Local 198, Carpenters

196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and Security Construction Co. and Henry C. Beck Company. Case 16-CC-281 and 16-CC-282 October 18, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA On July 2, 1968, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National 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 brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,' ORDER 2 Under the established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's credibility findings unless a clear preponderance of all relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect , we find no basis for disturbing the credibility findings in this case Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3). As Respondent points out , "Christian," in next to the last sentence of fn. 9, should be "Sudderth " This typographical error does not affect the decision and is hereby corrected 3 Member Fanning concurs in the finding that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B). However, he bases his conclusion on the evidence that Respondent 's picketing was not conducted initially in conformity with the standards set forth in Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547, and, therefore , finds it unnecessary to consider what, if any, effect Respondent 's oral statements had upon the legality of its picketing See Member Fanning's separate statement of position in General Telephone Company of Cahfornia, 151 NLRB 1490, fn. 4 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN P. VON ROHR, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed on February 28 and March 12, 1968, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 16 (Fort Worth, Texas), issued a consolidated com- plaint on March 29, 1968, against Local Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Respondent or the Union, alleging that it had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Thereafter the Respondent filed an answer denying the allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me on April 15 and 16, 1968, in Dallas, Texas All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to file briefs Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following 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 Respondent, Local Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order, as herein modified: Delete from paragraph 1(a) of the Recommended Order "; or" following "any services" and insert therefor: "where an object thereof is to force and require the aforesaid employers and others to cease doing busi- ness with the City of Dallas; or" 1 The Respondent Union's request for oral argument is hereby denied as , in our opinion , the record , including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties 173 NLRB No 36 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS The city of Dallas is a municipal corporation situated in Dallas County, Texas, incorporated under and by virtue of a special act of the legislature of the State of Texas, maintaining its principal office at Maine and Harwood Streets, Dallas, Texas. It owns and operates Love Field, an airport terminal facility which provides interstate and international air trans- portation services, where it is engaged in the letting of contracts for the designing, engineering, and construction of additional terminal facilities. It receives gross annual revenue in excess of $500,000 in the operation of said airport. Security Construction Co., at times herein called Security, is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas and maintains its principal office in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the building and construction industry as a general contractor During the year preceding the hearing herein, Security purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which goods and materials were transported LOCAL 198, CARPENTERS 197 to building sites in Texas directly from points located outside the State of Texas Henry C. Beck Company, at times herein referred to as Beck, is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal office in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the building and construction industry as a general contractor During the year preceding the hearing herein, Beck, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which goods and materials were transported to building sites in the State of Texas from points located outside of the State of Texas. Edwin S. Bell, an individual d/b/a Ed Bell Construction Co., maintains its principal office in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the heavy construction industry as a terminal contractor. By reason of the above-mentioned interstate purchases and shipments, Security and Beck are, and have been at all times material to the issues herein, engaged in interstate commerce, and in operations affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, I find that the Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts At all times material hereto, and continuing at the time of the hearing, various projects involving the improvement and expansion of certain facilities at the Love Field airport in Dallas, Texas, are being undertaken at a total estimated cost of approximately $20,000,000. Largest among these are the construction of terminal facilities for Braniff Airlines and American Airlines, the contracts for which are let or approved by the city of Dallas and are financed by municipal revenue bonds. It is undisputed that the city of Dallas historically has maintained a distinction between the building construction industry and the so-called highway and heavy construction industry in the letting of its contracts. The heavy construction industry is classified as that which is engaged in the building of such projects as bridges, roads, dams, culverts, curbs, alleys and the like. This work normally is not covered by a roof and people do not dwell in the area. The building and construction industry, on the other hand, is defined as that which is principally engaged in the construction of commercial and industrial type buildings, and housing. The dispute in the instant case arises out of the perform- ance of a contract which the Ed Bell Construction Co. has with the city of Dallas for the modification and expansion of parking facilities at the Love Field airport. This construction is at ground level, although it includes two ramps to an upper level. Bell, which is engaged in the heavy construction industry, is a nonunion contractor. It does not hire members of the Respondent Union nor does it hire employees with the job classification of carpenter. The contract between Bell and the city of Dallas provides for minimum wage rates for each of the various job classifica- tions set forth therein. These rates are predicated upon periodic area surveys in accordance with the formula provided in the Davis-Bacon Act. As the Respondent points out, although a contractor who is party to this type of contract is required to pay the minimum rates as provided therein, he is not precluded from paying higher rates if he so desires. As will be detailed below, the Respondent Union began picketing the entrance to the Love Field airport on February 26, 1968. Preliminarily, however, it is to be noted that Bell's employees were engaged in the building of a retaining wall for a ramp to the overhead parking structure at the time the picketing began The crew at this time included a foreman, laborers and two employees classified as form builders (struc- tures).' As to the construction of the retaining wall, basically this involves the construction of outer forms into which concrete is poured. The forms utilized by Bell are sheets of plywood which are drilled with holes and are attached together with steel clamps and ties. The sheets of plywood are of a general standard size, they can be used interchangeably and in fact are used over again on as many as 10 different jobs. Bell credibly testified that such carpenter tools as hammers and saws are used by his crew only 5 percent of their working time.' Testimony from the Respondent reflects that its members are not uncommonly engaged in the construction of forms for retaining walls and ramps which are similar to those utilized by Bell However, the testimony reflects that this work is generally undertaken in connection with the heretofore described building and construction type projects rather than highway and heavy construction type projects. Further, the duties of Bell's employees, including form builders, not only include work in connection with the actual construction of the forms, but also include such additional functions as the preparation of the ground site, cement pouring and cement finishing. Members of the Respondent do not engage in any of the latter type work. A J. Christian, a business agent of the Respondent Union, testified without contradiction, that in early February 1968 he spoke to Willie Overton, Bell's superintendent at the Love Field jobsite, and inquired as to the wage rate being paid Bell's employees. Overton advised Christian that Bell's employees were being paid at various rates between $2 and $4 per hour. Christian also testified that at about this time he was aware that a union contractor, one Schwartz, was engaged as a subcontractor in form building work in connection with the construction of a pedestrian tunnel between the parking lot and the terminal building.3 This project was adjacent to the Bell project (beginning approximately 50 feet distant there- from) and the Schwartz employees were being paid at the union rate of $4.60 per hour. I Bell testified that at times other employees employed by him at the Love Field project included those with such job classifications as concrete finishers (paving ), concrete finishers (structures), form setters (paving and curb); and truckdrivers and various equipment operators. 2 This includes the fact that the hammers are principally utilized to turn latches which hooks the form ties into clamps. 3 Sterline Thompson , president of Security Construction Company which was the general contractor on this job , testified that the tunnel was a "building project." The entrance has glass doors , and the tunnel was lined with architectual materials and was equipped for lighting, heating and air conditioning. 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Christian wrote Bell the following letter on February 20, 1968. Gentlemen: This letter is to protest the undercutting of union wages and working conditions by your firm. It is our information that the working conditions and wages being paid to persons in your employ are substantially lower than the union scale prevailing for such work in this area. If we are mistaken, please advise immediately. By this letter we are not requesting, nor shall we request that you employ or refuse to employ any individual or group of individuals, nor do we request that you assign work to employees in any particular labor organization or any particular trade, craft, or class. We do not seek to organize your employees, nor do we suggest or request that you recognize or bargain with this organization as a representative of your employees, nor do we suggest or request that you recognize or bargain with this organization as a representative of your employees. Our sole purpose is to seek to eliminate the threat to union wages and working conditions that has arisen as a result of the practices of your firm. We shall be happy to provide upon request informa- tion on the prevailing union wages and working conditions in this area. It is our hope that you will cease to undercut union wages and working conditions. However, in the event we have not heard from you by February 23, 1968, to the contrary, we will assume that your practices remain unchanged and will feel compelled to pursue any lawful and legitimate means of publicizing your substandard wages and working conditions We will appreciate your consideration in this matter. Bell made no response to the above letter. On February 26, 1968, the Respondent Union placed a picket at the entrance to Love Field airport at the