United Brotherhood of Carpenters

532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2067, AFL-CIO; and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 131, AFL-CIO and Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., for and on behalf of its employer- member Batterman Construction, Inc. Case 36-CC-182 June 30, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BEFORE CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On April 17, 1967, Trial Examiner George Christensen issued his Decision in the above-enti- tled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respond- ents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification: We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respond- ent Sheel Metal Workers, Local Union No. 131, AFL-CIO (Local 131), violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees of Montag to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to per- form services for Montag with an object of forcing Montag to cease doing business with Bowen, with an ultimate object of forcing Bowen to cease doing business with Batterman and Batterman to cease doing business with Largent. However, the Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to find that Local ' See, e g , Local 370, United Association of Journeymen and Ap- prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company, In- corporated), 157 NLRB 20, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No 11, AFL-CIO (L G Electric Contractor, Inc ), 154 N LRB 766 L In paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order, the Trial Examiner er- roneously provided that the notice be furnished by the Regional Director 131, by such conduct, also violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). The General Counsel excepts to the failure of the Trial Examiner to make such a finding. We find merit in the General Counsel's exception.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No . 2067, AFL-CIO, Med- ford, Oregon, its officers , agents, and representa- tives, and Respondent Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No . 131, AFL-CIO, Medford, Oregon, its officers , agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order, as herein modified: 1. Modify the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order by changing the present paragraph 2 to 2(a), and by adding the following as a new paragraph 2(b): "(b) Respondent Local 131, its officers, agents, and representatives , shall cease and desist from threatening , coercing, and restraining Montag Fur- nace Co., with an object of forcing or requiring Montag Furnace Co. to cease doing business with Bowen Brothers Plumbing and Heating , in order to force or require Bowen Brothers Plumbing and Heating to cease doing business with Batterman Construction, Inc., in order to force or require Bat- terman Construction , Inc., to cease doing business with Jack L . Largent, d/b/a Jack Largent Contrac- tors." 2. Modify Appendix B attached to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision ,2 wherein Local 131's name ap- pears, by adding the following immediately after the first indented paragraph therein: WE WILL NOT threaten , restrain, or coerce Montag Furnace Co., with an object of forcing or requiring Montag Furnace Co. to cease doing business with Bowen Brothers Plumbing and Heating, in order to force or require Bowen Brothers Plumbing and Heating to cease doing business with Batterman Con- struction , Inc., in order to force or require Bat- terman Construction, Inc., to cease doing busi- ness with Jack L. Largent , d/b/a Jack Largent Contractors. for Region 36 Such notice shall be on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19 The address given at the bottom of both notices attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision is amended to read 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473 166 NLRB No. 78 UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 533 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Trial Examiner: A hearing was held on December 21 ' at Medford, Oregon, on issues raised by a complaint issued December 2 based upon a charge filed on October 17 and amended on November 22 alleging that the Respondent, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2067, AFL-CIO, hereafter Local 2067, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereafter the Act, by threatening Batterman Construction, Inc., hereafter Batterman, and by engaging in. and inducing employees of Batterman and others to engage in, a strike with an object of forcing Batterman and others to cease doing business with Jack L. Largent. d/b/a Jack Largent Contractors, hereafter Largent. It is further alleged that Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 131, AFL-CIO, hereafter Local 131, induced or en- couraged employees of Montag Furnace Co.. hereafter Montag, to engage in a strike with an object of forcing Montag to cease doing business with Bowen Brothers Plumbing and Heating, hereafter Bowen, and an ultimate object of aiding Local 2067 in its effort to cause Batter- man to cease doing business with Largent. The Respondents denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce documentary evidence, to argue orally, and to submit briefs. The General Counsel and the Respond- ents have submitted briefs. Based upon a review of the entire record, observation of the witnesses, and perusal of the briefs and argument of counsel, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Montag is engaged in the building and construction in- dustry as a furnace and sheet metal contractor with its principal place of business located at Portland Oregon. Bowen Elstrom and Ayre, Inc., and Eckerson Roofing are contractors engaged in the building and construction industry in Oregon. Respondents concede in their answer that all the foregoing contractors except Elstrom and Ayre, Inc., and Eckerson Roofing (who were not referred to in the com- plaint) were persons (employers) engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. The Trial Examiner finds that all of them, including Elstrom and Ayre and Eckerson were employers and persons so en- gaged. Local 2067 admits to membership employees of Batter- man, Eckerson, and Largent and other employers en- gaged in the building and construction industry within its work and area jurisdiction for the purpose of representing them in collective bargaining with employers concerning rates of pay, wages , hours, and other conditions of em- ployment. Local 2067 is a member of the Oregon State Council of the Carpenters hereafter the State Council, and has delegated collective-bargaining authority to the State Council , thereby becoming party to collective-bar- gaining agreements between the State Council and the AGC. Local 131 admits to membership employees of Mon- tag, Bowen. and other employers engaged in the building and construction industry within its work and area jur- isdiction for the purpose of representing them in collec- tive bargaining with their employers concerning rates of pay. wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. Local 131 through affiliation similar to that of Local 2067 is a party to collective-bargaining agreements with the AGC. Respondents concede and the Trial Examiner finds that both Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1. JURISDICTION Batterman is an Oregon corporation with its office and principal place of business in Salem, Oregon, and is en- gaged in the building and construction industry as a general contractor. Batterman is a member of the Oregon- Columbia Chapter of the Associated General Contrac- tors of America, Inc., hereafter the AGC, has delegated collective-bargaining authority to AGC, and is thereby made party to collective-bargaining agreements between AGC and certain organizations similarly empowered by the Respondents. Batterman at all times material was en- gaged as a general contractor in the construction of a new senior high school in Medford. Oregon, hereafter the pro- ject, which project is valued at $2,500,000. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, Batterman purchased goods, materials, and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it from points outside the State of Oregon for use on the project. Largent is engaged in the building and construction in- dustry as a roofing and lathing contractor with his office and principal place of business located at Salem, Oregon. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint. Largent purchased goods, materials, and sup- plies valued in excess of $50.000 which were shipped to him directly from points outside the State of Oregon. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Sequence of Events Batterman was awarded a job as general contractor to build a new senior high school at Medford, Oregon, con- sisting of 10 buildings connected by covered walkways. He held a prejob conference with the Medford Building and Construction Trades Council the first week in March 1966 to discuss manning the job. In the course of the discussion, Batterman informed the unions that Eckerson Roofing, a union contractor, would perform the roofing work. Batterman did most of the carpentry work with its own employees. It utilized union labor referred by Local 2067 and the Laborers Local. Batterman contracted with Bowen. a union firm, to do the plumbing and mechanical work. Bowen contracted part of its work to Montag, also a union firm. Batterman contracted with Eckerson, a union firm, to do the roofing work. Batterman contracted with Largent, a nonunion firm, to install ornamental shake trim on the buildings. Largent was the only nonunion employer on the job. ' All dates refer to 1966. 