Brotherhood of Painters, Etc.

BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 45& BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , DECORATFRS, AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 193, AND DISTRICT COUNCIL No. 38 OF BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , DECORATORS, AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH A. F. OF L. and PITTSBURGH PLATE. GLASS COMPANY. Case No. 10-CC-62. October 25, 1954 Decision and Order On April 5, 1954, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Re- spondents i had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There- after, Respondents filed exceptions and briefs were filed by General Counsel and Pittsburgh.2 The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent that they are con- sistent with our findings, conclusions, and Order as herein set forth. 1. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that Respond- ents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) at the construction site where a building was being erected for the Equitable Life Assurance Society in Atlanta,' because their picketing was not strictly confined to the primary employer involved in the dispute but was also directed to the employees of neutrals at the job situs.4 This is demonstrated, in our opinion, by the following: (a) The picketing of the site on September 14, 1953, with a sign having the legend "Glass Work On This Job Unfair to D. C. 38, AFL." From approximately Septem- ber 6-20, 1953, inclusive, Pittsburgh's main establishment in Atlanta was being picketed by Respondents with a sign having the following legend : "Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company is unfair to Painters D. C. 38." The Equitable picketing thus raised doubt as to whether it was limited to Pittsburgh, or carried over to employees of the gen- 1 Local Union No 193 and District Council No 38 are together referred to herein as Respondents. 2 The Charging Party is referred to herein as Pittsburgh i Referred to herein as the Equitable job 4 Local Union 55, etc (Professional and Business Men's Life Ins. Company , 108 NLRB 363, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen, etc (Hoosier Petroleum Company Inc.), 106 NLRB 629 , enfd. 212 F . 2d 216 (C. A 7) We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the case of Brewery and Beverage Drivels and Workers ( Wash.ngton Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc.), 107 NLRB 299 is controlling See discussion of this decision , infra. 110 NLRB No. 84. 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD eral contractor and other secondary employers as well. Therefore, the picketing failed to meet our usual requirement of legitimate coln- mon-situs picketing that it disclose clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer alone. See Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547, 549; and (b) the solicitation and direction by Cetti, president of Respondents, of two employees of E. L. Thompson Com- pany, plastering subcontractor, to stop working because Respondents were picketing. 2. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondents' picketing of the site where a building was being constructed for Montag Bros., Inc.' was in violation of the Act. A. It appears that Respondents picketed the Montag job for a short time when no Pittsburgh employees were working. General Counsel and Pittsburgh argue such picketing was violative of the Act. We find that Respondents were probably unaware that there were no Pittsburgh employees working at the time inasmuch as the construc- tion site was so large that it was difficult to ascertain who was work- ing on the other side, and Pittsburgh employees were normally at work at the time of the picketing. Moreover, Respondents removed the pickets promptly on learning that Pittsburgh employees were not working. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the picketing was not a violation of the Act. B. General Counsel also argues that Respondents violated the Act by failing to tell employees of secondary employers on the jobs picketed that such employees were free to cross and work behind Respondents' picket lines without reprisals or fear of reprisals. The Trial Exam- iner declined to rule on this contention. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this case, we find that Respondents did not violate the Act by their silence.' C. General Counsel and Pittsburgh further argue, and the Trial Examiner finds, that the doctrine in the Washington Coca Cola decision (cited supra at footnote 4) is applicable to the instant case. Under their view, any picketing by Respondents at construction sites where Pittsburgh's glaziers are making installations and other crafts are also working is per se a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) inasmuch as Pittsburgh has a permanent and extensive business establishment within the area at which Respondents could picket effectively. Ac- cordingly, they reason that if Respondents picket the construction sites, such picketing must necessarily be for the object of reaching employees of secondary employers and not of engaging in legitimate primary picketing. We do not agree.' 