Glaziers' Local No. 558

182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Glaziers' Local No. 558 , affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO (Sharp Bros. Contracting Co.) and Builders' Association of Kansas City. Case 17-CC-269 June 6, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA Upon charges duly filed by the Builders' Association of Kansas City, hereinafter called Builders or the Charging Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 17, issued a complaint dated August 30, 1966, against Glaziers' Local No. 558, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Respondent, alleging that 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 were served upon Respondent and the Charging Party. On September 9, 1966, the Respondent filed its answer to the complaint. The complaint was amended on September 13, 1966, and duly served on the parties. On September 29, 1966, the Respondent, General Counsel, and the Charging Party entered into a stipulation of the testimony of all witnesses pertinent to the dispute. These parties also waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner and agreed that the charge, complaint, and stipulation shall constitute the entire record in the case. They further agreed to submit the stipulated record directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a Decision and Order. By an order dated October 5, 1966, the Board approved the stipulation and transferred the case to itself. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed a brief. Upon the basis of the stipulation and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Cupples Products Corporation, hereinafter called Cupples, is engaged in the manufacture of preglazed windows and doors. At all material times herein, Cupples supplied preglazed windows to B. D. & R. Engineering Corporation, hereinafter called B. D. & R., a wholesale distributor of building materials for use in the building and construction industry. In the operation of its business, B. D. & R. annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 from its place of business in Kansas City, Kansas, to points outside the State of Kansas. Among B. D. & R.'s purchasers during the pertinent period was Sharp Bros. Contracting Co., hereinafter called Sharp Bros., which was engaged as the general contractor in the construction of an office building in Kansas City, Missouri. Sharp Bros. annually makes interstate purchases of goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. Sharp Bros. is a member of Builders which bargains with various labor organizations for an association of employers, individuals, firms, and corporations engaged in the building industry. Royse Masonry Co., Inc., hereinafter called Royse, is also a member of Builders and was engaged by Sharp Bros. to do the masonry work at the construction site. Royse annually purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of Kansas. The parties stipulated, and we find, that B. D. & R., Sharp Bros., Builders, and Royse are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further find they are persons engaged in the construction industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES About the middle of April 1966, a business agent of the Respondent visited the jobsite where Sharp Bros. was constructing an office building and the business agent told the job superintendent that the preglazed windows being installed were manufactured by employees who were receiving substandard wages. The agent further stated at the time that he was "going to contact his attorney to see if there was any way he could advertise this fact to the public." On May 12, 1966, the Respondent sent a letter to various unions which were members of the Building Trades Council of Kansas City stating that the Respondent intended to picket the construction site but requesting the other unions to advise their members who were employed at that site not to refuse to cross the picket line or work. The record does not establish that these other unions ever advised their respective members to such effect. Four days later, a picket appeared at the jobsite after the employees were on the job with the following sign: 165 NLRB No. 27 GLAZIERS' LOCAL NO. 558 183 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY The Windows Being Installed on This Project Are Glazed By Cupples Product [sic] Corp. Whose Employees Are Receiving Sub-Standard Wages & Conditions Being Paid by the Glazing Industry In This Area .... Please Do Not Buy .... Cupples Products Corp. Glazed Windows Help Us Maintain Our Wages & Working Conditions In This Area Glaziers And Glassworkers LU NO. 558 The picketing continued without incident until May 20. On that day the picket appeared before the employees had commenced their work, and Sharp's and Royse's engineers and oilers walked off the job.' Since neither of these Employers could continue their operations without those employees, they sent their remaining employees home. Respondent's business agent was immediately informed that employees were refusing to work because of the picket line, and he ordered picketing to cease. The agent then went to the jobsite and informed departing employees that he didn't want anyone to cease working because of the picketing. The agent also sent a telegram to the Union that represented the striking employees reiterating his request that it instruct its members that they should not refuse to work. Respondent resumed picketing on May 27. Although Respondent's business agent again went to the site to persuade the engineers and oilers to remain, another work stoppage ensued. This same sequence of events occurred on June 1 and 2, when the picketing was finally halted permanently.' The General Counsel contends that the picketing of this construction site violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. The Respondent asserts, on the other hand, that it was engaged in lawful appeals to consumers. We agree with the General Counsel, for the stipulated facts clearly establish that the Respondent unlawfully intended to cause a work stoppage by its picketing. The dispute before us is but one of a series that began late in 1963 when the employees of Cupples voted against representation by a Glaziers' union. Thereafter, on at least one occasion in 1964, a Glaziers' union picketed construction sites where Cupples' preglazed windows were being installed because Cupples' employees were nonunion. The Board found that the Glaziers' had unlawfully induced employees to refuse to work in order to force their employers to cease doing business with Cupples, rejecting the contention that the Union was engaged in permissible publicity picketing.'; In 1965 this Glaziers' union picketed another construction site with signs requesting the public not to buy Cupples' products. And on that occasion, as in the instant case, the union requested that the local building trades unions order their members to continue working despite a picket line. The Board nonetheless found on the facts that the Respondent's object was to induce the employees on the jobsite to cease working in order to force their employer to refrain from using Cupples' products.' It is clear from the record in the instant case that the Respondent herein was picketing for the same purpose as did its sister local in the earlier cases; i.e., appealing to neutral employees with an object of causing them to refuse to