308-9'16 0-70-35 534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At all times pertinent, Batterman was party to a labor contract (through membership in the AGC) with Local 2067 (through its affiliation with and delegation of powers to the State Council). Article IV of that contract pro- vides: SUB-CONTRACTORS CLAUSE If a contractor, bound by this agreement, contracts or subcontracts. any work covered by this agreement to be done at the job site of the construction, altera- tion or repair of a building. structure or other work to any person or proprietor who is not signatory to this agreement, the contractor shall require such subcon- tractor to be bound to all the legally enforceable provisions of this agreement, or such contractor shall be responsible and liable for the payment of all sums of money required by all terms of this agreement. The Union agrees to notify the contractor, person or proprietor within thirty (30) calandar days of any delinquent payments of wages, travel or any fringe benefits owed by the sub-contractor, and to further issue a certificate to the contractor and subcontrac- tor when these payments have been made. About Agust 30, Allen Rettman, business representa- tive and financial secretary of Local 2067 as well as pres- ident of the Medford, Oregon, Building and Construc- tion Trades Council, hereafter the Medford Council. learned that Largent was working at the project. On that date Rettman contacted Raymond Bernardy. Batterman's superintendent at the project. Rettman informed Bernardy that he did not like Largent being on the job because Largent was a nonunion contractor and that Bat- terman better straighten this out or there might be problems.2 Bernardy reported the conversation to Mr. Batterman and took no further action. Largent remained on the job. A few weeks later Rettman again contacted Bernardy and asked what progress had been made with regard to Largent's retention on the job. Bernardy told Rettman he, didn't know, he had no new word from Salem (Salem Oregon. was Batterman's headquarters). On September 28, Rettman addressed a letter to Bat- terman's Salem office noting that Largent's employees were observed by Rettman still at work on September 26, calling Batterman's attention to article IV of the contract (set out above), asking if Largent was paying his em- ployees on the jobsite levels of benefits set out in that contract, and advising Batterman that if Largent was not maintaining those levels, it would be necessary for Rett- man to take proper action as provided in the contract. A reply by October 3 was requested. On October 3, Batter- man advised Rettman that his letter had been referred to the AGC for appropriate response. On October 3, Rettman dispatched a second letter to Batterman's Salem office requesting the discharge of three of Largent's employees for their failure to comply with the union-security provision of the AGC-Carpenters contract. The following day Rettman, on advice of coun- sel, rescinded his request "unless these people are em- ployees of Batterman." On Friday, October 7, Rettman contacted Local 2067 member James Elliott at the project. Elliott was employed by Batterman at the project as a working foreman. Rett- man informed Elliott that because Largent, a, nonunion contractor, was still on the job, the men were going to be "sick" the following Monday, October 10. Elliott asked Rettman what if he wasn't "sick," and was told that if he wasn't, not to expect any help from the union. Elliott replied that he got his own jobs anyway, he didn't expect any help from the union. Rettman then left.3 During the week ending October 7. Rettman also ap- proached Robert Wilkison, a member of Carpenters Local 1065 at Salem, Oregon, employed at the project by another contractor (Elstrom & Ayre, Inc.) and asked Wil- kison what he would do if the men all got "sick" and left the project. Wilkison asked Rettman what was the score. Rettman referred to Largent, a nonunion contractor working on the job, said he couldn't picket or strike the job to remove Largent, and again asked Wilkison what he would do if the other men left. Wilkison replied that if the other carpenters walked off, so would he.4 On Monday, October 10, a group of carpenters (mem- bers of Local 2067) started to walk off the job, but were stopped by Robert Ellison. a member of Local 2067 em- ployed by Batterman on the project as a working foreman. Ellison suggested that if they were determined to walk off the job, to first walk over and pick up their paychecks. because they wouldn't be coming back. Hear- ing that, the group abandoned the walkout and returned to work. This was reported to Rettman by phone that evening by Elmer Blunck , a member of Local 2067 and its steward at the project (also employed by Batterman). On Tuesday, October 11, Rettman telephoned Robert Caley, executive secretary of the Council, and requested that Caley set up a meeting with the AGC to discuss Lar- gent's employment on the project. Caley telephoned Ken- neth Twedt. labor relations manager for the AGC, and told Twedt that Rettman had called him and said there was going to be trouble over the use of Largent as a sub- contractor by Batterman and Rettman would like to have a meeting in Medford the next day. Twedt checked with Batterman and then arranged to meet Caley and Rettman at Medford the next day, Wednesday, October 12. Twedt, Bernardy, and G. L. Simpson appeared at the meeting on behalf of Batterman. Caley and Rettman ap- peared for Local 2067. Rettman stated that he represented both Local 2067 and the Medford Council, that the crafts were insisting he do something to get Lar- gent off the job, and that he was going to have to do something about it. Caley asked Twedt what Batterman was going to do to get Largent off the job.5 Rettman and Caley were flatly informed by Twedt that Batterman was not going to remove Largent from the job. The conversa- tion then shifted to Batterman's obligation under article 2 Reitman was aware of two prior disputes between other carpenters lo- cals and contractors (Mills Construction Co. and Todd Building Co ) over the use of Largent as a subcontractor Elliott's testimony to this effect is credited Reitman was evasive when questioned about the statements attributed to him Reitman stated that he didn't ask Wilkison's position if the men got sick but rather suggested to Wilkison if there was a "problem" at the pro- ject, Wilkison could continue working at White City (where his employer had another job going). This is at best only an indirect denial of Wdkison's testimony Wilkison's testimony (set out above) is credited. 5 Reitman and Caley deny they asked for Largent's removal from the project Their denials are discredited and the testimony they made such statements is credited, inasmuch as such testimony is entirely consistent with Reitman's earlier conduct and the entire course of conduct by Local 2067 hereinafter described UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 535 IV of the contract. The Local 2067 representatives de- manded that Batterman obtain records of the rates of pay, wages, hours, and other conditions and benefits Largent was providing his men employed at the project 6 and were informed that Batterman would try to secure such infor- mation from Largent. Twedt also agreed to seek to learn if Largent had a contract to furnish both men and materi- als to complete the installation of the decorative shake trim on the buildings or a cancelable agreement. Prior to departing from the meeting, Rettman observed that it looked to him like they weren't going to get Largent off the job and he was going to have to do something- maybe go hunting with Caley (Caley had scheduled a hunting trip to commence immediately after the meeting; Mr. Batter- man was on a hunting trip at the time of the meeting and was not expected to return for a period thereafter)-in- asmuch as he didn't believe he could control the men at the project. The following day. Thursday, October 13. Rettman left his home about 4:30 a.m. to join Caley on a hunting trip. That same day. the plumbers reported to the jobsite prior to the 8 a.m. starting time at the project but failed to go to work. Local 2067's members started to work on time. Shortly after work commenced, the plumbers asked Elmer Blunck, Local 2067's steward, to come see them at the plumbers' shack. Blunck asked his foreman, Robert Ellison, to be excused from work on union business and went to the see the plumbers. The plumbers complained to Blunck about working on the job with Largent' s nonu- nion men , who were at work at the time. Blunck tried un- successfully to reach Rettman by telephone in the plum- bers' shack. Blunck then went through the project to tell Local 2067's members that the plumbers were staying off the job because of Largent's men working and to poll them on whether they would support the plumbers' ac- tion. He learned that about 90 percent of them were ready to walk off with the plumbers. He tried again to reach Rettman, without success. He then returned to his work place, when the plumbers