5 Herein referred to as the Montag job e Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Counci l, et at. (Stover Steel Service), 108 NLRB 1575. "It is, therefore, unnecessary to rule upon Pittsburgh's contention that the Trial Examiner proposed too limited a remedy based on the application of the Washington Coca Cola doctrine. BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 457 In our Washington Coca Cola decision, we endeavored to make clear that the doctrine therein enunciated was being applied with due re- gard for the right of the Respondent Union to picket effectively, both from the standpoint of the general public and the particular em- ployees involved in the labor dispute. It will be noted that the union in that case picketed the main plant of Coca Cola, located in down- town Washington, from the first day of the strike, and that the drivers involved entered and left the plant at least four times each day. Ac- cordingly, it was clear that the application of the Washington Coca .Cola doctrine to the facts in that case would not unduly circumscribe the union in its right to picket effectively. In the instant matter, however, we do not have such assurance. The Pittsburgh plant was located in a wholesale and industrial area, approximately 21/2 miles from the center of town, and was picketed only a small part of the time of the strike. Moreover, and more serious, the glaziers were at the main establishment only twice a day at most, reporting for work and checking out, and sometimes not at all. In addition to the consideration of Respondents' right to picket effectively, we are further dissuaded from applying the Washington Coca Cola doctrine because, in this matter, we find that the construc- tion site at the Montag job harbored the situs of the dispute between Respondents and Pittsburgh concerning the glaziers working on the premises. Judge Hooper, in the court proceedings in this matter, in denying General Counsel's request to apply the Washington Coca Cola doctrine, observed : "picketing is done on a construction job at which many of the primary employer's men (belonging to the Union in- volved) were working all day long." Similarly, Judge Connolly in the case of Elliott v. General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 968, 123 F. Supp. 125, recognized the serious situs prob- lem in cases such as the instant matter. In our recent decision in Otis Massey Company, Ltd., 109 NLRB 275, we applied the Washing- ton Coca Cola doctrine in a case involving a common construction site, but, only because the premises did not harbor the situs of the dispute between the union and the primary employer. Implicit in that decision was our view that the Washington Coca Cola doctrine would not be applied where the premises of the secondary employer harbor the situs of the dispute between the union and the primary employer as in the instant matter. Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents and their offi- cers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing and encouraging the employees of Beers Construction Company, E. L. Thompson Com- 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pany, or any other employer, to engage in a strike or a concerted re- fusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employer where an object thereof is to force or require any employer or person to cease doing business with Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at their business offices and meeting halls in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of each Respondent, be posted by said Respond- ents immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices affecting its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondents to in- sure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Upon request of the Regional Director, the Respondents shall supply him with a sufficient number of signed notices for posting. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix" for posting, Pittsburgh willing, at the latter's place of business where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondents otherwise violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 8 This notice , however , shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first paragraph therein the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order " In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals. Enforcing an Order " Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 136) against the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paper, hangers of America, Local Union No. 193, and District Council No . 38 of Brother- hood of Painters , Decorators, and Paperhangers of America , Affiliated with A. F. of L.,' upon a charge duly filed by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company , complaint and 1 The Respondent was named incorrectly in the complaint At the hearing , the General Counsel moved to amend as above The motion was granted without objection BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 459 amended complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, was heard in Atlanta, Georgia, on various dates from January 11 to January "21, 1954. The amended complaint alleged violations by the Respondent of Section -8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act All parties were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Briefs have been filed with the Trial Examiner by the General Counsel, Pittsburgh, and the Respondent. On about March 2, 1954, the General Counsel submitted to the Trial Examiner a stipulation to correct the record , which is signed by all the parties. In accordance with said stipulation, I hereby order the record corrected; and the stipulation is received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1. On the basis of my observation of the witnesses, and upon the entire record in .the case, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 2 From conceded facts, it is found that the Respondent Unions are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and that Pittsburgh is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. A. Statement of facts Pittsburgh, the primary employer involved in this case, operates and maintains a large wholesale and retail branch plant on Memorial Drive in Atlanta, Georgia, where it employs approximately 95 persons. Of this number, about 15 are "outside glaziers." These outside glaziers install glass and allied products on the job, outside of or away from the plant. They normally report for work at the plant, but at times are permitted by their foreman to report directly to the jobs. Pittsburgh's outside glazing work amounts to approximately 11 percent of the business of said plant. Pittsburgh originally had a contract with Glaziers' Local Union No. 1538. The contract was entered into on November 21, 1947, and contained a no-strike clause. At sometime before the times hereinafter mentioned Local Union No. 1538 lost its charter and ceased to exist. Its members transferred or were absorbed into Painters Local Union No. 193. However, the above contract was in full force and effect until its anniversary date, November 21, 1953. The Respondent and Pittsburgh negotiated for a new contract after June 22, 1953, and until September 10, 1953. At a union meeting held on the night of August 31, members who were glaziers and who were employees of Pittsburgh and of other glazing firms in the Atlanta area voted to strike. William A. Cetti, president of both Respondent Unions, made a statement at the meeting and before the strike vote was taken to the effect that the jobs of glazing firms that did not sign new agreements would be picketed and that if any union member crossed a picket line "or violated any of the laws of the International Brotherhood constitution, charges would be preferred against them and they would be tried." The strike, involving Pittsburgh and other employers of glaziers, commenced ,on September 1, 1953 About nine of Pittsburgh's outside glaziers reported for work and did not participate in the strike. At the inception of the strike, Pittsburgh made no effort to carry on its outside glazing work until September 10, at which time the contract negotiations were discontinued without agreement, and nine of Pittsburgh's outside glaziers returned 2 There are few material issues of fact in the case The facts hereinafter related and found are either based upon undisputed evidence or on testimony which I credit. When -contrary testimony and denials are not set forth, they are not credited Considerable testimony was adduced concerning meetings of Local Union No 193 which took place on June 17, August 31, and October 5, 1953 In his brief, the General Counsel states that certain threats allegedly made either on August 31 or October 5 have a bearing on the intent or object of the Respondent in picketing I fail to see where the testimony con- cerning the meeting on June 17 is relevant or material to the issues in the case There- .fore, such testimony is not discussed herein. However, it has been considered by me in evaluating the credibility of the witnesses involved. With respect to the meetings of August 31 and October 5, I believe and find that the preponderance of the reliable and credible evidence favors the case of the Respondent. Accordingly, the findings herein in connection with the meeting held on August 31 are based on the credited testimony of .Respondent's witnesses 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to work. During the period from September 6 to September 20, the Respondent picketed Pittsburgh's plant. Cetti represented the Respondent at bargaining conferences with Pittsburgh. Con- cerning statements made by Cetti at a conference held on September 10, R. W. Murphy Mothershed , Pittsburgh's manager, testified credibly as follows: After we had told Mr . Cetti that we could not accept this contract , he said "Well, you won't be allowed to work on any Union jobs in Atlanta, or the Atlanta area." I don't know whether it was a continuation of the same sentence or not, but he said he had negotiated contracts for various other crafts and that he represented them in his work in District Council No . 38, and "You just won't be allowed to work on any Union jobs in Atlanta." One of the represent- atives of our company replied "Well, we know exactly what you can do, and we also know what our rights are and what we can do"; and Mr . Cetti's reply to that was "Well, I'm not afraid of injunctions ; I've seen plenty of them. In fact I'm involved in one now." Alex Sherman, Pittsburgh's glass sales manager, also attended some of the bargain- ing conferences . In connection with Cetti's statements at one of the meetings, Sher- man testified credibly to the following: Well, I recall specifically Mr. Cetti making the remark "well, Pittsburghs can just go non-union, and they just won't do any Union jobs," . . . . To the best of my knowledge I recall him making the statement that if we got on any of these Union jobs they were going to be picketed ; that he signs contracts for so many crafts, which are composed of X number of workmen, and there it is. Beers Construction Company had the contract for the erection of a building for the Equitable Life Assurance Society in Atlanta . The glazing work on the building was subcontracted to Pittsburgh in the amount of $13,000 . During Saturday morn- ing, September 12, 1953, James O. Moore, recording secretary of Local No. 193 and business agent of District Council No . 