410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers, AFL-
CIO and Ladd Electric Corp. and Industrial Workers of Allied
Trades, Local 199, affiliated with ,National Federation of Inde-
pendent Unions. .. Case No. 2-CD-331. April 25, 1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of a charge under
Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by Ladd Electric Corp. (herein called
Ladd), alleging that Local 3, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 3), had induced or
encouraged employees to cease work and had threatened, coerced, and
restrained Ladd and other employers to force or require Ladd to
assign the work in dispute to employees who are members of, or repre-
sented by, Local 3.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Alan
H. Randall'on September 30and October 1, 1965, at which all parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The
rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, briefs were
filed by Ladd and Local 3, which the Board has duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board i makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Employer
Ladd is an electrical contractor with its place of business at 2972
Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York. In June 1965 Ladd was engaged
as an electrical contractor to perform alteration work on a building
located at 337-341Second Avenue, New York, New York, where the
alleged dispute occurred.
Ladd is a member of United Construction Contractors Association
(herein called Association), an organization which bargains and exe-
cutes labor agreements on a multiemployer basis on behalf of its mem-
bers. One of the Association's members is Al and Jack Picoult d/b/a
Jack Picoult, a New Jersey partnership, with its office and place of
business in Fort Lee, New Jersey. During the past 12 months, Picoult
performed $700,000worth of business outside the State of New Jersey.
In addition, Picoult received materials valued in excess of $50,000at
one of its jobsites in New York, New York, which were shipped from
points outside the State of New York.
1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].
158 NLRB No. 34.
LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 411
The record indicates that Ladd's operations considered alone would
not meet any of our jurisdictional standards However, the foregoing
does establish that the Association is engaged in commer(e within the
meaning of the Act, based on the interstate operations of Picoult, one
of its members, and, consistent with our practice, we will assert ]uris-
diction over an employer who would not otherwise meet our standards,
if the employer is a member of an association which bargains collec-
tively for its members and the association itself is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act Accordingly, we find that as
the Association is engaged in commerce within the me i,ning of the
Act, it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein 2
2 The labor organizations involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Industrial Work-
ers of Allied Trades, Local 199, affiliated with National Federation
of Independent Unions (herein called Local 199), are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 The dispute
The dispute involves electrical work related to the altering of a
building located at 337-341 Second Avenue, New York, New York
Harper Management Company was engaged in completing the con-
struction of its building at the aforesaid address In order to accom-
modate a supermarket, Harper had to accomplish certain alterations
of the store premises Ladd was engaged to do the electrical work
and signed a contract on or about April 1, 1965 Ladd also had an
oral arrangement with Gotham Equipment Company to do some elec-
trical work on refrigeration equipment The arrangement was for-
malized by Gotham's purchase order to Ladd on April 7, 1965 Ladd's
electricians, members of and represented by Local 199, proceeded to
do the aforementioned work
William Ladd, president, testified that on June 3, 1965, he was
visited by Ralph Lombardi, a business representative for Local 3
According to Ladd, Lombardi asked "Are you Local 3," to which
Ladd replied, "No, I'm Local 199," and Lombai di in turn replied
"We don't recognize that union, you will hear from me " Lombardi
then went to Morris Moskovitz, lessee of the premises for the super-
market, and told him that Ladd was not Local 3 and that there would
be trouble Moskovitz directed Lombardi to Bernard Aisenberg, a
2Local 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO(Darby Electric
Corporation), 153 NLRB 717 The Board previously has asserted jurisdiction over the
operation of Picoult alone Local 3 International Brothe,hood of Electrical Wo,hers
AFL-CIO(Jack Picoult and Al Picoult d/b/a Jack Picoult ), 137 NLEB 1401
412
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
partner in Harper Management Company. Lombardi spoke to Aisen-
berg, repeating what he had told Moskovitz and that Ladd should not
be there.
Aisenberg explained that Ladd was a union shop and that
he was not aware that there was any difference in unions. Lombardi
repeated his warning and then left. Picketing by Local 3 commenced
the same day and, as a result, employees engaged in other trades left
the job.
Aisenberg testified that on or about June 8, 1965, he asked Lombardi
what he had to do to get the pickets removed from the jobsite, and
Lombardi replied that if he "gave the work to a Local 3 contractor
he (Lombardi) would take the pickets off." Aisenberg told Lombardi
that it would be very difficult to get a Local 3 contractor to finish the
job, and Lombardi replied that there were plenty of Local 3 con-
tractors who could do the job.
Aisenberg explained that he knew a
few who had worked for him and he then asked Lombardi if he had
any suggestions. Lombardi then read off a few names of contractors
from a book and left only to return a few minutes later to hand Aisen-
berg a card listing a number of Local 3. contractors. The same day
Aisenberg requested Ladd to remove his employees from the job.
