Jonel Construction Co., 455 (1967)

JONEL CONSTRUCTION CO. 455

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO and Jonel Construction Co., Inc. Case 6-CC-388.

May 9,1967 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING

AND JENKINS

On July 28, 1966, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,

Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief; and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions 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 threemember 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 the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO, Johnstown,

Pennsylvania, its officers , agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified:

  1. Delete paragraphs 1(a) and (b) and insert the following:

    '(a) Inducing or encouraging employees of Jonel Construction Co., Inc., H. A. Sloan Plumbing Contractor, and Griffith and Petz Heating and Air Conditioning Contractors engaged on the Labor Temple project in Johnstown , Pennsylvania, to refuse in the course of their employment to perform any service with an object of forcing or requiring any person to cease doing business with Holsopple Electric Supply Co., Inc.' '(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining said Jonel, Sloan , Griffith , and Petz, or the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, with an object of forcing or requiring any such person to cease doing business with said Holsopple.' 2. Amend the notice by (a) deleting from the first indented paragraph 'or any other individuals employed in an industry affecting commerce'; and (b) deleting from the second indented paragraph 'any other person engaged in an industry affecting commerce ,' and inserting in its stead 'United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO'.

    MEMBER FANNING , concurring in the result:

    While I agree with the majority that the Respondent has violated the Act, and join with them in adopting the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as modified , I do so for reasons other than those as set forth by the Trial Examiner and adopted by my colleagues.

    In my judgment , the picketing of the electrical subcontractor, with whom assertedly the Respondent had a primary dispute, did not conform to the standards required by our Moore Dry Dock doctrine.2 The picket signs, which were introduced into the record , did not identify Holsopple, the primary employer, as the employer being picketed, and, in addition , by identifying the Steelworkers as the owners of the building under construction, sought the enmeshment of a neutral to the dispute.

    Accordingly , I would find Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) to have been violated3 in the respects found by the Trial Examiner.

    ' The General Counsel has excepted to the failure of the Trial Examiner to include as one of the 'persons ' threatened , coerced, or restrained, the Steelworkers, owner of the budding undergoing renovation For reasons stated in Local 895, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc (Eastern New York Construction Employers, Inc), 153 NLRB 993, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No 299, AFL-CIO (S M Kisner), 131 NLRB 1196 , and Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Picker X-Ray Corporation), 128

    NLRB 566, the General Counsel 's exception has merit and the Recommended Order shall be modified accordingly 2 Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92

    9 Cf. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11 , AFL-CIO, etc (LC Electric Contractors), 154

    NLRB 766 (dissenting opinion) TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

    A. BRUCE HUNT, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, in which the charges were filed on January 5 and February 7, 1966, and the complaint was issued on February 18, 1966, involves allegations that the Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 5,

    AFL-CIO, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Sec.

    151, et seq. On April 25, 1966, I conducted a hearing at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, at which the Respondent and the General Counsel were represented by counsel. Upon 164 NLRB No. 58 the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:

    FINDINGS OF FACT

    1. THE EMPLOYERS Jonel Construction Co., Inc. (Jonel), the Charging Party, is a Pennsylvania corporation which has its principal office at Johnstown, Pennsylvania. It is a general contractor in the building and construction industry. As will appear, during December 1965 and the forepart of 1966, Jonel was the general contractor on a project in Johnstown. The materials which were shipped to the project from points outside Pennsylvania exceeded $100,000 in value.

      Holsopple Electric and Supply Co., Inc. (Holsopple), a Pennsylvania corporation, has its principal office in Holsopple in that State and is an electrical contractor in the building and construction industry. As will appear, the Respondent had a dispute with Holsopple to whom Jonel subcontracted certain work. During 1965, Holsopple purchased materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it from points outside Pennsylvania.

      Additionally, during 1963, in an unreported case, Case 6-RC-3433, the Board asserted jurisdiction over Holsopple's business,

      H. A. Sloan Plumbing Contractor (Sloan) and Griffith and Petz Heating and Air Conditioning Contractors (Griffith) are contractors in the building and construction industry who performed, respectively, plumbing and heating work as subcontractors of Jonel at the project discussed hereinafter.

      I find that Jonel, Holsopple, Sloan, and Griffith are employers engaged in commerce, or in an industry affection commerce, within the meaning of the Act.

      H. THE RESPONDENT B. Holsopple 's Labor Relations On November 19, 1963, in Case 6-RC-3433, the Board certified International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers Union of America , Local Union No. 910, AFL-CIO (Local 910), as the exclusive representative of Holsopple's electricians . Thereafter Holsopple and Local 910 executed an agreement which was in effect at the time of the hearing. Some of the provisions of that contract are less favorable to electricians than the provisions of agreements which the Respondent has negotiated with electrical contractors.

      Moreover, Holsopple paid one or more electricians on the Labor Temple project less than the wage rates set forth in the contract with Local 910. The question whether Holsopple breached that contract at other projects was the subject of an offer of proof by the Respondent, as recited in the footnote.[ C. The Issues The issues are whether the Respondent (1) orally threatened Jonel in an effort to prevent the award of a subcontract by Jonel to Holsopple, and (2) by picketing the Labor Temple project after the award of such subcontract, induced employees of Jonel, Sloan, Griffith, and other employers to cease work with an object of forcing Jonel to terminate its contract with Holsopple , all in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.? The Respondent denies that it threatened Jonel. It admits that it picketed the project, but asserts that it engaged in lawfully publicizing Holsopple's standard wages and working conditions, seeking thereby to preserve the standards which it had achieved in collective...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT