NLRB v. INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF ELECTRICAL WKRS., LOC.

• Decision Date: 18 July 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71-2837.,71-2837.
• Citation: 464 F.2d 545
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 640, and its agent, Glynn Ross, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

464 F.2d 545 (1972)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 640, and its agent, Glynn Ross, Respondents.

No. 71-2837.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 18, 1972.

William H. DuRoss, III, Atty. (argued), Robert A. Giannasi, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R. B., Washington, D. C.; C. Woodrow Greene, Director, Region 28, N.L.R.B., Albuquerque, N. M., for petitioner.

A. D. Ward (argued), of Ward & Contreras, Charles E. Jones, of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondents.

Before CHAMBERS and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, District Judge.^*

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:

The National Labor Relations Board asks the court to enforce its order directing IBEW Local 640 to cease and desist from certain secondary boycott activities and to post the customary notices. The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's findings that the union violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening Phoenix electrical contractors with refusal to handle or install materials purchased from Brown Wholesale Electrical Company and by actually refusing to handle Brown materials, for the purpose of forcing the contractors to cease doing business with Brown. We hold that substantial evidence supports the Board's findings and we enforce the order.

Brown is a major wholesale supplier of fixtures, wiring and equipment for electrical contractors in the Phoenix area. Its employees are not represented by a labor organization. The contractors involved here belong to the Phoenix division of the National Electrical Contractors Association, which has a collective bargaining agreement with the union. Nearly all employees of the contractors are union members.

The union began to picket Brown's place of business on November 20, 1969, as part of a campaign to obtain recognition from Brown. In addition to this primary activity, union members at construction sites began refusing to unload, handle, or install Brown materials. These refusals continued after the Board obtained a district court order enjoining further picketing of Brown's premises.

The Trial Examiner found that the NECA contractors had agreed among themselves to refrain from placing new orders with Brown, for so long as the union's campaign against Brown had the color of legality. After the March 11, 1970 court order, the contractors inquired of the union whether further difficulties would be encountered if they ordered Brown materials. The Trial Examiner found that the union responded with subtle and indirect threats of continued secondary boycott activity against supplies ordered from Brown, as well as with several incidents of actual refusal to handle Brown materials.

Without detailing the evidentiary support for these conclusions, suffice it to say that we find it to be substantial. The union mounts two attacks against the findings. One rests upon its disagreement with the credibility findings by the Trial Examiner.

We have said, "this Court is required to respect the duty of the trier-of-fact to decide who to believe to reconcile conflicting...