Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/102745/nlrb-vs-plasters-local
Timestamp: 2018-05-26 09:52:12
Document Index: 365262308

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 160', '§ 102', '§ 8', '§ 8']

Nlrb Vs Plasters Local - Citation 102745 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
NLRB Vs. Plasters' Local - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/102745
Case Number 404 U.S. 116
Respondent Plasters' Local
nlrb v. plasters' local - 404 u.s. 116 (1971) u.s. supreme court nlrb v. plasters' local, 404 u.s. 116 (1971) national labor relations board v. plasterers' union no. 79, operative plasterers' & cement masons' international assn., afl-cio no. 70-63 argued october 13, 1971 decided december 6, 1971 * 404 u.s. 116 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit syllabus two unions, the plasterers and the tile setters, in accordance with procedures binding them to arbitrate, submitted to a board their jurisdictional dispute over work to be done for a contractor. the board awarded the work to the plasterers. when the contractor and the tile setters refused to abide by.....
NLRB v. Plasters' Local - 404 U.S. 116 (1971)
U.S. Supreme Court NLRB v. Plasters' Local, 404 U.S. 116 (1971)
Decided December 6, 1971 *
When a charge is filed under § 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the provision [ Footnote 1 ] banning so-called jurisdictional disputes, the Board must, under § 10(k), "hear and determine the dispute out of which [the] unfair labor practice shall have arisen, unless . . . the parties to such dispute" adjust or agree upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. [ Footnote 2 ]
"a coat or coats of mortar, prepared to proper tolerance to receive tile on floors, walls and ceiling regardless of whether the mortar coat is wet or dry at the time the tile is applied to it. [ Footnote 3 ]"
This case arose when Plasterers' Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association of Houston, Texas (Plasterers), picketed the job sites of Texas State and Martini claiming that the work of applying the mortar to receive tile was the work of the Plasterers' union, and not of the Tile Setters. [ Footnote 4 ] Neither Texas State nor Martini had a collective bargaining contract with the Plasterers or regularly employed workers represented by that union.
(Joint Board), a body established by the Building Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and by certain employer groups. [ Footnote 5 ] Both the Plasterers' and the Tile Setters' locals were bound by Joint Board decisions because their international unions were members of the AFL-CIO's Building Trades Department. Neither Texas State nor Martini had agreed to be bound by Joint Board procedures and decisions, however. The Joint Board found the work in dispute to be covered by an agreement of August, 1917, between the two international unions, and awarded the work to the Plasterers. [ Footnote 6 ] When Texas State and the Tile
Martini and Southwestern Construction Co., the general contractor that had hired Texas State, filed § 8(b)(4)(D) unfair labor practice charges against the Plasterers, and the NLRB's Regional Director noticed a consolidated § 10(k) hearing to determine the dispute. [ Footnote 7 ] Southwestern, Texas State, Martini, and the two unions participated in the hearing. A panel of the Board noted that the Tile Setters admitted being bound by Joint Board procedures, but deemed the Joint Board decision to lack controlling weight, [ Footnote 8 ] and "after taking into account and balancing all relevant factors" awarded the work to the Tile Setters. [ Footnote 9 ] When the Plasterers refused
to indicate that they would abide by the Board's award, a § 8(b)(4)(D) complaint was issued against them, and they were found to have committed an unfair labor practice by picketing to force Texas State and Martini to assign the disputed work to them. [ Footnote 10 ] In making both the § 10(k) and § 8(b)(4)(D) decisions, the Board rejected the Plasterers' contention that, even though the employer had not agreed to be bound by the Joint Board decision, the provisions of § 10(k) precluded a subsequent Board decision because the competing unions had agreed upon a voluntary method of adjustment.
