Local 3, Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

566 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO and Picker X-Ray Corporation and Lenox Hill Hospital. Cases Nos. f-CC-541 and 2-CC-541-2. August 11, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On April 5, 1960, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent, Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, AFT.,--CIO, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices 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 and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board i 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and, except as noted below, hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act on November 5, 1959, by inducing and encouraging employees of Neptune Storage Company, Inc., herein called Neptune, and Belmont Electric Company, Inc., to engage in a work stoppage, as detailed in the Intermediate Report, with an object of forcing or requiring the Hospital and Neptune to cease doing business with Picker X-ray Corporation, herein called Picker, the primary employer with whom the Respondent had a dispute.' 2. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act, as amended. We do not agree with this finding. The basis for the Trial Examiner's holding is that, 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three -member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 2 The Respondent has excepted to unfair labor practice findings of the Trial Examiner, which we have adopted , on the ground that he erred in his credibility resolutions It is well established, however, that the Board will not overrule a Trial Examiner's resolu- tion as to credibility unless a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces the Board that such resolution was incorrect Cadre Industries Corporation, 124 NLRB 278. In such conclusion is warranted in this case. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, Flatbush General Hospital , 126 NLRB 144, would not govern the matter of the assertion of jurisdiction over Lenox Hill Hospital, herein called the Hospital. As a nonprofit institution , the Hospital is exempt from the Act by Section 2(2) thereof However as indicated by our unfair labor practice findings herein, we view the Hospital as a "person" under the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act 3International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. ( Samuel Langer v. N.L.R B., 341 U.S. 694. 128 NLRB No. 73. LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 567 on about December 1, 1959, Owens, the Respondent's shop steward, told Akers, the executive sales manager of Picker, in the presence of Pinepuks, the Hospital's project manager, that the electricians repre- sented by the Respondent would walk off the job if Picker's service- men worked on the installation job at the Hospital. The Trial Ex- aminer found that Shop Steward Owens' objective on this occasion was to force the Hospital to cease doing business with Picker. How- ever, Pinepuks' own testimony is that he did not overhear this threat by Owens directed to Akers. In these circumstances, we believe that the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusion is not supported by the record.' ORDER5 Upon the basis of the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging the employees of Neptune Storage Company, Inc., to engage in a strike or con- certed refusal in the course of their employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, arti- cles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services , where an object thereof is to force or require Neptune Storage Company, Inc., or Lenox Hill Hospital to cease doing business with Picker X-Ray Corporation. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and meeting places copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." s Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent , be posted by the said Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Second Region suf- ficient signed copies of said notice for posting by Picker X-Ray Cor- 4 As no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner 's finding that Owens' threat to Akers was not proscribed by the Act , we adopt such finding pro forma. 5In accordance with the Trial Examiner's recommendation, to which no exception was filed, our Order herein contains no specific reference to Belmont Electric Company, Inc. 0 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 worlds "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD poration, Neptune Storage Company, Inc., and Lenox Hill Hospital, they being willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (c) Notify the said Regional Director in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Neptune Stor- age Company, Inc., to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Neptune Storage Company, Inc., or Lenox Hill Hospital to cease doing business with Picker X-Ray Corporation. LocAL 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate charges filed by Picker X-Ray Corporation, herein sometimes called Picker, and Lenox Hill Hospital, herein sometimes called Hospital, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New York), issued his consolidated complaint, dated December 15, 1959, against Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 3 or .the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in conduct which constitutes unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended in 1947, 61 Stat. 136, and within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended on September 14, 1959, and ef- fective November 13, 1959, 73 Stat. 519, herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied all unfair labor practice allegations. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner on March 2 to 4, 1959, in New York, New York. The General Counsel, LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 569 the Respondent, and Picker were represented at the hearing by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument at the close of the hearing, and thereafter to file briefs as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All counsel presented oral argument before the close of the hearing and waived the filing of briefs. Upon the entire record 1 in this case, and from my observations of the witnesses, I make the following. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES Picker X-Ray Corporation, herein called Picker, is a New York corporation, with its principal office in White Plains, New York, a manufacturing plant in Cleveland, Ohio, and branch offices in various States of the United States, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, distribution, and servicing of X-ray and radiation equipment and related products. During the past year Picker manufactured, sold, and dis- tributed from its Cleveland, Ohio, plant to points outside the State of Ohio, products valued in excess of $10,000,000. Lenox Hill Hospital, herein called Hospital, is a nonprofit New York corpora- tion, engaged in New York City in the operation of a nonprofit general hospital providing the usual hospital services. During the past year Hospital has purchased drugs and foods, valued at $100,000, which were shipped to it directly from points outside the State of New York. Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc., herein called Psaty, is a New York corporation engaged in the State of New York in providing and performing general building contracting, primarily in connection with the construction of public and institutional buildings. During the past year, Psaty purchased materials, valued in excess of $50,000, from firms located outside the State of New York and which materials were shipped from these out-of-State locations directly to jobsites in the State of New York. Neptune Storage Company, Inc., herein called Neptune, is a New York corpora, tion, with its principal office in New Rochelle, New York, and is engaged as a com- mon carrier by motor vehicle, certificated by the Interstate Commerce Commission to perform, service in interstate commerce. During the past year, Neptune received revenue, in excess of $50,000, for transporting goods in interstate commerce outside the State of New York. Belmont Electric Company, Inc., herein called Belmont, is a New York corpora- tion, with its principal office and place of business in New York City, and is engaged in providing and performing electrical contracting and related services. Upon the above undisputed facts, I find that Picker, Neptune, Psaty, and Hospital are persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (u) of the Act.2 II. THE RESPONDENT The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the record shows, and I find that Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction; the issues Hospital was having a new hospital wing constructed, and Herbert Pinepuks was Hospital's project manager with respect to new construction. Hospital had a con- tract with Picker for the purchase of a cobalt 60 therapy unit for the new hospital wing. This contract included the delivery, assembly, installation, wiring, and test- ing of the unit as well as instructions to personnel in its operation. Picker had an oral agreement with Neptune for the delivery of the cobalt 60 unit from Picker's Cleveland, Ohio, factory to the new building being constructed for Hospital. Psaty is the general contractor for the construction of this new building for Hospital. Belmont was engaged to perform the electrical wiring and installation in the new building as a subcontractor of Psaty. 1 I hereby note and correct the following obvious error in the typewritten transcript of testimony : On page 122, line 6, the word "members" is corrected to read "nonmembers" 2 The record does not contain sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that Belmont Is so engaged 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On November 5, 1959, a Neptune truck arrived at Hospital with the cobalt 60 unit which Hospital had purchased from Picker. Neptune's employees were represented by Local 814 of the international Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, herein called Local 814; Belmont's employees were represented by Local 3, Respondent herein. Local 3 had attempted to organize the servicemen employed by Picker in its New York City branch office, and failed to receive a majority of the ballots cast in an election conducted by the Board in June 1959. At all times material herein, Picker's servicemen were not represented by any union. The issues litigated in this proceeding are whether, in connection with the delivery and installation of the cobalt 60 unit in the new hospital building, Respondent Local 3 (1) induced employees on November 5 to cease. work for the proscribed objectives in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act prior to its 1959 amend- ments, and (2) after November 13, 1959, engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the amended Act B The events of November 5, 1959 1. In the lobby of the new building under construction As previously stated, a Neptune trailer truck pulled into the hospital driveway with a cobalt 60 X-ray unit about 9:30 a.m on November 5. Warren Loud, the truckdriver of Neptune, went into the building to find out where the unit was to be unloaded in the new building under construction, he was informed by representatives of Picker that the equipment was to be brought to the third floor where it was to be assembled. Loud and the three helpers, employed by Neptune, then proceeded to unload the equipment. They brought one piece of the machinery up to the third floor and had taken another piece into the lobby when they were approached by Oliver Owens, an electrician employed by Belmont and shop steward of Respondent Local 3 on that job. Owens introduced himself to Loud as the shop steward of Local 3, the Electricians local. Owens stated to Loud, in the presence of the three helpers, that