corner of Mockingbird Street and Cedar Springs Street Employees of all contractors working at the airport used th!s entrance. The legend on the picket sign stated as follows: CARPENTER Local Union 198 PROTESTS THE UNDERCUTTING OF UNION WAGES & CONDITIONS By ED BELL CONSTRUCTION CO. We are picketing above employer only The picket remained at this site for 3 days. On the 4th day the situs of the picketing was changed to the foot of a statue, 4 This is revealed by General Counsel Exhibit 5, which is a scaled plot of Love Field and its environs , including the places of picketing 5 At this point the picketing was enjoined by a United States District Court pursuant to a proceeding brought by the General Counsel under Section 10(1) of the Act. 6 Respondent 's answer admits that "some of the employees of employers working at the site ceased work." The testimony of Larry C Sudderth reflects that on the first day of picketing the employees of Henry C . Beck Company and four or five of its subcontractors, these including such crafts as iron-workers , carpenters , plumbers, electricians and laborers , left the job when they got off the bus. They did not return to work until the picketing ceased on March 25 The same was true of the various craft employees employed by the Security Construction Co and its subcontractors 7 There is no dispute concerning the above conversation this being located adjacent to the public parking lot in front of the Love Field terminal building. This situs is adjacent to the Bell construction site and is approximately 3300 feet, or over 1h mile, from the point where the picketing took place on the first 3 days.' The picketing continued at the statue until about March 25, 1968.5 It is undisputed that the picketing, from its very inception, had the effect of causing a substantial number of employees of employers other than Bell to refuse to cross the picket line.6 Within a day or two after the inception of the picketing, representatives of Beck and Security contacted the Union concerning the problem with which they were confronted as a result of the picketing. In fact, the first contact between the parties was anticipatory and occurred 3 days before the picketing began. I turn now to a consideration of this testimony. Larry C. Sudderth, the project engineer for the Henry C. Beck Company, testified that on February 23, a Friday, he was advised by a subcontractor that a picket would be placed at Love Field on Monday morning. Accordingly, on the same date Sudderth telephoned the Respondent' s union hall and spoke to J. L. Anderson, a Respondent Business agent. When Anderson confirmed that such picketing would take place, Sudderth asked who it would be against. Anderson replied that it would be the Ed Bell Construction Co. Sudderth then inquired if the picketing would have any effect upon the Henry C. Beck Company. Anderson said that it would not.7 Upon the cessation of work by Beck's employees after the picket appeared on February 26, Sudderth on this same day again called Anderson. On this occasion Anderson put Business Agent A. J. Christian on the telephone to talk to Sudderth. Stating first that the picketing at Mockingbird and Cedar Springs Streets had caused a cessation of work by Beck's employees at Love Field, Sudderth asked why the picket had been placed there. Christian replied, according to the credited testimony of Sudderth, that he was not sure of the location of Bell's work but that he knew this location would cover all areas where Bell might be working. Christian also stated that the Union was picketing Bell only, not any other employer, and that he was sorry the picketing discommoded the Beck Company. Sudderth then asked what he could do to get the picket removed. According to Sudderth, Christian responded "that he could not tell us [Beck] what to do but we might put pressure on the city of Dallas to quit awarding this type of contract."8 Sudderth said the conversation ended with his telling Christian that his company had a contract with American Airlines, not the city of Dallas, and that they had no reason to contact the city since this was not their problem.9 Edward N. Anderson, senior vice president of Beck, testified that he returned from out-of-town to Dallas on 8 This testimony by Sudderth , as well as similar testimony by two other employer representatives as hereinafter set forth , is denied by Christian Christian 's testimony and my resolution of this conflict is discussed later in this Decision. 9 On direct examination Sudderth testified that he held a conver- sation of similar content with Christian again on February 27 However, when on cross -examination it was pointed out to him that his pretrial affidavit and his 10(l) testimony related to only two conversations, Sudderth testified that he was not certain of having another conversa- tion with Christian on February 27, although he was certain that he did have the conversations with Anderson on February 23 and with Christian on February 26. I believe that Christian was mistaken as to any February 27 conversation. However, as indicated below, another official of Beck did talk to Christian on February 27. LOCAL 198, CARPENTERS February 27 Having been apprised of the picketing, it is undisputed that Anderson called Christian and had a conversa- tion with him on this date. Anderson testified that he began by stating that the picketing had stopped work on his jobs at Love Field He then mentioned the situs of the picketing and told Christian that he "didn't think it was fair to stop all the good union contractors to picket one little nonumon contractor and keep all of us from going to work." According to Anderson, Christian advised him that the picketing was directed against Bell, but that he (Christian) also stated that "he didn't feel the City had any right to let the contracts that way and that ... I ought to talk to the City " Anderson replied that he had no contract with the city, that how the city let its contract was none of his business, and that he had no intention of talking to the city Anderson thereupon