On petition to review by the Plasterers and cross petition to enforce by the Board, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals set aside the order of the Board. [ Footnote 11 ] It held that:
to seek the work in question. [ Footnote 12 ]"
It concluded that the Board may not make a § 10(k) determination of a jurisdictional dispute where the opposing unions have agreed to settle their differences through binding arbitration. Both the Board and the employers petitioned for certiorari, and we granted the petitions. [ Footnote 13 ]
Section 8(b)(4)(D) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to strike or threaten or coerce an employer or other person in order to force or require an employer to assign particular work to one group of employees, rather than to another, unless the employer is refusing to honor a representation order of the Board. On its face, the section would appear to cover any union challenge to an employer work assignment where the prohibited means are employed. NLRB v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, 364 U. S. 573 , 364 U. S. 576 (161) (hereinafter CBS ). As the charging or intervening party, the employer would normally be a party to any proceedings under that section. [ Footnote 14 ] Section 8(b)(4)(D), however, must be read in light of § 10(k), with which it is interlocked. CBS, supra, at 364 U. S. 576 . When a § 8(b)(4)(D) charge is filed and there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been
terms or conditions of employment, a new union to bargain with, higher wages or costs, and lower efficiency or quality of work. In the construction industry, in particular, where employers frequently calculate bids on very narrow margins, small cost differences are likely to be extremely important. [ Footnote 15 ] In the present cause, both employers had collective bargaining contracts with the Tile Setters specifically covering the work at issue; neither had contracts with the Plasterers, nor employed Plasterers regularly. Both employers determined it to be in their best interests to participate vigorously in the Board's § 10(k) proceeding. The employers contended it was more efficient and less costly to use the same craft for applying the last coat of plaster, putting on the bonding coat, and laying the tile, and that it was more consistent with industry practice to use the Tile Setters as they did. [ Footnote 16 ] Both companies claimed that their costs would be substantially increased if the award went to the Plasterers, and that, without collective bargaining contracts with the Plasterers, they would lose 30%-40% of their work to plastering contractors. [ Footnote 17 ] It is obvious, therefore, that both Texas State and Martini had substantial stakes in the outcome of the § 10(k) proceeding. The phrase "parties to the dispute" giving rise to the picketing must be given its common sense meaning corresponding to the actual interests involved here. Cf. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 283 v. Scofield, 382 U. S. 205 , 382 U. S. 220 (1965). Section 10(k) does not expressly or impliedly deny party status to an employer, and, since the section's adoption in 1947,
the Board has regularly accorded party status to the employer and has refused to dismiss the proceeding when the unions, but not the employer, have agreed to settle. [ Footnote 18 ]
because, for all practical purposes, the Board's award determines who will prevail in the unfair labor practice proceeding. If the picketing union persists in its conduct despite a § 10(k) decision against it, a § 8(b)(4)(D) complaint issues and the union will likely be found guilty of an unfair labor practice and be ordered to cease and desist. On the other hand, if that union wins the § 10(k) decision and the employer does not comply, the employer's § 8(b)(4)(D) case evaporates, and the charges he filed against the picketing union will be dismissed. [ Footnote 19 ] Neither the employer nor the employees to whom he has assigned the work are legally bound to observe the § 10(k) decision, but both will lose their § 8(b)(4)(D) protection against the picketing which may, as it did here, shut down the job. The employer will be under intense pressure, practically, to conform to the Board's decision. This is the design of the Act; Congress provided no other way to implement the Board's § 10(k) decision.
jurisdictional disputes as controversies between two labor unions, [ Footnote 20 ] and a passage in the House Conference Report referring to § 10(k) as directing the Board to "hear and determine disputes between unions giving rise to unfair labor practices under section 8(b)(4)(D)." [ Footnote 21 ] Nothing in these remarks or in the other relevant legislative documents indicates an affirmative intent to exclude an interested employer from participating in a § 10(k) proceeding. The usual focus of the legislative debates was on ways of protecting the employer from the economic havoc of jurisdictional strikes. [ Footnote 22 ] But it does not follow from statements condemning the economically deleterious effects of inter-union strife that Congress intended an employer to have no say in a decision that may, practically, affect his business in a radical way. Congress did not expressly focus on the non-neutral employer, but there is nothing in the legislative history that negatives employer standing; [ Footnote 23 ] and in referring to the "parties
to the dispute," Congress used terminology that would ordinarily include the employer in cases such as these. [ Footnote 24 ]
adoption of a controlling rule of law." Girouard v. United States, 328 U. S. 61 , 328 U. S. 69 (1946); Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U. S. 235 , 398 U. S. 241 (1970). It is clear that Congress intended to protect employers and the public from the detrimental economic impact of "indefensible" [ Footnote 25 ] jurisdictional strikes. It would therefore be myopic to transform a procedure that was meant to protect employer interests into a device that could injure them. In the absence of an "unmistakable directive," the Court has refused to construe legislation aimed to protect a certain class in a fashion that will run counter to the goals Congress clearly intended to effectuate. FTC v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 390 U. S. 341 , 390 U. S. 349 (1968). We conclude, therefore, that these sections were enacted to protect employers who are partisan in a jurisdictional dispute as well as those who are neutral. Nothing in CBS, supra, mandates a different conclusion. Until that case, the Board's practice had been
364 U.S. at 364 U. S. 579 . Again, we have no quarrel with the view that § 10(k) is designed to decide which union is entitled to the work. But the issue before us is whether the employer is also a party to that dispute and to the proceeding that decides that question. The Court in CBS did not have before it a case in which the employer was particularly interested in which union did the work, since it had collective bargaining contracts with both unions and since both unions were able to do the disputed work with equal skill, expense, and efficiency. The Court recognized that there, " as in most instances, " the quarrel was of "so little interest to the employer that he seems perfectly willing to assign work to either [union] if the other will just let him alone." Ibid. (emphasis added). We have no doubt, therefore, that the Court had no intention of deciding the case now before us.
