Local 926

188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Products Salesmen's Association, herein called the Independent Union, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By refusing to reinstate or reemploy Mikal Wallace on April 9 , 1956, because he failed and refused to sign a written statement repudiating and withdrawing a charge filed in his behalf with the National Labor Relations Board, and by there- after on May 7, 1956, requiring the withdrawal of said charge as a condition of reinstatement to his former position , the Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act. 3. By eliminating route 15 on or about August 1, 1956, thereby removing Mikal Wallace from employment as driver-salesman on a regular route, because of his previous union activities in behalf of the Operating Engineers and the filing of charges under the Act, the Respondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment , to discourage membership in a labor organization, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3), and (4) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are also unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), and affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL- CIO and Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc. Case No. 10-CC-308. March 24, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On May 24, 1957, Trial Examiner Sidney Asher issued his Inter- mediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (b) (4) (A) 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 General Counsel filed exceptions to the limited scope of the recom- mended order, and the Respondent filed a statement in lieu of exceptions, indicating that it did not wish to file exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, the statement in lieu of exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications in the order noted below. The statement in lieu of exceptions raises no question material to a decision by the Board. The Respondent's willingness to comply with the recommendations of the Trial Examiner cannot impair the right 120 NLRB No. 27. LOCAL 926 189 of the General Counsel, as a party, to take exceptions thereto and to have Board consideration thereof.' 1. The Trial Examiner concluded that the posting of notices at the job site of Armco's project was unnecessary because, among other things, Columbus' employees were no longer working on the project and picketing had ceased. The General Counsel excepts to this con- clusion on the ground that the gravamen of the Respondent's viola- tion of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) is not the inducement of Columbus' primary employees but the inducement of employees of other and secondary employers; and that the appropriate remedy is one which requires the Respondent to post a notice on the job site, so as to notify such secondary employers that their employees will not in the future be induced to engage in similar work stoppages. We find merit in this exception and shall therefore modify the order accordingly.' 2. The recommended order requires the Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in strikes or the inducement of secondary employees where an object is to force anyone to cease doing business with Columbus Construction Company, the primary employer herein. The General Counsel excepts to the proposed order as affording inade- quate protection to Armco, the Charging Party and other employers Armco may engage. Because the Respondent has engaged in similar violation in respect to other employers in the area,' the General Counsel argues that it can reasonably be expected that the Respondent will continue to commit similar violations in the future. He therefore requests the Board to enlarge the order to extend protection against conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) to "any other employer or person." Under the circumstances, we find merit in this exception and shall modify the order accordingly.' 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 Respondent Local 926, Interna- ' Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 6, as Amended and Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101 11 ; Sec. 10 (e) of the Act; and Sec. 8 (b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U S C Sec 1009 (b). 3E g., Local 47, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. (Texas Industries, Inc.), 112 NLRB 923, 9261 3 Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO ( Campbell Coal Co ), Case No. 10-CC-187, consent decree enforcing settlement agreement, issued Janu- ary 28, 1957 ; the same, Case No. 10-CC-173, consent decree enforcing settlement agree- ment, issued June 24, 1957 (not published). 'International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Local No. 554, AFL-CIO (Clark Bros. Transfer Company ), et al, 116 NLRB 1891, 1893-1894; United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, et al. (Wendnagel h Company), 119 NLRB 1444. 190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tional Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, its officers, repre- sentatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of any employer, other than Columbus Construction Company, to engage in, a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other- wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Columbus Construction Company, or with any other employer or person. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its offices and meeting places, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa- tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members of Local 926 are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region signed copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix," 6 for posting, at the job site of Armco's College Park project, for sixty (60) consecutive days, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted; if Armco is willing to do so. (c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 6 This notice is amended by substituting for the words , "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner," the words "A Decision and Order." In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the notice shall be amended by substi- tuting 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." 6 See footnote 5, supra. INTERMEDIATE REPORT This proceeding involves charges that Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Atlanta, Georgia, herein called the Respondent , since on or about January 24, 1957, has engaged in, and induced and encouraged employees of Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc., the Charging Party, herein called Armco, Cleveland Electric Company, herein called Cleveland , and Hunter Plumbing & Heating Company, herein called Hunter , and the suppliers of Armco, Cleveland and Hunter, to engage in, strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise work on goods, or articles and materials or commodities or to perform services for their employer, an object or purpose thereof being to force or require Armco , Hunter, Cleveland , and their suppliers and other employers and persons , to cease doing business with Columbus LOCAL 926 191 Construction Company, herein called Columbus. It is alleged that this conduct violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act. After the issuance of a complaint by the General Counsdi 1 and the filing of an answer by the Respondent, a hearing was held before me on April 2 and 3, 1957, at Atlanta, Georgia. All parties were represented and participated fully in the hearing. After the close of the hearing, the transcript was corrected in one respect, without objection. Each party has filed a brief and all briefs have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD Columbus Construction Company, herein called Columbus, is a Georgia corpora- tion, with its principal office and place of business at Columbus, Georgia. It has no fixed office in any other State. Columbus is engaged in heavy construction work and annually performs services outside the State of Georgia valued at more than $400,000. In view of the allegations of the complaint and the evidence that, at all material times, the Respondent was engaged in a dispute with Columbus, but was not engaged in a dispute with any other employer named in the complaint, it is clear that Columbus is the alleged primary employer. Moreover, Columbus' operations are sufficient to meet the Board's jurisdictional tests applicable to such enterprises.2 It is accordingly found that Columbus is, and at all material times has been, engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. The above findings have been reached without reference to the allegation of the complaint that, in 1956, Armco (the secondary employer) shipped products valued at more than $500,000 from its East Point, Georgia, plant to customers outside the State of Georgia. It is true that, for jurisdictional purposes, the secondary employer's operations must be considered. But this is limited to the extent that the secondary employer's operations are affected by the conduct involved.3 Here, the Respondent picketed only at Armco's construction project near College Park, Georgia. There is no showing that Armco's operations at East Point, an entirely separate establish- ment 4 miles away, were affected. Hence the extent of Armco's operations at East Point is immaterial. U. THE RESPONDENT The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is found, that Local 926, Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The project involved In the fall of 1956, Armco began to build a new fabricating plant near College Park, Georgia, about 100 miles from Columbus' office in Columbus, Georgia. In October 1956, Armco awarded to Columbus the contract for all the clearing, grubbing, grading, concrete work, and drainage work on the project, and Columbus then began operations on the job. Columbus' employees reported daily directly to the job site. They included operating engineers, carpenters, concrete finishers, and laborers. The carpenters were members of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 1 The designation General Counsel is intended to include the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and his representative at the hearing. 2 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481, 483-484. 3Truck Drivers' Local Union No. 649, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL (Jamestown Builders' Exchange, Inc.), 93 NLRB 386, 387; United Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers of America, et at. (Kanawha Coal Operators' Association), 94 NLRB 1731, 1732, enf. 198 F. 2d 391, cert. denied 344 U. S. 876; Local Union No. 830, Brewery and Beer Distributor Drivers, Helpers, and Platform Men, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL (Earl Vann), 106 NLRB 405, 406; Marie T. Reilly, d/b/a Reilly Cartage Company, 110 NLRB 1742, 1744; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, General Drivers and Helpers Local No. 554, et al. (McAllister Transfer, Inc.), 110 NLRB 1769, 1771, 1772. 192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD America. By mid-November 1956, Columbus had completed 75 to 80 percent of the heavy grading. Armco awarded to Hunter the contract for the installation of all plumbing facili- ties and fixtures. To cleveland was given the contract for the installation of all power and lighting circuits and fixtures. Hunter began working on the project late in November 1956, and Cleveland early in December 1956. In the middle of January 1957, Armco commenced steel erection work on the project using its own employees, who were members of International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers.4 The job site had three vehicular entrances and was also entered by a private railroad siding. The employees of Columbus, Cleveland, Hunter, and Armco used the entrances to the job site jointly. B. The dispute between the Respondent and Columbus Tommy Archer was the Respondent's business representative during the time in question, and T. L. Wright was its president and assistant business representative. The parties stipulated, and it is found, that Archer and Wright were, at all material times, agents of the Respondent. O. T. Summers, construction superintendent on the job for Columbus, testified that in mid-December 1956, he was visited at the job site by Archer. According to Summers, Archer asked to see C. E. McRee, president of Columbus; Summers replied that McRee was not there; and Archer then asked if Summers knew what McRee "was going to do about the non-union operators on the job," adding that "he did not want to have to shut the job down" and that he thought he and McRee "could reach an agreement." Archer placed his conversation with Summers somewhat later, "a week or so" before January 24, 1957. According to Archer's version, he was accompanied by Frank King, an official of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Archer asked if Summers would mind if he talked to employees of Columbus about joining the Union; Summers replied that he did not want the employees interfered with while they were working on the project; Archer then asked if Summers would "mind" if Archer "put a picket up out there and advertise to the people to join the union"; and Sum- mers answered, "No, sir; I certainly wouldn't. Just go right ahead and help your- self." On rebuttal, Summers denied that Archer had requested permission to talk to employees of Columbus or had asked if he might place an organizational picket near the job. King did not testify In mid-December 1956, Wright visited the job site, accompanied by King. He talked to a Mr. Sellers, grade superintendent for Columbus on the job, and attempted to persuade Sellers "that it was the best thing for his company to work organized labor." A few days later, Wright returned to the job site alone and spoke to McRee. According to McRee, Wright requested him to sign a union contract "on all my jobs"; McRee refused on the ground that he "felt like it would handicap my busi- ness"; Wright "stated that there was only one thing left for him to do, and that was close the job down"; McRee pointed out "that within a week or ten days of good weather we would be through with the grading on that job"; and Wright replied, "Well, you have really put me on the spot moving in here on this job like this and getting it almost completed before we knew you were on the job." Wright gave a somewhat different version of this conversation. According to Wright, there was a discussion "about organized labor and the way it operated," with Wright pointing out the advantages of using organized labor, and attempting to persuade McRee "to use our people." Wright denied that he had threatened to close down the job. One other alleged prepicketing conference between representatives of the Respond- ent and Columbus should be mentioned here. Summers testified that during the second week of January 1957, Wright and King visited the job site; Wright asked Summers if he knew what McRee "intended to do about signing a contract"; Sum- mers replied that he (Summers) had nothing to do with that; Wright stated that "they were going to shut the job down if he did not sign a contract," and that he (Wright) "was going to see that the job went union all the way." Wright denied 4A. J. Dugas, erecting supervisor for Armco, testified that some of the Armco em- ployees used on this job were members of the Respondent On the other hand Tommy