asked Christian to move the picket closer in to the situs of Bell's project, that perhaps then his employees would not have to cross the picket line and would return to work According to Anderson, Christian stated that "he wasn't about to move the picket up there and it was good advertising where it was." Following the above conversation Anderson checked with his attorney and was advised by him that the area "closer in" to the Bell situs was in fact public property. In the afternoon of the same day, February 27, Anderson again called Christian and apprised him of having received such advice from his attorney. Anderson testified that Christian responded with the statement that "somebody would have to tell him where to move the picket." According to Anderson, Christian again requested him to call the City "because he didn't like the way they were letting their contracts " Anderson testified that he recalled Christian stating the foregoing several times, adding that "there was plenty of small union contractors that could do that work." Anderson further quoted Christian as saying, "I know that the Beck company is too big to be doing a little job like that, but there's still plenty of small union contractors that could be doing the same work that Bell is doing." As to the termination of this conversation, Anderson testified, "[We] really didn't arrive at any great conclusion about who would tell them where to place the picket." 10 Later the same day, Anderson sent Christian the following Telegram CONFIRMING OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS THIS DATE, WE AGAIN REQUEST THAT CARPENTERS PICKET BE REMOVED FROM PRESENT MOCKINGBIRD LOCATION TO IMMEDIATE AREA WHERE BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IS PERFORMING WORK AS YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED, PICKET IS APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE FROM THIS PRIMARY JOB SITE WHICH CAN BE REACHED BY PUBLIC ROAD, AND PICKET HAS INTERRUPTED AND STOPPED WORK OF HENRY C BECK COMPANY FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES AT THE TERMINAL BUILDING AND THE HANGER WORK ON LEMMON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY THREE MILES AWAY PICKET HAS STOPPED 10 Aside from the conflicting testimony of Christian, which is hereinafter discussed , Respondent in its brief argues that Anderson's testimony is to be interpreted to the effect that Christian requested him (Anderson) to call the city for the purpose of ascertaining the place where the picket could be posted on city property From my observation of the witness, and from a careful study of his entire testimony , I disagree . While it is conceivable that this could have been a purpose, I am convinced and find that Christian 's principal purpose in requesting or suggesting that Anderson make this call is reflected in the testimony cited above. I I The foregoing testimony of Thompson was not in substantial dispute with that of Christian concerning this aspect of the conversa- 199 WORK OF OTHER CONTRACTORS AT LOVE FIELD AS ADVISED, WE CANNOT CONTROL WAY CITY OF DALLAS CONTRACTS WORK. AS FURTHER ADVISED, WE CONSIDER THIS PICKET TO BE UNLAWFUL AND WE WILL ACCORDINGLY TAKE ACTION WITH THE NLRB AND THE COURTS. Sterlin Thompson, the president of Security Construction Company, telephoned Business Agent Christian at about 4 30 p in on February 27 Thompson asked Christian "what he was doing to us," stating that Security had no controversy with the Union Christian said that the picketing was directed at the Ed Bell Construction Co , that Bell was paying substandard wages, and that he could not help it if the men would not work on the Security project When Thompson asked Christian why the picket had been placed at Cedar Springs and Mockingbird, Christian stated that he did not know where else to place it Thompson then asked if the picket could be moved "a little closer to Bell's job," stating that "if it was moved past our gates maybe our men would come to work " Christian replied that he would have to talk to his attorney before he could consider moving the picket" Although initially advised that the picketing was directed against Bell '12 Thompson testified that he kept "pressuring" Christian for the reason that "we were being penalized or that our people wouldn't come to work if his controversy was just with Ed Bell Construction Company " Thompson testified that Christian finally re- sponded as follows And it finally came out, he told me that the contioversy really wasn't with Ed Bell, it was with the City, due to the fact that they left their contracts with the heavy and highway rate rather than the budding construction rate basis and He also said to me that, further on in our conversation, that he wasn't supposed to say this to me but that if I could put some pressure on the City of Dallas that I could possibly help to get this matter of contracts changed, and also further in the conversation I asked him if this picket was a result of the controversy on the wages at the regional airport and he told me yes, that it was Turning now to the testimony of Christian, Christian conceded having conversations with the contractor representa- tives on each of the occasions discussed above While I do not deem it necessary to detail his substantially similar versions of the undisputed aspects of these conversations, the salient part of Christian's testimony consisted of denials that he made any of the following statements to the contractors as testified to by them (1) that he told Sudderth that he should put pressure on the city of Dallas to quit awarding "this type of contract" ,13 (2) that he told Anderson that "the City didn't have any right to let contracts that way," or that he (the Union) had a battle with the city, or that he asked Anderson to take any action with respect to the city, or that he didn't like the way the city was letting the contracts, or that tion Christian added that he told Thompson that he did not know if it was legal (in the public property sense ) to picket further into Love Field and that he would discuss this with his attorney 12 Thompson said that when so advised by Christian , he replied, "Well, I can tell that by the sign." 1 3 In this connection Christian testified, "I believe I did make a remark to him that I thought Dallas made a mistake by letting it to a contractor that paid substandard wages. But I did not ask him to do anything about trying to correct it " 200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Anderson (the Beck Company) should quit doing business with the city of Dallas, or that he should put pressure on the city or Mr Bickley, and (3) that he told Thompson that his real controversy was with the City for letting this contract, or that he should put pressure on the city of Dallas, or that he told Thompson that he (Christian) would appreciate it if Thompson would put pressure on the city of Dallas, or words to that effect. Additionally, Christian testified that Thompson did ask if the picketing was for the purpose of pressurizing the city in connection with the Regional Airport controversy (which is discussed hereinafter) but that he responded that any relation between the picketing and the latter controversy had never crossed his mind I do not credit the foregoing denials by Christian. From my observation of them as they testified, Sudderth, Anderson, and Thompson impressed me as credible witnesses Each testified as to separate conversations which they had with Christian and each testified as to substantially similar statements made to them by Christian I do not believe that their testimony was fabricated and I credit these witnesses. In addition to the foregoing aspects of this case, the General Counsel adduced testimony from two witnesses to the effect that at about noon on March 1, the Respondent's picket sign was changed to make reference to "Love Field" rather than to Bell William R Beeman, Jr , an architectual superin- tendent employed by Jack Corgan & Associates, testified that at this time he observed a picket in the area of the statue with a sign that "made reference to Love Field " He testified that he did not observe or could not recall anything further as to the legend on the sign which he observed at this time Willie D. Overton, superintendent to Bell, testified that on the same date he observed that the picket sign was changed to read "Love Field employees or Love Field workers." He could not recall anything else of this legend and said that as far as he knew the sign did not bear the name of any labor organization On behalf of the Respondent, Elzy F. Crawford, the only individual who picketed on March 1, testified that the legend of the sign on this date was exactly the same as that set forth earlier in this Decision. Although subjected to vigorous cross-examination, Crawford's testimony was not shaken on this point Business Agent Christian, who was in charge of the picketing at Love Field, testified that only one picket sign was ever utilized at Love Field and that the language reflected thereon was never changed since the inception of the picket- ing. In this instance I credit the testimony of Overton and Christian. Accordingly, and in the absence of more substantial evidence to support the uncertain testimony of Beeman and Crawford, I find that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the legend on the picket sign was changed in the manner apparently indicated by these latter witnesses B Conclusions With the possible exception of the situs where the picketing took place for the first 3 days, the significance of which I shall discuss below, the picketing in this case appears to have been lawful under the standards established by the Board in the Moore Dry Dock case 14 However, in the Plauche Electric - case,' 5 and more recently in the L. G Electric Contractors case 16 the Board commented on these standards indicating that they are "not to be applied on an indiscriminate `per se' basis, but are to be regarded merely as aids in determining the underlying question of statutory violation " In any of these secondary boycott situations the ultimate determination de- pends upon the Union's objective "Often `the line is fine,' and circumstances of the particular case must supply the answer to which the way the chips must fall .,,1 7 The Respondent, in denying that it engaged in secondary activity, asserts that the sole purpose in picketing here was for an informational purpose, viz , to inform the public that it was protesting Bell's payment of alleged substandard wages. It also contends that its alleged compliance with the Moore Dry Dock standards lends further support that this was the sole object of the picketing. For the reasons set forth below, I disagree Notwithstanding the legend on the picket sign, in my opinion the evidence in this case establishes that, at the very least, a purpose of the picketing was intended to enmesh the secondary employers involved herein Direct evidence that this was so is the credited testimony of Security and Beck officials to the effect that Business Agent Christian requested them to put pressure on the city of Dallas to cease awarding the type of contract in the heavy construction industry such as that in effect between Dallas and Bell covering the expansion of parking lot facilities at Love Field Christian admittedly was opposed to the letting of such contracts and he did not hesitate to say so while on the stand Acknowledging that he was familiar with the distinction made by the city of Dallas in contracting for highway and heavy construction industry as contrasted to the building and construction industry, Christian testified Well, I'll have to answer you this way. Years ago we fought to try to keep the bridge building and it got into this same situation, just gradually deteriorating and getting wages down so cheap Then we started even trying to organize it as a cheaper rate, which is, if you are not familiar with it, the Texas Highway Department will just almost refuse to have a union contractor build highways We have been moved completely out of that field for that reason, and this is why we think we