The difficulties with this argument are several. First of all, if union agreements to arbitrate are sufficient to terminate § 10(k) proceedings, there is no assurance that these private procedures will always be open to employer participation, that an employer will be afforded a meaningful chance to participate, or that all relevant factors will be properly considered. [ Footnote 26 ]
Second, the argument for regarding the employer as a dispensable neutral is reminiscent of the position taken by the Board and rejected by the Court in the CBS case. There, the Board sought to justify a narrow view of its function and its failure to make affirmative awards as generating pressure to settle or arbitrate privately. As § 10(k) passed the Senate, it directed the Board to decide the dispute or to order arbitration, but the arbitration alternative was deleted in Conference, and the amended bill was passed by the Senate over the strenuous objections of Senator Morse and others. [ Footnote 27 ] By this amendment, the Court in CBS held that Congress had expressed a clear preference for Board decision as compared with compelled arbitration, and that this policy preference must be respected. 364 U.S. at 364 U. S. 581 -582. Although this Court has frequently approved an expansive role for private arbitration in the settlement of labor disputes, this enforcement of arbitration agreements and settlements has been predicated on the view that the parties have voluntarily bound themselves to such a mechanism at the bargaining table. In both Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 U. S. 261 , 375 U. S. 262 (1964), and Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. at 398 U. S. 238 , the employers had acceded to binding arbitration as the terminal step of the grievance procedure. This concession is not present in the instant case; the employers here did not even have a collective bargaining contract with the Plasterers. Section 10(k) contemplates only a voluntary agreement as a bar to a Board decision. As in CBS, we decline to narrow the Board's powers under § 10(k) so that employers are
There remains the matter of the so-called Safeway rule announced by the Board in 1962 [ Footnote 28 ] and followed since. [ Footnote 29 ] Under this rule, the Board has held that, if one of the unions claiming work effectively renounces its claim, § 10(k) proceedings are aborted despite legitimate interests an employer may have in securing a Board decision. It is urged that, if union agreement prevents a § 10(k) decision in such a situation, the employer cannot be considered a party to the § 10(k) dispute when the unions, but not the employer, have agreed upon a method of settlement. As we understand the Safeway doctrine, however, when one union disclaims the work, § 10(k) proceedings terminate not because all "parties" to the dispute have settled or agreed to settle within the meaning of the statute, but on the ground that, in the words of the Board's brief in this case,
"the Board has power, under Section 10(k), only to hear and determine the merits of a jurisdictional dispute and . . . by definition, such a dispute cannot exist unless there are rival claims to the work. . . . [ Footnote 30 ]"
If union settlement followed by disclaimer ends the § 10(k) case, some of the argument about the employer's party status becomes academic; for whether the employer is a party or not, the two unions alone can prevent a Board decision. But recognizing the employer's party status insures his right to participate when the unions do not agree and the Board must come to a decision. Further, the Board's Safeway rule applies only where the inter-union conflict is effectively settled and the employer no longer faces conflicting claims to the work. As this case demonstrates, the Board does not apply the Safeway rule to unimplemented agreements to arbitrate between the unions alone, and it does not consider it applicable where employees continue on the job after their international union loses an arbitration proceeding and renounces the work. [ Footnote 31 ] These de facto disputes are real,
and they deserve Board resolution if the purposes of § 10(k) are to be achieved. Cf. CBS, supra, at 364 U. S. 579 -580.
by the LMRA. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(a); Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 U.S. at 375 U. S. 272 ; NLRB v. Strong, 393 U. S. 357 , 393 U. S. 360 -361 (1969); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U. S. 432 , 385 U. S. 438 (1967). Although the Board is not statutorily required to honor arbitration awards in such situations, it often defers to them if the arbitrator has considered the alleged unfair labor practice. Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 N.L.R.B. 1080 (1955); International Harvester Co., 138 N.L.R.B. 923 (1962), enforced sub nom. Ramsey v. NLRB, 327 F.2d 784 (CA7 1964). But again, such deference is in the context of voluntary arbitration. In the case before us, the LMRA requires that the Board defer only when all of the parties have agreed on a method of settlement; when there has been such an agreement, the Board cannot ignore or override the result of that settlement procedure. In the present cause, however, it is claimed the Board must defer when less than all the parties to the dispute have agreed to arbitrate.
