Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades, Etc.

LOS ANGELES BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES, ETC . 737. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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, I hereby notify my employees that: I WILL NOT threaten my employees that I will shut down my plant in the event the Union wins the scheduled election. I WILL NOT imply to my employees that their union activities are under surveillance. I WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce my employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form , join, or assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All of my employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization. W. C. FORD, D/B/A GENERAL TIRE AND TREAD Co., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Transit Building, Fourth and Vine Streets , Cincinnati, Ohio, Telephone No. 381 -1420, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local No. 398 [Stockton Plumbing Co.; and N. Evasaviac and K. J. Swisher] and Jones and Jones, Inc., and Interstate Employers, Inc. Case No. 21-CC-602. April 9, 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On August 20, 1963, the Board issued a Decision and Order I in the above-entitled proceeding, in which it found that the Respondents had violated Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the Act. The Board there concluded that the collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the Building Contractors Association of California, herein called the Association, and various labor organizations contained a clause which was within the scope of Section 8 (e) of the Act; and that while said clause related to the contracting or subcontracting of work at the construction site and therefore may have been exempt under the first proviso to Section 8(e), the Respondents' picketing to compel. Swisher, a member of the Association, to enforce said clause against Stockton, a nonunion subcontractor at the construction site, was 1144 NLRB 49. 146 NLRB No. 89. 738 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nevertheless for an object of compelling Swisher "to enter into" an agreement prohibited by Section 8(b) (4) (A), and also for an object of compelling Swisher to cease doing business with Stockton within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (B). 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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board, having further considered the matter, concludes that while the Respondents' above-described conduct violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, said conduct was not unlawful under Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act. We find initially that since the above clause related to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at the construction site, it was within the purview of the first proviso to Section 8(e) of the Act; consequently, it was not unlawful for the parties voluntarily to include such a clause in their agreement. We also adhere to our finding that by picketing to en- force said clause against a specific nonunion subcontractor, the Re- spondents engaged in conduct with a cease-doing-business object, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) 2 However, for the rea- sons stated below, we are now of the view that this conduct was not for an object of forcing Swisher "to enter into" an agreement unlaw- ful under Section 8(e) within the meaning of subsection (A) of Section 8(b) (4). In concluding in the Decision and Order herein that the Respond- ents' conduct was for an object prohibited by subsection (A), the Board relied on Hillbro Newspaper Printing Company, Division of Hearst Publishing Company, Inc. (Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9, J.T.U.) s There, the Board held that coercive conduct by a union to compel an employer "to live up" and thus to reaffirm an unlawful hot- cargo agreement was also for an object of compelling the employer to "enter into" a hot-cargo agreement within the meaning of subsection (A). However, the Hillbro case, unlike the case before us, involved a clause which was not within the purview of the first proviso to Sec- tion 8 ( e) and was therefore, under Section 8(e), unlawful, unen- forceable, and void. In that factual context, the Board concluded that the reaffirmation of a hot-cargo clause was also an "entering into" within the meaning of Section 8(e) and 8(b) (4) (A) since "from the standpoint of the public policy evidenced by the statute and the legislative history, a reaffirmation of an old hot-cargo clause or the execution of a new hot-cargo clause is equally bad." This reasoning is inapplicable to the situation where, as here, the hot-cargo clause involved is within the purview of the first proviso to Section 8(e), 8 Nichols Electric Company, 138 NLRB 540, enforcement refused on other grounds, 326 F. 2d 213 (C.A. 3). 8135 NLRB 1132 (Memlbers Fanning and Brown dissenting ), enfd , 311 F. 2d 121 (C.A.D.C.). CONSOLIDATED WELDING & ENGINEERING COMPANY 739 since, in such case, the original voluntary execution of the clause was entirely lawful .4 Because the clause herein was lawfully entered into, neither the statutory language nor its policy requires the conclusion that a reaffirmation of such clause is unlawful under Section 8(e) and 8(b) (4) (A).6 We accordingly find that, by picketing to enforce the disputed clause, the Respondents violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) but did not also violate subsection (A) thereof. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Decision and Order in this case be, and it hereby is, amended in the following manner : (1) Delete Conclusion of Law No. 3 and renumber the other con- clusions of law accordingly. (2) Add at the end of Conclusions of Law the following paragraph : 5. The Respondents have not committed unfair labor practices under Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act. (3) Delete the following language from paragraph 1 of the Order: (1) to force or require K. J. Swisher to enter into, enforce, abide by, or reaffirm, any agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e) or (2). (4) Delete the following language from the notice in the paragraph beginning with "WE WILL NOT" : (1) to force or require said K. J. Swisher to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e), or to force or require said K. J. Swisher to enforce, abide by, or reaffirm such agreement, or (2). ' See also the language of the 'Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which, in enforcing the Board's order in Hillbro, said : "To seek to give it [the hot-cargo clause] life is in substance to seek to have it agreed to, which is no different in substance from seeking to have it entered into." Thus, the court's opinion also proceeded from the fact that the original entering into was unlawful . This reasoning is therefore inapplicable where, as here, the parties lawfully agreed to the clause in the first place. 5lnternational Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 1 2, AFL-CIO (B. R. Schedell Contractor, Inc.), 145 NLRB 351. Consolidated Welding & Engineering Company and Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-5386. April 10, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On August 12, 1963, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding 146 NLRB No. 92.