Stromberg-Carlson Communications, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

Petitioner, Stromberg-Carlson, seeks review of a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board quashing notice of hearing under § 10(k) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (k). See infra note 4.

The dispute is one between petitioner and Local 640, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Petitioner is engaged in the business of installing and maintaining interconnect telephone systems in various locations throughout the United States, including Phoenix, Arizona. Its telephone installation employees are represented under Board certification by the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

In 1975 an earlier dispute between the parties erupted. Petitioner was then engaged in installing a telephone connect system in a hospital in Scottsdale, Arizona. IBEW picketed the job with signs and handbills advising that petitioner paid less than the prevailing wage to certain of its employees. Petitioner filed unfair labor practice charges against IBEW under § 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (b)(4)(B), 1 asserting that it was paying prevailing wages and that the picketing was pretextual, being aimed at securing installation jobs for contractors whose employees were…

*942 On Petition for Rehearing

On petition for rehearing StrombergCarlson asserts that in our earlier opinion we have misconceived the position it takes in these proceedings; that while it stressed its belief that the setting of an example was the purpose of the union’s picketing, it also contended that a purpose was to compel United Parcels to change contractors to one employing union members and to secure reassignment of the work in question in that fashion. The Board concedes that had that in truth been the union’s purpose, the picketing would have constituted a violation of § 8(b)(4)(D) and the disclaimer of the union would have been sham and in bad faith.

Stromberg-Carlson’s contentions in this respect were made before the Board. Although the Board proceeded by order quashing notice of hearing, the order in fact followed a hearing at which a record was made. As to the purpose of picketing, the Board chose to accept the union’s avowal rather than the contentions of StrombergCarlson and concluded that the union had effectively disclaimed the work in question. The Board stated:

We shall not disturb that ruling.

Rehearing denied.

580 F.2d 939 99 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2371 , 84 Lab.Cas. P 10,667 , 84 Lab.Cas. P 10,820 STROMBERG-CARLSON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Intervenor. No. 77-2205. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 25, 1978. Rehearing Denied Aug. 22, 1978. Stephen W. Pogson (argued), of Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, Stanley Lubin (argued), of McKendree & Lubin, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner. Margery Lieber (argued), Washington, D. C., Stanley Lubin, of McKendree & Lubin, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent. On Petition to Review an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before MERRILL and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and BARTELS, * District Judge. MERRILL, Circuit Judge: 1 Petitioner, Stromberg-Carlson, seeks review of a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board quashing notice of hearing under § 10(k) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (k). See infra note 4. 2 The dispute is one between petitioner and Local 640, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Petitioner is engaged in the business of installing and maintaining interconnect telephone systems in…