Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 903

INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 903 169' It is further recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed insofar as it charges Respondent with an unlawful refusal to bargain or with any coercive con- duct other than that found in this Decision. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding their union sentiments, promise or grant them benefits, or suggest direct negotiation of grievances with us, or make actual settlement of grievances with them, in order to dissuade them from the choice of or adherence to Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization of our employees, as their collective-bargaining agent, or suggest that they express antiunion views to other employees, or in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above Union or any other labor organization. TREND MILLS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528 Peach- tree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone No. 876- 3311, Extension 5357, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union- No. 903 and Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council and Pass Development, Inc. Cases Nos. 15-CC-235 and 15-OP-38. August 2, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On June 1, 1965, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegations. There- after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and a sup- porting brief. 154 NLRB No. 10. 170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the provision of Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con- nection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondents, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 903, and Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council, Gulfport, Mississippi, their officers, agents, and rep- resentatives, shall take the action forth in the Trial Examiner's Rec- ommended Order. 1 Member Fanning concurs in the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondents violated Section 8(b) (4) (B) without passing upon the Trial Examiner 's rationale in the absence of exceptions thereto. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate charges of unfair labor practices filed by Pass Development, Inc , against International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 903, and Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council, on January 5, 1965, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a consolidated com- plaint and notice of hearing on February 18, 1965, alleging that Respondents had engaged in unfair labor piactices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. An answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices was filed by Respondents, and a hearing was held before Trial Exam- iner George J. Bott in Gulfport, Mississippi, on April 6, 1965. All parties were repre- sented at the hearing, and filed briefs after the hearing which I have considered. Upon the entire record I in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD Pass Development, Inc., herein called Pass or Charging Party, is a Mississippi corporation engaged in the general real estate business and in the construction and sale of homes. Pass was the builder and general contractor on the Fountain Apart- ment project in Mississippi City involved in this proceeding, and it was stipulated that it ordered and received at the project goods and materials valued at more than $50,000 from points outside the State of Mississippi. I find that Pass is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of the Act. 1 General Counsel's motion to correct the transcript, which Is unopposed , is granted. In addition , the word "without" on page 35 , line 7, should be changed to "about." INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 903 171 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondents concede, and I find, that International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 903, herein called Respondent Electricians, and Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council, herein called Respondent Council, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The evidence The complaint alleges, in substance and effect, that the Respondents violated Sec- tion 8(b) (4) (i) and (u) (B) of the Act by picketing and threatening to picket Pass at its Fountain Apartment project, with an object of forcing or requiring Pass and other persons to cease doing business with Midway Electric Company, an electrical subcontractor on the project. In addition, the complaint alleges that another object of Respondents' picketing of the project was to foice Pass to recognize or bargain with Respondent Council and/or its constituent affiliates as the representatives of Pass' employees, or to force or require Pass' employees to accept them as their collective- bargaining representative, all in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(C) of the Act. Pass began construction of the Fountain Apartment project in September 1964 and subcontracted much of the work to contractors. Donald Hertel, secretary-treasurer of Pass, testified that Midway Electric Company, whose presence on the job apparently triggered the dispute in this case, was awarded the electrical work; Bruns Myers was given the so-called mechanical work, which includes air-conditioning, heating, and ventilating; L. T. Saucier had a contract for carpentry work, G. M. Brooks Construc- tion Company was a subcontractor for site work and paving, William Davis agreed to do the cement work under a labor contract, and a few other small contractors also did work at the project. It appears, although the record is somewhat uncertain on this point, that Pass retained some of the work for itself, such as ordinary labor, which was done by its employees. During the dispute involved in this case, Pass had no collective-bargaining agree- ments with Respondents, and, with the exception of Bruns Myers, and possibly William Davis, whose employees left the job when the picket appeared, none of the contractors on the project had