Archer, business representative of the Respondent, testified that he personally knew "just about all the members" and that to his knowledge no member was employed at the job site I deem it unnecessary to make a finding as to whether or not any members of the Respondent ever worked at the job site. LOCAL 926 193 that he had ever spoken to Summers any place or any time before the hearing in the instant case. King did not testify. I deem it unnecessary to make detailed findings as to what was said by each participant in each of these conversations. Such specificity would unduly enlarge this report without serving any useful function. On the basis of the record as a whole, however, it is found that since mid-December 1956, the Respondent has been engaged in a dispute with Columbus regarding the employment by Columbus of a nonunion operating engineer or engineers 5 on the Armco project at College Park, and/or Columbus' refusal to sign a contract with the Respondent governing the terms and conditions of employment of its operating engineers on all its jobs. To what extent was any other employer embroiled in this dispute prior to the beginning of the picketing? Wilbur C. Edwards, production engineer for Armco on the job, testified that in mid-November 1956, he received a telephone call at his office at the job site from someone purporting to be Archer who stated that Armco had contracted work to Columbus, a nonunion firm, that he had in the past recommended Armco as a union organization , but would not continue to do so in the future if Armco let contracts to nonunion firms; and requested that the contract with Columbus be canceled. According to Edwards, he replied that he would not cancel the contract with Columbus because it was Armco's policy to let work indis- criminately to union and nonunion firms. Edwards admitted that he had never talked to Archer before or since this telephone conversation and that he did not iecognize the voice of the person to whom he was speaking. Indeed, he testified that "it could have been anyone's voice." In view of the failure to identify the voice of an incoming telephone call, all the evidence concerning the call was clearly inadmissible in evidence.6 However, as it was received without objection, it must "be considered and given its natural probative effect." 7 Archer denied that he ever had any telephone conversation with Edwards. Moreover, there is no inde- pendent evidence that the Respondent knew of Columbus' presence on the Armco project before mid-December. Indeed, according to McRee, in mid-December Wright expressed pique that Columbus' part of the project was "almost completed before we knew you were on the job." I am therefore convinced that Edwards' testimony concerning a telephone conversation with an unidentified person in No- vember 1956, has very little, if any, "natural probative effect." It is accordingly found that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that, before the picketing began, any authorized representative of the Respondent communicated with any official of Armco or any other neutral employer relative to the Respondent's dispute with Columbus. The answer admits, and it is found, that the Respondent was not engaged in any primary dispute with Armco, Cleveland, or Hunter during any material time. C. The picketing Between 1 p. in. and 2 : 30 p. in. on January 24 , 1957, Archer and Wright posted a picket on the highway leading to the Armco project at College Park.8 He was supplied with leaflets and carried a sign which read: "The engineers on this job are nonunion and are invited to become members of Engineers Local Number 926, AFL-CIO and enjoy the benefits being received by Union Engineers." The exact manner of the picket's posting is in dispute . Summers testified that a Chevrolet automobile containing Wright and two other men (presumably Archer and the picket ) "drove down into the job site, made a circle , blew their horn about three times, and started driving back towards the street. And when they did, the 5 McRee testified that on January 24, 1957, Columbus had only 2 pieces of equipment at the job site and employed only 1 operating engineer there Archer testified that, from his observation of the equipment on the job site at the time, 6 or 7 operating engineers must have been employed by Columbus there. I deem it unnecessaiy to determine the number of operating engineeis employed by Columbus on the job e Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed ) Sec. 2155 (c) • "No one has ever contended that, if the person first calling up is the very one to be identified, his mere purporting to be A is suffi- cient" (Emphasis in original ] See also Commonwealth v. Harros, 232 Mass. 588 ; and Murphy v. Jack, 142 N Y. 215. 1 Diaz v. U. 8, 223 U. S 442, 450 8 There was testimony by Archer, Wright, and the picket regarding the instructions which Archer and Wright gave the picket I deem such testimony immaterial. 