at least ought to have the right to advertise when people try to tear down the construction work in the same manner. Now, we are also having the same problem with those same people coming right off of the highways into our shopping centers, into other areas, and try to cut down the wages as though they have done on the highway work, and we are going to, if the law will let us, try to advertise this to the public, which we are doing in this case [Emphasis supplied ] r x r^ s The only thing I can say to that is we are picketing because he [Bell] is doing the work that rightfully ought to be done 14 Sailors ' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547 The standards enunciated in this case are that (1) the picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of the dispute is located on the secondary employers -premises , (2) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs, (3) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs , and (4) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer. 15 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc ), 135 NLRB 250 16 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No 11, AFL-CIO, Carpenters Union Local No. 710, and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 494 (L. G. Electric Contractors, Inc), 154 NLRB 766. 17 Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers vNLRB,278F2d282,285(CA.DC) LOCAL 198, CARPENTERS by Carpenters and being paid the building trades rate Although in the above testimony Christian asserted that the Union is concerned with the "cheap wages" being paid in the highway and heavy construction industry, I think it significant that he also alluded to the fact that the Texas Highway Department would not contract with union employers and that the work at issue here "rightfully ought to be done by carpenters and being paid the building trades rate " Whatever the Union's good faith in protesting alleged substandard rates paid by Bell, I think it would be unrealistic to conclude that this was the sole or principal purpose here. Upon the entire record in this case, I am persuaded and find that an object of the Union's picketing in this situation was to induce the city of Dallas, by means of pressure from the secondary employers (Beck and Security), to award contracts in the heavy construc- tion industry to Union employers rather than to nonunion employers. Aside from the testimony of employer representatives that they were asked by Christian to put pressure on the city of Dallas for the aforementioned purpose, there is other evidence to support the conclusion that the picketing engaged in by the Respondent was deliberately designed to enmesh neutral employers in its dispute with the city of Dallas. Thus, I think it significant that for the first 3 days the place of picketing occurred more than one-half mile from the situs where Bell was engaged in the performance of its work. This was the intersection of two principal city streets, one of which was the main entrance to Love Field. As heretofore noted, employees of all contractors engaged in work at the airport used this entrance to gain access to their respective jobsites. As an explanation for choosing this place to picket, Christian testified that the Respondent was not sure of the boundaries of Bell's work. I cannot accept this explanation. Thus, it will be recalled that Christian testified that he spoke to Bell's superintendent in early February to inquire as to the rates being paid by Bell If Christian at this time was not made aware that Bell's employees were working at the situs of the airport parking lot, surely it would have taken very little effort on his part to ascertain that this was the fact Although the picket was ultimately moved closer to the Bell jobsite, by this time the damage had already been done. As previously noted, the place of picketing for the first 3 days was over one-half mile removed from the Bell jobsite Such a distance from the situs cannot be said to be a place "reasonably close to the location of situs i 8 While I do not find that the picketing at the situs on the first 3 days was per se unlawful, (such is not alleged in the complaint), I do find that the Union's picketing at the intersection of Mockingbird and Cedar Springs Streets for a 3-day period is further evidence that an objective of the Union was to enmesh other, neutral employers who were engaged on other projects at the Love Field airport. 18 See Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Building Trades Employers Association ), 169 NLRB No. 132, wherein the Board held that picketing one half to three quarters of a mile away from the situs was not reasonably close to the location of the situs 19 N. Alex Bickley, the Dallas City Attorney, testified that the cost of the new airport is presently estimated at approximately $ 400,000 ,000 This airport eventually will replace Love Field. 20 Respondent is not a member of the Council 21 Sheet Metal Workers International Association , et al (Patrick Herring) 169 NLRB No. 130, relied on by the Respondent is factually distinguishable from the instant case Here , statements disclosing the Union's unlawful objectives were made by Christian to three different employer representatives . Although the conversations in which these 201 The General Counsel also points to the fact, as the record establishes, that in latter January and early February 1968, the United States Department of Labor conducted a 2-week hearing to determine whether highway and heavy construction rates or the building and construction rates should apply to various work involved in the forthcoming construction of a new regional airport between Dallas and Fort Worth i 9 Al- though the Respondent was not a direct party to this proceeding, Business Agent Christian testified at this hearing at the behest of the Fort Worth Building Trades Council2° However, and whatever the possible connection between the coincidental timing of the picketing and the occasion of the Department of Labor hearing, I do not rely on this factor in finding the violation herein There is, in my opinion, sufficient other evidence, as heretofore discussed, to establish the unlawful objective. In sum, and for the reasons set forth above, I conclude and find that the Respondent threatened, restrained, and coerced the Security Construction Co., and Henry C. Beck Company for the heretofore proscribed object within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. See Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Building Trades Employers Association), 169 NLRB No. 132; Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association, et al. (The Board of Harbor Commissioners), 137 NLRB 1178.21 It is immaterial that the Respondent may have had an additional lawful objective. 