Plumbers Local Union No. 307

888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Rela- tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in-Hotel , Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Local Union No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Em- ployees and Bartenders International Union,_AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by laying off, discharging, or refusing to reinstate our employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em- ployment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the union activities of our employees; interrogate our employees in a coercive manner ; or threaten our employees with discharge, changes in their working conditions , or other reprisal, because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named, or any other, labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer Norvel Thompson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Hotel , Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Local Union No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or of any other labor organization. WALTER SCHIMMEL, A. Q. SCHIMMEL, EDWARD SCHIMMEL, AND BERNARD SCHIMMEL, D/B/A SCHIMMEL HOTEL COMPANY, - Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if he is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon ap- plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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, 1200 Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Balti- more 1-7000, Extension 731, if they have any question concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions. Plumbers Local Union No. 307 and Meyers Plumbing. Case No. 13-CC-375. Ap?'il 16, 196/1 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges duly filed by Meyers Plumbing, herein called Meyers, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, issued a complaint dated August 9, 1963, against Plumbers Local Union No. 307, herein 146 NLRB No. 110. PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 307 889 called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respondent and the Charging Party. On September 11, 1963, Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint, but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. On October 15, 1963, all parties to this proceeding entered into a stipulation of facts. The parties agreed that the charge, complaint, answer, and the stipulation of facts constitute the entire record in the case and that no oral testimony was necessary or desired by any of (he parties. The parties further stipulated that they waived a hear- ing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance of an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order and desired to submit this case for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and.order directly to the Board. On October 21, 1963, the Board granted the parties' request to trans- fer the case to the Board and to file briefs. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. Upon the basis of the parties' stipulation of facts and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Meyers is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Indiana, maintaining its office and place of business at• 950 156th Street, Hammond, Indiana. Meyers is engaged in the sale, distribu- tion, and installation of plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning equipment in the area in and around Hammond, Indiana. In the operation of its business, Meyers annually receives goods and mate- rials directly from points outside the State of Indiana valued in excess of $150,000. In the course and conduct of its business opera- tions, Meyers was, at all times material herein, engaged, pursuant to subcontracts, in the installation of plumbing, heating, and air- conditioning equipment for general contractors Joe Stupic, herein- after called Stupic, and Barington, Inc. Stupic was then engaged in the construction of an apartment building at 1002 West 145th Street, Hammond, Indiana. In addition to the work subcontracted to Meyers, Stupic had also subcontracted certain other construction work at this 890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD building to Morrison & Hill, Inc., Anthony Scheeringa and Harold Zeilenga, d/b/a Scheeringa & Zeilenga (hereinafter called Morrison and Scheeringa, respectively), and other persons. Barington, Inc., was then engaged in the construction of an apartment building known as the Barington Apartments at 4517 Baring Street, Hammond, Indiana. Barington, Inc., had also subcontracted certain other con- struction work to Hatler Concrete Construction, Indiana Laminated Wall Corp., Consumers Roofing, Inc., and Twin City Masonry (here- inafter called Hatler, Indiana Laminated, Consumers, and Twin City, respectively), and to other persons. On the basis of the foregoing facts, the parties admit, and we find, that Meyers is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. We also find that Stupic, Morrison, Scheeringa, Barington, Inc., Hatler, Indiana Laminated, Consumers, and Twin City are persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce. U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this case, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES At all times material herein Respondent has contended that Meyers fails to meet wages and conditions of employment prevailing in the region in and around East Chicago, Indiana, as to its construction and installation employees.' Meyers maintains its principal office and place of business at 950 156th Street, Hammond, Indiana. At this location its sales, clerical, and warehouse maintenance employees re- port for and perform work each day. However, its construction and installation employees report there only sporadically, and only for the purpose of picking up necessary material or their job assignments. Normally the construction and installation employees report for work directly to the construction site. Their normal workday is from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. In support of its asserted position, Respondent has, since on or about June 21, 1963, and continuing at least to October 15, 1963, picketed and distributed handbills at both the 145th Street and the Baring Street sites, notwithstanding the fact that from time to time no Meyers employees were present on the jobsite nor was there any 1 It is also established that Respondent had no labor dispute with Stupic, Barington, Inc., Morrison, Scheeringa, Hatler, Indiana Laminated, Consumers, or Twin City. '-PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 307 ' 891 work to be performed by Meyers' employees,a and that such condi- tions prevailed at the 145th Street site on June 22, 25, 27, and 28; July 1, 2, 3, 29, 30, and 31; and August 1, 2, and 7, 1963; and at the Baring Street site on July 8, 10, 11, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 26, and Au- gust 6, 7, and 8, 1963. The picketing and handbilling continued each day during the aforesaid period between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., which is the normal workday in the construction indus- try, and it is set forth as a fact that prior to the commencement of each day's picketing, Respondent had no knowledge as to whether 2The legend on the picket signs stated: Meyers Plumbing -Inc.