Levingston Shipbuilding Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo- cal Union No. 479, AFLCIO and Levingston Ship- building Company. Cases 23-CC-731 and 23-CP- 112 November 28, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On August 17, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 479, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recom- mended Order. IThe Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION FRANK H. ITKIN. Administrative Law Judge. The unfair labor practice charges in the above consolidated cases were filed by the Company, Levingston Shipbuilding Company, on April 21, 1978. The complaint issued on May 16, and the hearing was conducted in Orange, Texas, on June 1, 1978. General Counsel alleges that Respondent Union, IBEW Local 479, violated Section 8(b)(4)(C) and (7)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by picket- ing the Company at its Dallas-Beadle building site with an object of forcing or requiring the Company to recognize or bargain with Local 479 as the representative of its electri- cian employees even though Local 479 is not currently cer- tified as bargaining representative of the employees, the Company has lawfully recognized another labor organiza- tion as the representative of the employees, and a question concerning the representation of the employees may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. Re- spondent Union denies that it has violated the Act as al- leged. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs of counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. INTRODUCTION Charging Party Company, a Delaware corporation, op- erates a shipyard in Orange, Texas. During the past 12 months, the Company purchased and received at its ship- yard goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were transported directly from outside of Texas. It is undisputed, and I find and conclude, that the Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It is also undisputed, and I find and conclude, that Respondent Union, IBEW Local 479, and the Orange Metal Trades Council are labor orga- nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. In addition, General Counsel alleges and Respondent IBEW Local 479 admits that commencing about April 3, 1978, Local 479 picketed the Company at its Dallas-Beadle building site;' that Local 479 has not been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as bargaining representa- tive for any of the Company's employees; that by virtue of a Board certification, dated July 12, 1946 (Case 16-RC- 1891), the Orange Metal Trades Council was designated as bargaining agent of the Company's production and main- tenance employees; that the Company and the Trades Council are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement entered into on May 2, 1977, and effective until January 31, 1980; that IBEW Local 390 is a member of the Trades Council and represents the Company's employees in the electrical classification; and that at no time material to this case could a question concerning the representation of the Company's electricians be appropriately raised under Sec- tion 9(c) of the Act. Further, as counsel for Respondent IBEW Local 479 acknowledged at the hearing, the issue here is whether Local 479 was picketing the Company's Dallas-Beadle building site for a recognitional object, as alleged. The pertinent evidence is discussed below. II. THE MEETING OF APRIL 18 Marvin Russell, employee relations manager for the Company, testified that on or about April 17, 1978, he Picketing ceased on May 18, 1978. when a temporary injunction order was entered against Local 479 pursuant to Sec. 10(11 of the Act. 524 ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 479 spoke with Dewey Cox, president of the Trades Council, in an attempt "to find out what we could do to resolve the problem at the Dallas-Beadle project site." According to Russell, " I]t was suggested that we bring the unions to- gether in a mneeting, a joint meeting, and at that time we could discuss possible solutions and resolutions to the problem." Accordingly, a meeting was arranged for the fol- lowing day, April 18, 1978, at the Ramada Inn in Orange, Texas. The meeting was conducted as scheduled on April 18. Russell and John Durkay, an attorney and officer of Lev- ingston Shipbuilding, attended for the Company. Edward Wise attended for Respondent IBEW Local 479. Cox, the president of the Trades Council, was also present. And, as Russell explained, there were also present representatives from the Plumbers Union, the Ironworkers Union, and the Bricklayers Union. Russell related what transpired at this meeting as follows: The meeting was opened by Mr. Cox. .... Mr. Cox stated from the very outset that he felt that . . . to solve the problem . . . the Company should sign a project agreement for that particular project, and that we [the Company] should sign agreements with each and every union that was present. Russell recalled that Durkay then spoke: Mr. Durkay said that we [the Company] did have some problems with that kind of solution since he did have signed agreements with unions that would do that