Shore v. UNITED BRO. OF CARPENTERS & J., CDC OF W. PA.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 69-1233. |
| Citation | 305 F. Supp. 274 |
| Parties | Henry SHORE, Regional Director for Region Six of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, AFL-CIO, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
F. J. Surprenant, Atty., N. L. R. B., Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.
J. M. Maurizi, of Suto, Power, Balzarini & Walsh, Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER OF COURT
This cause came on to be heard upon the verified petition of Henry Shore, Regional Director for Region Six of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter called the Board), for a temporary injunction pursuant to Sec. 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act (hereinafter called the Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160(l), pending the final disposition of the matters involved herein pending before the Board, and upon the issuance of an order to show cause why injunctive relief should not be granted as prayed in said petition. Respondent filed an answer to said petition. A hearing on the issues raised by the petition and answer was duly held on November 4 and 5, 1969. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence bearing on the issues, and to argue on the evidence and the law. The court has fully considered the petition, answer, evidence, and arguments of counsel. Upon the entire record, the court makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
2. On or about October 16 and 24, 1969, Laborers' International Union of North America, The Laborers' District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called the Laborers) pursuant to provisions of the Act, filed with the Board a charge and an amended charge, respectively, alleging that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called respondent), a labor organization, has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec. 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii), subparagraph (B), of the Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(b) (4) (i) and (ii).
3. The aforesaid charges were referred to petitioner as Regional Director for Region Six of the Board.
4. There is, and petitioner has, reasonable cause to believe that:
(a) Respondent is an unincorporated association and is an organization in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work.
(b) Respondent maintains its principal office at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and, at all times material herein, has been engaged within this judicial district in transacting business and in promoting and protecting the interests of its employee members.
(c) At all times material herein, Eugene Solomon, business agent of respondent, and Robert Haberer, steward of respondent, have been, and are, agents of respondent.
(d) L-D Building Company (hereinafter called L-D), a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office located in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, is engaged as a general contractor in the building and construction industry.
(e) L-D is currently engaged, pursuant to a contract with the General State Authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the construction of the Administration Building at California State College, California, Pennsylvania (hereinafter called the Project). This contract is for approximately $500,000. During the past twelve months, L-D has received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for use at the Project.
(f) Latrobe Lumber and Supply Company (hereinafter called Latrobe) attempted to supply prefabricated pan-type concrete forms which are made of wood and shaped like beehives to L-D for use at the Project on October 16, 1969. Latrobe employees are members of and represented by the Laborers, and are not members of and represented by the respondent.
(g) Respondent on October 16, 1969, physically prevented employees of L-D from unloading the said forms from Latrobe's trucks at the Project and told L-D representatives that it would not permit its members employed by L-D to install said forms at the Project.
(h) Although no actual labor dispute between Latrobe and respondent existed on or about October 16, 1969, or thereafter, the conduct described in subparagraph (g) above was tactically calculated to satisfy objectives of respondent in connection with Latrobe's business operation.
(i) Although the collective bargaining agreement entered into by L-D and respondent provides that "the Employer agrees that he will not purchase, nor shall any employee working under this Contract be required to handle, process or install any prefabricated or prefinished material or products which traditionally has been work performed by the Carpenters on the job site * * *" (Article XIX, Sec. 4), responden...
To continue reading
Request your trial