Local 598 Plumbers & Steamfitters (Kennewick)

LOCAL 598 PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS (KENNEWICK) 787 military service will run from the date of discharge until the commencement of active military service and from the date 5 days after time of the application for reinstate- ment after the end of military service until the date of Respondent's offer of rein- statement. The backpay award for any employee in the military service , from the date of discharge until the date of entry into the armed services, shall be payable forthwith without waiting for a final determination as to the liability for backpay in the event any occurs after the termination of military service. Contrary to Madison's contention it is found on the credited testimony of Maurice Houser that he was not offered work at any time on April 27. After Gordon Hunter and Richard Reed were discharged at 10 a .m. they were offered a job digging post holes for the balance of the day only. Having in mind their checks were already made out, that the post hole digging was not necessary as it had not been commenced as of the date of the hearing, and that they would receive less pay and would have only a few hours work at most, this offer to Reed and Gordon Hunter is found not to have constituted an offer of reinstatement to their same or substantially equivalent. positions. With respect to the offer made to Ruth Hunter to work the balance of the week, it is observed she was being offered a job of limited duration , i.e., 2 days plus whatever time she would work on April 27 , whereas before her discharge the record supports the finding that her job would be of indefinite duration . Madison's testimony makes it clear that employees were seldom if ever fired for reasons other than union activity. It follows Ruth Hunter was not offered reinstatement to the same or substantially equivalent position she held before her discharge on April 27, 1960. In addition to recommending that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act, it will also be recommended that Respondent be required to post the notices attached hereto at the location of its Ash Fork , Arizona, plant. 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. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers Local No . 556 is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 2. Respondent C. E. Webster, An Individual Proprietor d/b/a Western States Stone Co., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1 ) of the Act by discrimina- torily discharging Gordon and Ruth Hunter, Richard Reed, Maurice Houser, and Charles and Jean Neatherlin. 4. Respondent has further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating employees and applicants for employment concerning their union affiliations, threatening to close the plant or curtail its operation if the Union was successful in threatening to bring in employees from California if the Union was successful in its organization attempt , and by stating it would never sign a union contract. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Local 598 Plumbers and Steamfitters (Kennewick ) and Local 44 Plumbers and Steamfitters (Spokane ), affiliates of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and MacDonald-Scott & Associates. Case No. 19- CC-136. May 25, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On January 5, 1961, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 131 NLRB No. 100. 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. Respondents also filed a motion to stay the proceedings and reopen the record for the purpose of taking additional evidence in view of the Supreme Court's decision in N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 364 U.S. 573. The Charging Party filed objections to the aforesaid motion. The Board 1 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. The Board also denies Respondent's motion to stay the proceedings, because the cited case relates to juris- dictional disputes under Section 10(k) of the Act and not to proceed- ings under Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) thereof, the present case. ORDER Upon the entire record in the 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, Local 598 Plumbers and Steamfitters (Kennewick) and Local 44 Plumbers and Steamfitters (Spokane), affiliates of United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, their officers, representa- tives, agents, successors, and assigis, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Engaging in, or inducing .,, encouraging any individual em- ployed by MacDonald-Scott & Associates or Scott Company, or any other employer or person, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com- modities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require MacDonald-Scott or Scott Company, or any other employer or person, to cease using„ selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Eaton Metal Products Company or to cease doing business with that company. 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this ease to a three -member panel (Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. LOCAL 598 PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS ( KENNEWICK) 789 (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining MacDonald-Scott or Scott Company, or any other employer or person, with an object of forcing or requiring MacDonald-Scott or Scott Company,. or any other employer or person, to cease using, selling, handling, transport- ing, or otherwise dealing in the products of Eaton Metal Products Company or to cease doing business with that company. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in the Respondents' respective business offices and meeting halls, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond- ents' authorized representatives, be posted by the Respondents im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign- and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region for posting, MacDonald-Scott & Associates, Scott Company, and Eaton Metal Products Company will- ing, at all locations where notices to their respective employees in the State of Washington are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 2In 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCALS 598 AND 44 PLUMBERS AND STEAM- FITTERS, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY MACDONALD-SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, SCOTT COMPANY, OR EATON METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce or encourage any individual or individuals employed by MacDonald-Scott & Associates or Scott Company, or any other employer or person, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his or their employment to 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 MacDonald-Scott & Associates or Scott Company , or any other employer or person, to cease using, selling, handling, transport- ing, or otherwise dealing in the products of Eaton Metal Products Company or to cease doing business with that company. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain MacDonald -Scott & Associates or Scott Company, or any other employer or person, where an object thereof is to force or require MacDonald- Scott & Associates or Scott Company , or any other employer or person, to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or other- wise dealing in the products of Eaton Metal Products Company or to cease doing business with that company. LOCAL 598 PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS (KENNEWICK) , UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated------ ---------- By------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) LOCAL 44 PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS (SPOKANE), UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, 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 This proceeding is brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, herein called the Act. The charge was filed on May 10, 1960, by MacDonald-Scott & Associates , herein called MacDonald- Scott, and a complaint was issued on June 3, 1960, alleging that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in violations of Section 8(b)(4)'(i) and (u) (B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. . In substance the complaint alleged that Respondents since on or about April 20, 1960, directed an appeal to all employees of the Scott Company, members respec- tively of one of the Respondents, not to install pipes in the prefabricated tunnel sections being built by Scott Company under subcontract with, MacDonald-Scott LOCAL 598 PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS (KENNEWICK) 791 because the metal hangers in said tunnel sections were installed by employees of the Eaton Metal Products Company (herein called Eaton) who were not members of the Respondents or either of them, or of any other local affiliated with the same parent organization. The Respondents' answer filed on June 10, 1960, denied the gravamen of the complaint and pleaded affirmatively that Scott Company and the Charging Party through Scott Company had entered into a contract with the Re- spondents and had agreed that "pipe hangers and pipe supports required by said employer" should be installed at the jobsite. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Ephrata, Washington, on July 7 and 8, 1960, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. Among other motions made at the hearing was one for the correction of the spelling of the name of the Charging Party, which motion was granted. At the close of the hearing, upon request for time in which to file briefs with the Trial Examiner, a date was set, and within such time and an extension thereof, briefs were received from the General Counsel, the Respondents, and the Scott Company, each of which has been considered by the Trial Examiner. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of all the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESSES INVOLVED MacDonald-Scott is a joint venture composed of six employers , including Mac- Donald Construction Company, a Missouri corporation ; Scott Company, a Califor- nia partnership ; Morris-Knudsen Company, a Delaware corporation ; C. H. Leavell Company, a Texas corporation ; Paul Hardeman, Inc., a California corporation; and F. E. Young Construction Company, a Colorado corporation , all of whom joined together for the construction and installation of Titan missile facilities at Larsen Air Force Base near Moses Lake, Washington, pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Although a member of the joint venture , Scott Company separately is a sub- contractor for mechanical construction on the project and it maintains a shop at Warden, Washington , where it is engaged in the performance of its subcontract work. Eaton, a Colorado corporation , with its principal office in Denver , Colorado, is engaged in business, among other places, at Ephrata, Washington, where it manu- factures or assembles material used by the joint venture. MacDonald-Scott, Scott Company, and Eaton , each on an annual basis , receives goods and materials in Washington from outside that State valued in excess of $50,000. The construction work in which these companies are engaged in the State of Washington has a substantial impact on the national defense and national security. I find that the aforementioned companies are engaged in commerce or in opera- tions affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 598 Plumbers and Steamfitters (Kennewick) and Local 44 Plumbers and Steamfitters (Spokane ) affiliates of United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, maintain their respective offices at Kennewick and Spokane, Washington, and each furnishes employees to Scott Company . These locals will be herein referred to by their numbers when mentioned separately and will be called Respondents when referred to jointly. Their parent organization will be herein called U.A. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES MacDonald-Scott was the successful bidder on a contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the installation of Titan missile facilities in the State of Washington. Work to be done by MacDonald-Scott included the installation of tunnels 35 feet below the surface of the earth as a means of carrying piping and wiring and as a pedestrian walkway. The plans required the tunnels to be built of corrugated sheet metal in sections 9 feet in diameter by 50 feet in length. These plans also required the installation of supports and hangers every 14 feet. The finished tunnel sections were to be coated with one-fourth of an inch of asphalt waterproofing. MacDonald-Scott sublet the mechanical work, including the installation of piping in the tunnels, to Scott Company. MacDonald-Scott in preparation for its bid to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had taken estimates for the manufacture and 792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supply of materials from various companies , and one of these companies was Eaton, which was to bid on the construction of the tunnel sections in accordance with specifications furnished by MacDonald-Scott. Following the procurement of the contract with the Corps of Engineers on November 20, 1959, MacDonald-Scott accepted Eaton's bid to supply the tunnel sections, with certain installations therein. Arrangements were made for MacDonald-Scott to order tunnel sections on purchase orders. MacDonald-Scott, using such form on March 10,' 1960, ordered the requi- site number of tunnel sections, specifying the installation by Eaton of structural supports and pipe hangers as shown by the plans and specifications of the Army Corps of Engineers. The structural supports, made of channel iron, were to be welded to steel plates, which, themselves, were welded to the inside surface of the tunnel sections. These supports were spaced about 14 feet apart and attached to them were shelf-like projections for attachment of piping guides, anchors, etc. These structural supports with their channel iron projections or shelves were pre- assembled by Eaton in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Denver, Colorado, and then were welded into the tunnel sections before the asphalt coating was applied. The pur- chase order directed delivery of the tunnel sections to the jobsite, with a stop en route at the shop especially set up by Scott Company at Warden, Washington, for the purpose of making piping installations. After acceptance of its bid to furnish the tunnel sections, Eaton acquired at Ephrata, Washington, building space in which to construct the tunnels and about March 4, 1960, began operations there. The reason for the installation of this pipe support by Eaton rather than at Scott Company's shop was because the welding could be done before the asphalt coating was put on the tunnel. Welding on the skin of the tunnel after the coating of asphalt had been applied would create a fire hazard. About the middle of March 1960, Scott Company established a pipe shop at Warden. It had earlier made arrangements to hire men through the Respondents, who divided the orders for men between