kind of work in our shipyard. We were also bound by an arbitration case that had recently been decided that indicated that this building, the Dallas- Beadle building was inside our plant, which made it part of our property, and historically we have always worked on our own property. We have renovated our own property. Russell further testified: Mr. Wise said that it was necessary for the Company to sign a project agreement with [Local] 479 because 479 was a construction union, and the electricians union that we [the Company] had signed a contract with, [Local] 390, was not a construction union, and it was not their work, and that it was his work, he felt that he should be doing that work and that we should sign the agreement to that effect, that he would, in fact, describe how he would man the job. He would man the job out of the local hall, he would supply all the people we needed to complete the job, and even explained the economics of the matter in this way. He said that the construction workers that he would supply to put on that job would, in fact, be more economical for the Company than us putting our own employees on the job, because they were on our payroll constantly and the people that would be put on there by his local would be there only for a certain number of hours and we would only be charged for the hours that they worked, and it would be a much more economical situation for the Company if we were to have him to do the work. Specifically, he made a request that we take the 390 electricians off of that jobsite and that the 390 em- ployees would be replaced by those that he would sup- ply from his local hall 479. During the ensuing discussion, Russell asked Wise "what kind of an agreement would it be." Wise responded that "it would be very similar to what he [Wise] termed an AGC contract." [Wise,] said to Mr. Durkay, he said, "Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I have an agreement with me and I'd like for you to take it and it will give you some idea of the kind of project agree- ment that we would need." He further stated that if this was acceptable to us, and if we had something cooking, or if we had something going in the way of getting an agreement, that he would remove the pick- ets, and he would remove them for a day, two days, three days, or a week, if we were in a position to sign an agreement with him. In addition, Wise reassured both Russell and Durkay "that there would not be any jurisdictional problem if we [the Company] were to sign the project agreements with all of the local unions"--"the local unions would work out the matters of jurisdiction among themselves." Wise also ex- plained that a "project agreement was one that would cov- er each and every project similar to the Dallas-Beadle proj- ect. It was not as if we were signing a two-year agreement, or a three-year agreement, or a four-year agreement; that it would cover projects as they would come up, and for the duration of the projects only." 2 John Durkay, an attorney and officer of the Company, recalled that Cox stated at the April 18 meeting, "that he [Cox] thought a project agreement was the appropriate way to go." Durkay further recalled that Wise asserted at the meeting "that it was his [Wise's] picketing; he felt it was properly construction work"; and "a contract or project agreeement which would incorporate the Building Trades' rules in the area was the way in which he was willing to go to end the picketing." During this meeting, according to Durkay, Wise also stated that "the appropriate contract to be signed here would be an AGC building contract"; that he, Wise, "would want" the Company "to go to the IBEW hall for [its] people"; and that "all 390 people would have to come off the project and the project would be manned by 479 people." Durkay asked Wise if "you're going to have to give us the same kind of contract everybody else has." Wise responded: "That's correct, everybody gets the 2 On cross-examination. Russell acknowledged that the Union's picket signs at the Dallas- Beadle site contained only a "protest" against the (com- pany paying "substandard wages": that the Company's "hase rates" for the work done on this project "are lower than the base rates paid by the Build- ing Trades Council": and that at the April 18 meeting Wise handed Durkay a cop) of Respondent Exhibit I. a collective-bargaining agreement between Local 479 and the Costal-Sabine Division of the Southeast Texas Chapter of the National Electrincal Contractor's Association. Inc. Russell noted: He [Wisel offered it [R. Exh. II and said " [This is the kind of contract that should be signed." and he handed it to Mr. Durkay and he said. "keep iI." 525 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD same contract." Durkay asked, "What would this look like." Wise then gave Durkay "some names and addresses of people to talk to, the AGC representative and the Build- ing Trades business agent." Wise also handed Durkay the "NECA agreement," Respondent Exhibit 1, and said: Well, this isn't it, but it's just about the same thing as this; this is about what it would look like; if you want to see what some of the terms