Local Union No. 103, Intern. Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtBefore DANAHER, Senior Circuit Judge, LEVENTHAL; DANAHER
Citation175 U.S.App.D.C. 259,535 F.2d 87
Parties91 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2986, 175 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 78 Lab.Cas. P 11,416 LOCAL UNION NO. 103, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS,etitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 75-1060,P,AFL-CI
Decision Date25 June 1976

Page 87

535 F.2d 87
91 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2986, 175 U.S.App.D.C. 259,
78 Lab.Cas. P 11,416
LOCAL UNION NO. 103, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 75-1060.
United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 21, 1975.
Decided March 31, 1976.
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1976.

Sydney L. Berger, Evansville, Ind., with whom Charles L. Berger, Evansville, Ind., was on the brief, for petitioner.

Aileen A. Armstrong, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., with whom John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and Robert A. Giannasi, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B.,

Page 88

Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.

Before DANAHER, Senior Circuit Judge, LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge, and VAN PELT, * United States Senior District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge DANAHER.

DANAHER, Senior Circuit Judge:

Local Union No. 103 filed its petition stating the issue thus:

Whether an employer can abrogate unilaterally and breach a validly executed collective bargaining pre-hire agreement merely because the agreement was a pre-hire agreement in the construction industry validly entered into pursuant to Section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act. 1

The Board by way of counterstatement suggests that we consider:

Whether the Board properly found that the Union violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act by conducting recognitional picketing at the Company's jobsites for more than 30 days without filing a representational petition.

It is clear enough that the Board was and is unhappy with this court's opinion in Local No. 150 v. National Labor Relations Board, footnote 1, supra, although the Board had never appealed, nor did it seek rehearing en banc, it now asks us to reconsider and overrule our Local 150 decision.

BACKGROUND

The Board in its Decision and Order noted that the material facts are essentially undisputed, with Higdon Construction Company, an employer engaged primarily in the building and construction industry within Section 8(f) of the Act, and Local 103, by the same token, a labor organization of building and construction employees. Higdon Construction Company (herein Higdon Construction) and the Local had had a collective-bargaining relationship since 1968. Their initial contract, which expired in December 1972, had been negotiated under Section 8(f).

In July 1973 Higdon Construction was engaged in the performance of a construction contract at Glenmore Distillery. Local 103 refused to furnish employees unless Higdon Construction were to execute a contract. After the job had twice been shut down, Higdon Construction on July 31, 1973, signed an acceptance of agreement covering Local 103 Ironworkers. Higdon Construction agreed to abide by an existing agreement, which by its terms expires on March 31, 1976, between Tri-State Iron Workers Employers Association, Inc. and Local 103. 2

Page 89

The Union did not then or thereafter represent or claim to represent a majority of Higdon Construction's employees. Some employees were supplied by the Union at the Glenmore site, and wages and contributions to the welfare fund were paid for them in accordance with the contract.

Gerald J. Higdon 3 in July 1973 caused to be created the Higdon Contracting Company (hereinafter, Higdon Contracting) which had bid successfully on nonunion iron work of W. R. Grace Co. at Owensboro, Kentucky, and of Barmet Industries, Inc. at Rockport, Indiana. Higdon Contracting was the charging party in the proceedings under consideration.

In January 1974 after construction was commenced at the W. R. Grace jobsite, the Union began, and from time to time thereafter until March 1974 continued, to picket with picket signs carrying the legend:

Higdon Construction Company is in violation of the agreement of the Iron Workers Local No. 103.

Although Higdon could have filed a petition seeking an election, it did not do so, and neither did Local 103. Instead, it seemed clear enough to the Administrative Law Judge, that Higdon had sought to proceed at the Grace jobsite with nonunion labor and in disregard of the pre-hire agreement with the Local. The Board noted that when the Local's business representative sought to sign up the Company, Gerald J. Higdon took the position that so to act "would defeat the purpose I had started out to do . . . ." The Board in its Decision and Order specifically recognized that Higdon Contracting had been formed in July 1973 to perform nonunion ironwork jobs.

So it was that the Local commenced its picketing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 87-3121
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 12, 1988
    ...same issue surfaced in the same circuit in Local Union 103 International Association of Bridge Structural Ornamental Iron Workers v. NLRB 535 F.2d 87 (D.C. Circuit 1976). As could be anticipated, the Local 103 court followed the precedent announced in Local 150 and once again rejected the R......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No 103, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1978
    ...Building & Construction Trades Council of Santa Barbara County (Sullivan Electric Co.), 146 N.L.R.B. 1086, distinguished. Pp. 346-352. 175 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 535 F.2d 87, reversed. Norton J. Come, Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Sydney L. Berger, Evansville, Ind., for respondents. Page 33......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Tio Pepe, Inc., No. 79-1442
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • September 4, 1980
    ...in the Board's opinion nor asserted as a controlling factor" in its decision. Local Union No. 103, etc. v. N. L. R. B., (D.C. Cir. 1976) 535 F.2d 87, 88, n. 2, reversed on other grounds, 434 U.S. 335, 98 S.Ct. 651, 54 L.Ed.2d 586 (1978). Since the timeliness was not "a controlling factor" i......
  • CONTRACTORS, LABORERS, ETC. v. ASSOCIATED WRECKING, Civ. No. 77-0-248.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • February 15, 1980
    ...No. 150 v. N.L. R.B., supra note 1, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 294 at 298, 299, 480 F.2d 1186 at 1190, 1191. Iron Workers, Local 103 v. NLRB, 175 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 262, 535 F.2d 87, 90 The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 87-3121
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 12, 1988
    ...same issue surfaced in the same circuit in Local Union 103 International Association of Bridge Structural Ornamental Iron Workers v. NLRB 535 F.2d 87 (D.C. Circuit 1976). As could be anticipated, the Local 103 court followed the precedent announced in Local 150 and once again rejected the R......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No 103, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1978
    ...Building & Construction Trades Council of Santa Barbara County (Sullivan Electric Co.), 146 N.L.R.B. 1086, distinguished. Pp. 346-352. 175 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 535 F.2d 87, reversed. Norton J. Come, Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Sydney L. Berger, Evansville, Ind., for respondents. Page 33......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Tio Pepe, Inc., No. 79-1442
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • September 4, 1980
    ...in the Board's opinion nor asserted as a controlling factor" in its decision. Local Union No. 103, etc. v. N. L. R. B., (D.C. Cir. 1976) 535 F.2d 87, 88, n. 2, reversed on other grounds, 434 U.S. 335, 98 S.Ct. 651, 54 L.Ed.2d 586 (1978). Since the timeliness was not "a controlling factor" i......
  • CONTRACTORS, LABORERS, ETC. v. ASSOCIATED WRECKING, Civ. No. 77-0-248.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • February 15, 1980
    ...No. 150 v. N.L. R.B., supra note 1, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 294 at 298, 299, 480 F.2d 1186 at 1190, 1191. Iron Workers, Local 103 v. NLRB, 175 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 262, 535 F.2d 87, 90 The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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