this was electrical equipment and should be handled by members of Local 3 and that they should stop unloading the equipment until the delegates of the respective locals would arrive and straighten out who was to handle the work. Loud first informed Neptune's office of the situation and then he and Owens called their respective delegates. Loud and his three helpers then waited in the lobby and performed no more work until ,the arrival of the delegates about 1 hour later, al- though 18 pieces of equipment still remained to be taken off the truck While waiting in the lobby, Pinepuks, Hospital's project manager for new con- struction, came over and, in the presence of Owens, asked Loud "what was holding up the works " Loud stated that there was a little difficulty between his local and Local 3 as to who was to unload the equipment. When Pinepuks replied that he wanted the Neptune men to unload the equipment, Owens stated that "nobody should touch the unloading of the machine" until the delegates arrived "or the whole job will be stopped there. The elevators would be shut down and everything." Upon the arrival of the delegates about 1 hour later, the Neptune men were directed to proceed with the unloading by the delegate of Local 814. The two dele- gates then conferred with Pinepuks and, as a result, the electricians were permitted to help out with the last few pieces of the equipment. The unloading of the entire unit was completed early in the afternoon.3 2. On the third floor Elmer Laube, a Picker serviceman, had been instructed by his superiors to prepare a room on the third floor for the installation of the cobalt 60 equipment. That morning he was engaged in the process of drilling holes in the concrete floor where 8 The findings in this section are based on the credible testimony of Pinepuks, Loud, and John Perez and Arturo Rivera, two of the Neptune truck helpers. Owens admitted telling Loud that there was a jurisdictional dispute here, that all electrical equipment delivered on the job is generally handled by electricians on the job, and that they should contact their respective business agents He denied stating that if the Neptune men proceeded to deliver the equipment to the third floor, the whole job and the elevators would be shut down or words to that effect. Owens did not impress me as a candid and forthright witness. He was evasive and contradictory on cross-examination. On the other hand, Loud, Perez, and Rivera were impartial and neutral witnesses ; they were members of Local 814 and were testifying under subpena Under all the circumstances, including the demeanor of the witnesses, I do not credit Owens' contrary testimony. LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 571 the machine was to be bolted and installed. The room was about 10 by 14 feet. At the same time, there was also an electrician working in the room, putting in electrical outlets and receptacles. About 9:30 a.m. Owens came into the room, introduced himself to Laube as the electrician's shop steward, and asked Laube if he had a Local 3 card. When Laube replied in the negative, Owens stated that this was the electrician's job, installing the unit. Laube thereupon called his foreman, Thomas F. Thompson, who was standing near the entrance to the room with Robert Hoffman, Picker's sales engineer. Thompson and Hoffman entered the room. Laube told Thompson that Owens wanted to know if Laube had a card and had stated that this work was for the electricians to do. Owens introduced himself to Thompson as the shop steward on the job and asked who was to do the work. Thompson replied that normally Picker installs it. Laube asked if he could finish drilling the holes. Owens replied in the negative and stated that he had orders from downtown that "Picker X-Ray doesn't work on this job." Thompson thereupon told Laube to pack up his tools and stop work. The electrician continued to work in the room while this conversa- tion was going on.4 C. Events after November 13, 1959 1. About November 15 About 11/2 weeks after November 5, Pinepuks, Hospital's project manager, tele- phoned Herbert S. Akers, executive sales manager for Picker and in charge of sales and service in the Manhattan, New York, area. Pinepuks stated that he wanted Picker to fulfill its obligations of the contract with Hospital and that that included the installation, assembly, wiring, and testing of the cobalt 60 unit. Akers asked if Pinepuks could find out if Local 3 was claiming only the wiring, or the assembly, or both. A few days later, Pinepuks informed Akers by telephone that he had been advised by Superintendent Spaulding of Belmont that Local 3 was claiming the assembly and electrical wiring. 2. About December 1 About December 1, Akers went to the new hospital building to see the shop steward of Local 3 about installing the cobalt 60 unit in accordance with Picker's contract with Hospital, which contract called for the installation of the unit with Picker's servicemen. Pinepuks introduced Owens to Akers as the shop steward of Local 3. Akers told Owens that Hospital wanted Picker to install the equipment with Picker's servicemen, and asked if they could expect any trouble. Owens replied that the electrical contractor on the job generally did all the work on this particular type of job, that Akers would have to see Hanson, the delegate of Local 3, and that "in the past we walked off the job and I believe the same thing would happen " Owens also stated that they had had trouble with Picker X-Ray previously. This conversa- tion took place in the presence of Pinepuks.5 3. About December 9 As a result of a conference with Judge Ryan of the district court during the pendency of the General Counsel's petition for a temporary restraining order, Picker started on the installation of the cobalt 60 unit on December 9, without interference 4The findings in this section are based on the credible testimony of Laube, Thompson, and Hoffman . Owens admitted that he spoke to Laube in the third-floor room while the latter was engaged in drilling holes in the concrete floor for the purpose of installing a piece of equipment. He testified that he asked Laube if he had a union card, that Laube replied in the negative , that Owens then stated that as a union electrician he personally could not work in that room with someone who was not a member of Local 3, and that Owens then walked out He denied telling Laube to stop working, denied talking at all to Thompson or Hoffman , and denied saying that be had orders from downtown that Picker was not to do any work on that job . He admitted that there might have been another person working in the room at the time. For reasons previ- ously indicated, I do not credit the testimony of Owens to the extent that it conflicts with that of Laube, Thompson , and Hoffman. 