Houston Insulation Contractors Association v. National Labor Relations Board National Labor Relations Board v. Houston Insulation Contractors Association

• Decision Date: 17 April 1967
• Docket Number: Nos. 206 and 413,s. 206 and 413
• Citation: 18 L.Ed.2d 389,386 U.S. 664,87 S.Ct. 1278
• Parties: HOUSTON INSULATION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HOUSTON INSULATION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

386 U.S. 664

87 S.Ct. 1278

18 L.Ed.2d 389

HOUSTON INSULATION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,

v NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v. HOUSTON INSULATION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION.

Nos. 206 and 413.

Argued Jan. 19, 1967.

Decided April 17, 1967.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1967.

See 387 U.S. 938, 87 S.Ct. 2047 W. D. Deakins, Jr., Houston, Tex., for Houston Insulation Contractors assn.

Norton J. Come, Washington, D.C., for N.L.R.B.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are companion cases to Nos. 110 and 111, National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, and NLRB v. National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn., 386 U.S. 612, 87 S.Ct. 1250, 18 L.Ed.2d 357. A provision of the collective bargaining agreement between the Houston Insulation Contractors Association and Local 22, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, provides, in pertinent part, that the employer will not contract out work relating to 'the preparation, distribution and application of pipe and boiler coverings.' In No. 206 the Contractors Association seeks review of the dismissal by the National Labor Relations Board, 148 N.L.R.B. 866, affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 357 F.2d 182, 189, of § 8(b)(4)(B) charges brought against Local 22 because of its activities designed to enforce the agreement. National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 543. In No. 413, the Board challenges the holding of the Court of Appeals, reversing the Board, that similar conduct by a sister Local 113, designed to protect the work guaranteed to Local 22 by the agreement, violated § 8(b)(4)(B). We granted both petitions and set them for argument with Nos. 110 and 111. We affirm in No. 206 and reverse in No. 413.

No. 206: Johns-Manville Company, a member of the Contractors Association, engaged in a construction project in Texas City, Texas, purchased from Techalloy Corporation, a manufacturer of insulation materials, stainless steel bands used to fasten asbestos material around pipes to be insulated. The bands had been precut to specification by Techalloy's employees. Customarily, Johns-Manville had ordered rolls of wire which were then cut to size by members of Local 22. The cutting work was reserved for Johns-Manville employee members of Local 22 by the quoted provision of the collective bargaining agreement between the Association and the Local. Agents of Local 22 instructed its members on the jobsite not to install the precut bands. After the hearing on the complaint issued on the Contractors' Association's charge that this conduct violated § 8(b)(4)(B), the Board held that '(t)he conduct complained of herein was taken to protest * * * a deprivation of work, its object being to protect or preserve for employees certain work customarily performed by them. This conduct constituted primary activity and is protected by the Act * * *.'148 N.L.R.B., at 869. The Court of Appeals found that there was substantial evidence to support this finding and sustained it.¹ The Association here attacks the substantiality of the evidence supporting the Board's finding, but we agree with the Court of Appeals. See Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456. In that circumstance our holding today in National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, supra, requires an affirmance in No. 206.

No. 413: Armstrong Company, a member of the Contractors Association, was engaged in a construction project in Victoria, Texas, within the jurisdiction of Local 113 of the Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers. The cutting and mitering of asbestos fittings for such jobs was customarily performed at Armstrong's Houston shop, which was within Local 22's jurisdiction. Armstrong purchased from Thorpe Company, a manufacturer of insulation materials, asbestos fittings upon which the cutting and mitering work had already been performed. Agents of Local 113 informed Armstrong that fittings would not be installed unless the cutting and mitering had been performed by its sister Local 22 as provided by Local 22's bargaining agreement.² The Board found as it had in No. 206, that the object of this refusal was primary the preservation of work customarily performed by Armstrong's own employees. 148 N.L.R.B., at 869. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that Local 113 'had no economic interest in Local 22's claim of breach of contract,' and that therefore 'it was coercing Armstrong not for its own benefit but for the benefit of another local at the expense of a neutral employer.' 357 F.2d, at 189. We disagree.

National Woodwork Mfrs., supra, holds that collective activity by employees of the primary employer, the object of which is to affect the labor policies of that primary employer, and not engaged in for its effect elsewhere, is protected primary activity. 'Congress was not concerned to protect primary employers against pressures by disinterested unions, but rather to protect disinterested employers against direct pressures by any union.'³ The...