Case Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L., DISTRICT NO. 2, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1956-04-25
Citations: 232 F.2d 393
Docket Number: No. 235, Docket 23830
Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L., DISTRICT NO. 2, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 232
Pages: 393–396

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L., DISTRICT NO. 2, Respondent.
No. 235, Docket 23830.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued March 15, 1956.
Decided April 25, 1956.
Theophil C. Kammholz, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Melvin Pollack, Washington, D. C., Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, for petitioner.
Clif. Langsdale, Kansas City, Mo., for International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, AFL, District No. 2, respondent.
Frankie & Ruffo, New York City, for Stephen Mrazek, Walter Smith, Michael Duncovich and Joseph Marin, the charging parties. Philip J. Ruffo, Max H. Frankie, New York City, on the brief.
Before FRANK, LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The facts are fully stated in the Board's Decision and Order, reported 110 N.L.R.B. 2116. The findings are amply supported by the record as a whole. The respondent company has agreed to comply with the portion of the order directed against it. The Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and the Board's Decision completely demolish all the respondent union's contentions. We mention but two:
(1) The parties to the collective bargaining agreement are the employer-company and the respondent union, District No. 2. That union is a "subordi nate" of an International union; but the International is not a party to the bargaining agreement. The agreement contains provisions which violate the statute, i. e., they prescribe that the employer "shall employ none but building construction members in good standing on all work coming within the jurisdiction of District No. 2. " Such an unlawful discriminatory agreement is not the less so because it applies, as it did here, to members of other local unions which are also "subordinates" of the International. The actual conduct of the respondent union and the employer conformed to the discriminatory provisions and was therefore also violative of the statute. That these provisions and that conduct were authorized or required by the parent union, the International, cannot render them lawful: The "child's" sins are not to be excused because committed in obedience to the commands of the parent; such paternal commands do not nullify those issued by Congress.
(2) The Board found that all the respondent union's agreements contain unlawful provisions substantially the same as those before us here; accordingly the Board's Order, which prohibits like conduct anywhere, is not invalidly broad.
Enforcement granted.
. See, e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Philadelphia Iron Works, Inc., 3 Cir., 211 F.2d 937, 940-944; Communications Workers of America, C. I. O. v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir., 215 F.2d 835, 838; N. L. R. B. v. George D. Auchter Co., 5 Cir., 209 F.2d 273, 276-277.
The respondent union cites N. L. R. B. v. Del E. Webb Const. Co., 8 Cir., 196 F.2d 702, in which the Eighth Circuit relied, at pages 705-700, on N. L. R. B. v. Reliable Newspaper Delivery, Inc., 3 Cir., 187 F.2d 547. But, so far as they have pertinence here, those decisions were overruled in Radio Officers' Union of Commercial Telegraphers Union, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 347 U.S. 17, 22-23, notes 2 and 3, 74 S.Ct. 723, 98 L.Ed. 455; N. L. R. B. v. Turner Const. Co., 6 Cir., 227 F.2d 498, turned on its peculiar facts.
. See, e. g., Bausch & Lomb Optical Company v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir., 217 F.2d 575, 578; N. L. R. B. v. Lummus Co., 5 Cir., 210 F.2d 377, 381.