called him over again and asked him if they were going to have to do the job for the car- penters. At that, Blunck went back to his work place, told Ellison he was quitting, gathered up his tools, and left the job, with practically all the Local 2067 members 7 and most of the other crafts following." Mike Holmes, Batterman's field superintendent at the project, noticed Batterman's carpenters stopping work and starting to leave the project and asked Elliott who had asked them to leave; Elliott told him Local 2067's job steward had done so. Elliott at the time was under the mistaken belief that Local 2067 member Kenneth Bush`' was the job steward. Holmes addressed an inquiry to a group of carpenters nearby as to who was the steward; Blunck identified himself as the steward. Holmes asked Blunck where he got the right to order the men off the job. Blunck replied that the men had taken a vote 10 not to work. On learning of the walkout, Roy Meyers, Montag's su- perintendent at the project, contacted Local 131's acting business agent and financial secretary, Lavern Johnson, at Johnson's place of employment. Meyers told Johnson of the walkout and asked Johnson if he could do anything about the walkout of Montag's employees (six of the eight sheet metal workers on the job, all members of Local 131, had left the job). Johnson said he couldn't do anything. Meyers then commented that if all the other trades were off his men might as well be off too since production could not be achieved without the cooperation of the other trades. Many of the striking carpenters met at Local 2067's hall the following day, Friday, October 14. They designated Blunck and another Local 2067 member, Hans Olson, to act as their spokesmen. As soon as he learned of the walkout (on October 13), Twedt sent a written grievance to Caley, with a copy to Rettman, alleging violation of the no-strike and other provisions of the AGC-Carpenter contract by virtue of the walkout and asserting a claim for money damages for such breach in the amount of $4,000 per day. The evening of October 13, Rettman telephoned his wife who informed him of her agitation over the num- erous phone calls she had received with regard to the walkout. Rettman nevertheless stayed overnight, hunted the following day, and returned home the night of Friday, October 14. He testified he was not contacted by anyone regarding the walkout over the balance of the weekend.11 On the following Monday, October 17, the striking car- penters held another meeting at Local 2067's hall. Rett- man entered the meeting, recited the no-strike, subcon- tracting, grievance, and arbitration provisions of the AGC-Carpenters contract, told the men present that Local 2067 was in arbitration 12 at that time over Batter- man's alleged violation of the subcontracting provision of 6 All parties were familiar with an earlier arbitration decision involving the Carpenters and another contractor (Mills) over Mills' use of Largent on a job where, although the arbitrator ordered that Largent's employees on the job be paid the difference between what they actually received and the rates of pay and other benefits set out in the contract, it had never been possible to implement that decision because Largent 's records showing who he employed on the job and what wages and other benefits he paid them could not be obtained ° Schedule A-5, paragraph (e), provides "There shall be a steward on the job at all tunes during the regularly established shifts while the work of the brotherhood is being performed." 8 A cement pour was in progress and was finished by the carpenters, laborers, and cement finishers so engaged Two of Montag's employees, Ralph Wilson and Thomas McKeown, both members of Local 131, con- tinued to work. Largent's men quit for a time, then returned to work. There is some discrepancy in Blunck 's testimony as to circumstances under which the carpenters quit working. On direct he testified they did not leave until he quit work and left the job, on cross, he testified that 75 percent of them left when he told them the plumbers were off 9 Elliott identified Bush as the man who informed him the men had voted not to work with nonunion men and that Rettman had told him (Bush) to walk out Elliott's testimony is credited as to what Bush told him, but not to establish that a vote had been taken or that Rettman had told Bush to walk out 10 All the witnesses agree that a "vote " was not taken; however, it is un- disputed that Blunck took a "poll " of the carpenters as to whether they would walk out after informing them the plumbers' were staying off the job because of the presence of Largent's employees and secured a consen- sus fora walkout Blunck testified the men left the job because they didn't want to work with Largent' s nonunion carpenters, he didn't know what wages or benefits Largent's men received other than the fact they didn't have their own water cans and privy and used those provided for the union carpenters. " Though at another point he testified he received calls constantly at his home outside regular business hours. 12 In actuality no grievance had yet been filed by Local 2067, Rettman informed Batterman in his September 28 letter that "a labor problem might confront Batterman " if he continued to employ Largent and that "in the event that Jack Largent is not bound to the current carpenters labor agreement and continues to perform his work on your Medford High School Project, it will be necessary for this office to take proper action as is provided in the current carpenters labor agreement." [Emphasis sup- plied ] 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Batterman's contract with Largent for work on the pro- ject, and that Local 2067 was bound by the no-strike provision and therefore Local 2067 could not have anything to do with the walkout. That same day Holmes telephoned Rettman (he had tried unsuccessfully to reach him on October 13 and 14) and requested that Local 2067 dispatch 35 or 40 13 men to the Batterman project or let him use some carpenters who had applied at the project for work. Rettman told Holmes he had to be allowed 48 hours to refer men before Holmes could hire any applicants directly. He testified he then telephoned the top 12 men 14 on the out-of-work list but none would go to work at the Batterman job so he stopped calling. He testified he also posted a call for 35 carpenters for work at the project on Local 2067's bul- letin board, but received no inquiries. The two Montag employees who continued to work after the walkout of October 13 continued to work on Friday, October 14, and Monday, October 17. Other members of Local 131 employed by Montag who left the job saw Wilson on the job and complained to Johnson. Johnson went to the jobsite and accosted Wilson where he was working. Johnson said he had come to see Wilson because he was working and to tell him that he shouldn't be on the job because "they" could make it rough for him if he continued to work. Wilson asked Johnson who he meant by "they;" Johnson clarified that "they" meant both his fellow members of Local 131 and the members of the other crafts. During the conversation, McKeown, who had been working nearby, came over. Until then, Johnson had not known that McKeown was also working. Johnson then addressed McKeown, an apprentice, saying that McKeown was really in trouble, inasmuch as he was due to complete his apprenticeship and receive jour- neyman status the following January and would probably be blocked from receiving his journeyman status by the membership of Local 131 for continuing to work at the project. After this conversation, both Wilson and McKeown ceased work at the project and stayed off until work was resumed by all the crafts. On the following Thursday (October 20) Rettman, at the suggestion of counsel, sent a letter to all the striking Local 2067 members stating that Batterman had asked him to request all the carpenters on strike to return to work at the project and he was complying with that request, further stating that: At this time you realize this ,is not a Union sanc- tioned walk-off, and my only position can be that of an un-biased mediator, as has been requested by Bat- terman Construction Company and the employees of Batterman Construction Company. The striking carpenters held two more meetings at Local 2067's hall on Friday, October 21. Blunck spoke and advocated a continuation of the walkout until and un- less Largent's employees joined the Union. Rettman did not attend either meeting. Sometime during this period Blunck contacted Batter- man, the head of Batterman Construction Company, and his assistant, Simpson, at a meeting of the local school board when Batterman reported to the board concerning the status of the project. Blunck identified himself as a 13 Holmes says 40; Rettman 35 The difference is not material. 14 He could not recall the name of any person he called. 15 Blunck testified that Rettman's secretary had informed him five of Largent's men applied for membership in Local 2067. Rettman testified LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representative of the striking carpenters, told Batterman the striking carpenters would like to return to work but could not do so with scab labor on the job, and asked Bat- terman if there wasn't something he could do-like getting Largent's men to join Local 2067. On Monday, October 24, the AGC wired the president of the Carpenters' International Union requesting he use his good offices to secure a resumption of work. On Tuesday, October 25, a meeting was held in Port- land, Oregon, attended by Caley, Rettman, and two other Carpenters representatives for the State Council and Local 2067, and by Russ Gochnour, AGC manager, Twedt, Batterman, and G. L. Simpson for AGC and Bat- terman, to discuss the AGC grievance filed against Local 2067 by Twedt on October 13. That same date, the striking carpenters contacted Bernardy at Medford to state they were ready to return to work, and returned to work the following day, Wed- nesday, October 26. Blunck and Olson spent the evening of October 24 and all day October 25 calling all the strik- ing Local 2067 members to tell them the shinglers (Lar- gent's men) had joined Local 2067,15 that the dispute therefore was settled, and to return to work October 26. On October 27, counsel for the State Council and Local 2067 filed a grievance with the AGC alleging viola- tion by Batterman of the subcontracting provision of the AGC-Carpenter contract by virtue of his employ of Lar- gent, a nonunion contractor, at the project, demanding as relief that Batterman be ordered to pay any difference between the wage and other benefits paid by Largent to his employees at the project and the contract's wage and benefit provisions and requesting that information be pro- vided on what wages and benefits Largent paid such em- ployees. B. Contentions of the Parties 1. Local2067 The General Counsel contends that Local 2067 by its agents, Rettman and Blunck, engaged in, and induced or encouraged employees of Batterman and other contrac- tors at the project to engage in, a strike, with an object of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Largent, thereby violating Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. The General Counsel further contends that Local 2067 by its agents, Rettman and Caley, threatened or coerced Batterman with an object of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Largent, thereby violating Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. Local 2067 contends that Rettman did not induce or encourage any employees of Batterman or any other em- ployer to cease work at the project; that neither Rettman nor Caley threatened or coerced Batterman; and that their object was to process a grievance against Batterman over his alleged violation of article IV of the AGC-Car- penters contract in order to secure payment to Largent's employees of benefits due them under the terms of the contract. Local 2067 asserts that it was not responsible for the October 13 strike, that Blunck was not its agent for any purpose other than ascertaining the facts of any grievance arising among its members at the project and reporting same to Rettman. Local 2067 further contends that two of Largent's men offered a $1 tender toward Local 2067' s initia- tion fee of $150, which was declined on the ground a minimum tender of $50 was required In any event, none of Largent' s menjoined Local 2067. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS that it did not call , cause, authorize , or sanction the Oc- tober 13 strike at the project, that it was a "wildcat" strike undertaken by the employees as individuals (in- cluding Blunck), that Local 2067 disavowed the strike, at- tempted to man the project, and is not in any wayTrespon- sible therefor. 2. Local 131 The General Counsel contends that Local 131 by its agent , Johnson, induced or encouraged Montag em- ployees Wilson and McKeown to cease work for Montag with an object of forcing Montag to cease doing business with Bowen , thereby violating Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. Local 131 contends that Johnson's statements to Wil- son and McKeown did not constitute inducement or en- couragement to cease work for Montag and that, in any event, Johnson was merely acting as an agent of Meyers, Montag's superintendent at the project, relaying Meyers' instructions to cease work at the project. C. The Issues 1. Local 2067 The issues raised by the pleadings, evidence, and con- tentions of the parties are: a. Whether during the prestrike period (prior to Oc- tober 13) Rettman and Caley, or either of them, threatened Batterman with an object of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Largent. b. Whether during the week ending October 7, Rett- man induced or encouraged any employee at the project to strike or refuse to perform services with an object of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Largent. c. Whether Local 2067 engaged in, or induced or en- couraged any employees at the project to engage in, the October 13 strike, with an object of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Largent. d. If so, whether by such actions Local 2067 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B) of the Act, both, or neither. 2. Local131 The issues raised by the pleadings, evidence, and con- tentions of the parties are: a. Whether Johnson induced or encouraged either Wil- son or McKeown, or both, to strike or refuse to perform services for Montag with an object of forcing Montag to cease doing business with Bowen, Bowen to cease doing business with Batterman, and Batterman to cease doing business with Largent. b. If so, whether by so doing Local 131 violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. D. Concluding Findings 1. Local2067 a. Rettman & Caley-prestrike threats The Trial Examiner has found that on August 30, Rett- ' 6 An arbitrator has ruled that only wage, travel, and fringe benefit defi- ciencies may be recovered under article IV for the nonunion employees of a nonsignatory subcontractor employed by a signatory to the contract; that the union cannot recover initiation fees or dues from such employees despite their employment in excess of 8 days at the job where the dispute arises (article V, section 5, requires all employees covered by the contract 537 man informed Batterman's superintendent at the project (Bernardy) that there would be "problems" unless Batterman ceased to employ Largent on the project; that on October 11, Caley informed Twedt there was going to be "trouble" if Batterman continued to employ Largent on the project; that on October 12, Caley asked"Twedt what Batterman was going to do about getting Largent off the project; and that on October 12, Reitman informed Twedt, Bernardy, and Simpsoti that he -represented both Local 2067 and the Medford Council, that the unions af- filiated with the Medford Council were insisting he get Largent off the project, and that he was,going to have to do "something" about it. Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act is violated when a labor organization threatens an employer engaged in commerce where an object thereof is to force that employer to cease doing business with another employer. It is undisputed that Local 2067 is a labor organization and Batterman and Largent are persons engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the statute; the sole questions remaining under the section are whether the words employed by Caley and Rettman just set forth constitute threats ad- dressed to Batterman and, if so, whether an object of such threats was to force Batterman to cease doing business with Largent. The Trial Examiner concludes that they were threats, and that an object thereof was to force Batterman to remove Largent from the project. The "problems," "trouble," and "something" Rettman and Caley predicted for Batterman if he did not yield to their requests for the removal of Largent from the project was a strike against Batterman to force him to remove Largent. This is evidenced by Rettman's efforts during the week ending October 7 to induce Elliott and Wilkison to participate in a strike commencing October 10 (developed in further detail in section b below) and, when that effort failed, by Local 2067's participation in a suc- cessful strike commencing October 13 (developed in further detail in section c below). The Trial Examiner rejects Local 2067's contention that Rettman and Caley were simply processing a grievance against Batterman on behalf of Largent's em- ployees; rather, it appears that article IV was cited in order to coerce Batterman into yielding to their demands for the removal of Largent and not for the purpose of securing the contract benefits for Largent's employees. To enforce article IV, Local 2067 would be forced to act as an agent of nonunion employees, seeking to secure for them the difference between the wages, overtime, travel, welfare, and other benefits of the contract and the wage, overtime, travel, welfare, and benefits the non- union employees receive while on the job which gives rise to the grievance. Local 2067 would be placed in a posi- tion wherein it expended effort, time, and money to en- force the terms of its contract (which it had to expend time, effort, and money to secure in the first place) on be- half of nonunion employees who neither contributed to its costs and effort to secure the contract nor would con- tribute to its costs and effort in enforcing the contract through grievance and arbitration.16 to acquire union membership after 8 days' employment and maintain such membership thereafter as a condition of employment), in connection therewith note Rettman's October 3 attempt (subsequently withdrawn) to secure the discharge of Largent's men for failure to comply with the union-shop provision (article V, section 5) of the contract. 