Utah Plumbing and Heating Contractors Ass'n v. NLRB, 6617.
| Decision Date | 24 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 6617.,6617. |
| Citation | 294 F.2d 165 |
| Parties | UTAH PLUMBING AND HEATING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION and its members, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Louis H. Callister, Salt Lake City, Utah (Callister & Fullmer, Salt Lake City, Utah, were with him on the brief), for petitioner.
Rosanna A. Blake, Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Dominick L. Manoli, Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D. C., were with her on the brief), for respondent.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
Utah Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association, with its principal office located in Salt Lake City, Utah, is a multi-employer bargaining association comprised of various members engaged in the plumbing and pipe fitting industry; and it represents its members in collective bargaining with labor organizations. Four local unions at Salt Lake City of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Pipe Fitting Industry are labor organizations.
The unions filed with the National Labor Relations Board a charge of unfair labor practice on the part of the association and its interested members. The Board issued its complaint; the association and its members responded; and a trial examiner made findings of fact. This was the substance of the findings. A two-year contract between the unions and their employers who were members of the association was to expire March 31, 1959. In January, the unions advised their employers of their desire to open negotiations for a new contract. Pursuant to such advice, several meetings of the parties were held during which proposals and counter-proposals were made for the terms of a new contract. The respective business representatives composed the negotiating team for the unions; and the association acted for its members. A wage increase was the principal if not the sole issue. The association rejected the initial proposal of the unions and submitted a counter-proposal which was rejected by the membership of the unions. By such vote of rejection, the unions were authorized upon appropriate notice to their membership to call a strike provided a better offer was not received; and that was customary procedure within the unions. On March 30, a meeting of the association and its interested employer members was held, at which the association was given authority to make a final offer not to exceed a stipulated amount, and to institute a lockout of employees if such offer was rejected. On the following day — the date of expiration of the two-year contract — spokesmen for the association and its interested members and the representatives of the unions held a conference at which the association submitted the new proposal and insisted that the negotiators for the unions give some assurance of its acceptance or at least assure the association that they would try to "sell it to their people." A spokesman for the association advised the representatives of the unions that unless they could assure the association that they would try to sell the offer to their people, the employers would have to cease work the next morning. Representatives of the association said in words of their own choice that the interested employers had as much right to lock out the employees as the employees had to strike. And they threatened a lockout unless the negotiators for the unions would give assurance that they would urge the membership of their respective locals to accept the wage proposal of the employers. The requested assurance was not given. But the unions proposed to continue working under the old contract until the new proposal could be submitted to a vote of the membership of the unions; and the association was informed that such vote could and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Dalton Brick & Tile Corporation
...v. N. L. R. B., 3 Cir., 1959, 270 F.2d 40, cert. den., 361 U.S. 917, 80 S.Ct. 261, 4 L.Ed. 2d 185; Utah Plumbing and Heating Contractors Ass'n v. N. L. R. B., 10 Cir., 1961, 294 F.2d 165. 14 See, e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 1939, 306 U.S. 240, 59 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed. ......
-
American Ship Building Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 255
...Oil Refining Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 270 F.2d 40 (C.A.3d Cir. 1959); Utah Plumbing and Heating Contractors Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board, 294 F.2d 165 (C.A.10th Cir. 1961). 3. The dissenting members of the Board took the view that the indefinite extension would no......
-
Body & Tank Corp. v. NLRB
...Corp. v. NLRB, 270 F.2d 40 (3d Cir.), cert denied, 361 U.S. 917, 80 S.Ct. 261, 4 L.Ed.2d 185 (1959). 3 Utah Plumbing and Heating Contractors Ass'n v. NLRB, 294 F.2d 165 (10th Cir. 1961). 4 Local 374, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 839 (D. C.Cir.1964), cert. gran......
-
NLRB v. Brown
...L.Ed. 953; Olin Matheson Chem. Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 352 U.S. 1020, 77 S.Ct. 587, 1 L.Ed.2d 562. And see Utah Plumbing & Heating Contractors Assn. v. N. L. R. B., 10 Cir., 294 F.2d 165. But lack of evidence of specific unlawful intent by an employer is not fatal to the decision of the Board......