483142-59-vol. 120-14 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD job steward for the Iron Workers . . . started gathering up its men, and they began to pick up their tools and went on out." According to Summers, this occurred before the picket was stationed on the highway. J. W. Reid, a witness for the General Counsel, testified that on January 24,9 he was employed by Armco at the project as a steel erector, and denied that he heard any automobile horn being blown. He further testified that he was a member of the Iron Workers, and denied that the Iron Workers' steward on the job said anything to him about ceasing work. Loyd J. Reese, another witness for the General Counsel, testified to the same effect. He denied that he saw any automobile drive on the job site or that he heard a horn blowing on January 24. Archer, Wright, and Wade H. Dooley, the picket in question, all denied that they had entered the job site on January 24, and Archer further denied that on that date he owned a Chevrolet automobile. Dooley further denied that he drove to College Park that day in the same car with Archer and Wright, testifying that he rode alone in his own automobile behind the one occupied by them. In my opinion, the denials of Archer, Wright, and Dooley regarding the alleged horn-blowing incident are bolstered by the failure of the General Counsel to produce any witness other than Summers who saw the automobile enter the project or heard its horn blown. Accordingly, I credit these denials. Moreover, as Reid and Reese, who were members of the Iron Workers, denied that the Iron Workers' steward on the project suggested that the steel erectors stop work, I find that no such incident occurred. Just before the picket appeared, there were four groups of employees working simultaneously at the job site: the employees of Columbus, the steel erectors em- ployed by Armco, the plumbers employed by Hunter, and the electricians who worked for Cleveland. When the picket made his appearance, the employees of Columbus continued to work; so also apparently did Hunter's emloyees. But the steel erectors employed by Armco and the electricians who worked for Cleveland ceased working and left the job site Reid and Reese testified that a group of Armco's steel erectors then approached Archer on the highway and Reid and Reese asked Archer what the trouble was, and that Archer, without mentioning the name of any specific firm, replied that the picket was there because "there was non-union operators on the job." Archer denied generally that he ever approached employees of employers other than Columbus and requested their cooperation. He admitted, however, that on January 24, a group of steel erectors employed by Armco came out to where he was stationed on the highway and began a conversation with him. In view of this admission, I find that on January 24, after the picket took up his posi- tion, a conversation took place between Archer and a group of Armco's employees substantially as related by Reid and Reese. On January 25, A. J. Dugas, erecting supervisor for Armco, telephoned to Archer and asked him why a picket had been placed on the College Park project. According to Dugas, the conversation then proceeded as follows: ARCHER: The picket is there because Columbus Construction is using non- union operators on the equipment out there. DUGAS: Can we work out anything to go to work out there, so we can get the job done? ARCHER: The only thing we can work out is if Columbus Construction would go union on all its jobs. DUGAS: In all probability we could persuade Columbus Construction to use union operators for this particular job, but so far as making Columbus Con- struction use union operators on all its jobs, we have no control whatsoever. Suppose we let Columbus Construction finish their job and then move off, and then we will go to work, what would happen? ARCHER: In all probability I would still leave the picket on the job if Columbus Construction finished the job. DUGAS: What can be worked out? ARCHER: If you cancel your contract with Columbus Construction and then give it to union contractors, or if Columbus Construction goes union on all its jobs, then I will take the picket off the job. I always thought Armco was a pretty good outfit, because they worked union on all their jobs, but at this particular time I do not think too much of Armco for giving a contract to a non-union contractor. Ducns: It is the company's policy not to make any discrimination when they give contracts, whether they are union or not union. 9 All dates hereafter refer to the year 1957, unless otherwise specified. LOCAL 926 195 Archer gave a somewhat different version of this conversation. According to him, he told Dugas that the purpose of the picketing was to organize the operating engineers employed by Columbus. Archer denied that he had demanded that Columbus be removed from the job. Based upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I credit Dugas' version of this telephone conversation as more accurate than that of Archer, and find that Archer asked Dugas to cancel Armco's contract with Columbus. On February 12, at McRee's request, McRee conferred with Archer and Wright in a hotel room in Atlanta, Georgia. All three testified as to what was said, and their versions were not entirely in agreement. I do not consider it necessary to make any detailed findings as to everything that transpired during this