collective-bargaining contracts with either of the Respondents or with any of the constituent locals affiliated with Respondent Council. Myers had a contract with Local 681 of the Plumbers and Steam Fitters in Jackson, Mississippi, and had agreed with the local Plumbeis Union in Gulfport, Mississippi, -to abide by their rules and regulations. About a week before the beginning of picketing on November 10, 1964, Lon ,Gilstrap, business representative of Respondent Electricians, telephoned Hertel. Hertel testified without contradiction that Gilstrap said that he understood Pass was using an out-of-State electrician on the Fountain Apartment project, but Hertel told him the contractor was a local firm. Gilstrap asked who it was, and Hertel told him it was Midway Electric. Gilstrap said he did not know Midway and asked Hertel if the company was "union." When Hertel replied that Midway was a nonunion con- tractor, Gilstrap reminded him of an earlier construction project where Hertel, who was in charge of construction, had employed union men and asked him why he did not "cooperate with us" as he had on that job. Hertel explained that he was now in business for himself and operating "open shop." Gilstrap commented that, if some- thing was not done about the nonunion electrical contractor, the job would be picketed, but Hertel insisted that he was obligated by contract to Midway Electric.2 On November 10, 1964, a picket appeared at the project and commenced patrolling -with a sign which read: "Electricians on this job are not members of Local 903, IBEW." Picketing with this sign continued for about a week. At the time the picket- ing began there were a number of subcontractors on the job. When the picket appeared employees of Myers, the mechanical contractor, left the job and Davis, the cement finisher, also respected the picket line. Midway and its employees also left 2 Respondents denied that Pass and Midway are separate employers in their answer, but introduced no evidence to support the denial . The record shows , and I find, that Midway and Pass are separate entities with no officer , stock, or other financial connec- tions. The only connection between the two is the standard contract on the apartment project which does not, of course, change their independent status as separate business entities under the Act. N L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et at. (Gould d Preisner), 341 U.S. 675 , 689-690. 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the site after Hertel had a conversation with Burris, one of Midway's partners, in which the two agreed that it would be wiser for Midway to leave the job until the "problem" was analysed. About November 16 or 17 the picket sign was changed. Respondent Council's name was substituted for Respondent Electricians and the sign now read: "Unfair- No Labor Contract, Gulf Coast Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO." Picketing with this sign continued until about February 16, 1965. Employees of Myers and Davis did not return to the job during the picketing, and, in addition, there were interruptions of deliveries and other refusals to perform serv- ices. Three trucking companies refused to make deliveries to the site, and other arrangements had to be made through contract carriers. Midway was required to make its own pickups because of its supplier's resistance. Telephone and power com- pany employees would not cross the picket line to complete necessary work. In early December, Hertel telephoned the office of the Gulf Coast Building Trades Council and spoke with J. E. Peterman, secretary of Respondent Council. Hertel testified that he asked Peterman to arrange a meeting to "discuss problems on the job." In about a week, Parent, a business agent of the Plumbers, telephoned Hertel, and a meeting was arranged for December 9 in Hertel's office During the telephone con- versation in which the meeting was agreed upon, Hertel asked Parent if he should have a representative of Midway present, and Parent told him it was not necessary, but that he would like to have Myers, the mechanical contractor, present The meeting on December 9 was attended by Hertel and Myers. Union repre- sentatives present were Gilstrap, representative of Respondent Electricians and a trustee of Respondent Council; Parent, Plumbers' business agent and trustee of Respondent Council; and J. H. Madison, president of Respondent Council and busi- ness agent of the Bricklayers. According to Hertel, he asked the group what he could do to "correct our problems on the Fountain project job," and Parent replied that he had no particular problem, because Myers was a union contractor and would honor the picket line. Hertel testified that Madison then asked him what his intentions were about the brickwork on the project, and Hertel told him that he had taken bids from both union and nonunion contractors, but the contract had not been yet awarded. He said he would use union bricklayers if the union contractors' bids were com- petitive. Hertel also told Madison that he would be glad to use union men in the other trades that he was employing, such as laborers He added that Saucier, the carpentry contractor, would "be receptive to talking with them, if it was necessary to work out these problems," but said he could not speak for Saucier Hertel testified that, after he had mentioned the various crafts or contractors and his intentions in their regard, Parent said the electricians were the "problem " Gil- strap then commented that "they would like to see a union electrician on the job" and added that he was sure that Mr Wilson of Wilson Electric Company would be happy to take over the electrical work on the job. Wilson Electric was a union contractor, and Hertel told Gilstrap that he had received a bid from Wilson for the electrical work, but, because his bid was too high, he had awarded the work to Midway Electric. Hertel said he was contractually obligated to Midway and felt that he could not do anything about it He offered, however, to call Burris, a partner in Midway, and arrange for him to meet Gilstrap to discuss the matter. Hertel