them on a basis of two-thirds for Local 598 and one-third for Local 44. On March 23, 1960, Raymond Leffler, business manager for Local 598; his assistant, G. R. Jenkins; and Burton Taylor, business manager for Local 44, went to the Warden shop, which was not yet operating, and met with Donald Jeffers (who was in charge of labor relations for MacDonald-Scott); Bertram Rodgers (manager of mechanical work for MacDonald-Scott, but sent by Scott Company from Oakland, California, to direct the mechanical work); and Samuel Lomba (sent by Scott Company to be superintendent at the Warden shop, but on the payroll of the joint venture). At this meeting, Leffler told representatives of MacDonald-Scott that Jim Rogers, whom Leffler had brought with him, would, when hired, be bull steward and, as such, would represent all employees regardless of which local supplied the men. Leffler raised a question about the installation of pipe supports in the tunnel section, saying that he claimed that work. Manager Rodgers told him that work that belonged to the U.A. would be performed by them. The purchase order for the tunnel sections had been sent to Eaton on March 10 and Rodgers was aware of this, but when he told Leffler that the work which belonged to the U.A. would be performed by them, he did not, he testified, have in mind, as a pipe support, the structural member to be installed by Eaton but had in mind the many clips, anchors, guides, and shoes which had to be installed to hold the pipes. The so-called pipe support installed by Eaton was unique; the Respondents had not encountered it before. On April 1, 1960, Lomba requisitioned from Leffler three men, one to report on April 4 and two to report on April 6. Rogers was the man to report on April 4. On April 12, a meeting was held in Moses Lake, at which William Roach, an officer of the Building Trades Council at Moses Lake, presided. This was a labor- management meeting between representatives of MacDonald-Scott and the various interested unions, in accordance with the attempt to hold monthly meetings to iron out their problems and grievances. Present for the unions, among others, were Leffler (Local 598) and Taylor (Local 44). Management representatives included, among others, Grover Hoskins, project manager of MacDonald-Scott,' Donald Jeffers, labor relations man for the joint venture, and Sam Guess, executive secre- tary of the Spokane Chapter of the Associated General Contractors. Problems of the carpenters, electricians, ironworkers, and plumbers were discussed by their repre- sentatives. The problem presented by the plumbers at this meeting concerned the so- called pipe supports being installed by Eaton in the tunnel sections. Leffler said with reference thereto that members of Local 598 intended to perform the work within the jurisdiction of their local, that it had been their custom to install their own work 'Hoskins had been supplied to the joint venture by MacDonald Construction Company and he had charge of the drafting of contracts and purchase orders. LOCAL 598 PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS (KENNEWICK) 793 and they did not like any nonunion people 2 installing their work, and that if the U.A. did not put the pipe supports in the tunnels, the U.A. (members ) were not going to install pipe on the supports installed by any other people. Leffler gave MacDonald-Scott alternative suggestions of (1) putting U.A. employees (presum- ably of Scott) in Eaton's shop, (2) leave the supports out of the tunnels or remove any already installed and have them installed in the Scott Company shop in Warden, (3) have Eaton hire U.A. people directly from the U.A., or (4) subcontract the work to a U.A. subcontractor. After this meeting, Leffler , Jenkins, and Roach called at the Eaton plant to see the blueprints of the tunnel sections and to observe the work that Eaton was doing. Leffler, at that time, told Paul Grove, Eaton's plant manager, that the work of in- stalling the pipe supports being welded into the tunnel sections by Eaton was work of the U.A. The next day, April 13, 1960, Guess sent a telegram to the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, Building and Construction Industry (herein called Joint Board ) on behalf of MacDonald-Scott, reading: On the MacDonald-Scott Titan missile base Eaton Metals Company is fabri- cating tunnel sections in 50' lengths at Ephrata . . Unistrut hangers and channel iron framing is [sic] being welded into sections in shop followed by asphalt asbestos fibre coating. . Scott Company installs piping by bolting. No welding can be done due to fire hazard .3 Electricians and plumbers claim they will not install conduit or piping unless brackets are welded by their craft. Work has been under way and 12 tunnel sections are ready to move. Request International assign representatives to problem. On April 15, 1960, Leffler, following a telephone conversation with Guess, who accused Leffler of making threats, and who said he was taking the matter up with the Joint Board, wrote a letter to Rodgers in Ephrata with a copy to Lomba at Warden, reading: ' After discussion at meeting in Moses Lake, Wednesday, April 13, 1960, Local Union 598 is taking the position that seeing as this problem has been referred to our International and to the Department of Labor and Industries, the Pipe- fitters are assuming this position without relinquishing our claim of fabrication on pipe supports and the installation of same, the Pipefitters will, in effort of pro- moting good harmony and union relations with the Scott Company, proceed with the work of installing the piping, pending decision from the Department of Labor and Industries relative to the status of Eaton Metals, whether said company is subcontractor or supplier, and a decision from the Internationals concerning the jurisdiction of installation of unistruts used as pipe supports in the silos. We are considering this a letter of protest of the job assignments as we see them as of this date. Leffler testified that Lomba acknowledged receipt of the letter. No effort was made to prove receipt of the letter and the copy thereof by questioning either Rodgers or Lomba while they were on the witness stand and no stipulation was requested. How- ever, on the basis of Leffler's undenied testimony that Lomba, in a telephone con- versation, told Leffler he had received the letter, I find that the letter was delivered at least to Lomba. The date of delivery, however, is not in evidence. On April 18, 1960, R. J. Mitchell, chairman of the Joint Board, wrote a letter to P. T. Schoemann, general president of the U.A., and to the president of the electrical union, which had made a similar work jurisdiction claim, in which he recited Guess's telegram and concluded, "President Freeman and President Schoemann are requested to direct local unions to perform work as assigned by contractors." Schoemann did not reply to this until April 27. Meanwhile, on April 19, the first tunnel section was received at the Scott Com- pany shop at Warden, and on April 20, Superintendent Lomba directed his foreman, Adkins (a member of Local 598), to tell the employees furnished by the Respondents to install the piping in the tunnel. At this time there were five such employees. Adkins left and returned to report to Lomba that the men refused to do the work. 2 At this time, Eaton's employees at Ephrata, Washington, were not represented by a union 8 This statement is not entirely accurate . Because the asphalt coating on the exterior was flammable, no welding could be done on the tunnel skin after that coating had been applied without creating a fire hazard. Welding could be, and was , however, safely done on channel iron already installed in the tunnel where it did not lie directly on the skin of the tunnel. 794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lomba asked why, and Adkins answered, "The men are not going to work because the pipe support is not installed by U.A. members." Lomba telephoned Rogers, the steward, about the matter. Rogers, as quoted by Lomba (Rogers not having testi- fied), said that he was waiting for orders from Locals 598 and 44. Lomba ques- tioned each of the employees as to whether or not he was going to work in the tunnel sections and each answered as Adkins had reported. Thereafter, Lomba questioned them the same way each day that they refused to perform. On the first day of the refusal to work in the tunnel sections, Lomba telephoned Leffler about the matter, and Leffler told Lomba, according to Leffler's testimony, that "these men had been in- formed they were going to have to do this work and he should try to get them to do so, and as far as I was concerned they had been ordered to do it and that was as far as I could go with these men." On April 20, after the refusal of the men to work in the tunnels, Guess sent an- other telegram to the Joint Board, this one informing Chairman Mitchell of the re- fusal of the U.A. plumbers and the electricians to install piping or wiring in the first tunnel section and requesting assistance 4 On April 22, Leffler and Clayton Bilderback, a general organizer for the U.A. who was called on by Leffler to assist in settling the dispute, met with Superintendent Lomba at the Warden shop of Scott Company and discussed the disputed pipe support being installed by Eaton.5 In this discussion, according to Lomba, Leffler and Bilderback stated that the installation of that support was the work of the U.A. and said that "they had a letter back to Peter Schoemann in Washington, D.C., in regard to this dispute. .. ." Neither such letter nor a copy thereof was produced at the hearing, but I infer from Lomba's testimony of what Leffler and Bilderback had said, and all the evidence, that Leffler had written to President Schoemann stating Local 598's side of the argument and indicating the unwillingness of that Respondent to perform the disputed work. On April 27 President Schoemann wrote a letter to Joint Board Chairman Mitchell in response to the latter's letter to him, stating, in part: The United Association has an agreement with its employers which provides for the installation of piping as well as any supports or hangers necessary for the installation of that piping. The attempt on the part of the Scott Company to allow a portion of the work normally performed by Plumbers and Pipe Fitters to be done in a manufacturing plant by others is a direct violation of the agree- ment between the Local Union and the Scott Company. The Local Union has no intention of making an installation under the con- ditions presently outlined in your letter. From the final sentence, I infer that Schoemann was just passing along a statement of intent made by Local 598 in the letter mentioned by Leffler and Bilderback; otherwise Schoemann would more likely have said that he would not recommend to, or would not direct, the local to perform the disputed work. Meanwhile, on April 22, Manager Rodgers wrote letters to both Taylor and Leffler, enclosing copies of Mitchell's letter to Schoemann of April 18. I infer that by the date of the receipt of his copy of this letter, Leffler had already written to Schoemann regarding the intent of Local 598. Apparently, as a result of the receipt of the copy of Mitchell's letter from Rodgers, neither Local 598 nor Local 44 took any action. On April 25, 1960, Harold Ringrose, a labor relations represenfative for Mac- Donald-Scott and for Scott Company, sent identical telegrams, and on April 29 followup letters, to Leffler and Taylor, with a copy of the letter to President Schoe- mann. The telegram read in part: According to terms of our UA Agreement, do you intend to provide us with qualified people who will install pipe in tunnel sections at our Warden shop. Advise by return wire whether you will orwill not... . The letters of April 29, after reciting the text of the April 25 telegrams, concluded: We again call this matter to your attention. We have heard nothing from you. The need is urgent and immediate. We demand a reply. 4 Reference was also made to the Ironworkers who were apparently off on a dispute I interpret the final sentence of the telegram, "Local Business Agent promising men will return April 21," as referring to the business agent for the Ironworkers. 5 Leffler testified that he also raised certain objections on the ground of safety and Lomba agreed to take care of them and thereafter did. This did not enter into the re- fusal of the plumbers and pipefitters to work. On the same day, in a Board-conducted election, the Boilermakers' union was chosen as representative of Eaton 's employees, and it was certified on May 4, 1960. LOCAL 598 PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS (KENNEWICK) 795 Both the letters and telegrams were received in due course by the addressees, but neither Leffler nor Taylor replied thereto. Leffler explained that he ignored them "because of the fact that I was taking my requests for men from Sam Lomba, who was the piping superintendent, and I ignored any other calls and so forth." Taylor's explanation for his failure to reply was, "First, for the season that we had an agreement as to how people would be called for on this particular job. That call was to go to Pasco [which is a neighboring city to Kennewick] and be relayed to me, if they wanted men from me.. " He gave no second reason. His answer may have been intended to be an explanation of why he failed to answer a later letter specifically asking for a certain number of men. If so, Taylor's failure to reply to the foregoing telegram and letter is totally unexplained. On several occasions, according to Lomba, Steward Rogers, when asked to work in the tunnel sections, said that he was waiting for settlement of the dispute that was in Washington. In a telephone conversation between Guess and Mitchell on April 21, Mitchell told Guess that the dispute could be settled quickly if he would take the work away from Eaton and assign it to the Plumbers. Guess told Mitchell of a fire caused on a project at Lowry Air Force Base when an attempt was made to weld sections of tunnel together after they had been coated with asphalt and said that fires had also occurred from such work at two other locations, and his principals were afraid to risk it at Warden. On April 25, Guess sent another telegram to Mitchell of the Joint Board in Washington, D.C., saying: Plumbers again this date refuse to hang pipe on channel hangers installed by Eaton Metals Company . . . . Shop Steward from Plumbers Local, Pasco, claims he has received no instructions from Local or International to proceed with work... . On the morning of May 2, 1960, Manager Rodgers went to the Warden shop. Clarence Adkins, the foreman (a welder supplied by Local 598), Steward Rogers, and an employee named Armagost (supplied by Local 44) were working in the shop but not in the tunnel sections. Rodgers asked the steward, Rogers, to work in the tunnel. Rogers refused, saying that it had not been cleared yet. Rodgers asked him a second time and Rogers refused saying that he had not received clearance from Leffler, that there were meetings between Leffler and others about the matter and until Leffler permitted him to do the work he would refuse, but he promised to check further to learn if anything had come through on it. That afternoon, Manager Rodgers returned and asked Steward Rogers if he had learned anything. According to Rodgers' testimony, Rogers replied that he had spoken with both Leffler and Jenkins, Lefler' s assistant, about the matter and that they had both instructed him that the work was not cleared and not to work on it. That same day, May 2, Jenkins visited Eaton to get a report of the progress of the "pipe-hanger work." On May 3, Rodgers again returned to the shop at Warden and spoke with Steward Rogers. Rogers told him nothing had come through on the dispute. Rodgers said that he would inquire every day until something came through. Rodgers also asked each of the other men present (additional men having reported for work on May 2 and 3). Armagost and a man named Poteet, who had just started that day, said they would not work in the tunnel until the work had been cleared. One employee, Cholowinski, said, "A man would be a fool to work on the tunnels if his steward would not work on the tunnels," and that "you get your nose in a wringer on a thing like this-you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't." Rodgers asked Cholowinski if he knew whether or not the steward would work in the tunnels and told him to ask the steward. Rogers said that, speaking for himself, he would not work in the tunnels. Cholowinski said then he was not going to do so either. On May 5, Rodgers, in letters to both Respondents, requested that they dispatch six men to report no later than 8 a.m. on Monday, May 9. His letter concluded: "If these men fail to report, and fail to work on tunnel piping, and if your men in our shop continue to refuse to install piping in these tunnels, we must conclude that the members of your two unions refuse to perform this work, as directed by our company " No reply was made to this letter. Leffler and Taylor explained that the reason for their failure to take any action on the letter was that it was in the wrong form to constitute a request for men and that, in any event, Superintendent Lomba had countermanded the order. This last excuse apparently refers to a tele- phone conversation between Lomba and Jenkins on May 6, in which Lomba asked for six men to report to work on Monday, May 9, to work exclusively in the tunnel sections. Jenkins told Lomba, "I can send you as many men as you want but I can not guarantee that they will work in the tunnels." Although Lomba did not so testify, I infer that he told Jenkins not to send the men unless they would work in the tunnels, for no men actually reported on May 9. 796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At a monthly labor-management conference on May 9, in Ephrata, representa- tives of both management and labor attended, and a stenographic report of the meeting was made. During the course of the meeting Leffler raised the problem of the installation of the pipe supports by Eaton Manufacturing Company, and he accused MacDonald-Scott of putting pressure on Eaton to rush the job and "to throw out as many [tunnels] as you can before you get a decision." Leffler then went on to say that the Respondents had not been notified officially of a decision- that they had heard only by the grapevine, and also that the Respondents had heard by the grapevine that the Scott Company had threatened them with an injunc- tion, and he stated, "But there is one thing which is not on the grapevine: I don't think you are going to build any of these missile bases in court." With reference to the Scott Company, Leffler further said: "They have made an agreement with the local in California, which we consider a sister local, and there- fore we are recognizing them as piping contractors and we are expecting them, of course, to live up to the united constitution of ours with the U.A. As well as our State Agreement here, only on any matter which has been mutually agreed between Mr. Taylor and myself and Mr. Ringrose . . . and the violation that Scott Company is in right now is the fact they are letting some other crafts, I don't care what craft it is, put up our piping supports and hangers." Indicating further that the Respondents still had a dispute with Scott, Leffler in this meeting also stated "that the solution to get you out of this dilemma has been discussed with Mr. Ringrose by our International representative as high as two weeks ago and we have been waiting for two weeks for Mr. Ringrose to contact us.. He then called attention to the letter which Schoemann had written to Mitchell and asked, "Doesn't that last paragraph clearly and specifically spell out your problem?" This question had reference to the last sentence of Schoemann's letter which stated, "The local union has no intention of making an installation under the conditions presently outlined in your letter." Taylor, at this meeting, referring to the aforementioned pipework dispute said, "The thing that created this, of course, were jurisdictional disputes and we have been through that and it is well known to everyone here. But I want to know another thing. You say we are going to settle these things. When you make these work assignments do you intend then to cancel your assignments and start all over again, are you going to start clean or are we still going to have this other thing trailing us? . We feel that the contractors, Scott Company in particular, has created this trouble. So, we also feel that they are the ones to straighten it out. In view of the work that has been done in the Pasco area in the past years and the work that has been done in the Spokane area it is inconceivable to me how any contractor could get so far off base with these work assignments.. . I'm sure that when your decisions come out, if they ever do out of that Joint Board, that then will be the time that maybe we will get back on the road. . Leffler also is quoted as saying at this meeting, "I would just like to state that if Don [Hoskins] wants to check Section 8 on page 48 of our agreement in the little grey book, it might help explain a little part of our position at the Warden shop. I would like to go on record and state that they are not acting under any orders of our local union there. They are merely acting upon Section 8 of the Washington Labor Management Agreement on page 48," referring to a provision reading: "The priv- ilege of refusing to handle or install material fabricated or manufactured or made by persons or firms who engage in practices unfair to the union or to the local union, as the case may be, is reserved to each and every member of the Union." 6 Further reference to the problem of installing the welded pipe supports in the tunnels was made at this meeting, all tending to show that the Respondents were still pressing the dispute asto the claimed work. On May 10, when Lomba was asking the men if they would work in the tunnels, one of them replied that, if the steward ordered him to, he would go in and work. Steward Rogers was present when this remark was made but said nothing. On May 12, Lomba told Adkins that he wanted him to get the men and install the supports and brackets in the tunnels. Adkins turned to the employees and said, "You heard the man." 7 The employees just stood there. Steward Rogers told Lomba, "You will have to lay them off, I guess." 8 This section of the working rules further provides • "The individual or the collective refusal of members of the Union to work in contravention of this section shall not be deemed to be a violation of the basic agreement incorporating these Working Rules." 7It is noteworthy that Adkins, a member dispatched by Local 598, avoided, in this statement, giving an order himself. A man may justifiably be discharged for refusing to LOCAL 598 PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS (KENNEWICK) ,797 On May 16, 1960, the Board filed a petition for an injunction under Section 10(1) of the Act in the United States District Court in Yakima, Washington. Leffler was present when the matter came up. At the request of the Respondents the Board withheld its application for a temporary restraining order upon the Respondents' agreement in open court to "insist that the employees install the pipe in .the tunnels." Taylor so agreed for Local 44 and Leffler agreed for Local 598. Leffler then went to the telephone and called Jenkins in Kennewick and told him that "the only way we could avoid any injunction was that we would tell these men they had to go back to work and if they didn't want to do that we were going to be faced with serious trouble." As a result of this call, Jenkins telephoned the Scott Company shop 'at Warden and spoke with the steward, Rogers, telling him, "Jim, we have got to go to work on these tunnel sections. I have just received a call from `Bud' [Leffler] and we face serious trouble unless we proceed with this work." Rogers asked, "Is this really true?" Jenkins replied, "Yes, this is a fact." Rogers answered, "O.K., I will talk with the men." Jenkins then called the members (including one member of Local 44) who were not on the job that day (presumably having been laid off) and instructed them "that we had to go to work on this thing," telling them what he had told Rogers. Jenkins testified that the men had protested and "I finally got to the extent of telling them if they didn't go they would probably be terminated and we would be forced to send someone else." The men, about four in number, agreed to report for work the next day. Taylor notified members of Local 44 who were employed by Scott Company by telephoning employee Arnold Armagost. Ac- cording to Taylor, he told Armagost "that there was no recourse but to install that pipe, that I had committed myself to the court that we would, and that I was asking him to go back and go to work, . . ." and he further asked Armagost to convey this information to the other two members of Local 44 on the job. Following these conversations, the work called for in the tunnel sections was performed to com- pletion. Concluding Findings 1. Inducement or encouragement of employees by Respondents or their agents The Respondents' principal defense, according to their answer and their brief to the Trial Examiner, is that they had a contract with Scott Company, and with MacDonald-Scott through the Scott Company, under which it was agreed that the installation of hangers and supports would be performed in the field and that the same contract reserved to each workman employed pursuant to its terms a privilege of refusing to install, handle, or erect materials not fabricated, processed, or manu- factured under the conditions described in the contract, and that the employees of Scott Company, members of the respective Respondents, were not induced or en- couraged by the Respondents to withhold their services but on the contrary merely exercised their respective individual privileges to withhold their services as author- ized by the contract. The existence of the claimed contract is open to question. The evidence as a whole indicates that the Respondents took it for granted that a "union" employer would adhere to the Respondents' established practice as set out in the U.A. consti- tution and the working rules. But even if such contract did exist, as claimed by the Respondents, the law is now well settled that neither the existence of the contract nor the breach of it would excuse a violation of the statutory prohibition.8 The existence of a contract is, of course, not essential to the Respondents' defense that the employees were not induced or encouraged by the Respondents to withhold services, for if it was the fact that any conduct on the part of member employees was individually motivated without any inducement or encouragement from the obey the order of his foreman, but to discharge a member for refusal to work on disputed work would violate the working rules of the Respondents Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, et al. (Sand Door & Plywood Co ) v N.L R B., 357 U.S. 93 ; Clifton Deangulo, Business Repre- sentative, Local Union No 98, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO (York Corporation), 121 NLRB 676, 684; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No 12, AFL-CIO (Tri County Association of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors), 126 NLRB 688. Note that in the most recent amendment to the Act, the language formerly contained in Section 8(b) (4) (A) as applicable to the objective of the Respondents is now a part of Section 8(b) (4) (1) (B) Hence, former 8(b) (4) (A) de-, cisions are applicable here. 798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondents or their agents then the Respondents have not violated the provisions of Section 8 (b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act. If the Respondents conceive that no inducement or encouragement was estab- lished because they believe there was no direct evidence that the business agents for the Respondents ordered or directed individual employees not to do the installa- tion work in the tunnel sections,9 this ignores the fact that inducement and en- couragement need not take the form of a direct order 10 and may be established by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence. The constitution of the U.A. bound both the Respondents and individual members to act as they did here in refusing to install piping in the tunnel sections. Pertinent provisions of that constitution read: SEC. 141. Local Unions must at all times fully protect the jurisdiction of work of the United Association 11 against infringement. Upon evidence of failure to do so or to notify the General Office or its representative in the district,of any violations such Local Unions will be subject to discipline under the Con- stitution by the General Executive Board. An applicant for membership, before becoming a member, is required by Section 161 of the U.A. constitution to take an oath to remain loyal and true to the prin- ciples and policies and to be governed by the constitution and ritual of the U.A.; to yield prompt obedience to all the laws, rules, regulations, and decisions of the U.A.; and to pledge that he will not perform any act in any way prejudicial to the best interests of the U.A. Section 209 of the constitution provides: No member of the United Association shall be permitted to work on any job where men other than members of the U.A. are installing work which comes under the jurisdiction of the United Association. Local Unions failing to com- ply with this law shall be subject to discipline in the form of an assessment, suspension or expulsion by the General President of the United Association, regardless of any agreement between employer and employee, except where, in the judgment of the General President of the United Association, it is deemed otherwise. In view of these provisions, one may readily conclude that, when Leffler wrote his letter of April 15 saying that the Respondent would proceed with the work pending settlement of the dispute, Leffler did so with tongue in cheek. Members of the Respondents must have so understood, in view of the above-quoted provisions of the U.A. constitution. That this was true is apparent from the testimony of Leffler where he was telling about reading his letter of April 15 to the members at a union meeting and making efforts to encourage the men to work in the tunnels, and he testified, "I even had one of the men [Clarence Adkins, foreman at the Warden shop and a member of Local 598] tell me that when he had been approached by [Super- intendent] Sam Lomba to do it [the work in the tunnel sections], Sam said, 'I have a letter from Bud [Leffler],' and this man [Adkins] said, 'I don't give a damn about Bud, it would have to come from a man higher than him."' 12 Adkins did not testify, and the date of his quoted conversation with Lomba is not in evidence nor is it apparent to whom Adkins referred as a man higher than Leffler. However, in view of the obligation of local unions under section 141 of the U.A. constitution to "notify the General Office or its representative in the district of any violations" of the U.A.'s claimed jurisdiction of work, and in view of the fact that U.A. Presi- dent Schoemann notified the Joint Board that "the local" would not do the work, it is a reasonable inference that Adkins was aware of the fact that Schoemann knew of the dispute and would take a position thereon. In the light of the U.A. constitution and working rules, it is evident that the Re- spondents knew that their members were bound to withhold their services unless released by the Respondents. By merely withholding such release, the Respondents were able to "induce and encourage" Scott Company's employees to withhold their 9 The only evidence of such a direction was the testimony of Lomba that Steward Rogers had told him that Business Agent Leffler had told Rogers that the work was disputed and not to work on it. Although the Respondents may regard this as hearsay, I find that it is an evidential admission not governed by the hearsay rule. _ 10 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. (Samuel Langer) v. N.L R.B., 341 U.S 694, 701-702. 11 The work jurisdiction claimed by the U.A. Is set forth in the working rules of the U.A. 12 The last clause of this quotation is taken from Leffler's testimony on cross-examination, which differs slightly from his direct testimony. LOCAL 598 PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS (KENNEWICK) 799 services. Until the matter was taken to court, the Respondents took no affirmative steps to free the employees from their membership obligation to withhold their serv- ices. It will be observed that there was nothing in Leffler's letter of April 15 that released the members of the Respondents from their obligation not to work on a job when there was a' dispute over work jurisdiction. Both Leffler and Taylor ignored the point-blank questions in Ringrose's telegrams and letters of whether or not the Respondents intended to supply qualified people who would install pipe in the tunnel sections. The excuses offered by Leffler and Taylor in their testimony that they did not answer because they were supposed to get their orders for men from Lomba were beside the point. Ringrose was not ordering men; he was asking a question regarding the Respondents' intent. By ducking the questions, Leffler and Taylor were disclosing themselves as unwilling to release any members, whether or not previously employed by Scott Company, from their union-imposed obligation not to work on a job where their locals had raised an issue of work jurisdiction. That the employees individually were not acting on their own initiative is apparent not only from their statements that they would work only if their steward did and that they would not work until it had been cleared but from the fact that they did go to work when directed to by Leffler, Jenkins, and Taylor. Perhaps, these agents could not at that time have compelled the members to work for Scott Company, but, as Jenkins told the members employed by Scott Company, the Respondents would send someone else if they would not work in the tunnel sections, and Jenkins at this time (contrary to his statement to Lomba earlier that he could send as many men as Scott Company wanted but he could not guarantee that they would work) seemed to take it for granted that he could send others who would work . Because the employees did go to work in the tunnel sections on this -occasion when they were told to do so by someone in authority and because they had previously indi- cated that they were waiting for approval by the Respondents before they proceeded with that work, I am convinced and find that had Rogers or any other authorized representative of the Respondent earlier told the employees that the Respondents withdrew their opposition to their working and directed them to do the work, they would have done it. Yet, on May 10, when one of the men told Lomba that, if the steward ordered him to work, he would do so, Steward Rogers, in whose presence the employee's remark was made, said nothing. Under similar circumstances, the Board found that silence, when there was a duty on the part of a union representa- tive to speak and inform the employees that the union was not opposing their per- forming the work, was evidence of inducement and encouragement to engage in a strike or refusal to work.13 With respect to Leflier's testimony that he told the members on, and several times after, April 15 to work in the tunnels, I do not credit it insofar as it attempts to create an appearance of an actual order to do the work. In one instance, when Leffler testified to this, he phrased his testimony to say that he told the members that they were going to have to do the work. If Leffler told this to members who were employees of Scott Company, there must have been some good reason why they did not take this as an order. Members would have been violating their oath of membership if they had refused to obey a direct order of a union officer. There are several indications that, if the Scott Company employees heard this statement by Leffler, they did not take it as seriously intended to be an order. In addition to Adkin's statement, as quoted by Leffler, which indicates this, I note particularly that, when Jenkins, after Leffler and Taylor had agreed in open court to do everything they could to get the men to work in the tunnel sections, telephoned Rogers, the steward, and told him that they were going to have to work on the tunnel sections, Rogers asked, "Is this really true?" He apparently had to be assured that it was really true before he, as steward, would release the employees officially from any restraint and tell them affirmatively to work in the tunnels. Before that, Rogers, as an agent of the Respondents, would not tell the men to work in the tunnel sections and would not work himself. Inferentially, he did not consider Lefiier's purported statement or statements made before May 16 to be orders to work. In fact Rogers' statement to Lomba that Leffler had told him not to do the disputed work is clear evidence of Rogers official stand and also belies Leffier's testimony or at least shows 13Locai No . 636 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, et al. (The Detroit Edison Company and Westinghouse Electric Corporation ), 123 NLRB 225, enfd. 278 F. 2d 858 (C A.D.C.). See also Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers 'Local Union No. 175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (McJunkin Corporation), 128 NLRB 522. 800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that Leffler was not directing the work to be done when he told the employees that they were going to have to do it. I find, therefore, on all the evidence, that the Respondents did induce and en- courage the employees of Scott Company to engage in a refusal in the course of their employment to work on materials installed in the tunnel sections by Eaton and to withhold their services. 2. Threats, coercion, or restraint It has been found that Business Agent Leffler, at the April 12 meeting,14 declared in substance that if Eaton installed the disputed pipe supports without U.A. labor, the U.A. would not install the piping in the tunnel sections. I do not interpret Leffler's statement as one amounting merely to a guess as to the probable reaction of individual members, especially in the light of the subsequent actions of the Respondents and their agents. It clearly constituted a warning of economic action against Scott Company. I find that by Leffler's statement, the Respondents threat- ened, coerced, and restrained Scott Company with an objective which was in con- travention to the Act.is 3. The object of the conduct set forth in subsections 1 and 2 above That an object of the work stoppage induced by the Respondents was to compel either MacDonald-Scott or Scott Company to terminate the purchase order contract with Eaton, as it was written, or to cease dealing with Eaton or using Eaton's product and to assign the work of installing the so-called pipe supports to members of the Respondents or to compel Eaton to employ members of the Respondents to do that work instead of doing it by Eaton's own employees cannot be seriously denied. In their brief, the Respondents argue that the purpose of the work stop- page was to cause MacDonald-Scott or Scott Company to perform the alleged con- tract under which the Respondents claim they were promised the work of installing pipe hangers, including the so-called pipe hangers being fabricated and installed by Eaton. How the Respondents conceived that this could be accomplished by Scott Company without causing it to cease using or handling the product of Eaton, a party that fits the statutory description of "any other producer, processor, or manu- facturer" is not made clear. The Respondents stress the fact that they made no demands upon Eaton, itself. However, even if that fact were granted to be true, it cannot alter the fact that an object of the Respondents' conduct was mediately, if not immediately, to cause Eaton to use U.A. labor i6 and upon failure to bring this about, to cause MacDonald- Scott to cease using Eaton's product. The mere fact that a dispute with Eaton was not expressed to Eaton in the form of a "demand" or threat is immaterial in any event. Causing Scott Company to cease using the supports which were Eaton's products is likewise a prohibited objective.17 To say that the object of the Respond- ents was to induce or compel Scott Company to assign the work of installing the disputed supports to the Respondents' members in conformity to the U.A. form contract and not to force Scott Company to cease using Eaton's product or to cease doing business with Eaton is, on the facts here presented, to pretend that the latter object is not a necessary consequence of the former object. The two objects are inseparable. It is immaterial that one objective might be legal if the other is illegal. The Respondents appear to assume that because they had no active labor dis- pute with Eaton (in the sense that they were not picketing or otherwise putting pressure directly on Eaton to employ U.A. members to perform the work over 14 Taylor was not at this meeting, but since the Respondents were acting in concert, Leffler was speaking as much for Local 44 as for Local 598. 15 Enterprise Association, Local 638, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Allen-Stevens Corporation), 129 NLRB 555; International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local No 1140, AFL-CIO (Gilmore Construction Company), 127 NLRB 541 10 Although the Respondents did not make threats of economic action against Eaton, Leffler told Eaton's superintendent that the work of installing the brackets or pipe supports was the work of the U A. 17 See Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' District Council, et at (Sound Shingle Co.), 101 NLRB 1159, enfd. 211 F. 2d 149 (C A. 9) ; Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers Inter- national Union, Local No 234, AFL (Acoustic Engineering Company), 97 NLRB 574, 588-590 KNOUSE FOODS CO-OPERATIVE, INC. 801 which they claimed jurisdiction) they were engaged only in primary authorized ac- tion. The lack of an active dispute with Eaton, however, is immaterial.18 I conclude and find that an object of the conduct described in subsections 1 and 2 above was to force or require Scott Company to cease using or handling the prod- ucts of Eaton (another producer, processor, or manufacturer) or to cease doing business with Eaton in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B). I further find that the Respondents with this object also violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). IV. THE REMEDY As I have found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because of the provisions heretofore found to be contained in the U.A. constitution and in the working rules of the Respondents and the policy stemming therefrom, a danger exists that the Respondents will extend their activities, herein found to be in contravention to the Act to the goods, articles, materials, or commodities other than those of Eaton.19 I shall therefore include not only the products of Eaton but also those of other persons in the recommended cease-and-desist order. 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. MacDonald-Scott, Scott Company, and Eaton are employers within the mean- ing of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. The Respondents are, jointly and severally, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Scott Company to engage in a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services and by threatening, coercing, or restraining Scott Company with an object of forcing or requiring that Scott Company cease using or handling goods manufactured or pro- duced by Eaton or to cease doing business with Eaton, the Respondents have en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices, having occurred in connection with the operations of MacDonald-Scott, Scott Company, and Eaton, as set forth above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and substantially affect commerce and the free flow of com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 18 Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' District Council, et at. (Sound Shingle Co.),. supra ; Local 11, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL, et at. ( General Millwork Corporation), 113 NLRB 1084 , enfd. 242 F. 2d 932 (C.A. 6). 11 There is no contention by the General Counsel that the Respondents have in the past committed similar unfair labor practices nor that the remedy should include employees of employers unknown in the Injunction against inducement or encouragement of any In- dividual to engage in a strike or withholding of services . Cf. Local Union 522, Lumber- Drivers, Warehousemen & Handlers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ( Republic Wire Corporation ), 129 NLRB 376. I shall therefore confine the recommended order to the parties hereto except to the extent of the object of the Illegal conduct. Knouse Foods Co-operative, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 6-RC-2774. May 25, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alfred C. Dybeck, hearing 131 NLRB No. 99. 599198 62-vol, 131-52