conference, but deem it sufficient to find-as all three testified-that among other things said, McRee requested Archer and Wright to remove the picket from the College Park project and they declined to do so. On February 13, Armco filed the instant charges. On February 18, the picket sign was replaced by one reading: "Operating Engineers Local Union Number 926, AFL-CIO picketing Columbus Construction Company for the purpose of organiza- tion. We invite the employees of Columbus Construction Company to join our Local Union. See our leaflet." On March 4, Columbus completed work on its contract with Armco, and removed its equipment and employees from the job site. Thereupon, the Respondent's picket- ing of the job site ceased. The steel erectors employed by Armco, who had refrained from working at the job site during the picketing, then resumed work there. The complaint in the instant case was filed on March 6. During the entire period in question, January 24 through March 4, Dooley was the only picket on duty at the job site. So far as the record shows, his picketing was peaceful and orderly and he picketed only during times when employees of Columbus were present on the job site. He did not hand out any leaflets. The General Counsel introduced the testimony of several witnesses tending to show that Dooley attempted to persuade truckdrivers employed by neutral carriers not to make deliveries at the job site consigned to Columbus, Armco, and Cleveland. Some testified that Dooley said the job was on strike. Similarly, the Charging Party elicited testimony designed to demonstrate that Dooley attempted to dissuade em- ployees of Atlanta West Point Railroad from delivering a cargo of steel consigned to Armco at the job site via Armco's private siding. Dooley in substance denied all this, testifying that he spoke to nobody except his cousin, some neighbors, some job applicants, and a single truckdriver who asked where the Armco job site was. In view of my disposition of the issues hereafter on other grounds, if the incidents had occurred as related by the General Counsel's witnesses, that would not affect the scope of the order hereafter recommended. Accordingly, I will not resolve this conflict in the testimony.10 D. Inducement and encouragement In order to prove that there has been a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, the General Counsel must show, among other things, that the Respondent induced and encouraged the employees of a neutral secondary employer to refuse concertedly to perform services for their employer. In terms of the instant proceeding the question is: Has it been shown that the Respondent induced and encouraged ,employees of Armco to refuse concertedly to perform services for Armco, employees ,of Hunter to refuse concertedly to perform services for Hunter, or employees of Cleveland to refuse concertedly to perform services for Cleveland? In this connection it should be borne in mind that the picket was admittedly placed at the job site at the instigation of authorized agents of the Respondent acting within the scope of -their authority, and that this was done at a time when the job site harbored employees -of three neutral employers-Armco, Hunter, and Cleveland. The Board has set ,forth these principles: (1) the maintenance of a traditional picket line before employee entrances- wholly apart from the literal appeal of the signs carried by the pickets-consti- tutes an act of inducement and encouragement of employees who must perform services behind the picket line, to engage in a concerted refusal to perform services for their employer; and (2) such picketing-whether or not it succeeds in bringing about a strike or concerted refusal by employees to perform work-is 10 Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No 51 (W H. Arthur Com- ;pany), 115 NLRB 1137, 1139. 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the reach of Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act, if it is directed to one of the objectives therein prohibited.11 It follows that, from January 24 to March 4, 1957, the Respondent induced and encouraged the employees of Armco, Hunter, and Cleveland to refuse concertedly to perform services for their respective employers. E. Legality of the abject We turn now to the major issue in the case. The complaint alleges, and the General Counsel contends, that an object of the Respondent's conduct was "to force or require Armco, Hunter, Cleveland, and their suppliers and other employers and persons, to cease doing business with Columbus." On the other hand, the Respondent maintains that the sole purpose of its conduct was to organize the operating engineers employed by Columbus. Both Archer and Wright testified that the only reason a picket was placed on Armco's College Park job was to organize Columbus' operating engineers. In this connection, Archer admitted that he had not approached any of Columbus' employees and appealed directly to them to join the Respondent, but explained this as follows: Q. Did you get to talk to any of them?-A. I did not personally, no, sir. Q. What stopped you?-A. Well, I could not go on the job, and they did not see fit to come out and talk to me. Q. Did you know where their homes were?