Before WATERMAN, SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
WATERMAN, C. J.: The National Labor Relations Board found that Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B).*fn1 The union was ordered to cease and desist from further violations of that provision and to post appropriate notices. The findings and order of the Board are reported in 146 NLRB No. 112. The Board now, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), petitions for enforcement of its order.
The relevant facts are undisputed. The City of New York selected Joseph C. Blitz, Inc. (Blitz) as the general contractor for the construction of a sanitation plant.Blitz used a wholly-owned subsidiary, Concrete Construction Corp. (Concrete Construction) to perform the concrete work.Concrete Construction contracted with Colonial Sand and Stone Co. (Colonial) to provide needed building materials including gravel and cement; Colonial's truck drivers are represented by Local 282. Colonial subcontracted with Universal Atlas Cement Division of United States Steel Corp. (Universal Atlas) to supply the cement. Universal Atlas hired United States Trucking Corp. (U.S. Trucking) to transport the cement to the building site; drivers for U.S. Trucking are represented by Local 801, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
On October 8, 1962, a business agent of Local 282 told the U.S. Trucking comptroller that the hauling of cement to the building site belonged to Local 282 rather than to Local 801, and that U.S. Trucking would have to put its five cement truckers under a labor contract with Local 282 if the firm wished to continue that hauling.
On the morning of October 9, three Local 282 business agents informed officials of Blitz and Concrete Construction that they claimed the cement hauling work, and that they would pull their members off Colonial's gravel trucks if Blitz or Concrete Construction accepted delivery of cement from U.S. Trucking. Consequently, Concrete Construction's job superintendent told a cement trucker for U.S. Trucking that he could not accept his load of cement.
Meanwhile, one of the Local 282 agents instructed a gravel trucker for Colonial not to unload until he was given permission by the union. As a result, an official of Colonial appeared at the building site and also told the Concrete Construction job superintendent not to accept cement from U.S. Trucking. The job superintendent again informed the cement trucker for U.S. Trucking that he could not accept his load of cement, and he later repeated this statement to the U.S. Trucking comptroller.
In the afternoon of October 9, the secretary-treasurer of Local 282 told the U.S. Trucking president that cement truckers for U.S. Trucking would continue to be barred from the building site unless they were put under a labor contract with Local 282. U.S. Trucking did not attempt to make any further deliveries of cement, and none were requested.
On the basis of these facts, the Board found under Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii) that Local 282 had "induced" a truck driver of a neutral employer (Colonial) to cease work and had "threatened" neutral employers (Blitz, Concrete Construction, Colonial, and Universal Atlas) with work stoppages. We agree with the Board's interpretation of the law. NLRB v. Plumbers Union, 299 F.2d 497, 500 (2 Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Local 294, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 298 F.2d 105 (2 Cir. 1961). Local 282 does not argue otherwise.
The Board also found, under Section 8(b)(4)(B), that the purpose of these actions was to force the neutral employers to cease doing business with U.S. Trucking and to require U.S. Trucking to recognize Local 282 as bargaining representative of the cement truckers. Local 282 had argued before the Board that its aim was to represent all cement truckers in the New York City area so as to protect the labor standards of its present members. The Board held that this purpose might have created a primary dispute between Local 282 and U.S. Trucking but did not justify the exertion of economic pressure against neutral employers. This ruling stated the law correctly. NLRB v. Milk Drivers Union, 341 F.2d 29, 32 (2 Cir. 1965). Local 282 had also argued before the Board that its aim was to enforce a subcontracting clause in the labor contract with Colonial which provided: "Additional equipment may be hired only if all the Employer's own equipment of the same type which is available for use is being operated by employees of the Employer." The Board found, to the contrary, that what Local 282 wanted was recognition by U.S. Trucking rather than enforcement of the subcontracting clause This finding was most certainly supported by substantial evidence. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 95 L. Ed. 456, 71 S. Ct. 456 (1951). Local 282 does not dispute these points on appeal.
The Board issued a complaint against Local 282 under Section 8(b)(4)(D), the jurisdictional disputes provision, as well as under 8(b)(4)(B). After obtaining a temporary injunction against further violations, the Board held separate hearings on the two charges. While the cases were awaiting decision, U.S. Trucking informed the Board that the jurisdictional dispute between Local 282 and Local 801 had been settled, and the firm requested that both charges be dropped.The Board agreed to this request as far as 8(b)(4)(D), the jurisdictional disputes provision, was concerned, but it refused to halt the proceedings under 8(b)(4)(B).
Local 282's principal argument on appeal is that the Board should have dismissed its complaint under Section 8(b)(4)(B) without passing on the merits of the case. The union points out that Section 10(k) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(k), was designed by Congress to encourage the private resolution of jurisdictional disputes for the sake of industrial peace. NLRB v. Radio & Television Broadcast Eng'rs Union, 364 U.S. 573, 576-77, 5 L. Ed. 2d 302, 81 S. Ct. 330 (1961). The union claims that this purpose may be thwarted if the Board insists on pressing 8(b)(4)(B) charges after the underlying jurisdictional dispute had been amicably settled.
Local 282 overlooks the fact that there is another congressional policy to be served by this proceeding, the policy embodied in Section 8(b)(4)(B) of deterring union pressure against neutral employers. Nothing in the Act forbids the Board from giving this policy precedence when it comes into an arguable conflict with the purpose of Section 10(k). Cf. Local 5, United Ass'n of Journeymen v. NLRB, 116 U.S. App. D.C. 100, 321 F.2d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 921, 84 S. Ct. 266, 11 L. Ed. 2d 165 (1963).
The same clash of interests occurs when the Board presses unfair labor practice charges for conduct which has already been the subject of an arbitration award. Sections 201(a) and 203(d) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 171(a), 173(d), declare that industrial peace is best attained by collective bargaining and private arbitration. See United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 578, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1409, 80 S. Ct. 1347 (1960). This policy does not prevent the Board from granting its own form of relief, even at the risk of discouraging resort to private machinery for settling labor disputes. Lodge 743, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. United Aircraft Corp., 337 F.2d 5 (2 Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. - (1965).
It is true that in a recent case, the Board dismissed a Section 8(b)(4)(B) complaint after disposing of the underlying jurisdictional dispute. New York Paper Cutters' & Bookbinders' Local Union, 148 NLRB No. 132 (1964). But the Board has discretion to treat various jurisdictional settlements differently, just as it has discretion either to respect or disregard arbitration awards. See Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261, 270-72, ...