finding that threat by union to enforce no-subcontracting clause through use of contractual grievance procedure was coercive
How later courts described this case
- finding that threat by union to enforce no-subcontracting clause through use of contractual grievance procedure was coercive
- noting the statute’s use of “relatively precise terms” and the need to use “the words of the statute” as “the courts’ principal referent in determining whether the section has been violated”
- dismissing plaintiffs § 8(b)(4)© claim as there was no evidence of encouragement to strike or to refuse performance
- no subcontracting clause an invalid work preservation clause because “union [sought] to restrict by contract ... an employer with respect to the products he uses, for the purpose of acquiring for its members work that had not previously been theirs”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SMITH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. While I agree that we should reject the six-month limitation claim, Danielson v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, 521 F.2d 747, 754 (2d Cir. 1975); NLRB v. Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers, 380 F.2d 827 (2d Cir. 1967), and that we should reject the Board’s reversal of the Administrative Law Judge as to coercion, I would remand for further findings. It can be argued with some basis in the record that the contract provisions barring prefab units in air conditioning equipment unless assembled in Local 28 shops is a work preservation device under National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612 , 87 S.Ct. 1250 , 18 L.Ed.2d 357 (1967). Local 28 is not really trying to improve the lot of Carrier’s employees in Tyler, Texas but to maintain employment in New York for Local 28 people in putting together the plenums. See NLRB v. Local 28, supra.
The Board might well find that the plenum was not a new product but one within the competence and experience of the New York subcontractors and the members of Local 28. 1
The Board could therefore have found that the union’s objective was preservation of work. Since the Board found the union’s actions not coercive, it did not reach this issue.
I agree with the majority that the Board’s finding of lack of coercion (which the Board based on the Board’s puzzling “peaceful means” test) cannot be sustained. The work preservation issue, however, remains and we should have the benefit of the Board’s consideration of this issue before finally disposing of the matter.
I would reverse the Board on the coercive nature of the union’s actions, and remand for findings on the work preservation issue.
. See the testimony as to the Staten Island Community College job in 1970 set forth in the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion (Appendix at 17-18).