The opinion of the court was delivered by: ZAVATT
The National Labor Relations Board through its Regional Director petitions this court pursuant to section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l) for an order restraining the respondent from picketing during the pendency of related matters currently before the Board. The petition alleges violations of sections 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) by means proscribed in both (i) and (ii) of paragraph (4) of the act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (4)(i)(ii)(A), (B), and the separate violation of section 8(b)(7)(C) of the act, 29 U.S.C.A. 158(b)(7)(C).
The issue in proceedings of this kind is merely whether the Board has 'reasonable cause' to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed. The evidence adduced at the hearing tended to establish these facts:
Spar Builders, Inc., Puritan Homes, Inc., and P & S Building Corp., are three related corporations (hereafter referred to in the aggregate as 'Spar') engaged in the construction of seventeen homes in East Meadow, Long Island, a development known as 'Concord Estates.' The estimated cost of construction is $ 340,000. It is stipulated by the parties that Spar is engaged in commerce. Spar has let out work to several subconstractors including Merrick Utility Associates, Inc., ('Merrick') for installation of water mains; L & P Stair Corp., ('L & P') for installation of stairs; Cary Insulation Co., Inc., ('Cary') for installation of insulation. The carpentry work was let to Russell and Robert Benson, and John and William Halloran, collectively doing business as 'R & B Brothers,' a partnership (referred to hereafter as 'BENSON'). BENSON HAS NO EMPLOYEES. IT Is sTipulated thAt they are not engaged in commerce to a sufficient degree to come within the Board's current jurisdictional standard. Benson is not a member of any union. That fact gave rise to the current dispute which developed through these events:
Some time in early February, 1960, William Vance, business agent of the respondent (a labor organization within the meaning of the act) discovered that nonunion help was being used on the job. On about February 23 Vance had a conversation with Paul Weissbluth, an executive officer of Spar. There is agreement that the conversation concerned the nonunion status of Benson. It appears further, although there is some conflict in the testimony, that Vance threatened to picket the job unless Benson joined the union and hired four additional union carpenters. No agreement was reached at this meeting. The next morning they met again. Vance now modified his demand. If Benson joined the union and hired only one additional union carpenter, the union would be satisfied. In this vein, Weissbluth offered to pay half of Benson's initiation fee. He also agreed to speak to Benson, and Vance agreed to return the next day for their answer. At their third meeting the next morning, Weissbluth informed Vance that he had been unsuccessful in persuading Benson. However, he suggested that Vance himself speak to Benson about the plan. On this note the meeting ended. Benson remained firm, however, and on February 27 the picketing began.
The picketing has at all times been confined to the sidewalk adjacent to Spar's combination model house and rental office. The one road into the development, by which all supplies and workmen enter, is at right angles to this sidewalk and passes immediately to the left of the model house. However, the pickets do not cross the road as they parade; nor do they otherwise physically obstruct the delivery of supplies or the movement of employees. During the week there are one or two pickets; on the weekends there may be half a dozen. They have conducted themselves peaceably. The sign they carry reads:
CONCORD ESTATES Paul Weissbluth Employs NON-UNION Carpenter Contractors
'Concord Estates' and 'Non-Union' are considerably larger than the other words.
Several weeks after the picketing began employees of Merrick walked off the job. At about the same time employees of L & P and Cary refused to come onto the site. In addition, because various truck drivers have respected the picket line, Spar has had to deliver its own supplies or arrange for delivery either before the pickets arrive in the morning or after they leave at night. As a result, the water main installation has been delayed and the project in general has not reached the state of completion anticipated. On the other hand, Benson has continued to work without appreciable interruption, as have the other nonunion elements at the site: Spar's employees, consisting of an office girl, a maintenance man, and a night watchman, and the independent real estate salesmen, who are on commission.
In pertinent part section 8(b)(4) reads:
'It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents --
'(4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use * * * or otherwise handle or work on any goods * * * or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is
'(A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organization or to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by section 8(e);
'(B) forcing or requiring any person * * * to cease doing business with any other person * * *.'
On this recital of the evidence and the law it is clear that an object of the picketing was to have Benson join the union, or failing that, to have Spar hire a union contractor in Benson's stead. These are proscribed objects and coupled with the means used to achieve them, the Board has reasonable cause to believe that section 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) have been violated in the respects specified in both (1) and (ii) of paragraph (4). N.L.R.B. v. Denver Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 1951, 341 U.S. 675, 71 S. Ct. 943, 95 L. Ed. 1284; N.L.R.B. v. United Constr. Workers, 4 Cir., 198 F.2d 391, certiorari denied, 1956, 344 U.S. 876, 73 S. ...