Local No. 441, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | Before LEVENTHAL and ROBINSON; LEVENTHAL |
| Citation | 167 U.S.App.D.C. 53,510 F.2d 1274 |
| Parties | 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3438, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 76 Lab.Cas. P 10,762 LOCAL NO. 441, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,etitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | P,AFL-CI,No. 74--1259,74--1259 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1975 |
Page 1274
76 Lab.Cas. P 10,762
WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
District of Columbia Circuit.
Decided April 4, 1975.
George A. Pappy, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Eugene Miller was on the brief for petitioner.
William Wachter, Washington, D.C., of the bar of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, pro hac vice by special leave of court, with whom John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., were on the brief for respondent. John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N.L.R.B., also entered an appearance for respondent.
Before LEVENTHAL and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, * Judge, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge LEVENTHAL.
LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:
The issue presented in this case is whether the union violated § 8(b)(4)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(B) (1970), by picketing for the proscribed objective of forcing a neutral general contractor to cease doing business with the subcontractor with whom the union had a labor dispute.
Carter, the neutral or secondary employer, was engaged in the construction of an inn in Orange, California. Carter contracted with Rollins Communication Inc. (Rollins) to install communications equipment at the inn. Addington, an IBEW representative, had Rollins picketed at the common job site because Rollins was not paying its employees the prevailing area wages and benefits. The picketing complied with the standards of presumptive validity set forth in the Board's decision in Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Co.), 92 N.L.R.B. 547 (1950).
The crucial incident upon which the Board relied for its finding of an unfair labor practice was a conversation between Carter and Addington which took place after the picketing of Rollins had commenced. Conflicting accounts of the conversation were presented in testimony before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Carter testified that he asked Addington what he could do to get the job at the inn going. He stated that Addington replied that the pickets would be removed if Carter would give him a
Page 1276
letter assuring that Rollins' men would not go back to work until they received prevailing wages and benefits. (App. 66). Addington testified that Carter approached him and inquired whether he would take down the pickets if Carter had Rollins' workers removed from the job. Addington then asked for a letter to that effect. (App. 67). The ALJ credited Addington's account, concluding that 'Carter rather than Addington' was 'the first to mention getting Rollins' employees off the job as the quid pro quo for removal of the picket line.' (App. 67). 1The ALJ found no unfair labor practice. His...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Local 814, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffuers, Warehousemen v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 74-1036
...under which the remand for clarification may be utilized. Most recently, this device was utilized in Local 441, IBEW v. N. L. R. B., 167 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 510 F.2d 1274 (1975) the division sought clarification, inter alia, of the Board's position concerning the legal Page 568 effect of the c......
-
Anderson v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, No. 115
...cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2229, 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971); Local No. 441, Int. Bro. of Electrical Workers v. N.L.R.B., 510 F.2d 1274, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1975); Teamsters Local U. 769 v. N.L.R.B., 532 F.2d 1385, 1392 (D.C.Cir.1976); Faulkner Radio, Inc. v. F.C.C., 557 F.2d 866, 870 (D.C.Ci......
-
Dantran, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, No. 98-1830
...such a course of action. See International Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 587 F.2d 1176, 1181 (D.C.Cir.1978); Local No. 441, IBEW v. NLRB, 510 F.2d 1274, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1975). There is no hint of such an analysis in the ARB's We have said enough on this score. The short of it is that, gauged by ......
-
Michigan Citizens for an Independent Press v. Thornburgh, No. 88-5286
...must both express an awareness that it is disagreeing with an ALJ and set forth the basis of the disagreement. Local 441, IBEW v. NLRB, 510 F.2d 1274, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1975); Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 853 (D.C.Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2233, 29......
-
Dantran, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 98-1830
...such a course of action. See International Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 587 F.2d 1176, 1181 (D.C.Cir.1978); Local No. 441, IBEW v. NLRB, 510 F.2d 1274, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1975). There is no hint of such an analysis in the ARB's We have said enough on this score. The short of it is that, gauged by ......
-
Local 814, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffuers, Warehousemen v. N.L.R.B., s. 74-1036
...under which the remand for clarification may be utilized. Most recently, this device was utilized in Local 441, IBEW v. N. L. R. B., 167 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 510 F.2d 1274 (1975) the division sought clarification, inter alia, of the Board's position concerning the legal Page 568 effect of the c......
-
Anderson v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 115
...cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2229, 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971); Local No. 441, Int. Bro. of Electrical Workers v. N.L.R.B., 510 F.2d 1274, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1975); Teamsters Local U. 769 v. N.L.R.B., 532 F.2d 1385, 1392 (D.C.Cir.1976); Faulkner Radio, Inc. v. F.C.C., 557 F.2d 866, 870 (D.C.Ci......
-
Michigan Citizens for an Independent Press v. Thornburgh, 88-5286
...must both express an awareness that it is disagreeing with an ALJ and set forth the basis of the disagreement. Local 441, IBEW v. NLRB, 510 F.2d 1274, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1975); Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 853 (D.C.Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2233, 29......