-A. No, sir. Q. Any way of finding out?-A. No, sir. I did not have any way of finding it out. Let us examine this explanation in the light of standards established by the Board for application to common-situs picketing. In the Moore Dry Dock case the Board said: When a secondary employer is harboring the situs of a dispute between a union and a primary employer, the right of neither the union to picket nor of the secondary employer to be free from picketing can be absolute. The enmeshing of premises and situs qualifies both rights. In the kind of situation that exists in this case, we believe that picketing of the premises of a secondary employer is primary if it meets the following conditions: (a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises; (b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs; (c) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the sous; and (d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer.12 Assuming, without deciding, that criteria (a), (b), and (c) were met here, I am convinced that criterion (d) was not. There are two reasons for concluding that the Respondent's picketing of the Armco project did not clearly disclose that the dispute was with Columbus. In the first place, the original picket sign used did not mention Columbus, but on the contrary referred generally to "this job." It is no answer to point to the word "engineers" and urge that Columbus was the only It Knit Good Workers' Union, Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (James Knitting Mills, Inc ), 117 NLRB 1468. See also Local 50, Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America, AFL-CIO (Arnold Bakers Inc.), 115 NLRB 1333, 1337-1341 ; and Local No 25, Bakery it Confectionery Workers Interna- tional Union of America, AFL-CIO (King's Bakery, Inc ), 116 NLRB 290, 293. 12 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547, 549. These criteria have had court approval N I. R B. v. Service Tiade Chauffeurs, Sales- men it Helpers Local 145, et at., 191 F 2d 65, 68 (C. A 2) , John A Ptezonkc d/b/a Stover Steel Service v. N. L R. B., 219 F. 2d 879, 883 (C. A. 4) ; N L R. B v Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen it Helpers Local Union No. 135 (Hoosier Petroleum Co ), 212 F 2d 216, 219 (C A. 7) ; N. L. R B. v. Local Union No. 55, et al., 218 F. 2d 226, 231 (C. A. 10) ; and Sales Drivers, Helpers it Building Construction Drivers Local Union 859, of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen it Helpers of Amer- ica, AFL v. N. L. R. B, 229 F. 2d 514 (C. A., D. C. 173), cert. denied 351 U. S. 972. See also N. L. R. B. v. Associated Musicians Local 802, AFL, et al., 226 F. 2d 900, 905 (C. A. 2), cert. denied 351 U S 962 But compare N L R B. v General Drivers, Ware- housemen and Helpers, Local 968 (Otis Massey Co.), 225 F. 2d 205, 209-210 (C. A. 5), cert. denied 350 U. S. 914. LOCAL 926 197 employer on the project using operating engineers. The Board has in the past disagreed with a similar contention made in another case 13 and it is now rejected here. It is also urged that the change in the wording of the picket sign on February 18, when Columbus' name appeared thereon for the first time, cures any prior illegality. I cannot agree. The change came after the filing of charges against the Respondent and at a time when the previous picket sign had already caused the withdrawal from the project of employees of Armco and Cleveland. And the change in wording manifestly came too late to undo the harm done or to apprise employees of neutral employers long since departed from the scene that there was no intent to put pressure on them. It is therefore found that the change in the wording of the picket sign is insufficient to offset the convincing evidence, further discussed below, that an object of the picketing was to force Armco to cancel its contract with Columbus.14 In the second place, Archer's statements on January 24, on the highway near the job site to Reid, Reese, and other steel erectors employed by Armco that "there was non-union operators on the job"-without naming Columbus as the employer of the nonunion workmen-did not clearly indicate that the Respondent's appeal was confined to employees of Columbus. In view of this statement and the wording of the first picket sign, I conclude that the Moore Dry Dock standards have not been met. The failure of the picketing to meet the conditions laid down in Moore Dry Dock is not, however, the only indication here of the illegal intent of the Respondent. Thus, on January 25, Archer informed Dugas that the picket would be removed if Armco canceled its contract with Columbus. It is true that such a statement did not itself constitute inducement or encouragement violative of the Act, as it was addressed to a supervisor rather than to employees. It may nevertheless be considered in determining the object of the picketing.15 And in my opinion it clearly points to an attempt to involve the employees of Armco, a neutral secondary employer, in the primary dispute between the Respondent and Columbus. I conclude that an object of the Respondent's picketing of the College Park project was to