Orange Belt District Council of Painters No. 48 v. NLRB
Decision Date | 30 January 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 17388.,17388. |
Citation | 117 US App. DC 233,328 F.2d 534 |
Parties | ORANGE BELT DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PAINTERS NO. 48, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Herbert M. Ansell, Washington, D. C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, for petitioners. Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for petitioners. Mr. David Barr, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioners.
Mr. Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, at the time the brief was filed, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Melvin J. Welles, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and BURGER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
The central issue before us for decision is whether the unions here violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Labor Act1 by making threats2 against a general contractor in the construction industry to enforce his union agreement concerning subcontracting. The Board found that the action threatened here was secondary and within the proscription of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). On this record, we are unable to accept the basis given by the Board for its conclusion, and so remand.
The agreement between the unions and the general contractor here apparently contained two subcontractor clauses, neither of which is in the record:3 Paragraph Four presumably limited subcontracting to firms which had signed union contracts, Paragraph Five made the general contractor financially responsible for certain fringe benefits if his subcontractor did not pay them "as provided under the appropriate union agreement."4 In October, 1961, the union sent the general contractor a letter stating he had violated both Paragraphs Four and Five by subcontracting to a firm which had neither signed a union contract nor paid the required fringe benefits.5 To redress the violation of Paragraph Four's union-signatory clause, the letter threatened a lawsuit. For violation of Paragraph Five's fringe-benefits provision, the letter threatened economic coercion in the form of picketing.
After hearing on an unfair labor practices complaint, the Trial Examiner found that Paragraph Four had been legally enforced solely through the threat of lawsuit, and that Paragraph Five was "a legally unencumbered lawful provision," so that both that clause itself and picketing to enforce it were primary activity, outside the prohibitions of Section 8(e), even without the proviso, and outside Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). No mention of a relation between Paragraphs Four and Five was made.
The Board, in overruling its Trial Examiner, held that Paragraph Five was a penalty clause for Paragraph Four, and that the use of threats of picketing to enforce Paragraph Five was intended indirectly to enforce Paragraph Four. It held that this indirect economic enforcement of Paragraph Four had as its object the cessation of business between the general contractor and his non-union subcontractor, thus violating Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (B). The Board chose to rely on this reasoning rather than adopt the General Counsel's contention that economic enforcement of Paragraph Five standing alone was sufficient to violate Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). Thus the Board apparently disagreed with both its Trial Examiner and its General Counsel.
Secondary subcontracting clauses in the construction industry are lawful, under the proviso to Section 8(e),6 and economic force may be used to obtain them notwithstanding Section 8 (b) (4) (A),7 because Section 8(b) (4) (A) incorporates that proviso by reference.8 But under Section 8(b) (4) (B) such secondary clauses may be enforced only through lawsuits, and not through economic action.9 Primary subcontracting clauses, on the other hand, fall outside the ambit of Section 8(e),10 as the Board concedes. Moreover, economic enforcement thereof is not proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (B) since it is not directed at involving neutral employers in a labor dispute "not their own."11
Similarly, in discussing union-standards subcontracting clauses in District No. 9, International Ass'n of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., supra Note 6, we indicated that "to limit the work to employers maintaining labor standards commensurate with those required by the Union" was within "the area of a legitimate union claim."20 It is not clear that the Board endorses these principles,21 but we have been shown no reason to gainsay them.
With this background, we may turn to the clauses here involved. Unfortunately, for reasons not disclosed, the text of these clauses is not in the record. Consequently, neither the Board nor this court is in a position to determine precisely what they mean. The union freely admits that Paragraph Four is a union-signatory clause, lawful only because of the proviso to Section 8(e) and unenforceable by economic means. But it points out that its threat of economic action was carefully limited to violations of Paragraph Five, which it claims is a union-standards clause limited to fringe benefits and as such is primary to the general contractor and enforceable against him through economic means.
The union's interpretation of Paragraph Five seems to have been accepted by the Trial Examiner. The General Counsel's contention before the Board was that Paragraph Five, standing alone, is secondary and therefore unenforceable through economic means because it in effect requires at least partial recognition of petitioner unions by any subcontractors with whom the general contractor might deal. The Board, overruling its Trial Examiner and explicitly refusing to rely on the grounds advanced by its General Counsel, held that the Paragraph Five fringe-benefits guarantee was a penalty for doing business with a non-union subcontractor in violation of Paragraph Four. The Board's only discussion of this point follows:
Because the text of the clauses is not before us, we are unable to appraise the relative merits of the various positions taken by the union, the Trial Examiner, the General Counsel, and the Board. Under the circumstances, we shall vacate the Board's order and remand this matter so that the record may be supplemented with the text and details of Paragraphs graphs Four and Five, plus additional evidence concerning "the employees covered by the contract" and the specific facts surrounding any contemplated payments under Paragraph Five, including who will receive them and to whose benefit they are to inure. Based upon the principles here announced, the Board may then determine whether the threatened economic enforcement of Paragraph Five is primary or secondary activity. Jurisdiction will be retained to dispose of the case, when the record is returned. See Beck v. Federal Land Bank of Houston, 8 Cir., 146 F.2d 623 (1945); Twin City Milk Producers Ass'n v. McNutt, 8 Cir., 122 F.2d 564 (1941).
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Connell Construction Company, Inc v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No 100 8212 1256
...the question, Local 100's picketing to obtain the agreement would also be lawful. See, e.g., Orange Belt District Council of Painters v. NLRB, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 236, 328 F.2d 534, 537; Construction Laborers v. NLRB, 323 F.2d 422 (CA9); Northeastern Indiana Bldg. Trades Council, 148 N.L.......
-
ENTERPRISE ASS'N OF STEAM, ETC., LU NO. 638 v. NLRB
...change, or modify the present state of the law with respect to picketing at the site of a construction project.99 In Orange Belt District Council of Painters, No. 48 v. NLRB,100 this court reasserted the Sand Door principle that economic actions enforcing certain valid contractual terms wou......
-
National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. National Labor Relations Board National Labor Relations Board v. National Woodwork Manufacturers Association
...of NLRA §§ 8(b)(4) and 8(e), 113 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1000, 1018, 1040 (1965). 40 See Orange Belt District Council of Painters, No. 48, AFL CIO v. National Labor Relations Board, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 328 F.2d 534 (1964); Retail Clerks Union Local 770, etc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 111 U.......
-
Pacific Northwest Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...Union, Local 383 v. NLRB, (Colson & Stevens Construction Co.), 323 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1963); Orange Belt District Council of Painters No. 48 v. NLRB, 328 F.2d 534, 537 (D.C.Cir. 1964); Essex County and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and Millwrights v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 636 (3d Cir. 19......