TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

174 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
held that the union was not answerable for the conduct of the general
contractor's superintendent, a union member who was bound by
the same union rules, in allegedly inducing a work stoppage because
nonunion men were on the job, on the ground that he was acting on
behalf of his own employer who likewise objected to their presence
In the Mengel case," the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Board that
where a district council passed, and its parent international approved,
a trade rule which prohibited the use of products which did not have
the union label, and the district council transmitted to a member local
a ruling from the international which approved continuation of the
policy, both the council and the international were answerable for
the local's conduct in inducing an unlawful concerted refusal to install
such pi oducts However, the court exonerated the State council with
which the local was affiliated on the ground that the council had withheld
any recommendation or direction as to a course of action to be
taken with respect to the use of products without the union label
In a case where an international union's constitution required its
locals to enforce contractual provisions prohibiting installation of
goods not manufactured by employers under contract with the international
or its affiliates,'" the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with
the Board that the international was answerable for the conduct of
two of its member locals in inducing a concerted refusal to install
goods manufactured by employees who were represented by another
international union
b Restraint or Coercion Against Employers—Section 8(b)(1)(B)
In one case involving the scope of section 8(b) (1) (B) ,47 the Second
Circuit agreed with the Board that the union violated this section by
threatening and engaging in a strike to compel negotiation of a
collective-bargaining agreement, while at the same time refusing to
meet with a particular individual chosen by the employer as its
bargaining representative The fact that the union, which had been
the bargaining agent for the expired contract and with whom the
employer desired to bargain concerning a new contract, was not the
employees' "officially" designated bargaining representative was held
no defense to an 8(b) (1) (B) charge
45 N LRB v Local Union No 751, United Biotherhood of Carpenters if Joiners of
America, APL—CIO, 285 F 20 033
413 Sheet Metal Workers' International dun, AFL—CIO v NLRB (Burt), 293 F 2d
141
eI NLRB v Local 294, international Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc (K—(7 Refrigm °-
lion), 284 F 20 893