Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 11

766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO; Carpenters Union Local No. 710; and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 494 [L.G. Electric Contrac- tors, Inc.] and Jones and Jones, Inc., and Interstate Employers Association, Inc. and L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. Case No. 21-CC-734. August 27,1965 DECISION AND ORDER On February 15, 1965, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision and briefs in support thereof. The General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to make cer- tain findings and conclusions, a brief in support thereof, and one in reply to Respondent's briefs. 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 Fanning 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, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the IBEW picketing of the project violated Section 8(b) (4) (B) since one of its objectives was illegal. The Trial Examiner found that on March 10, 1964, Respondent IBEW picketed the project with a sign reading "L.G. Electric does not pay the prevailing wage scale and conditions." When the general contractor, Lammens, learned of this he called Dugan, the IBEW representative. Lammens inquired how he could get rid of the pickets. