Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

National Labor Relations Board v. District 12

March 17, 1971

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER
v.
DISTRICT 12, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA ET AL, RESPONDENTS.



Before HASTINGS, Senior Circuit Judge, and CUMMINGS and KERNER, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: The National Labor Relations Board is seeking enforcement of an order requiring District 12, United Mine Workers of America ("District 12"), and the United Mine Workers of America ("UMW") to cease threatening to picket J. O. Lively Construction Company and to cease picketing Kelly Railroad Contractors, Inc. to force their employees to select District 12 and UMW as their representatives. The Board's order requires respondents to refund initiation fees and dues to Lively's employees; other customary relief is also provided. 177 NLRB No. 27.

Threats to Picket Lively

The Board found that Lively, with head-quarters in Beckley, West Virginia, and International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America ("District 50"),*fn1 signed an agreement on April 2, 1968, binding Lively to the terms of an industry-wide collective bargaining contract between District 50 and Coal Mine Construction Contractors Association, Inc. from June 1, 1967, to May 31, 1970. In the summer of 1968, Truax-Traer Coal Company contracted with Lively to build a coal tipple at Norris, Illinois. Truax-Traer's employees are represented by Local 7110 of UMW. On August 8, 1968, James Smith, a field superintendent for Lively, and several of its employees, all members of District 50, arrived in Norris, Illinois, to begin construction of the tipple. On the following day, Local 7110 president Floyd A. Hobbs met with Smith and three Lively employees near the construction site and stated that the employees would have to join the UMW to work on the tipple. Smith replied that they were already members of District 50 but Hobbs insisted they become UMW members.

On August 13, Hobbs and Edward Lamm (a board member of subdistrict 2 of District 12 and formerly an international representative of UMW) met Smith and four Lively employees near the jobsite. Lamm told them not to work until they got straightened out with UMW. Either Hobbs or Lamm denied Smith permission to move Lively's office trailer to the jobsite.

Two days later, Smith told Hobbs that he needed Lively's equipment at the jobsite, and Hobbs stated, "If you move it, I will shut the job down." On August 20, Lamm, accompanied by three UMW representatives, told Smith that Joe Shannon, acting president of District 12 and an international representative of UMW, agreed by telephone that the Lively employees would have to join UMW in order to work on the tipple. The next day, Hobbs protested to Smith about his having moved the Lively office trailer to the jobsite, and Hobbs said that he was going to shut the job down.

Fifteen minutes later, Hobbs, Lamm and nine others visited the jobsite, and Lamm told Smith that he wanted to talk to the Lively employees in order to sign them with the UMW. Hobbs said if he had to return to the job, he would bring more men. Two days later when the Lively employees attended a meeting called by Hobbs and Lamm, they signed applications for UMW membership and paid their initiation fees and dues. Following the weekend, Hobbs and Lamm told Smith he could proceed with the tipple construction, and the employees thereafter continued to work without interference or hindrance.

The Board concluded that respondents' picketing threats prevented any Lively employees from working on the tipple until after they agreed to join UMW, and that these threats violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.*fn2 The Board also concluded that respondents' picketing threats succeeded in illegally coercing Lively employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7, thus constituting an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(1)(A).*fn3

As to Lively, respondents first urge that no threats to picket its tipple operation were shown because they never threatened any "public communication of ideas" within the ordinary meaning of picketing. However, Local 7110 president Hobbs told James Smith, Lively field superintendent, "If you move it, I will shut the job down." This threat was reiterated the next day when Hobbs visited the jobsite along with Lamm and nine others. At that time, Hobbs said that he would bring more men if he had to return to the jobsite. If these eleven men had carried out their threats and posted personnel at the jobsite to induce Lively employees to join the UMW, that would clearly constitute one type of picketing. National Labor Relations Board v. Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , 314 F.2d 53, 57-58 (2d Cir. 1963); Duffy, "Picketing by an Uncertified Union: The New Section 8(b)(7)," 69 Yale L.J. 1393, 1397-1398 (1960). In our view, their previous actions constituted threats to picket Lively.

Respondents also contend that the Board erred in ruling that the contract between Lively and District 50 covered work at Norris, Illinois. However, that contract bound Lively to the terms of a prior contract between the Coal Mine Construction Contractors Association, Inc. and District 50. In turn, as the Board noted, Article I of the earlier contract "specially covers construction work in all of the United States," and another article contemplated that employees would have to travel more than 50 miles from one project to another. We, therefore, reject respondents' contention that the contract with District 50 was inapplicable to the tipple work at Norris, Illinois. We also reject respondents' contention that the contract was inapplicable to Lively employees living in the Norris, Illinois, area, for it covered "all construction employees * * * working on construction jobs" (excepting only certain named positions).

Respondents next argue that there was no violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act because "Lively employees are members of both District 50 and the UMW." This overlooks the fact that the Lively employees did not join the UMW until the picketing threats were exerted. In any event, the Board was justified in concluding that there was a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), for the test thereunder is whether the misconduct may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers v. National Labor Relations Board , 328 F.2d 850, 852-853 (3d Cir. 1964) certiorari denied, 379 U.S. 826. Here the improprieties not only tended to coerce employees, but actually accomplished respondents' unlawful objectives.

Picketing of Kelly

In the summer of 1968, Kelly contracted with the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad to lay a 5-mile spur line between its main tracks and the Norris, Illinois, site of the tipple being built by Lively for Truax-Traer. Kelly's employees were then represented by three different unions, but not by respondents. On August 22, after Kelly had begun laying that segment of the spur inside Truax-Traer's premises, Lamm told Mac Denny, Kelly's superintendent at the job, that no work would go on unless Kelly signed a contract with the UMW and unless all its employees joined that union. Lamm said that he would have a thousand men there the next morning to accomplish this unless Denny complied. Later that day, Lamm threatened to have 250 men on the jobsite on August 26 if Denny refused to sign. Lamm renewed his demands on August 23.

On August 26, 100 cars lined both sides of the road leading to the jobsite, and 200 men, including Lamm and Hobbs, were standing around in the vicinity. Soon thereafter, Lamm, Hobbs and a few other men who were members of Hobbs' committee, met with Mr. Kelly, the owner of the company. Kelly said he would shut down the job to avoid having anyone hurt, and Hobbs replied, "Yes, I guess we decided that for you this morning." Hobbs refused any permission to move some Kelly equipment from this construction site to another job.

Two days later, Denny saw 100 men, including Lamm and Hobbs, standing around the jobsite, and Hobbs reiterated his refusal to let Denny move Kelly equipment from the jobsite. On September 4, however, Hobbs did permit Kelly employees to remove some equipment, but no track was laid in the Truax-Traer property since August 26. Large numbers of men continued to assemble at the Kelly jobsite until enjoined by the United ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.