538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rettman and Caley were fully aware of the dissatisfac- tion within the various locals affiliated with the State Council over arbitration awards secured under article IV by two of its affiliates-Local 1065 and Local 2133-against Mills Construction Co , and Todd Ship- building Co , respectively, over the use by the two con- tractors just named of Largent on projects where mem- bers of the two locals just named were also employed. Rettman's remark to Wilkison that he could not strike or picket the project indicates his probable familiarity as well as with the case of Local 1065, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of'America, AFL-CIO (Wil- lamette General Contractors Assoc ration), 138 NLRB 901, wherein Local 1065 was held in violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act by its picketing a project because Mills Construction Co. employed Largent as a subcontractor there. While Rettman allegedly informed the striking mem- bers of Local 2067 on October 17 that a grievance had been filed against Batterman over his continued employ- ment of Largent at the project, in actual fact no grievance had then been filed. Rettman's original letter to Batter- man (on September 28) merely confirmed his earlier statement to Bernardy that Batterman might have "labor problems" if Largent were not removed, requested that Batterman ascertain if Largent's employees were receiv- ing wages, overtime, travel, welfare, and other benefits commensurate with those being paid to Local 2067's members pursuant to the AGC-Carpenters contract, and stated that if Largent continued to be employed at the project by Batterman, it would be necessary for Local 2067 to file a grievance Ordinarily, when a union seeks to process a grievance to secure contract benefits for employees, it seeks, to the extent possible, to find out from such employees the wage, travel, and fringe benefits of which they are al- legedly being deprived, files a grievance with the em- ployer on their behalf, requests generally therein that they be paid the deprived benefits, and elicits such further facts as are necessary to establish the specific amount of the remedy after filing, and during the course of processing the grievance. Here, however, Local 2067 threatened to file a grievance and demanded that the em- ployer to whom the threat was addressed supply data which would enable the union to carry out its threat be- fore either filing, or even disclosing whether it intended to file a grievance At the October 12 conference , Rettman continued to press for the removal of Largent from the project, only after Twedt unequivocally refused to remove Largent did Reitman renew his request that Batterman secure information for Local 2067 to examine regarding the wages, etc., of Largent's employees. Rett- man still did not file a grievance, did not disclose whether he intended to do so, and made no attempt to secure the allegedly desired information from Largent's em- ployees-the supposed beneficiaries of his efforts At the time Blunck and the rest of Local 2067's members struck the project, they had no doubt as to why they were strik- ing-certainly not to secure the benefits of their contract for Largent's men, nor to assure the preservation of union contract standards at the project, but because Largent's tnen were nonunion. Blunck did not display the slightest interest in the level of benefits received by Largent's men (though he was in direct contact with them when he tried to persuade them to join Local 2067). All he was in- terested in knowing was whether or not they were union members He already knew Rettman's attitude (Local 2067 policy) against any Local 2067 member working with nonunion men.' 7 Interesting, a grievance was not filed by Local 2067 against Batterman charging violation of article IV over his emplcy of Largent until its counsel filed it on October 27-the day after the strike ended and the men returned to work. All the foregoing clearly supports the conclusion that Rettman and Caley made their threats to force Batterman to cease doing business with Largent and not in the course of processing a grievance against Batterman on behalf of Largent's employees. The Trial Examiner there- fore finds and concludes that Local 2067 by its agents, Rettman and Caley, threatened Batterman with an object of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Lar- gent and thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. b. Rettman -prestrike inducements Findings have been entered earlier that during the week ending October 7, Rettman contacted James Elliott and Robert Wilkison, employees of Batterman and Elstrom & Ayre, Inc , informed them that a nonunion contractor, Largent, was employed at the project, and solicited their participation in a strike scheduled for the following Mon- day, October 10, over Batterman's continued employ- ment of Largent at the project. Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) is violated when a labor organiza- tion induces or encourages an individual who works for an employer engaged in commerce or in an industry en- gaged in commerce to engage in a strike or refusal to per- form services for his employer where an object thereof is to force his employer to cease doing business with another employer. It is undisputed that Reitman was an authorized agent of Local 2067 at all times pertinent; and that Elliott and Wilkison were individuals employed by employers en- gaged in commerce or in an industry engaged in com- merce. The Trial Examiner has found that Rettman sought to persuade Elliott and Wilkison to cease perform- ing services for their respective employers at the project and that Rettman's purpose was to force Batterman to cease employing Largent. The Trial Examiner therefore finds and concludes that Local 2067 by Rettman during the week ending October 7 encouraged Elliott and Wilkison to engage in a strike and that an object thereof was to force Batterman to cease doing business with Largent, thereby violating Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act c. Local 2067 strike responsibility The General Counsel alleges that Local 2067 is responsible for the October 13 conduct of its job steward at the project, Elmer Blunck. Local 2067 denies that Blunck was its agent , and alleges that Blunck acted as an individual. 17 Blunck telephoned Reitman to inform him of the failure of the at- tempted October 10 strike promoted by Rettman to lorce Batterman into removing Largent from the project UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 539 Both the General Counsel and Local 2067 cite the case of International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, C.I.O. (Sunset Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487, in support of their contentions. The Board had before it in that case opposing contentions concern- ing the responsibility of a union for actions of an officer and business agent. The Board referred to the then recently enacted Section 2(13) of the Act for guidance, which provides that: In determining whether any person is acting as an "agent" of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be con- trolling. The Board held that the quoted language constituted an adoption of the common law rules of agency, and quoted from the Restatement on Agency the standard that: A principal may be responsible for the act of his agent within the scope of the agent' s general authori- ty, or the "scope of his employment" if the agent is a servant, even though the principal has not specifi- cally authorized or indeed may have specifically for- bidden the act in question. It is enough if the prin- cipal actually empowered the agent to represent him in the general area within which the agent acted. 79 NLRB 1487, at 1509. Since that decision, the question of union responsibility for the words or actions of its steward has arisen re- peatedly, and has been determined on the basis of whether or not the steward was empowered to act in the "general area" within which he exercised his authority, even though by such exercise he may have exceeded his specific, delegated powers. In the Sunset case just cited, the union was held responsible for a strike it had neither authorized nor ratified, on the ground one of its officers, who was also a business representative, had participated in and directed the strike activities. In a case decided shortly thereafter, Local 760, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L. (Roane-Anderson Company), 82 NLRB 696, the union's job stewards did not have authority to call a strike; its business manager did. The business manager indicated it was against union policy for its members to work along side employees of a nonunion contractor and requested his removal from the job. The request was denied. The union's job stewards thereafter made statements at the job which induced its members to leave the job, and left themselves, in a mass, simultaneous strike. They did not cease work when the nonunion contractor first appeared on the job, but I`week later and only after the business manager's request for removal of the nonunion contractor has been denied. The strikers returned to work when in- formed it was all right to do so by the stewards. During the period of the strike, the strikers gathered in the union hall; none were ordered to return to the job. Held, the stewards as subordinates of the business manager have the same powers he possesses; thus, their actions were at- tributable to the union despite the renunciation and dis- avowal of the strike action. As the Board stated: The stewards and assistant business manager, who made the front line statements inducing the em- ployees to leave their jobs, have, it is true, limited authority. But, as appointees of the business manager, they are subject to his authority and are under his direction. To the extent, then, that they acted under the direction of the business manager, or with his approval, within the broad range of the latter's general authority, their conduct also fell within the scope of their employment and was likewise binding upon their union. To similar effect, Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen and Helpers, Local 145, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL (The Howland Dry Goods Company), 85 NLRB 1037-steward told members not to cross picket line; had no authority, not ratified by union ; held, steward acted within his general authority, union responsible; Local Union No. 789, International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, AFL-CIO; et al. (H. E. Doyle and Jno. W. Russell, doing business as Doyle and Russell), 125 NLRB 571 -steward saw picket line, asked business agent what to do, told that business agent would not work behind picket line; steward left job, members followed. Held, business agent induced strike by comment, steward induced strike by leaving job; steward acting as union representative within his general area of authority and not as individual, union responsible; Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (General Electric Company), 126 NLRB 123 -strike in progress; stewardess telephoned employee and implied auto might be damaged if employee con- tinued to work; held, stewardess authorized to process 1st step grievances and assist in 2nd step; thus "grass roots leader" and acted within general authority, union responsible; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local No. 83, AFL-CIO (Combustion Engineering, Inc.), 130 N LRB 184- member suspended after political challenge to business representative; assigned to job; steward passed work among members on job that former member working, that he would not work with him; mem- bers ceased work; steward telephoned business represen- tative and told to tell members to continue working; told members anyone who wanted to work with former member could go back to work; members left job; steward did not attempt to dissuade members from leav- ing, left with them; held, steward is union representative on the job and the conduit or transmitter of union policy to members on the job, acted within his general authority, union responsible. Restating the premises implicit in the foregoing, in the case of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, et al. (Overnite Transportation Company), 133 NLRB 62, enfd. 332 F.2d 693 (C.A. 5), the Board said at 71: The Respondent's assertion that the stewards were without authority . . . is without merit. Clauses in ... contracts with employers defining the authori- ty of stewards as between the parties are of no relevance in determining the Union's statutory responsibility for the stewards' actions. Moreover whatever the provisions of the contracts, the conduct of the stewards was in furtherance of the objectives of the Locals in their controversy with Overnite and, so far as employees could judge, within the apparent scope of the stewards' powers as union representa- tives. Statements by stewards or union officials that employees were free to use their own judgment, made under circumstances-such as here-where the union representatives suggested what action they favored, even providing example . . themselves ... 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD do not suffice to neutralize the normal effect of the officials' conduct. . [Emphasis supplied.] In three recent cases, the Board continued to apply the principles heretofore expressed: in Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 299, AFL-CIO (W. F. Kisner, et. al., dlb/a S. M. Kisner & Sons, a partnership), 134 NLRB 1202, the union had a longstanding dispute with Kisner; its secretary-treasurer informed Kisner he would have to sign a contract to stay on the job; Kisner refused; the union's steward passed word to its members that a nonunion contractor was on the job: all left the job; the union denied it had called, caused, or ratified the strike and argued the steward acted without authority and as an individual; held, the steward acted within his general authority, the union was responsible, in Local 349, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Dade Sound and Controls), 149 NLRB 430, the union had previously called strikes and protested over the presence on jobs of Dade Sound, whose employees were represented by CWA Local 3107, IBEW business representative told representatives of CWA they would strike any job where Dade appeared at a job, the IBEW steward stated he objected to working along side CWA members, he considered them the same as nonunion; all IBEW members left the job: IBEW disavowed the strike; held, steward acted within his general authority, IBEW responsible for strike; in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 377 (All-Ameri(an Stamp and Premium Corporation of New York), 159 NLRB 982, again a steward caused a strike, union disavowed strike and steward's authority; held, strike not "strongly and af- firmatively" disavowed, strikers not disciplined, union responsible, steward acted within general authority In the few cases contra, in one, Building and Construc- tion Trades Council of Tampa and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, et al. (Tampa Sand and Material Co ), 132 N LRB 1564, involved a steward walkoff wherein the steward did not contact any of the union's members, nor did they cease work with him The General Counsel relied on the premise the union's bylaws required all members to cease work if a steward was not present, but an assistant steward took over the duties if the steward had failed to induce any employees to cease work. in a second, Twin City Carpenters District Council of the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (August Cederstrand Company), 152 NLRB 887, a former union member was employed at the job; a steward informed members of that union and members of other unions at the job of his presence, the steward then loudly announced he would not work alongside a nonunion man and left the job, however, he returned to work in 15 minutes at the urging of the job superintendent and no one else left the job; held, no inducement. Both of these cases turned on the fact there was no inducement of other em- ployees to engage in a strike. In this case, the governing (AGC-Carpenter) contract provides (schedule A, page 6) that (e) there shall be a steward on the job at all times during the regularly established shifts while the work of the brotherhood is being performed; he shall be appointed by and at the dis- cretion of the business representative of the union ; his of- ficial duties shall be limited to the transmittal to the busi- ness representative of all complaints and grievances emanating among the members employed at the job, plus other minor tasks. Rettman appointed Elmer Blunck as Local 2067's job steward on or about September 28, he was informed at the time of the limited nature of his authority However, as the cited cases teach, the recitation of the limited na- ture of his authority in the contract and by the business representative is not controlling in the determination of the extent of the union's responsibility for his subsequent actions; even though the union neither authorized nor ratified his subsequent acts and even specifically forbade such acts or disavowed them on learning of them, the union may nevertheless be responsible therefor if within his general authority. Here, Rettman was clothed by Local 2067 with general authority to take actions deemed in the best interests of the local; Blunck was his subordinate Local 2067 representative at the project clothed with limited, specific authority by the contract and the steward instructions furnished him by Rettman. As far as Local 2067's mem- bers at the project were concerned, however, he was the official Local 2067 representative at the project and the man to look to insofar as finding out union policy and to report any grievances against their employer at the pro- ject, and certainly the man to look to for guidance in the absence or unavailability of Rettman." While both Blunck and Rettman deny that Rettman in- formed Blunck (or any other person employed at the pro- ject or any member, officer, or representative of Local 2067 or any other union affiliated with the Medford Council) of Batterman's October 12 denial of Rettman's request for Largent's removal from the project,"Blunck knew of Rettman's opposition to Batterman's employ- ment of Largent at the project,"' and knew when he saw Largent's men at work on October 13 that Rettman had not succeeded in his effort to get Batterman to remove Largent from the project. Blunck also learned, when he attempted to reach Rettman by telephone at his office and home on the morning of October 13 after notice from the plumbers that they were striking the project due to Lar- gent's presence, that he was the sole representative of Local 2067 on the scene A steward is the first union representative the members look to, and the man from whom they take their cues in- sofar as union policy is concerned, when a labor dispute arises on the job; he is expected to know both their rights and responsibilities under the contract between the union and their employer and their rights and responsibilities as union members This places the steward in a position where he carries a duty both to the union and its members whom he services and to the contracting employer to ex- ercise great care to see that he carries out those duties in a manner commensurate with such responsibility. Blunck certainly was aware of article IV and the grievance and arbitration provisions of the contract governing his and other Local 2067 members' employ- '" Blunck clearly believed he was and iepivscnied him.vll as I ocal 2067 s representative at the project at the time the strike commenced on October 13 he identified himself as the tepiesentatne of the striking Local 2067 members when Batterman s job superintendent sought to inquire into the reason for the strike because he wa, the steward " the striking Local 2067 members chose him as one of then leaders he stated it was he who approached Batterman to solicit Batter man's intervention with I argent and his employee, at the school hoard meeting because I was the steward '" Which the Trial Examiner discredits. it appearing incredible that Reitman would fail to mfoim the persons most vitally interested in the subject matter of the conference of its outcome 20 It was Blunck who informed Reitman of the failure of the October 10 strike Reitman had promulgated UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 541 ment at the project; he also was aware of the no-strike provision therein (Largent's employment had been a con- stant source of discussion at the project, and Rettman testified he had advised Blunck and other Local 2067 members at the project of those contract provisions prior to the strike). Instead of informing the plumbers that both they and Local 2067's members employed at the project were sub- ject to the provisions of a contract containing a provision regarding employment of nonunion contractors, a grievance and arbitration provision for resolving disputes over its violation, and a no-strike provision, and therefore the plumbers had best report for work and immediately returning to work himself on October 13, Blunck went through the project informing Local 2067's members the plumbers were striking the project over Batterman's con- tinued employment of Largent, polling them concerning their willingness to join in the strike, and himself setting the example by joining in the strike. Not only did he fail to make any effort to dissuade Local 2067's members from striking and to point up the applicable contract provisions for orderly resolution of the dispute and their obligations under the contract, by his "poll," he enlarged and made the strike effective, and actively participated in it. The strike became a mass walkout through his actions (except for the few men who completed a cement pour, a few sheet metal workers who continued on the job until spoken to by their union representative - see below - and Largent's employees). Far from disassociating his actions from his status as Local 2067's representative, he identified himself to Batterman's superintendent as Local 2067's steward and spokesman when the former sought to inquire into the reasons for the strike and evidenced his support of it. He was designated by the strikers to con- tinue as their spokesman shortly after they left the project because he was the steward; and he approached Batter- man to solicit his bringing pressure on Largent to have his men join Local 2067 "because he was the steward." True, Rettman went through the technical motions of disavowing the strike after his return to his office on Oc- tober 17; he read the subcontracting, grievance, and ar- bitration, and no-strike provisions of the contract to a group of the striking Local 2067 members and told them Local 2067 could not be involved in or officially sanction the strike. He allegedly called about 12 of Local 2067's members on the out-of-work list when Batterman requested carpenters, and allegedly posted Batterman's work request on the bulletin board. At the suggestion of counsel , he later sent a letter to the striking Local 2067 members suggesting they return to work. However, motions are all they were. Rettman did not order the strikers to return to work; the Trial Examiner discredits his testimony that he attempted to supply car- penters at Batterman's request;21 his letter to the strikers requesting their return to work is carefully couched in language which conveys the message that the writer, Rettman, is simply relaying a request from their em- ployer, Batterman, and is only playing the role of an "un- biased mediator" or neutral relayer in so doing.22 Not only did Rettman fail to direct the striking Local 2067 members to return to work, he permitted their use of the union hall to take votes to continue on strike, to discuss strike strategy and issues, he made no effort to discipline the strikers'23 and did not "strongly and affir- matively" disavow the strike.24 Rettman's conduct both before and during the strike evidenced his desire for and support of the strike against Batterman and that his object was to force Batterman to cease doing business with Largent; Blunck's conduct as his subordinate, particularly on the day the strike com- menced, was entirely in accord therewith. The Trial Examiner finds and concludes , on the basis of the foregoing, that Local 2067 is responsible for the conduct of Elmer Blunck, particularly his October 13 conduct, which the Trial Examiner finds did cause a strike by Local 2067's members and thereby enlarged the dispute into a mass strike of the project. On the basis of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner further finds and concludes that Local 2067 engaged in, and induced or encouraged its members and other in- dividuals employed at the project to engage in, a strike on October 13 with an object of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with Largent. 2. Local 131 Montag employees Wilson and McKeown continued to work despite the walkout of their fellow employees on October 13; however, on October 17, the business representative of their Local 131, Johnson, told Wilson he had better cease working or his fellow members of Local 131 and members of the other crafts could make it rough for him, and told McKeown that he was risking the attainment of journeyman status (he was an apprentice) '' as scheduled in January 1967, if he continued to work at the project. They heeded Johnson's warning and 21 Elliott (and from their testimony, others) did not wish to strike and was anxious to return to work; with a direct order or referral from Rett- man to the project for work he would run no risk of union displeasure (Reitman threatened Elliott that he would not be referred to future jobs if he did not cooperate by being "sick" on October 10) or union discipline (for violation of the no-strike obligation) 22 The record does not disclose whether counsel advised and Rettman dispatched the October 20 letter relaying Batterman's request for carpen- ters to the striking Local 2067 members before or after the date the General Counsel sought a mandatory injunction against the strike. as he is required to do in 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) cases under Section 10(l) of the Act; the date relationship would have some significance in determining whether the letter was issued due to the compulsion of the court proceed- ing In any event. it is significant that Rettman made no effort to secure his striking members' return to work until October 21 (the day the letter was received by the strikers). 7 days after the strike commenced. and then did not order them to report. but rather states that since "I. Allen W. Rett- man... have been asked by Batterman .. to request that all carpenters return to the job-site . I thus will advise all carpenters to do so - " In All-American Stamp, supra; Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 140 NLRB 729, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 925, AFL-CIO et al. (J L. Manta, Inc et al) 154 NLRB 671. union failure to discipline strikers and, in the latter two to furnish replacements therefor. were significant factors in determining union responsibility for strikes '{ The union's failure to strongly and affirmatively disavow the strike also was a factor in the Board s decision holding the union responsible therefor in All-Ame rit an Stamp, supra 25 An apprentice does not qualify as a journeyman until (I) he has been approved for journeyman status by an apprenticeship committee com- posed of an equal number of persons designated by the union and by management, and (2) under the practice at Local 131, a majority of its members have voted to accord the apprentice the status of a journeyman It therefore appears that the union could block journeyman qualification by either a "no" vote within the committee, creating a deadlock. or a majority vote within the union against granting the apprentice a jour- neyman book and subsequent refusal to refer the rejectee to jobs at the journeyman rate and status. 