- Fails to Meet Prevailing Wages & Conditions This Notice is addressed only to the Public. It is not addressed to any employers or employees, nor is anyone asked to cease doing business with anyone Please read handbill which spells out purpose of patrolling. PLUMBERS UNION 307 A.F:L.- C.I.O and the handbills distributed by Respondent read as follows: PROTEST TO THE PEOPLE OF EAST CHICAGO AND VICINITY You will note that the job sites at 1002 W. 145th St. and 4517 Baring are being peaceably patrolled by one or two persons . The plumbing on these particular job sites is being done by Meyers Plumbing, Inc. Please read the information on the the [sic ] picket signs. This leaflet will perhaps better explain what is contained on the signs. The peaceful patrolling is being done by Plumbers Local Union No. 307 of the AFL-CIO. As a union we are, of course, pro-union but this is not why we are picket- ing. True, we always like to see members of the union employed not only because they are our members, but also because we know that as the result of their intense training and experience and the completion of a five -year apprenticeship program these men are qualified to give the finest service and perform work with the expert craftsman- ship which they have learned. But we have an additional interest in our area. We believe it is our obligation along with other residents of the area to maintain a certain standard of living. A standard of living comes from wages and conditions and we believe the wages and conditions which permit the maintenance of our standard of living and your standard, are those which prevail in the general area. Once these wages and conditions which prevail are reduced this means that the standard of living is reduced and it is not only reduced for the mechanic but it is reduced in the entire community as well because the merchant, the professional man and anyone whose business Is dependent upon the prevailing wage of the mechanic is hurt when prevailing wages are not met. And, this is why we are patrolling. Meyers Plumbing, Inc., is not meeting prevailing wages and conditions and this, in our opinion, repre- sents a threat to the entire community. This notice is addressed only to the public. It is not addressed to any employers or to any employees. There is no intent or attempt to induce or encourage employees of any employer , or any person to engage in a refusal to work, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials and so on No one is requested to cease performing any services . No one is requested to cease doing business with any one person . There is no intent to have any particular work assigned to anyone, nor is there an Intent to seek recognition or start bargaining. We believe that the people of this area should be familiar with what is going on and that is the sole purpose of patrolling. PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION No 307 AFFILIATED WITH A.F.L.-C.I.O. 892 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Meyers' employees were scheduled to be present at the jobsite or, if scheduled to work, would arrive late or would work an entire day or a portion thereof. In addition to the picketing and handbilling referred to above, Respondent-also distributed handbills in the area in and around East Chicago and Hammond, Indiana, and except for such picketing and handbilling, Respondent has engaged in no other conduct in support of its position. On the foregoing stipulated facts it is the General Counsel's con- tention that the Respondent picketed the construction sites with the unlawful object of forcing or requiring Stupic, Barington, Inc., and other persons, to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or other- wise dealing in the products of and to cease doing business with Meyers. Specifically the General Counsel contends that the Respond- ent's picketing and handbilling failed to conform to the Moore Dry Dock 3 standards requiring, among other things, that at the time of the picketing the primary employer be engaged in its normal business at the situs of the dispute, and that Respondent therefore violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. The General Counsel further asserts that the picketing failed to meet this standard because picketing was carried on while no Meyers employees were present at the sites on the days indicated. The Respondent contends that its picketing and handbilling herein was solely in protest of Meyers' substandard wages and conditions of employment, that by such picketing and handbilling it sought to bring the matter to the attention of the public only, and thereby to force Meyers to conform to the area standard of wages and conditions of employment. Hence, it argues that its conduct was not for an un- lawful object within the intendment of Section 8(b) (4). The Re- spondent further contends that the evidence herein is insufficient to demonstrate that Meyers was not engaged in his normal business at the situs during the entire course of the dispute. We held in Brownfield Electric 4 that the mere absence of primary employees during part of the construction time is in itself an insuf- ficient basis for finding that Respondent was not engaged in its nor- mal business at the situs of the dispute. More than a mere showing that the primary employer's employees were absent on a specified number of days is required before we can reasonably conclude that the Respondent's picketing was carried on for an unlawful object. The burden of proof, which the General Counsel is to carry, has not been met by the meager facts herein set forth in the stipulation of the parties. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint herein. 3 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 547. dInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861, AFL-CIO (Broiorfield Electric, Inc.), 145 NLRB 1163. FAIRBANKS DAIRY, DIVISION OF COOPERDALE DAIRY. CO . 893 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Meyers Plumbing, Joe Stupic, Barington, Inc., Morrison & Hill, Inc., Anthony Scheeringa and Harold Zeilenga, d/b/a Scheeringa & Zeilinga, Hatler Concrete Construction, Indiana Laminated Wall Corp., Consumers Roofing, Inc., and Twin City Masonry, are Em- ployers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b) (4) of the Act. 2. Plumbers Local Union No. 307 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Plumbers Local Union No. 307 has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] Fairbanks Dairy, Division of Cooperdale Dairy Company, Inc. and Dairy and Bakery Salesmen and Dairy Employees Local No. 316, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases Nos. 3-CA-2011 and 3-CA-.067. April 17, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On December 18, 1963, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's De- cision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Decision with briefs in support thereof. The Respondent filed no exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Fanning and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed, The Board has considered the Decision, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' The General Counsel and the Charging Party excepted to the remedy recommendations of the Trial Examiner, which exceptions we find to be without merit. In the absence of exceptions the Board also adopts pro forma the Trial Examiner 's other findings and recommendations. 146 NLRB No. 111.