38, called H. W. Beers, Jr., president of Beers Construction Company, at his home. Moore told Beers that Pittsburgh was "unfair" to the Respondent ; that Pittsburgh's employees were working on the Equi- table job that morning ; and that in order to avoid any possible trouble on the job, Beers should do "something about it ." Beers then called L. L. Gellerstedt, secretary- treasurer of Beers Construction Company, and instructed him to remove Pittsburgh employees from the job . At about 11:45 a. m. that same day, Gellerstedt had a conversation with Moore . Concerning this conversation , Gellerstedt testified cred- ibly as follows: Mr. Moore came and said he noticed the glaziers were still working, and when were we going to have them stop ; and I told him we had made arrangements for the work to stop as of noon, which seemed to upset him and he told me we had been too slow in stopping the work and we would have a picket on the job Monday morning; at which time he left. At about 8:30 a. m. on Monday , September 14, Beers called Moore and told him that his company had a contract with Pittsburgh which was dated in February 1953 , that he expected Pittsburgh to perform the work under its contract , and that he had ordered Pittsburgh to proceed with the work . Moore replied that it would be necessary for him to place a picket on the job. The Respondent picketed the Equitable job on September 14 while Pittsburgh employees were working . The picketing resulted in a widespread work stoppage by employees of Beers and of other subcontractors under Beers . Cetti was in charge of the picketing. The picket sign bore the legend , "Glass work on this job unfair to D. C. 38, AFL." Cetti went to the rear of the construction site where a Pitts- burgh truck was parked and Pittsburgh employees were working. Two colored employees of E. L. Thompson Company, plastering subcontractor under Beers, were working nearby. Elijah Watts, one of the employees of Thompson , was running a mortar mixing machine at the time. Cetti asked Wattes if he "belonged to the Local" and if he knew that the job was being picketed . Cetti then told Watts and the other employee of Thompson , "Well, you'd better cut your mixer off," and that they had "better knock off." The two employees stopped working. The Respondent removed its picket when Beers ordered Pittsburgh 's employees off the job. Thereafter, Beers contracted with another glazing firm to perform the glazing work on the Equitable job; and a charge for such labor was made against Pittsburgh's contract . Under its contract, however, Pittsburgh continued to supply the materials for the job. BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 461 The Barge-Thompson Construction Company had the construction contract for the First National Bank building in Atlanta. Pittsburgh was the subcontractor under Barge-Thompson for the glazing work. Barge-Thompson's field superintend- ent on the job was Joseph W. Bradley. On about September 15, 1953, Cetti went to the job site and had a conversation with Bradley. Concerning this conversation, Bradley testified credibly, "He asked me who had the glazing, and I told him Pitts- burgh Plate Glass had it; and at that time he informed me that they were unfair, and unless they got settled, why, they would not be able to do the job." Pittsburgh started the glazing work on the First National Bank job on September 28. Cetti returned to the job site on October 5 and again spoke to Bradley. Pitts- burgh's employees were working on the job at the time. Cetti told Bradley that he would have to picket the job unless Pittsburgh's employees were removed. Barge-Thompson also had the construction contract for the St. Joseph's Hospital job in Atlanta; and Pittsburgh was the subcontractor for the glazing work. Henry Poss, Barge-Thompson's general superintendent, had supervision over the job. Pittsburgh's employees appeared for work on the job site for the first time at about 9 a. m. on September 28, 1953. Cetti arrived at about the same time, and had a conversation with Poss. In this connection, Poss testified credibly to the following: Well, Mr. Cetti approached me by introducing himself and telling me that he represented the Painters and Glaziers, and that here was some trouble be- tween the Union and Pittsburghs, and Pittsburghs could not be permitted to work on the job. He said that he had always been a friend of Barge-Thompsons and wanted to continue to be, I believe were the words he used, and he knew I didn't want any trouble and he didn't, and he was just warning me if they continued to stay on the job there would be trouble, and we had Painters people in the building... . After Poss called Pittsburgh and notified it of his conversation with Cetti, Pittsburgh's employees were removed from the job. Pittsburgh's employees returned to the Hospital job at a later date. When they reported for work on the second day, Cetti again appeared at the job site and spoke to Poss. He told Poss, in substance, that he was prepared to picket the job if Pitts- burgh's employees continued to work. The J. A. Jones Construction Company had a contract for the construction of a building in Atlanta for Montag Bros., Inc. Pittsburgh was the subcontractor on this job for the glazing work. Pittsburgh commenced the glazing work on November 9, 1953. On November 10 at about 10:30 a. m., Cetti appeared at the job site and spoke to Thomas Samford, Jones' construction superintendent. Cetti remarked that Pittsburgh's employees were working on the job, and told Samford, "Well, I'll have to have a picket on the job." That same day and shortly after Cetti's conversation with Samford, the Respondent commenced to picket the Montag job, and continued to picket it constantly thereafter until about 9 a. m. on November 13. The picketing took place between 8 a. m. and 4:30 p. m. on November 11 and 12. The picket sign stated, "Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company is unfair to Painters D. C. No. 38, A. F. of L. This picketing against Pittsburgh employees only!" Shortly after the picketing began on November 10, employees of Jones, the general contractor, and of other subcontractors ceased work and left the Montag job. This work stoppage continued until the picket was removed on November 13. The Pittsburgh employees did not report for work on the Montag job until about 9 a. m. on November 11 and 12. No Pittsburgh employees appeared or worked at the job site at any time during the day