got in touch with Burris and a meeting was arranged. Bruns Myers, the mechanical contractor on the job who had a contract with the Plumbers, attended the December 9 meeting with Hertel. He testified that Hertel opened the meeting by asking what could be done to "get the picket removed from the job ...." According to Myers, one of the union representatives replied that the picket would be removed if all "of the contractors on the job were union ." but he was unable to say positively which person made the remark He corroborated Hertel's comment that he "did not mind hiring union laborers" on the lob and that he had talked to Saucier, the carpentry contractor, about the existing problem. Myers also recalled that Hertel was asked about the brickwork, and said he had not awarded it yet. According to him, Hertel was also asked by various union representa- tives about his intentions in regard to other trades, such as sheet metal workers and operating engineers Finally. Gilstrap asked Hertel about the electricians. Myers said, and Hertel told him that he had awarded the electrical contract to Midway. but that he would see if he could arrange to have Burris of Midway talk "- th Giistrati. Myers said that Gilstrap said. "... we have got to have, we need a union contractor that is signed up on our local on the job to satisfy the electricians." According to Myers, Gilstrap added that he could not tell Hertel which contractor to use, but he named three, one of which was "Gray." 3 He also recalled that Hertel mentioned e "Gray" appears to have been Wilson Electric, because Myers said they were "syn- onymous" to him. INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 903 173 -that he had awarded the work after taking bids and that Midway's bid was lower than the others, including "Gray." James Burris of Midway, the electrical subcontractor on the Pass job, testified that Hertel telephoned him after the picketing started and asked him if he would meet with Gilstrap to ". . . get something worked out so that the job could progress." He met Gilstrap and asked him what ". . . we could do about becoming members of the Union ... " He said that Gilstrap told him that one of the partners would have to quit working with tools and that his helpers would have to pass certain tests or meet other qualifications in order to become members of the Union. According to Burris, Gilstrap said it would take about 6 to 8 weeks to process his application and sug- gested to him that ". . . in the meantime I turn my job over to Mr. Harry Gray, who represented at the time Wilson Electric, and that they should take the job, if we wanted the job to progress." Burris told Gilstrap he would think about it, and left. They have had no contacts since. Burris said that the purpose of his meeting with Gilstrap was to get the "job moving" and that he was willing to "join the Union," if that would help, but that the "requirements of the Union" were impossible. Lon Gilstrap, business representative of Respondent Electricians and trustee of Respondent Council, was present at the December 9 meeting in Hertel's office. Gil- strap testified that there was a "general discussion" about the job and that Hertel asked him what could be done to get Burris of Midway "in the Union." Gilstrap said he told Hertel that he would do anything he could to help and that if Burris telephoned him he would meet with him. Gilstrap conceded that, in discussing the job with Hertel, he asked him whether or not ". . . some of the local contractors had bid on the job ..." and that he named some of them. He said that Hertel told him that those contractors had bid too high, and that such was the extent of the conversation. He denied that he suggested to Hertel that he obtain one of the named contractors to replace Midway or that he told Hertel he could solve his problem by replacing Midway. Gilstrap recalled that Hertel talked with Madison about bricklayers and that Hertel stated that he had not yet awarded that contract, but that ". . he could work that out to where the bricklayer contractor would be union." He also remembered Parent of the Plumbers stating that he had no problem because Contractor Myers had a contract with his union. In addition to the crafts already named, Gilstrap also recalled some discussion about others, such as carpenters and sheet metal workers. He was not sure, however, whether there was a representative of the Laborers Union present or whether or not those employees were mentioned. He insisted that the main purpose of the meeting was Hertel's attempt to ". . . try and get Mr. Burris in the Union...." Gilstrap met with Burris a few days later. He said Burris asked him how he could get in the union, and he showed him a copy of the IBEW contract with the National Electrical Contractors Association. He let Burris read the agreement, and then Burris asked about requirements for membership for apprentices. He denied that there were any negotiations about a contract and he also denied that he told Burris that his prob- lem could be solved by giving up his contract to perform work on the project or that he suggested another contractor to him, particularly Wilson Electric. Gilstrap recalled that there was some "discussion of all the contractors" with Burris and that he asked Burris if he knew "several of them." Burris replied that he knew "Gray," according to Gilstrap, and did not hold him highly. After some more discussion about the union conditions attached to being signatory to a contract and about the requirements for membership, Burris left him, stating that he would telephone him at a later date, but he never heard from him again. J E. Peterman, business manager of the Carpenters, Local 1518, and secretary of the Gulf Coast Building Trades Council, did not participate in the December 9 meet- ing with Hertel, although he did get the telephone call from Hertel asking to meet with the Council. Asked what the purpose of the Council picket line was, Peterman replied, "It was an informational picket to notify the public and union members that the conditions on the job were not up to those that had been negotiated in the area." He testified that, when the Fountain Apartment project commenced, he agreed at a meeting of the Building Trades Council to investigate and find out what contractor was doing it. He visited the job, talked with Hertel, and asked him who his subcon- tractors were. He said Hertel told him that he was doing the labor work himself, and had given the mechanical work to Myers. He thought that Hertel also mentioned Midway Electric, but he was unfamiliar with the name, and could not be sure. Saucier, the carpentry subcontractor, was also named by Hertel and Peterman knew him, for he had been a member of the Carpenters Union at one time. Peterman admitted that when he talked with Hertel at the jobsite he did not ask him what wages he or the other employers would pay their employees or inquire about any of the other working conditions on the job. He stated that picketing by the Council was voted 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at a meeting of the Council, and he insisted that the delegates voted to change the picket sign from Electricians to Council, because there were other employees on the job besides the electricians who "weren't being paid the wage scales." B. Analysis, additional findings, and conclusions 1. Alleged violations of Section 8(a) (4) (i) and (ii) (B), or the secondary boycott aspects of the case In my opinion, and I find, Respondent Electricians' and Respondent Council's prin- cipal object in picketing the Fountain Apartment project was to force Pass and other persons to cease doing business with Midway, the electrical subcontractor. Respond- ents' object was clearly and early revealed in Gilstrap's conversation with Hertel about a week before the Electricians began to picket the job. In that conversation, Gilstrap, after he learned that Midway was nonunion, threatened to picket the job if Hertel did not do something about Midway. Gilstrap conceded the telephone call to Hertel, but did not refer to its contents in his testimony. I credit Hertel and find that the threat was made. Additional evidence of Respondents' object is found in the statements made by both union and employer representatives during the December 9 meeting which Hertel asked the Council to hold to discuss "problems on the job." It is clear that during the meeting the parties discussed the union status of the various subcontractors on, or to be employed on, the project, indeed, Gilstrap admitted as much. Hertel told Madison of the Carpenters that he would have his nonunion subcontractor, Saucier, talk to the Union, and he also indicated that he would award the brickwork to a union contractor if the bid was satisfactory. There is no denial that Parent of the Plumbers stated that the electricians seemed to be the "problem " It is also conceded that there was some conversation about electrical contractors other than Midway. Here again, Gilstrap conceded that he asked whether or not various firms had bid on the job. It seems to me, therefore, that Hertel's and Myers' versions, which jibe basically, about what Gilstrap said in that meeting about Midway is more plausible than Gilstrap's denial. I find, in accord with their testimony, that Gilstrap said that Respondents would like to have a union electrical contractor on the job and that Wilson Electric, a union contractor, would be happy to take it over. I also credit Burris' testimony that Gilstrap told him, when they met to discuss Midway's role in the labor dispute, that he could turn his contract over to Wilson Electric. Although Gilstrap denied making the statement, he admitted that there was also some discussion in this meeting about other contractors and that he mentioned their names to Burris. Gilstrap's preoccupation with other electrical subcontractors, particularly union electricians, in his conversation with Burris as well as in his meeting with Hertel, appears to be more than idle curiousity, but a clear suggestion that Burris should abandon the project if he "wanted the job to progress" without a picket. The credited testimony of Hertel, Myers. and Burris makes it clear that Respond- ents' main object in picketing the Fountain Apartment project was to disrupt the business relationship between Pass and Midway by forcing Pass to get rid of Midway. In addition to Respondents' admissions about the object of their picketing, there is also some evidence in Respondents' failure to completely conform with the evidentiary criteria in Moore Dry Dock 4 which supports an inference that the picketing was secondary rather than primary and which, as a matter of fact, is inconsistent with the avowed purpose of the picketing. In the first place, Respondent Council's picket sign 4 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547, 549. General Counsel concedes that Respondents conformed with three of the four require- ments in Moore Dry Dock, since picketing with both signs was conducted at the situs of the dispute, when the primary employer was present , and reasonably close to the situs. He also takes the position that, as far as the first sign is concerned , he does not contend that Respondent failed to identify the primary employer (Midway) with whom it had the dispute, even though the sign did not name the employer. He takes this position, according to his brief, because the craft was identified and there was but one employer utilizing that craft Under such circumstances, the Board has held that the fourth criterion is satisfied. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 59 (Anderson Company Electrical Service ), 135 NLRB 504 , 505; The Columbus Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, at al. (Merchandise Properties, Inc.), 149 NLRB 82. The Board has also held that similar signs do not meet the fourth criterion. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL -CIO (A. C. Electric), 148 NLRB 1560, footnote 12; Local 25 ¢, Building Service Employees International 'Union, AFL-CIO ( University Cleaning Company ), 151 NLRB 341 . In this state of the law General Counsel accepts the first Sign, but argues that the second is deficient. INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 903 175, names no employer or craft. The clear implication of the sign is that Respondents had a dispute with all of the employers on the job, which was not a fact, because Myers at least had an agreement with the Plumbers. This sign is, therefore, as General Counsel suggests, not in conformity with the criteria for common situs picketing.5 J. E. Peterman, secretary of the Council, testified that the purpose of the council sign was to notify the public and union members that conditions on the job were not like those negotiated in the area. Since the mechanical contractor and, very likely, the cement contractor, Davis, were union, the sign is inaccurate in that respect and inconsistent with what Peterman said its purpose was. These inaccuracies destroy whatever value the signs had as an indication of Respondents' true objective.C Finally, Respondents' contention, through Peterman, that the purpose of the picket- ing was purely informational to let the public and union members know about sub-- standard conditions on the job does not fit with his own actions and is out of tune with the whole meaning of the Council's conference with Hertel to discuss the project Peterman admitted that he did not inquire about wages or other conditions under which employees on the Fountain Apartment project would be working, and there is no evidence in the record that Respondents knew what the conditions were As indicated, and as I have found, the conference with Hertel was completely subcori- tractor oriented with the emphasis on the union status of existing or potential subcon- tractors. Other than that, job conditions were not discussed. I find and conclude that Respondent Electricians violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act by threatening Pass with picketing with an object of forcing or requiring Pass to cease doing business with Midway, and by picketing with an object of forcing or requiring Pass to cease doing business with Midway. I also find and conclude that Respondent Council violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and" (ii) (B) of the Act by picketing and threatening to picket with an object of forcing or requiring Pass to cease doing business with Midway. 2. The alleged violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C) General Counsel's theory here is that Respondents picketed with an additional object of forcing Pass to recognize or bargain with one of the constituent locals of Respondent Council. In support of his contention he points to comments made by both Hertel of Pass and Respondents' representatives in the December 9 meeting, arranged by Hertel with the Council to discuss his job "problems." Examples of the comments are Hertel's statement that he would be glad to ". . . use [union] laborers, if this would help," and various remarks or inquines of the union people about the- union status of Hertel's subcontractors employed, or to be used on, the project. I have found that a major object of Respondents' picketing was to cause Pass to • cease doing business with Midway in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. It is a fact, of course, that finding a violation of one section of the statute does not prevent reaching another even though the conduct involved is all part of the same- transaction,7 and it is also true that a violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) may be found: if, like under the secondary boycott sections of 8(b) (4), only an object of the picket- ing is improper even though another or more important object exists. This is so even, if the other object is legal.8 If Council or Electricians, therefore, wanted Pass to recognize, bargain, or contract for Pass' employees and picketed for that purpose, even in part, the conduct would run afoul of 8(b) (7) (C), assuming the other condi- tions required by 8(b) (7) are present.9 I feel, however, that despite all this, to reach 5 The Building & Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, et at. (Fisher Construction Company), 149 NLRB 1629. 6 Business Representative Gilstrap of the Electricians did not explain what the purpose of the Respondent Electrician sign was. In any case, even if both signs were in con- formity with Moore Dry Dock standards, a violation may still be made out if Respond- ents reveal their secondary objective independently of those standards. Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council (Centlivre Village Apartment), 148 NLRB 854. 7 Local 705, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, et al. (Cartage and Terminal Management Corporation), 130 NLRB 558. s N L R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, at al. (Gould & Preisner), supra, footnote 2; Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council (Centlsvre Village Apartments), 148 NLRB 854; The Building & Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, et al. (Fisher Construction Com- pany), 149 NLRB 1629. ° See Leonard Smitley and Joseph W. Drown, d/b/a Crown Cafeteria v. N,L.R.B.t 327: P. 2d 351 (C.A. 9). 176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such a result in this case would require a distortion of the record and a misreading of the statute. In the first place, if anything is clear in the record, it is that Respondent Electricians' overriding aim from the beginning was getting Midway off the job. No peace could be made with it unless that result was accomplished and, in Gilstrap's words, a ... union contractor signed up with our local on the job ...." Even in Gilstrap's meeting with Burris of Midway, where Burris' possible admission in the Union was discussed, Gilstrap tried to persuade Burris to abandon his subcontract and turn it over to another contractor My evaluation of their conversation also convinces me that Gilstrap was not seriously considering Burris or any of his helpers as members. But of course Electricians could have joined forces with Respondent Council and, if so, it would be jointly liable under Section 8(b)(7)(C) if an object of Council's picketing was recognition or bargaining, but I do not believe it was in their