22 In view of the widespread work stoppages by the employees of secondary employers, which I am persuaded was at least partially due to the situs chosen by the Union to conduct its first 3 days of picketing, I find that Respondent's conduct here also violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) of the Act.' ' IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The course of conduct chargeable to Respondent Union, set forth in section III, above, since it occurred in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and com- merce among the several States, and, absent correction, would 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 certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act In view of the serious nature of the violations found herein, it may reason- ably be anticipated that Respondent will engage in similar statements were made were initiated by the employers, it is particularly significant that Christian advised Thompson that, "the controversy really wasn't with Ed Bell , it was with the City, due to the fact that they had let their contracts with the heavy and highway rate , rather than the building and construction rate basis ." I would view this, and similar statements made by Christian , as admissions against interest Indeed, citing Hartsell Mills Co. v. N.L R.B., I1 I F.2d 291, 293 (C.A. 4), the Board has frequently stated that analogous employer admissions of unlawful motivation in 8(a )(3) cases is direct evidence of a purpose to violate the statute and is of a type that is "rarely obtainable " 22 Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council, et al. (Centlivre Village Apartments), 148 NLRB 854 23 Local 125, international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Building Trades Employers Association), supra 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unfair labor practices I will, therefore, recommend that the Respondent Union cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labor practices with respect to any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Local Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2 Security Construction Co and Henry C. Beck Company are individual employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3 By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Security and Beck, and other employers, to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to perform services, an object thereof being to force the above-named employers and others, to cease doing business with the city of Dallas, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act. 4 By the Act described above in paragraph 3 for the objects set forth above in said paragraph, Respondent did threaten, coerce and restrain, and is now threatening, coercing and restraining Security and Beck, persons engaged in com- merce and in an industry affecting commerce, and the Respondent thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that Respondent, Local Union 198, United Broth- erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall. 1 Cease and desist from. (a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Security and Beck, or by any other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; or (b) Threatening, coercing or restraining Security, Beck, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force and require the aforesaid employers and others to cease doing business with the city of Dallas 2 Take the following affirmative action, which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its business office, meeting halls, and all other places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached hereto marked "Appendix X24 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 16 signed copies of said notice for posting by Security and Beck, if willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be forth with returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith .21 24 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 25 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by a Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF Local Union 198, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL- CIO Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual em- ployed by Security Construction Co , Henry C. Beck Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce (except employees of employers with whom we have a direct dispute) to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, articles, or commodities, or to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require any of the aforesaid employers, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with the city of Dallas WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any of the above-named employers or persons, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said employers or others to cease doing business with the city of Dallas LOCAL UNION 198, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CAR- PENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) LOCAL 198, CARPENTERS 203 Dated By If members have any question concerning this notice or (Representative) (Title) compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from with the Board's Regional Office, 8A24 Federal Office Building the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone by any other material. 334-2934