317 F.2d 638 (8th Cir. 1963), 17154, N. L. R. B. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 571

Docket Nº:17154.
Citation:317 F.2d 638
Case Date:May 20, 1963
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 638

317 F.2d 638 (8th Cir. 1963)




No. 17154.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 20, 1963

Page 639

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Page 640

Glen M. Bendixsen, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington D.C., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., and Warren M. Davison, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief, for petitioner.

David D. Weinberg, Omaha, Neb., for respondent.

Before VOGEL, VAN OOSTERHOUT and RIDGE, Circuit Judges.

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board here petitions this Court for enforcement of its September 20, 1961, order against respondent Local 571. The petition is made and jurisdiction established under § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e). The Board's decision and order are reported in 133 N.L.R.B. 208.

Local 571 was charged with violation of NLRB § 8(b)(4), as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (b)(4), 1 by the threatening, coercing, and restraining secondary employers (Paulson Construction Company and Rocco-Ferrera Company, Inc.) with the objects of (1) forcing or requiring such secondary employers to cease doing business with Layne-Western Company (the primary employer and the charging party herein) and (2) forcing or requiring Layne-Western to recognize or bargain with Local 571 even though Local 571 had never been certified as the representative of Layne-Western's employees.

The Board's order prohibiting further violations is entitled to enforcement unless, considering the record as a whole, the underlying findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence or unless the conclusions of law or the terms of the order itself are not justified by the purposes and policies of the Act. NLRA § 10(e); Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U.S. 318, 342-343, 60 S.Ct. 918, 84 L.Ed. 122; National Labor Relations Board v. Buitoni Foods Corp., 3 Cir., 298 F.2d 169, 171, 175-76; Puerto Rico S.S. Ass'n v. N.L.R.B., 108 U.S.App.D.C. 252, 281 F.2d 615, 618; National Labor Relations Board v. International Union of United Brewery, etc., Workers, 10 Cir., 272 F.2d 817, 820; National Labor Relations Board v. Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, 9 Cir., 243 F.2d 777, 779 n. 2;

Page 641

National Labor Relations Board v. National Garment Co., 8 Cir.,166 F.2d 233, 238-39.

As we have stated in Bachman Machine Co. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 266 F.2d 599, 605:

'Where the views of the Board as applied are in conformity with the dual congressional objectives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own, the views of the Board should, no doubt, be accepted.'

Layne-Western, a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is in Kansas City, Missouri, deals in well pump equipment and allied products, and it also does drilling and boring for various purposes. It maintains an office in Omaha, Nebraska, which is where Local 571 is located and where the present dispute arose. Layne-Western has employed members of Local 571, but that organization has never been certified to represent Layne-Western's employees, nor has it ever secured a written collective agreement from Layne-Western.

In October of 1960 Layne-Western was engaged as a subcontractor to perform drilling jobs on projects of Rocco-Ferrera and Paulson. 2 Rocco-Ferrera's project was the construction of a sewer for the City of Omaha, and Paulson's was the construction of a store-warehouse in Omaha. When Layne-Western undertook to perform the jobs, agents of the respondent Local 571 appeared and made certain statements to agents of Layne-Western, Paulson, and Rocco-Ferrera concerning Layne-Western and its employees. The Board's order is based upon those statements and the surrounding circumstances.


On October 21, Local 571 agents came into Paulson's store-warehouse jobsite and attempted or threatened to shut down Layne-Western's operations. A number of Layne-Western's employees testified that the reason given for wanting the drilling shut down was that Layne-Western was paying below union scale wages, and employing nonunion men. Dyas, Layne-Western's field superintendent, testified:

'He (respondent's business manager Goebel) said he was going to fine * * * (two of the employees) $500 a piece and pick up...

To continue reading