and conditions would be, this is about what it will look like.3 Dewey Cox testified that he is the business manager for the Boilermakers Union and president of the Metal Trades Council and the Sabine Area Building Trades Council. Cox spoke with Russell and Durkay on or about April 17. Cox arranged for the meeting on April 18 between the company representatives and various members of the Trades Coun- cil. Cox recalled that "we had discussed earlier with Mr. Russell that the electricians could possibly work on the payroll of Levingston if they [the Company] signed some job compliance or project agreement for the one job," and "Mr. Wise said that he could work under that, but it would be more economical for them to subcontract the work to electrical contractors who would do their work cheaper and better." Cox acknowledged that Wise asserted at this meeting that "in his opinion it was Building Trades work" and "suggested" that the Company "could either contract out or work under job compliance." Cox acknowledged that Wise also reassured management that "they had pro- cedures to settle jurisdictional disputes and he [Wise] felt that there wouldn't be any strikes or problems that he couldn't settle." 4 Edward Wise, assistant business manager for Respon- dent IBEW Local 479, testified that he did not have "any authority on [his] own prerogative to seek recognition or seek contracts from any type of employers"; that his Union picketed the Dallas-Beadle construction site with signs stating "Local 479 protests substandard wages and work- ing conditions on this job"; that the "wages . . . on that job" were in fact "less" than "construction wage rates"; and that the purpose of the picketing was to publicize that "this was construction work and the wages that were being paid on that job were undermining our contract in the area." Wise explained that his reference to "our contract in the area" was to Respondent Exhibit I and the wage rates "set forth in that contract." Wise denied asking the Com- pany to recognize or enter a contract with his Union. He asserted: "I didn't have authority to do anything like that." Elsewhere, Wise testified that "the reason we had the pick- ets, like I said before, was the non-union, or the opposite 3 Dunng this discussion, as Durkay recalled, Mr. Wise said, "Well, if what you want to do is to be considered a general contractor, we don't have any problem with that, and you can do two things. You can just go ahead and sign an AG(' agreement for a term . . . we'll just consider Levingston a general contractor. Or we can do it project by project. And after some discussion about that. it was basically decided . . . we'd just worry about the . . Dallas Bea- dle building and the signed project agreement." 4On cross-examination. Cox explained that Wise "did make the state- ment that it would be better if they Ithe Companyl could do it [the work involved] with an electrical contractor However, they possibly could enter into some agreement.... I kept saying myself, job compliance T1hat means that the Company can sign that they would abide b) his agreement. union, doing .. construction work" and that a "solution would be to hire a contractor" who "paid wages equivalent to our present agreement." In addition, Wise was asked "who did bring up the sub- ject of a project agreement" at the April 18 meeting. Wise responded: "I think Mr. Durkay did." Wise claimed: "I don't lake a project agreement" and "to my knowledge Lo- cal 479 has never signed one." Wise was asked, "[W]hat did you say about signing a project agreement in response to Mr. Durkay's question?" Wise responded: "Well, I couldn't sign one, so evidently I don't think I said any- thing, because I'm in no position to sign any kind of agree- ment. .... I didn't ask for one." Wise further testified: Q. Do you recognize Respondent [Exhibit] I? A. Sure do. Q. Did you have it in your possession when you were at the meeting? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you take it to that meeting for some particu- lar purpose? A. No, I usually keep one for personal references, if nothing else. Q. I believe-well, do you always have one with you? A. Ninety-nine percent of the time. Q. And you have one today? A. I think I left it over on the table. Q. At any time during the meeting, did anyone ask you about Respondent Exhibit 1? A. Yes, Mr. Durkay was discussing wages and so forth, and I told him, "I have a copy of our agree- ment," and he said, "May I see it," and I said, "You can have it." And I also made a point to make note of this as an expired agreement. I haven't even got a copy of our new agreement, this one expired August 31st of '77. Q. All right. But does the expired agreement set forth the wage rates that were paid under the old con- tract? A. Right. Q. Now, did he take the copy, Respondent Exhibit I, from you? A. Yes. Uh-huh. Q. What did he do with it? A. I think he put it in his pocket. Q. All right. At any time, did you, in any) way, sug- gest to Mr. Durkay or Mr. Russell that they sign this contract with you, Respondent l? A. Definitely not. It would have been kind of a waste of time. Further, according to Wise, the "work jurisdiction" of Local 479, under its charter, is limited to "construction work"; the charter "would not permit [us] to enter into a contract with Levingston"; and if Wise did, the IBEW, under its constitution, "would revoke our charter, and could possibly put us into another local, or put an Interna- tional representative running our local union, or some other penalty." R. T. Noack, a representative of the IBEW International, similarly claimed that it would not be "per- missible under the terms of the constitution" of the IBEW 526 ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 479 and "under [the IBEW's] general practices and procedures for Local 479 to enter into a collective bargaining contract or seek recognition from an industrial firm such as Leving- ston Shipbuilding Company." And James Sparks, business manager for Local 479, asserted that he did not "authorize any request for recognition from Levingston Shipbuilding Company or any contract of any sort with Levingston Shipbuilding by Local 479." Sparks claimed that his Union deals "exclusively" with the National Electrical Contrac- tors Association, NECA, in such matters. According to Sparks, Wise would not have "authority to sign" such an agreement for Local 479. I credit the testimony of Russell and Durkay as summa- rized above. Their testimony is in large part mutually cor- roborative. Their testimony is also substantiated in signifi- cant part by the testimony of Cox. And, insofar as the testimony of Wise differs from the testimony of Russell and Durkay, I am persuaded on this record, and by the demeanor of the witnesses, that the testimony of Russell and Durkay is more complete and reliable than the testi- mony of Wise. Further, I note that Noack and Sparks were not present at the critical April 18 meeting. Their testimony pertaining to the asserted limitations of authority on Local 479 and Wise to seek a contract with the Company under the circumstances present here is discussed below. Discussion Section 8(bX7XA) of the Act prohibits picketing by an uncertified union with an object of forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with the labor organiza- tion as the representative of his employees, or of forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select the union as their representative, where the employer has lawfully recognized another labor organization and a ques- tion concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(C) of the Act prohibits strikes by a union, inducement or encouragement of employees by a union to strike or to refuse to perform services, or restraint or coercion of an employer by a union where an object of such conduct is to require an employer to recognize or bargain with one union as the representative of his employees although an- other union has been certified by the Board as the repre- sentative of such employees. See, generally, Dallas Building and Construction Trades Council, 164 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 396 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1968); Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO [Burl Mfg. Co.] v. N.L.R.B., 293 F.2d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 1961). However, when a union pickets an employer for the sole purpose of compelling compliance with prevailing area wage and benefit standards, the Board regards this so- called area standards picketing as nonrecognitional and outside the above proscriptions of the Act. See, e.g., Local Union No. 741, Plumbers (Keith Riggs Plumbing and Heat- ing Contractor), 137 NLRB 1125 (1962). A union may at- tempt to insure that an employer "is required to pay em- I note that Respondent IBEW Local 479, in its answer to the complaint. admits that Assistant Business Manager Wise has been at all times material to this case an agent of Respondent acting on !it behalf within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act. ployee costs equivalent to those paid by the organized em- ployer." Retail Clerks International Association, Local Union No. 899, AFL-CIO, et al. (State-Mart, Inc., d/b/a Giant Food), 166 NLRB 818, 823 (1967), enfd. 404 F.2d 855 (9th Cir. 1968). This principle, however, does not allow a union to force, under the guise of "area standards" mainte- nance, its collective bargaining agreement part and parcel upon employees it does not represent. See e.g., Centralia Building & Construction Trades Council (Pacific Sign & Steel Building Co., Inc.), 155 NLRB 803, 806 (1965), enfd. 363 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1966). Moreover, the proscrip- tions of Sections 8(bX7XA) and 8(bX4Xi) and (ii)C) apply as long as one of the union's objects is illegal; it is immater- ial that the union may also have other, legitimate objects. (See cases cited supra.). In the instant case, Respondent IBEW Local 479 admits that commencing about April 3 it picketed the Company at the Dallas-Beadle building site; that it has not been certi- fied by the Board as bargaining representative for any of the Company's employees; that the Orange Metal Trades Council was designated as representative of the Company's production and