated and told Eaton that he would try to renew his agreement with Hall. Monarch did the cleanup work that evening and its contract was then terminated by Oxford. On April 6, the Respondent sent a man to the plant who took over the cleanup job. He. became an employee of Oxford. J. J. Rodriguez, Respondent's president, testified that he spoke to Altschuler 1 on April 5 and reminded the latter that the collective-bargaining contract covered the cleanup classification and that the work belonged to members of the bargaining unit. Altschuler confirmed Rodriguez' testimony in this respect and, on the stand, expressed agreement with the claim that the cleanup workers were part of the contract unit. The bargaining unit is described in the contract as: . all production workers excepting operating engineers, teamsters, office and clerical workers, nonworking foremen and any and all supervisory employees who do not perform any duties covered by this agreement. A following provision reads: It is mutually agreed that only employees doing work that comes under the jurisdiction of the [Respondent] shall be allowed to perform work as provided for in this agreement. It may of course be argued, although it has not, that the unit appears to encompass only production workers and that cleanup workers are perhaps doing work of a maintenance character. I am convinced, however, that the cleanup men are in- cluded in the unit. The wage scales appended to the contract provide an hourly rate for such work (as well as for other classifications commonly thought to fall into a maintenance grouping) and Altschuler expressed as a witness agreement with the claim of the Respondent in this particular. The Respondent having a clear contract right to have cleanup work performed by members of the bargaining unit is not forbidden, I find, to strike or to threaten strike action to enforce compliance with the contract terms. True, the Respondent offered no objection when the subcontract was made with Hall and, indeed, urged Oxford to renew this arrangement. But, as Hall's employees were members of the Respondent, the working conditions and wages set forth in the contract were not likely to be adversely affected by that arrangement. I find that the Respondent threatened to bring about a strike at Oxford if the con- tract with Monarch was not terminated and that the object of the threatened strike was to keep control of the cleanup work as their contract with Oxford permitted. Obviously the result of the threat was to cause a cessation of business between Ox- ford and Monarch but I think it not correct to describe this result as "an object" within the Act's meaning? The dispute was between Oxford and the Respondent. It centered about a contract right which I find was held by the Respondent. I find that no violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act is presented by the evidence. Upon the entire record in the case I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Huntington Meat Packing Company d/b/a Oxford Meat Co. is a person engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Butchers' Union Local 563, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The threat to strike Oxford by the Respondent was not for an object forbidden by Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication I 1 Kleiman testified that on this same occasion Rodriguez said that If Monarch continued to work at the plant a strike would result Rodriguez denied that he made such a threat to Altschuler There is no evidence that he did or that Kleiman relayed the content of his conversation with Rodriguez to Altschuler 2Cf. Douds v. Metropolitan Federatson of Architects, et al. (Project Engineertng Com- pany), 75 F. Supp 672 (D,CNY ).