continue working. It is significant that Respondent's picketing on the first 4 days, which began after the neutral employees had reported for work on those days, did not result in any employees walking off the job; but that on May 20 the Respondent changed its hours of picketing to commence before the employees reported for work. Under the circumstances, we can only conclude that when the initial picketing did not cause a refusal to work, Respondent changed its times of picketing so that neutral employees would have to cross the picket line in order to enter the jobsite. While Respondent's business agent, having been informed on May 20 of the refusal to cross the picket line, did order picketing to cease on that day and obstensibly requested the employees to return to work, he nevertheless resumed the picketing on May 27. ' We find that the first work stoppage occurred on May 20, when picketing commenced for the first time before employees began to work This conclusion is based on the mutually supporting testimony of one of the employees who refused to work, the Respondent 's business agent , Sharp Bros , Royse, and another subcontractor on the jobsite. Thus , Royse's oiler stated that he first refused to work on the date the picket showed up before they went to work , but the following day there was no picket so he worked Respondent 's representative McGee stated he had no knowledge of a work stoppage until he received a phone call from the picket on May 20, as a result of which he went to the jobsite, and this testimony is supported by the foreman for Evans Electrical Construction Company, a subcontractor for Sharp Bros , who indicated that the first time he recalled a work stoppage , McGee appeared at the jobsite shortly afterwards. The job superintendent for Sharp Bros and the foreman for Royse agreed that a picket appeared about 8 30 a in on May 20 and that their engineers and oilers refused to cross the picket line 2 During this period the Respondent also picketed B D & R The signs used were similar to those at the construction site This picketing is not alleged to be unlawful. S Glaziers' Local Union No. 513, afff w Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO (Cupples Products Corp ), 148 NLRB 1648. 4 Glaziers' Local Union No 51 .3, affiw Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO (Cupples Products Corp.),158 NLRB 1621. 184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the above, we can only conclude that at all times the Respondent actually intended to induce the neutral employees to engage in work stoppages, and that it caused such stoppages, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. The Respondent's protestation that it was engaged in informational picketing directed solely at the public cannot be reconciled with this intended inducement of employees to engage in a work stoppage. In such a case "the union does more than merely follow the struck product; it creates a separate dispute with the secondary employer."5 Therefore, in these circumstances, and in consideration of the fact that the Respondent's dispute was avowedly concerned with the working conditions at the Cupples plant, we conclude that an object of the picketing was to induce and encourage employees at the jobsite to refuse to work in order to apply pressure against the neutral persons for the purpose of forcing Sharp Bros. to cease doing business with B. D. & R. and to compel B. D. & R. to cease dealing with Cupples Products in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.6 And, since "a work stoppage against a neutral employer constitutes restraint and coercion of such employer within the meaning of clause (ii) of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act,"7 we further find that the Respondent also violated that section of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Cupples Products Corporation, Sharp Bros. Contracting Co., B. D. & R. Engineering Company, ° N.L.R.B. v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers, Local 760 (Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58. Since we have found that the Respondent intended to cause a work stoppage , we need not, and do not, pass upon the Respondent's contention that it could lawfully appeal to neutral employers not to use Cupples' products in the future. But cf. Salem Building Trades Council (Cascade Employers Association), 163 NLRB 33 Royse Masonry Co., Inc., and Builders Association of Kansas City are persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Glaziers' Local No. 558, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing or encouraging individuals employed by persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services, and by coercing or restraining persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with an object of forcing or requiring Royse to cease doing business with Sharp Bros., to force or require Sharp Bros. to cease using, handling, or otherwise dealing in the products of Cupples and to cease doing business with B. D. & R., and to force or require B. D. & R. to cease doing business with Cupples, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Glaziers' Local No. 558, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Sharp Bros. Contracting Co., Royse Masonry, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; and from threatening, coercing, or restraining the above- named Employers or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce; when in either case an object thereof is to force or require Sharp Bros., B. D. & R., or any other person to cease doing business with Cupples Products Corporation. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at Respondent's business offices and ' Local 370, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Ptpefitting Industry (Baughan Plumbing), 157 NLRB 20. See also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 313, AFL-CIO (James Julian, Inc.), 147 NLRB 137. GLAZIERS' LOCAL NO. 558 meeting halls in Kansas City, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 17 for posting by each of the Employers named in the preceding paragraphs, if willing, at all places where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 9 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 "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GLAZIERS' LOCAL No. 558 AFFILIATED WITH BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF SHARP BROS. CONTRACTING Co., ROYSE MASONRY CO., INC., B. D. & R. ENGINEERING COMPANY, AND CUPPLES PRODUCTS CORPORATION Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the 185 policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in a strike or induce or encourage individuals employed by Sharp Bros. Contracting Co. and Royse Masonry Co., Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike, or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, articles, or commodities, or to perform any services, nor will we threaten, coerce, and restrain the above-named Employers, or any other person, where an object thereof is to force or require Sharp Bros., B. D. & R., or any other person, to cease doing business with Cupples Products Corporation. GLAZIERS' LOCAL No. 558, AFFILIATED WITH BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA. AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 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. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone FR4-7000.