5 The findings in this section are based on the composite testimony, which I credit, of Akers, Pinepuks, and Owens. For reasons previously indicated , I do not credit Owens' testimony that be did not tell Akers that they had walked off the job in the past and that he believed the same thing would happen if the equipment was installed by Picker's servicemen. 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from Local 3. The assembly and wiring was completed shortly after Christmas, and the entire contract, including the testing, was subsequently fulfilled. D. Respects in which Respondent violated the Act The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act prior to the 1959 amendments, and also Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act, as amended in 1959. 1. Prior to November 13, 1959, the effective date of the 1959 amendments It is clear, and I find, that on November 5, 1959, Owens, Respondent's shop stew- ard, induced and encouraged the four employees of Neptune to stop delivering the cobalt 60 equipment to the third floor of the new building being constructed for Hospital, by telling them that it should be handled by members of Local 3 and that they should stop unloading the equipment until their respective delegates arrived and by announcing in the presence of the four Neptune employees, in response to Pinepuks' statement that he wanted the Neptune men to unload the equipment, that no one should touch the unloading of the equipment until the delegates arrived or the whole job would be shut down , including the elevators. It is also clear, and I find, that Owens' refusal that morning to permit Laube to con- tinue to drill the holes in the third-floor room, preparatory to installing the equip- ment because of his claim that it was electricians' work and his statement to Thompson that he had orders from downtown that "Picker X-Ray doesn't work on this job," constituted inducement and encouragement of the electrician employed by Belmont, who was working in .the room at the time, to cease performing any services if Picker servicemen did any work in connection with the installation of the equipment.6 Owens admitted that as shop steward on the job he had authority to make deci- sions with respect to union matters . In view of the foregoing , and upon considera- tion of the entire record as a whole, I find that Respondent Local 3 was responsible for Owens' conduct. Local 3 had a dispute with Picker over who should perform the work in connec- tion with the installation of Picker's equipment . Local 3 claimed jurisdiction over this work, contending that it should be done by electricians; Picker wanted to have the work done by its own servicemen, as provided in its contract with Hospital. It is therefore clear , and I find, that an object of Owens' conduct was to force or require Hospital and Neptune to cease doing business with Picker.? Respondent asserts as defenses to its conduct, and adduced evidence in support thereof, that ( 1) the job was not held up by any work stoppage because actual construction of the hospital wing had not been completed at that time, (2) Picker was violating its alleged agreement or understanding with Local 3 for the perform- ance of that type of work by electricians in accordance with a long-standing custom and practice in the area, and that Local 3 was merely attempting to assert its juris- diction over this work and to enforce its agreement with Picker, and (3) Picker was engaging in electrical installation work in violation of the code of the City of New York. Assuming, without deciding, that the record evidence supports Respond- ent's contentions , I find that they do not constitute a valid defense to the conduct proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act prior to the 1959 amendments. Re- spondent's dispute was with Picker, and not with Hospital , Neptune, Belmont, or the other contractors . The evil of Respondent's conduct, traditionally known as a secondary boycott , which Congress intended to eliminate by this section of the Act, was aptly described by Judge Learned Hand of the Court of Appeals for the Owens and the person performing services in that room were both electricians em- ployed by Belmont and represented by Local 3 Owens was the shop steward of the electricians on the job. The Supreme Court had held that "the words 'induce and en- courage' are broad enough to include in them every form of influence and persuasion." International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et W. v. N L R.B ( Samuel Langer), 341 US. 694, 701-702. Nor, under well-established precedents, is it material that, unlike the situation with respect to the Neptune employees, no actual work stop- page occurred in this instance. The General Counsel contends that an additional object was to force or require Picker to recognize Local 3 as the bargaining representative of its service employees, as proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act. I am not satisfied that the General Counsel has sustained his burden of proving this objective by a preponderance of the record evidence. LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 573 Second Circuit when he stated