See 29 CFR §§ 102.8, 102.9, 102.109 (1971); International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 28 v. Scofield, 382 U. S. 205 , 382 U. S. 219 -221 (1965).
See, e.g., Lodge 68 of the Int'l Assn. of Machinists (Moore Drydock Co.), 81 N.L.R.B. 1108, 1113-1114, 1126-1128 (1949); Local 21, Int'l Hod Carriers (Middle States Telephone Co.), 91 N.L.R.B. 598, 604 (1950); United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 581 (Ora Collard), 98 N.L.R.B. 346, 34349 (1952); United Assn. of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, 108 N.L.R.B. 186, 197 (1954); Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters, 115 N.L.R.B. 1757, 1766-1767 (1956); Local 17, Wood, Wire, & Metal Lathers' Int'l Union (Newark & Esse Plastering Co.), 121 N.L.R.B. 1094, 1103-1104 (1958); Int'l Union of Operating Engineers (Schwerman Co. of Pa. Inc.), 139 N.L.R.B. 1426, 1429 (1962); Carpenters District Council of Denver (J. O. Veteto & Son), 146 N.L.R.B. 1242, 1245 (1964); Electrical Workers, Local 26 (McCloskey & Co.), 147 N.L.R.B. 1498, 1501-1503 (1964); Operative Plasterers Int'l Assn. (Twin City Tile & Marble Co.), 152 N.L.R.B. 1609, 1611, 1615 (1965); Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 (Egan-McKay Electrical Contractors, Inc.), 164 N.L.R.B. 672, 673 (1967). The Board has reasserted this view since the Court of Appeals' decision in the instant case, Lathers Local 104 (Blaine Petty Co.), 186 N.L.R.B. No. 70 (1970). Until now, courts of appeals have uniformly upheld the Board's position; see, e.g., New Orleans Typographical Union No. 17 v. NLRB, 368 F.2d 755, 763 (CA5 1966), NLRB v. Local 825, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, 326 F.2d 213, 216 (CA3 1964); Local 450, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers v. Elliott, 256 F.2d 630, 636 (CA5 1958). See also Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 U. S. 261 , 375 U. S. 264 (1964), citing Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers Int'l Union (Acoustical Contractors Assn.), 119 N.L.R.B. 1345, 1347 (1958).
See, e.g., 93 Cong.Rec. A1222-A1223 (remarks of Cong. Landis); 93 Cong.Rec. 3424 (remarks of Cong. Hartley); 93 Cong.Rec. 3227-3228 (remarks of Sen. Lucas); 93 Cong.Rec. 4860-4862 (remarks of Sen. Aiken); 93 Cong.Rec. A2251-A2253 (remarks of Sen. Ball). Section 10(k) protection was also extended to unorganized employees. In the Senate bill, § 8(b)(4)(1) covered only cases where two unions claimed the same work, but the section was broadened in the Conference Committee to cover conflicts between organized and unorganized employees. See CBS, 364 U.S. at 364 U. S. 584 .
In construing a statute, the Court has ruled that legislative materials, if "without probative value, or contradictory, or ambiguous," should not be permitted to control the customary meaning of words. United States v. Dickerson, 310 U. S. 554 , 310 U. S. 562 (1940). See also Gemsco, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U. S. 244 , 324 U. S. 260 (1945).
The Court noted that the Act does not define the term "party," but it emphasized that the role of the General Counsel was a "major one" in unfair labor practice proceedings. 357 U.S. at 357 U. S. 15 . The General Counsel was held to be a party because he was "indispensable to the prosecution of the case" and because relegating him to a lesser status would "overlook the critical role he performs in enforcement of the Act." 357 U.S. at 357 U. S. 16 . This description is equally applicable to an employer's function in a § 8(b)(4)(D) proceeding. In International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 283 v. Scofield, 382 U. S. 205 (1965), the Court went through a somewhat similar analysis of the substantive interests involved at the judicial enforcement stage of an unfair labor practice proceeding, and concluded that a successful "charged" or "charging" party before the Board had a right to intervene in the ensuing Court of Appeals action.
Excluding the employer from participation as a party is inconsistent with the common law rule that "all persons materially interested in the result of a suit ought to be made parties, so that the court may . . . do complete justice.'" Vetterlein v. Barnes, 124 U. S. 169 , 124 U. S. 170 -171 (1888). Story v. Livingston, 13 Pet. 359, 38 U. S. 375 (1839).