force Armco to cancel its contract with Columbus, an object pro- scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. This finding is bottomed solely on these three factors: (1) the wording of the first picket sign; (2) the statement made by Archer on January 24, to a group of Armco's workers that there were nonunion operators employed on the job; and (3) the statement made by Archer on January 25, to Dugas that the picket would be removed if Armco canceled its contract with Columbus. The complaint further alleges, and the General Counsel contends, that an addi- tional object of the Respondent's conduct was to force Hunter and Cleveland to cease doing business with Columbus. However, Summers testified without con- tradiction that, during the period in question, Columbus was not doing any business with either Hunter or Cleveland. It follows that the Respondent could not have had as an object to compel Hunter or Cleveland to cease doing business with Columbus. I so find. It may well be that one of the Respondent's objects was to force Hunter and Cleveland to cease doing business with Armco (with whom they were under contract) in order to force Armco, in turn, to cease doing business with Columbus. 16 But this need not be decided, as it was not alleged in the complaint. 18 Local Union No. 55, and Carpenters District Council of Denver and Vicinity, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L (Professional and Business Men's Life Insurance Co.), 108 NLRB 363, 367, enfd. 218 F. 2d 226 (C. A. 10). 14 Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, Local Union No. 1730 (Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Georgia State Council, Augusta Chapter), 109 NLRB 1163, 1167-1168. "International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Building Material & Construction, Ice if Coal Drivers, Warehousemen if Yard- men, Local No. 659, AFL-CIO (Ready Mixed Concrete Company), 117 NLRB 1266, foot- note 3; and Local Union No. 55, and Carpenters District Council of Denver and Vicinity, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L. (Professional and Business Men's Life Insurance Company), supra 16lnternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. (Samuel Langer) v. N. L. R. B., 181 F. 2d 34, 37 (C. A. 2), affirmed 341 U. S. 694. 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD F. The defense of mootness There remains the Respondent's claim that this proceeding is now moot. Counsel for the Respondent points out that, as Columbus has completed its contract, there will be no more occasion to use operating engineers on the Armco job, that picketing of that project by the Respondent has ceased, and that the Respondent has no intention of resuming such picketing. From this it is urged that the matter is moot. The contention of mootness is lacking in merit. The gravamen of the violation was the Respondent's pressure upon the employees of Armco, a neutral employer, aimed at disrupting Armco's relations with Columbus. The use of such secondary pressure on the Armco project may realistically be viewed merely as a sample of what might be repeated, if not prohibited, on other projects on which Columbus may be employed in the future. Moreover, the underlying dispute between the Respondent and Columbus has not been resolved. This defense is therefore rejected.17 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By inducing and encouraging employees of Armco Drainage and Metal Prod- ucts, Inc., Cleveland Electric Company, and Hunter Plumbing & Heating Company, to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their respective employers, with an object of forcing or requiring Armco Drainage Company to cease doing business with Columbus Construction Company, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the opera- tions of Columbus Construction Company, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to burden and obstruct commerce and the free flow thereof, and therefore constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The allegation of the complaint that an object of the Respondent's conduct was to force or require Cleveland Electric Company or Hunter Plumbing & Heating Company to cease doing business with Columbus Construction Company has not been sustained. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 11N L. R B. v Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters d Joiners of America, AFL, et W, 341 U. S. 707, 715; and General Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No 886, AFL-CIO v N. L R. B., 247 F. 2d 71 (C. A, D C ) APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL OUR OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, AND MEMBERS 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 Rela- tions Act, as amended, you are notified that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage employees of any employer other than Columbus Construction Company to engage in, a strike or concerted refusal to perform any services designed to force anyone to cease doing business with Columbus Construction Company. LOCAL 926, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, 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.