in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. v. N.L.R.B. (Samuel Langer ), 181 F. 2d 34, 37, affd. 341 U.S. 694, that: The gravamen of a secondary boycott is that its sanctions bear, not upon the employer who alone is a party to the dispute, but upon some third party who has no concern in it. Its aim is to compel him to stop business with the employer in the hope that this will induce the employer to give in to the employees' demands [in this case, Local 3's demands]. Upon the basis of the entire record considered as a whole, I find that, by the above- described conduct of Shop Steward Owens for the above-stated proscribed object, Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act prior to the 1959 amendments. To the extent material here, this subsection is substantially the same as Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act, as amended on September 14, 1959, and effective on November 13, 1959. 2. After November 13, 1959, the effective date of the 1959 amendments The only conduct which occurred after November 13, 1959, and which is claimed by the General Counsel to constitute a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act, as amended in 1959,8 are the statements of Shop Steward Owens to Akers, executive sales manager for Picker, made in the presence of Pinepuks, project manager of Hospital, about December 1, 1959. On this occasion, as previously found, when Akers told Owens that Pinepuks wanted Picker to install the cobalt 60 equipment with Picker servicemen and asked if they could expect any trouble if that were done, Owens' reply constituted a threat that the electricians represented by Local 3 would walk off the job if that were done. As Local 3 had a primary dispute with Picker, the threat to an agent of Picker is not proscribed by the Act. However, Owens' reply constituted a threat to an agent of Hospital just as much as it did to an agent of Picker. Since 'Owens' objective remained the same, to force or require Hospital to cease doing business with Picker, I find that by Owens' threat to Pinepuks, Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act, as amended in 1959.9 I do not agree with the General Counsel's further contention that Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) were further violated based on the theory that the effect of the inducement and threats made prior to November 13, 1959, carried over beyond that date. Moreover, such additional findings are unnecessary, as the order herein recommended would remain the same, even assuming the commission of the additional violations urged by the General Counsel. N. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Companies concerned described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY I have found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)1(4) (A) of the Act prior to the 1959 amendments and in violation of 'Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act, as amended in 1959. As Section 8 So far as here material, this section makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agent- (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: t • s s s x s (B) forcing or requiring any person . . . to cease doing business with any other person 8 Although the Board may not assert jurisdiction over Hospital on policy grounds (Flatbush General Hospital, 126 NLRB 144), it nevertheless Is, as herein found, "a per- son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce" within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) of the Act. 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8(b) (4) (A) is, to the extent material here , substantially the same as Section 8(b) (4) (i ) (B) of the Act, as amended in 1959, I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from engaging in conduct proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (i )' 10 and (u) (B) of the amended Act, and that it take certain affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Picker X-Ray Corporation, Neptune Storage Company, Inc., and Lenox Hill Hospital are persons engaged in commerce and in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Neptune Storage Com- pany, Inc., to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employ- ment, to transport or otherwise handle goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services for their employer, and by inducing and encouraging an employee of Belmont Electric Company, Inc., to cease performing services for his employer, in both cases with an object of forcing or requiring Neptune Storage Company, Inc., and Lenox Hill Hospital to cease doing business with Picker X-Ray Corporation, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(b) (4) (A), prior to the 1959 amendments. 4. By threatening Lenox Hill Hospital that the electricians represented by Re- spondent would walk off the job if the installation work of the cobalt 60 unit was performed by servicemen employed by Picker X-Ray Corporation, with an object of forcing or requiring Lenox Hill Hospital to cease doing business with Picker X-Ray Corporation, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)^(4){(ii)(B) of the Act, as amended in 1959. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] "However, Belmont Electric Company, Inc., will not be named in the order, as the record does not show that it is a person engaged In commerce or in an industry affecting commerce. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Greenville , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO and Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 11-CA-1456 and 11-CA-1506. August 11, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On January 29, 1960, Trial Examiner James T. Rasbury issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., herein referred to as the Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act and recommend- ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint to be violative of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, and 128 NLRB No. 77.