TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 133
In another case involving a disputed construction job, despite the
absence of any direct evidence that a union m as iesponsible for a woik
stoppage by secondary employees, the Board held that circumstantial
evidence pointed "in that direction," and found that the union did
induce and encourage the stoppage 58 The circumstantial evidence
in this case included the union agent's numerous threats to pull other
union men of neutral employers off the job unless its demands were
met, the presence, and silent acquiescence, of the representatives of
the other unions when these threats were made, the well-known close
cooperation among unions and unionized employees in the building
trades, the absence of any evidence that any neutral employees had
grievances against their own employers, the fact of a sudden and
simultaneous walkout by different craftsmen employed by different
employers, and the employees' return to woik after the union reached
an accord with the general cont. actor and picketing ceased
In a not too dissimilar situation," the respondent union was found
to have engaged in unlawful inducement and encoimagement by sendmg
iepresentatives to a constiuction job on a missile base to inspect
the installation of certain cables which had been fabricated elsewhere
by another union, and then making it known that the iespondent
union claimed jurisdiction over the fabrication work As a result of
this conduct, members of this union refused to install the cable, thereby
violating section 8(b) (4) Subsequently, the union polled its members
at a hiring hall, and they individually declined to be referred
to replace workers who had been discharged for refusing to install
the cable But in polling the members, the union representative made
statements which, the Board found, clearly indicated that they should
not accept ieferral and constituted unlawful inducement and encouragement
58
In another case," the union's unlawful inducement and encouragement
took the form of a request made of employees and supervisors of
neutral employeis to "cooperate" with it in its strike with the primary
employer Where the person approached was uncertain hom he could
cooperate, the union leo. esentative explained that he could use another
employer's sei vices or refuse to load the struck employer's trucks
56 Plumbers baton of Nassau County (Bomat Plumbing 6 Heating), 131 NLRB No 151
wr Local 756, IBEW (Martin Go), 131 NLRB No 120 See also Local 598, Plumbers a
Steamflttere (MaaDonald-Scott t Associates), 131 NLRB No 100
58 Such conduct was also held to constitute a refusal to refer applicants for employment
as provided by the union's agreement with secondary employers, and a violation of sec
8(b) (4) (ii) (B) See below, p 136
ma Local 294, Teamsters (Van Transport Lows), 131 NLRB No 42