case, in any real sense, anymore than it was in Respondent Electricians'. Here again, the whole tone and meaning of Council's meeting with Hertel shows it to be subcontractor oriented. Respondent Council's representatives wanted to know who Pass' subcon- tractors were, or would be. Hertel talked about bids, and he did not talk about Saucier's employees (the carpentry subcontractor), he talked about having Saucier, qua contractor, meet with the Respondents. Any realistic appraisal of the meeting should make it clear that the Council's overriding objective was to convince Pass to the union subcontractors. It also appears that, so far as this record is concerned, the only employees Pass employed were laborers, and we do not know how many. All the conversation about various crafts in the December 9 meeting could not, therefore, have been an attempt to bargain about or secure recognition from Pass for their employees, such as carpenters, bricklayers, and the like, within the meaning of the statute, because the provisions of the statute mean conventional bargaining and recognition and such assumes the existence of unit employees,'0 employed or to be employed by the picketed employer, not by some other employer. But it is a fact that Pass had some laborers in its employ and laborers were men- tioned in the December 9 meeting. This is where I think that the record must be read carefully, however, unless it become distorted. In my view, laborers were far removed from the minds of the union representatives present. There is no evidence that a Laborers Union representative was even present, and no other union repre- sentative asked Hertel anything about laborers during the discussions of the project. Hertel volunteered that he could use union laborers if it would help solve the prob- lem, but this was his suggestion, and there is not a word in the record about laborers after that. I do not think that this isolated and apparently casual remark can supply an object sufficiently real to support another violation of the Act in the face of the Respondents' overriding objective of getting Pass to contract with union subcontractors. I find and conclude that General Counsel has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents have violated Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act as alleged. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section 111, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of Pass Development, Inc., set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 10I am aware that a union may violate Section 8(b) (7) (C) by picketing to force a contractor to recognize and sign a contract with the union covering unit employees when and if they are hired. Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, APL_ 010 (R. S. Noonan, Inc), 142 NLRB 1132, enfd. 331 F. 2d 99 (C.A. 3). What I am saying is that the absence of conventional craft employees In Pass' employ indicates that discussion of those crafts was directed to the subcontractors' relations with the Respondents', not Pass'. INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 903 177 2. Pass Development, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and Midway Electric Company is engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 8(b) (4) of the Act. 3. By picketing, or causing to be picketed, and by threatening to picket the site of the construction of the Fountain Apartment in Mississippi City, Mississippi, for an object of forcing or requiring Pass Development, Inc., to cease doing business with Midway Electric Company, Respondent Electricians and Respondent Council have engaged 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 are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that Respondents, their officers, representatives, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Pass Development, Inc., or any other employer other than Midway Electric Company, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Pass Development, Inc., or any other employer, to cease doing business with Midway Electric Company. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Pass Development, Inc., or any other employer or person, where an object thereof is to force or require Pass Development, Inc., or any other employer, to cease doing business with Midway Electric Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at the separate business offices and meeting halls of each of the aforesaid Respondents, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 15, shall, after having been signed by authorized representatives of the Respondents, be posted by Respond- ents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director for posting by Pass Development, Inc., if willing, at locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.12 It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act. 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be en- forced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order". 121n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply therewith." APPENDIX To ALL OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Pass Development, Inc., or any other employer other than Midway Electric Company, to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of such individual's employment to use or handle any materials, or to perform any services, or 206-445-66-vol. 154-13 178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD threaten, or coerce Pass Development, Inc., or any other employer, where in either case an object is to force or require said employers to cease doing busi- ness with Midway Electric Company. GULF COAST BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 903, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No. 529-2411, Extension 6396. I. V. Sutphin, Co.-Atlanta, Inc. and King Adams. Case No. 10- CA-3099. August 2, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On May 19, 1965, Tria-1 Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec- ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in cer- tain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the 154 NLRB No. 18.