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ceased work, not returning until the general callback of October 26. Since it is undisputed that Johnson was an authorized representative of Local 131 and Montag, Bowen. Batter- man, and Largent were persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, the only questions remaining under Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) for determination are (1) whether Johnson's words constituted inducement or en- couragement of Wilson and McKeown to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services for Montag and, if so, (2) whether an object therefor was to force or require Montag to cease doing business with Bowen, with the further object of forcing Bowen to pressure Batterman to cease doing business with Largent. In the judgment of the Trial Examiner, Johnson could not have had any purpose in going to the project other than to induce, or, at the very least, to encourage Wilson and McKeown to cease work for Montag: admittedly, he went there at the behest of other Local 131 members em- ployed by Montag already on strike who were angered at the fact they were losing income in supporting the strike and Wilson was not. Johnson's statement that it could be "rough" for him if he didn't cease work certainly would not encourage Wilson to remain at work' Similarly, while Johnson did not know McKeown was working until he got to the project. his words again had only one possible purpose-to induce or encourage McKeown to cease work. By successfully inducing Wilson and McKeown to cease work for Montag. Johnson forced Montag to cease doing business with Bowen. forcing Bowen in turn to cease doing business with Batterman all for the ultimate object of forcing Batterman to cease doing business with the sole nonunion employer at the project, Largent While the Trial Examiner finds Local 131 s defense in- genious that Johnson was merely acting as an agent of Meyers. Montag's superintendent, transmitting Meyers' instructions to Wilson and McKeown to cease work, this defense is rejected. Meyers did not testify Local 131 re- lies on Johnson's testimony that upon his (Johnson's) Oc- tober 13 statement that he couldn't do anything about the walkout of Local 131 members at the project, "He told me ... Roy Meyers did, that as long as the other trades had walked off, that he was just as soon-be in favor of our crew walking off too, because there are certain cir- cumstances that the trades have to get along with, other- wise. it will slow up the production ' Clearly, Montag wanted its employees to work-Wilson and McKeown performed work for Montag both on the day Meyers spoke to Johnson (October 13. the day the strike com- menced) and thereafter, October 14 and 17, and Meyers' purpose in contacting Johnson was to secure men to work at the project. His statement was a gratuitous comment and certainly did not contain words of appointment of Wilson as his agent. The Trial Examiner on the basis of the foregoing finds and concludes that Local 131 by its business representa- tive, Johnson. induced or encouraged Wilson and McKeown to engage in a strike or refusal to perform ser- vices for Montag with an object of forcing or requiring Montag to cease doing business with Bowen. Bowen to cease doing business with Batterman, all with the ultimate object of forcing or requiring Batterman to cease doing business with Largent. The Trial Examiner further finds and concludes that Local 13 1 thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I Batterman, Largent, Montag, Bowen. Elstrom & Ayre, Inc., and Eckerson Roofing were persons (em- ployers) engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2). (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act at all times pertinent hereto. 2. Locals 2067 and 131 were labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act at all times pertinent hereto. 3. By engaging in. and by inducing or encouraging em- ployees of Batterman and other contractors at the project to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their em- ployment to perform services for Batterman and other contractors at the project with an object of forcing Batter- man to cease doing business with Largent. Local 2067 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 4 By threatening, coercing, or restraining Batterman with an object of forcing Batterman to cease doing busi- ness with Largent, Local 2067 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act 5. By inducing or encouraging employees of Montag to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their em- ployment to perform services for Montag with an object of forcing Montag to cease doing business with Bowen with an ultimate object of forcing Bowen to cease doing business with Batterman and Batterman with Largent, Local 131 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that both Respondents Locals 2067 and 131 have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, the Trial Ex- aminer shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon the entire record , the Trial Examiner recom- mends that- 1. Respondent Local 2067. its officers , agents, succes- sors, and assigns , shall cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any in- dividual employed by Batterman or any other contractor to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his em- ployment to perform services with an object of forcing or requiring Batterman or any other contractor to cease doing business with Largent or another contractor. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Batterman or any other contractor where an object thereof is to force Batterman or any other contractor to cease doing busi- ness with Largent or another contractor 2 Respondent Local 13 1, its officers , agents , succes- sors, and assigns, shall cease and desist from inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Montag or any other contractor to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to perform services with an ob- ject of forcing or requiring Montag or any other contrac- tor to cease doing business with Bowen or another con- tractor. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 3. Both Local 2067 and Local 131, their officers. Dated By agents, successors, and assigns, shall post in their respec- (Representative) tive business offices and meeting halls copies of the at- tached notices wherein their names appear marked "Ap- pendix A" and "B."26 Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 36, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof. and be main- tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to in- sure that said notices are not altered defaced, or covered by any other material. Said Regional Director shall be notified, in writing. within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.27 26 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 27 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director. in wasting within 10 days from the date of this Order. what steps Respon- dent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE To All Members of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2067, AFL-CIO Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer 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 engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Batterman Construction, Inc.. or any other contractor to engage in, a strike or refusal to perform services where an object of such inducement or encouragement is to force Batterman Construction, Inc.. or other contractor to cease doing business with Jack L. Largent or another con- tractor who does not meet the requirements or condi- tions of our contracts. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Batter- man Construction, Inc., or any other contractor, where an object of such threats, coercion, or restraint is to force Batterman Construction, Inc., to cease doing business with Jack L. Largent or another con- tractor who is not in compliance with our contracts. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 2067, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 543 (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, 612 Lincoln Building, 208 SW Fifth Avenue. Portland. Oregon 97204, Telephone 226-3361, Extension 1431. APPENDIX B NOTICE To All Members of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 131, AFL-CIO Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer 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 engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Montag Furnace Co. or any other employer to engage in, a strike or refusal to perform services where an object of such inducement or encouragement is to force Montag Furnace Co. or other contractors to cease doing business with Bowen Brothers Plumbing and Heating. or another contractor who does not meet the requirements or conditions of contracts to which our organization or other affiliates of the Medford Building and Con- struction Trades Council are parties. SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 131, 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, 612 Lincoln Building. 208 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, Telephone 226-3361, Extension 1431.