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.

KINNEY EX REL. NLRB v. CHICAGO

June 17, 1993

ELIZABETH KINNEY, Regional Director of Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board, For And On Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner,
v.
CHICAGO AND NORTHEAST ILLINOIS DISTRICT COUNCIL UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 13, AFL-CIO, Respondents.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM T. HART

 I. INTRODUCTION

 The Regional Director of Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board ("the board") has petitioned for injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(1) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec 160(1). *fn1" Respondents are the Chicago and Northeast Illinois District Council United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 13, AFL-CIO (collectively "the union"). In her petition, the regional director requests that the union be enjoined from picketing McHugh Bowles Development, Ltd. ("the charging party" and "McHugh Bowles"). A hearing was held on June 10, 1993 and oral argument was presented June 11, 1993. The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

 II. FINDINGS OF FACT

 1. McHugh Bowles, the charging party, is the general contractor constructing town homes located at 911-933 Racine Avenue (the "Riverwest Project") in the City of Chicago. Work at this construction site began during March 1992. During the past calendar year, a representative period, the charging party received gross revenues in excess of $ 500,000 from the management of apartment buildings and has purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $ 50,000 from suppliers located in Illinois who purchased and directly received those materials from sources located outside Illinois.

 2. Some time prior to April 28, 1993, Michael Sexton, a business agent of Local 13, visited the site of the Riverwest Project and talked with Bob Pozdol, an employee of McHugh Bowles. After learning that Pozdol worked for McHugh Bowles, Sexton left his business card at the McHugh Bowles office. On or about April 28, 1993, Paul McHugh, a principal owner and vice president of McHugh Bowles, arranged to meet with Thomas Hohman, manager of the organizing department of the District Council, and Michael Sexton. At that meeting, the Riverwest Project was discussed. Hohman asked who was going to be doing the carpentry work. Hohman told McHugh that the union was interested in representing any carpenters on the job site. McHugh indicated that McHugh Bowles did not have any carpenters on the job and that Charles Schenk, who had been seen on the job, "just worked for McHugh." McHugh indicated that he did not know who would be doing the carpentry work and asked for a list of union carpenters. At no time during the meeting did either union representative threaten any type of economic pressure or provide any names of union carpenters.

 3. On May 4, 1993, McHugh, along with his business partner Jeff Bowles, president of McHugh Bowles, again met with Hohman and Sexton. At this meeting, the union representatives were informed that D.T. Builders, Inc. ("D.T."), a Crown Point, Indiana company, had the carpentry subcontract for the Riverwest Project and that D.T. was not a union firm. Hohman indicated that the union wanted a contract with D.T. or any other carpenters. He did not request that McHugh Bowles terminate its relationship with D.T. Bowles related stories of prior dealings with the carpenters' unions involving threats of violence and property damage. Hohman insisted that the union was interested in business only and asked that McHugh Bowles sign an 8(f) agreement. *fn3" McHugh Bowles declined. The union did not threaten to picket. McHugh asked for alternatives between getting rid of D.T. and keeping D.T. subject to a strike. The union indicated that if D.T. was the carpenter for the site, that D.T. should enter an 8(f) agreement with the union. Thereafter, D.T. indicated it would not sign an 8(f) agreement with the union.

 4. On May 5, 1993, McHugh Bowles wrote to the union advising that a reserved gate would be established at the Riverwest Project for D.T. The letter states as follows:

 
Re: Riverwest Citihomes Phases I, II, and III located at 911-933 North Racine and 856-900 N. Elston, Chicago, Illinois
 
Dear Mr. Sexton:
 
I am the president of McHugh Bowles Development, Ltd. which is the construction manager (and the General Partner of Riverwest Citihomes Limited Partnership which is the developer) for the above-identified construction site. In response to the possibility of Local 13 pickets ostensibly directed to D.T. Builders, the carpentry contractor (for labor only) on the site, be advised that a "reserved gate" system has been established at the site.
 
Effective May 6, 1993, the ingress and egress of employees, agents and suppliers of D.T. Builders is restricted to the gate located on the east side of the site (facing Elston Avenue).
 
The ingress and egress of all other subcontractors, their employees, agents and suppliers is restricted to the gate located on the westside of the site (facing Racine Avenue).
 
In accordance with the principles announced in Sailors Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Co.), 92 NLRB 547 (1950) and its progeny, we insist that the Local 13 honor the above-referenced reserved gate and confine its picketing to the gate reserved for D.T. Builders. Further, the Local 13 picketing is permitted only when D.T. Builders is present on the site. We will be providing you with schedules of when D.T. Builders will be present at the site.
 
Very Truly Yours,
 
/s/
 
Jeff ...

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.