N.L.R.B. v. Carpenters Union Local No. 1622, United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, AFL-CI
Decision Date | 09 April 1986 |
Docket Number | Nos. 83-7638,AFL-CI,83-7639,R,s. 83-7638 |
Citation | 786 F.2d 903 |
Parties | 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,906 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CARPENTERS UNION LOCAL NO. 1622, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,espondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Sandra S. Elligers, William Bernstein, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
David A. Rosenfeld, Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Appeal from an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Before GOODWIN, ALARCON, and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of a broad cease and desist order against Carpenters Local 1622 for secondary picketing at two different construction sites. We hold that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding of violations and grant the Board's application for enforcement.
The Union initiated pickets at construction sites against nonunion general contractors Specialty Building Company ("Specialty") and Robert Wood & Associates, Inc. ("Wood") in 1981 at their respective projects. Several subcontractors were also at work at the sites. Both general contractors ("primaries") responded to the pickets by setting up reserved gate systems, designating separate gates for their own employees and suppliers, and for those of the other employers at the site.
The Board adopted the administrative law judge's finding that the Union picketed all entrances at both sites indiscriminately. The Board held that the Union's failure to honor the separate gate systems violated Sec. 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(b)(4) (1982), which prohibits a Union from pressuring indirectly an employer with whom it has a labor dispute by picketing neutral or "secondary" employers and their employees who deal with the primary. See Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 N.L.R.B. 547, 549 (1950) ( ); Local 761, International Union of Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 667, 680-681, 81 S.Ct. 1285, 1293-1294, 6 L.Ed.2d 592 (1961) ( ).
The Board found that the Union failed to honor the separate gate system, picketing all entrances indiscriminately.
Even though Specialty employees performed some of the work, oversaw the project, and arranged and paid for certain equipment and services for the project, the construction site was not like a manufacturing plant. The Board found that Specialty's role on the project was "relatively common" in the construction industry. The Board thus correctly invoked the rule, consistently applied to Union activities at construction sites, that picketing must be restricted to designated primary gates. See, e.g., Markwell and Hartz, Inc. v. NLRB, 387 F.2d 79, 82-83 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 914, 88 S.Ct. 1808, 20 L.Ed.2d 653 (1968); Allied Concrete, Inc. v. NLRB, 607 F.2d 827, 831 (9th Cir.1979) ( ); Carpenters Local 470, United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. NLRB (Mueller-Anderson, Inc.), 564 F.2d 1360, 1362 (9th Cir.1977).
Further, while neither party disputes that Specialty's gate system was tainted prior to July 23, 1981 because Specialty employees used the neutral gate, Specialty successfully reestablished the system at that point. Accordingly, the picketing at the primary gate after July 22 constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of Sec. 8(b)(4).
The Board found that Specialty posted new signs at the jobsite entrances clearly designating the primary and the neutral gates, that a Specialty foreman policed the system to ensure that it remained intact, and that Specialty sent the Union a mailgram on July 22 advising the Union of the reestablishment and tendered a copy of the notice to a Union picket. Further, after July 23 no Specialty employees or suppliers used the neutral gate. These actions, all of which are supported by substantial evidence in the record, constitute effective rehabilitation of the gate system. See Carpenters Local 470 (Mueller-Anderson), 224 N.L.R.B. 315, 316 (1976), enforced, 564 F.2d 1360 (9th Cir.1977) ( ).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mautz & Oren, Inc. v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Union, Local No. 279
... ... Helpers of America, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 88-2903 ... the National Labor Relations Board (the "NLRB" or "Board"). An NLRB investigator visited the ... F.2d 175, 181 (7th Cir.1977); Local 519, United Ass'n of Journeymen Plumbers v. NLRB, 416 F.2d ... International Bhd. of Carpenters, Local 316 (Lauren J. Thornhill), 283 N.L.R.B ... of Carpenters, Local 1622 (Specialty Bldg. Co.), 262 N.L.R.B. 1244, 1246 ... ...
-
Brown v. San Diego State Univ. Found., Non-Profit Corp.
... ... 68-1.)A. Title VIICiting Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005), ... See, e.g., United States v. Smuggler-Durant Min. Corp., 823 F ... ...
-
Iron Workers Dist. Council of Pacific Northwest v. N.L.R.B.
... ... Local Union No. 29, of the International ... Nos. 89-70283, 89-70313 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Ninth Circuit ... , Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., an employer's group of general ... of contempt and imposition of sanctions in NLRB v. Ironworkers Dist. Council, 884 F.2d 1395 (9th ... 2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.1979) (quoting Carpenters Dist. Council v. NLRB, 560 F.2d 1015, 1018 (10th ... 1622, 262 N.L.R.B. 1211 (1982), enforced, 786 F.2d 903 ... ...
-
N.L.R.B. v. Ironworkers Local 433, Affiliated with Intern. Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, AFL-CI
... ... No. 89-70522 ... United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit ... boycotting activities based on the Union's picketing at a multiemployer jobsite. We ... NLRB v. Ironworkers Local 433, 850 F.2d 551 (9th ... NLRB v. Carpenters Union Local No. 1622, 786 F.2d 903, 905-06 (9th ... ...