of November 13. As a result of the picketing and the work stoppage, Jones asked Pittsburgh to stop work on the Montag job, and arranged with another com- pany to complete the glazing work. The labor for such glazing was charged to Pittsburgh's contract. However, Pittsburgh continued to supply all materials for the job. B. Conclusions on the 8 (b) (4) (A) allegation It is found that the Respondent's picketing of the Equitable and Montag jobs con- stituted unlawful inducement and encouragement of employees of secondary em- ployers. Brewery and Beverage Drivers and Workers (Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc.), 107 NLRB 299. Although the Act by its terms prohibits secondary picketing for the illegal objects therein defined, the Board, with court approval, heretofore has permitted such picket- ing to a limited extent in cases where, if it was entirely prohibited, the unions involved would have had no other effective means of publicizing their disputes or grievances 462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD against the primary employers. The necessity for common situs picketing in the construction industry is apparent. However, in the instant case, as in the Wash- ington Coca Cola case, the primary employer has a permanent and extensive busi- ness establishment at which a union could picket effectively. Pittsburgh's outside glaziers normally report to the plant in the morning and return to it during the day in order to obtain or leave materials. As related above, the Respondent picketed the plant from about September 6 to about September 20, 1953. Under the circum- stances, it is my opinion that the Respondent's picketing of the job sites merely serves, to emphasize the illegal object behind such picketing. I further find that the picketing of the Equitable job with a sign which did not, describe properly the labor dispute involved, Cetti's solicitation or direction of Thompson's employees to engage in a work stoppage on the Equitable job, and the picketing of the Montag job at times when no employee of Pittsburgh was present, constitute unlawful inducement and encouragement of employees. It is found accordingly that, by the inducement and encouragement found above,. of the employees of secondary employers to refuse to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring Beers and Jones to cease doing business with Pittsburgh,. the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. The General Counsel and the Charging Party also contend that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by its "admitted failure to affirmatively inform the employees of the secondary employers on the jobs which they picketed, that such employees were free to cross and work behind Respondent's picket lines, without reprisals or fear of reprisals." As authority for this contention they cite the Intermediate Report in Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, et al. (Stover Steel Service), 108 NLRB 1575. In view of the findings made above, r find it unnecessary to pass upon this question. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, Local Union No. 193, and District Council No. 38 of Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, affiliated with A. F. of L., are labor organizations. within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By inducing and encouraging employees to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services for their employers, where an object thereof was to force or require Beers Construction Company and J. A. Jones Construction Company to cease doing business with Pittsburgh, the Re- spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication ] Appendix NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPER- HANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No 193, AND DISTRICT COUNCIL No. 38 os BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AF- FILIATED WITH A. F. OF L. Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby give notice that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of any employer, other titan Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to engage in a strike or concerted re- OPERATIVE PLASTERERS' AND CEMENT FINISHERS', ETC. 463 fusal in the course of their employment to perform any services for their em- ployers, where an object thereof is to force or require any employer or person to'cease doing business with Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPER- HANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 193, AND DIS- TRICT COUNCIL No. 38 OF BROTHERHOOD OF PAINT- ERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH A . F. OF L., Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By---------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. OPERATIVE PLASTERERS ' AND CEMENT FINISIIERS ' INTERNATIONAL As SOCIATION , LOCAL 555, AFL and LEE E. PARKER. Case No. 36-CB- 90. October 25, 1954 Decision and Order On June 8, 1954, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,' and recommendations? Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Operative Plasterers' and Cement Finishers' International Association, Local 555, AFL, its. officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 'We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respondent unlawfully prompted the dis- crimination, against employee Lee E. Parker. However, in reaching this conclusion, we deem, It' unnecessary to pass upon the existence of an illegal "tacit understanding" between Respondent and Teller Construction Co. 2 We shall, without passing upon the propriety of the Trial Examiner 's recommended order , substitute therefor the Board's usual order in this type case. See , e. g., Local $57, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, etc., 109 NLRB 821. 110 NLRB No. 79.