Lombardi testified that he only spoke to Aisenberg on June 3,
asking him who was doing the electrical work at the site and that
Aisenberg replied that Ladd was doing it. According to Lombardi,
he then told Aisenberg that the electricians working for Ladd were
receiving substandard wages and inferior working conditions, and
that they were tearing down conditions and standards of the electrical
industry. Aisenberg replied that "they belong to a union, so what,"
and walked away. Lombardi denied asking Aisenberg whether the
Ladd employees were represented by a union or whether they were
members of Local 3. Lombardi stated that he knew that the Ladd
employees were not represented by Local 3, but that he did not know
if they were represented by another union. Lombardi admitted that
when he spoke to Aisenberg he did not know what were the wages or
conditions of employment of Ladd's employees, but that he knew from
his experience throughout the city that any employees working for
an employer not having an agreement with Local 3 worked for sub-
standard wages and conditions. According to Lombardi, one of his
jobs as business representative is to get owners and contractors to
give electrical work to Local 3 because other unions were breaking
down Local 3 conditions; that only Local 3 has jurisdiction over all
the electrical work in New York; that the other unions are trespass-
ing on Local 3's jurisdiction and tearing down its conditions; and,
that if all else fails when he tries to get Local 3 labor used by a con-
tractor, he then pickets the store, informing the public that the elec-
tricians on the job are receiving substandard wages and inferior work-
ing conditions.
LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 413
Lombardi further testified that on June 8 `Moskovitz asked him
whether he would take the pickets off if he, Moskovitz, asked the
electricians to leave. Lombardi then asked Moskovitz to take Ladd
off the job and Moskovitz , agreed. Lombardi and Moskovitz - then
went to Aisenberg, Moskovitz told Aisenberg that he (Moskovitz)
was going to ask Ladd to leave the job. Lombardi stated that' Aisen-
berg then said that he had to get the job done and asked him' if he
knew of any electrical contractors who have an agreement with Local
3 and who could perform the work. According to Lombardi, he then
gave Aisenberg a list of contractors and told Aisenberg that he could
give the job to anybody he wanted. On June 8, 1965, the day Ladd
was removed from the job, the picketing ceased and employees en-
gaged in other trades returned to work. Later that month Ladd
returned and completed the job.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Lombardi, the picket
signs bore the legend :
Electricians working for Ladd Electric in
supermarket receive substandard wages and
inferior working conditions and are not
members of Local 3 of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO.
4. Contentions of the parties
Local 3 contends that there is no jurisdictional dispute cognizable
under Section 10(k) of the Act; that it never demanded jurisdiction
over the work in question; and that it engaged in picketing solely for
the purpose of advising the public that the electricians employed by
Ladd were not being paid the prevailing area wage rate for such work.
The Employer and Local 199 contend that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act,
and that the record establishes reasonable cause to believe that Local 3
has engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act.
They request that the Board award the disputed work to the employ-
ees of Ladd.
5. Applicability of the statute
In a Section 10(k) proceeding it is necessary to determine whether
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)
(4) (D) of the Act has occurred. In this instance, the dual question
is presented as to whether Local 3 was in fact claiming the work in
dispute and, if so, whether it engaged in illegal conduct within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) in furtherance of this
subject.
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 3 argues that its sole concern was that the contractor per-
forming the electrical work on the project pay its employees the
prevailing area wage rates and fringe benefits. However, signifi-
cantly enough, Lombardi did not discuss the wage rates and fringe
benefits of Ladd employees or, so far as the record indicates, suggest
to Ladd that any differences that might exist could be resolved by
Ladd's agreeing to pay its employees the Local 3 scale. Rather, ac-
cording to Aisenberg's testimony, Local 3 made it clear that the job
would be picketed unless Aisenberg removed Ladd fromthe job and
engaged a Local 3 contractor, apparently excluding as an alternative
solution that Ladd agree to pay its employees the area wage rate.
In sum, we find on the basis of the record before us that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Local 3 was claiming the work in
dispute and that a jurisdictional dispute existed. Likewise, on the
basis of the testimony detailed in section 3, supra, that Local 3 warned
that there would be trouble and did picket the jobsite in order to
compel Ladd to assign the electrical work on the project to employees
represented by Local 3, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Local 3 engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)
(4) (D) and therefore find that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
No record evidence relating, to the various criteria on which the
Board could make an affirmative award of the work in dispute was
adduced by either party. The record indicates, however, that Ladd's
employees were satisfactorily performing the work until the instant
dispute arose, and Ladd wished these employees to performthis work
that it assigned to them. We shall, not disturb this assignment of
work. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed
work to the employees of the Employer who are represented by Local
199, but not to that Union or its members. In consequence, we shall
also determine that Local 3 was not and is not entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require
Ladd to assign the disputed work to its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and on the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following :
1. Employees currently represented by Industrial Workers of Al-
lied Trades, Local 199, affiliated with National Federation of Inde-
AMERICAN COACH COMPANY 415
pendent Unions, are entitled to perform the electrical work relating
to the alteration of a portion of a building located at 337-341 Second
Avenue, New York, New York, which is to be used as a supermarket.
2. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of
the Act, to force or require Ladd Electric Corp., to assign the afore-
mentioned work to a contractor employing its members.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 2,
in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring
Ladd Electric Corp., by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D),
to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 3
rather than those represented by Local 199.
American Coach Company and District 50, United Mine Workers
of America, affiliate of United Mine Workers of America. Case
No. 17-CA-p749. April 26,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 25, 1966, Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent 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, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. The
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
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 proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications: Add the following paragraph 2(b),
158 NLRB No. 47.