maintenance employees by virtue of a Board certification dated July 22, 1946; that the Company and the Trades Council are parties to a current collective- bargaining agreement effective until January 31, 1980; that IBEW Local 390 is a member of the Trades Council and represents the Company's employees in the electrical clas- sification; and that at no time material to this proceeding could a question concerning representation of the Company's electricians be appropriately raised under Sec- tion 9(c) of the Act. Respondent IBEW Local 479 also admits that Edward Wise, its assistant business manager, was at all times material acting on its behalf and as its agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. Counsel for Respondent IBEW Local 479 argues that General Counsel has failed to establish that Local 479's picketing was for a proscribed recognitional or bargaining object. However, the credible evidence, as detailed supra, makes it quite clear that Local 479's picketing was for an unlawful recognitional or bargaining object. Thus, as Com- pany Representative Russell credibly testified, a meeting between the Company's representatives and the various lo- cal unions of the Building Trades Council was conducted on April 18 in order to "discuss possible solutions and res- olutions to the problem." Assistant Business Manager Wise attended for Respondent IBEW Local 479. At that meet- ing, Wise stated that "it was necessary for the Company to sign a project agreement with 479"; that Local 479 was a "construction union" and Local 390 "was not a construc- tion union and it was not their work"; that "it was his work"; that he "would man the job out of the local hall" and "would supply all the people [the Company] needed to complete the job"; and that "the 390 employees would be replaced by those that he would supply from his local 479." Wise furnished the Company's representatives with a copy of an earlier collective-bargaining agreement with the Union, "just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about." Wise added: "if this was acceptable to us [thr Company], and if we had something cooking, or if we hfi something going in the way of getting an agreement, that he would remove the pickets." Further, as Company attor- 527 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ney Durkay credibly recalled, Wise explained at the meet- ing: "you can just go ahead and sign an AGC agreement for a term . . . we'll just consider Levingston a general contractor, or we can do it project by project." I find and conclude that the above credible evidence of record establshes that Respondent IBEW Local 479 picket- ed the Company at its Dallas-Beadle building site with an object of forcing or requiring the Company to recognize or bargain with Local 479 as the representative of the Company's electrician employees and of forcing or requir- ing the electrician employees to accept or select Local 479 as their bargaining representative even though Local 479 is not currently certified as the representative of such em- ployees, the Company has lawfully recognized in accor- dance with the Act another labor organization, the Orange Metal Trades Council and its member IBEW Local 390, and a question concerning representation may not appro- priately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. Respon- dent IBEW Local 479 has therefore violated Section 8(bX7XA) of the Act. In addition, I find and conclude that Respondent IBEW Local 479, by the above conduct, has also violated Section 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXC) of the Act by picketing the site with an object of forcing or requiring the Company to recognize or bargain with Local 479 as the representative of the Company's electrician employees even though the Orange Metal Trades Council, of which IBEW Local 390 is a member, has been certified as the representative of the employees under Section 9 of the Act. Counsel for Respondent further argues that Local 479 "is prohibited by terms of the IBEW Constitution to enter into a contract with an industrial company like Levingston Shipbuilding"; that "inasmuch as Respondent cannot enter into a contract with Levingston, then there could not be any recognitional objective in the picketing"; and that Wise had no "authority to enter into such an agreement on behalf of Respondent Union." However, the credible evi- dence of record makes it clear that Local 479 was in fact picketing the Company for an unlawful recognitional ob- ject. That such unlawful conduct may also subject Wise and his Local 479 to certain sanctions and penalties from the International Union under its charter and constitutions does not permit Wise and his Local to violate the statutory proscriptions of Section 8(bX4XC) and (7XA) of the Act. Moreover, Assistant Business Manager Wise attended the April 18 meeting as a representative of Local 479 in an attempt to resolve the dispute. His agency status, as noted, is admitted. Under settled principles of agency law, Re- spondent cannot now seek to privilege its unlawful conduct by claiming that Wise's statements at the meeting, indicat- ing that the Company could resolve the dispute by execut- ing an agreement with the Union, were unauthorized. Cf. Carpenters Local Union 1260, United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Seizer Construc- tion Co., Inc.), 210 NLRB 628, 631 (1974), and cases cited. In sum, Respondent Union, by the foregoing conduct, has violated Section 8(bX4XC) and (7)(A) as alleged. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Orange Metal Trades Council and Respondent IBEW Local 479 are labor organizations within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent IBEW, by its picketing of the Company's Dallas-Beadle building site, as found above, violated Sec- tion 8(bX7XA) and (4)(i) and (iiX)(C) of the Act. 4. The unfair labor practices found above affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Respondent Union will be directed to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices found above and from engaging in like or related conduct. Respondent Union will also be directed to post at its business offices and meetings halls 'he attached notice. ORDER 6 The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers, Local Union No. 479, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket or cause to be picketed, Levingston Shipbuilding Company at the Dallas-Beadle building site, or at any other facility, at a time when Respondent Union is not currently certified as the representative of the Company's electrician employees where an object thereof is to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with Respon- dent Union as the representative of the Company's electri- cian employees, or to force or require the electrician em- ployees of the Company to accept or select Respondent Union as their collective-bargaining representative, even though the Company has lawfully recognized in accor- dance with the Act another labor orgnaization, the Orange Metal Trades Council and its member International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 390, AFL- CIO, and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. (b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any indi- vidual employed by the Company or any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his em- ployment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other- wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or threatening, coercing, or restraining the Company or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where in either case an object thereof is to force or require the Company to recognize and bargain with Respondent Union as the representative of its electrician employees even though another labor organization, the Orange Metal 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 528 ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 479 Trades Council, of which IBEW Local 390 is a member, has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effecutate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." ' Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, shall be duly signed and posted by Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted, for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail or deliver to said Regional Director signed cop- ies of said notice for posting by Levingston Shipbuilding Company, if said employer is willing to do so. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken by Respondent Union to comply herewith. 7In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, Levingston Shipbuilding Company at the Dallas-Beadle building site, or at any other facility, at a time when we are not currently certified as the representative of the Company's electrician employees where an object thereof is to force or require the Company to recog- nize or bargain with us as the representative of the Company's electrician employees, or to force or re- quire the electrician employees of the Company to ac- cept or select us as their collective-bargaining repre- sentative, even though the Company has lawfully recognized in accordance with the National Labor Re- lations Act another labor organization, the Orange Metal Trades Council and its member International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 390, AFL- CIO, and a question concerning representa- tion may not appropriately be raised under the Act. WE WILL Nol engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by the Company or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affect- ing commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, pro- cess, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to per- form services; or threaten, coerce, or restrain the Company or any other person engaged in comemrce or in an industry affecting commerce where in either case an object thereof is to force or require the Com- pany to recognize and bargain with us as the represen- tative of the Company's electrician employees even though another labor organization, Orange Metal Trades Council, of which IBEW Local 390 is a mem- ber, has been certified as the representative of such employees under the Act. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECMRICAL WORKERS. LOCAL UNION NO 479, AFL-CIO 529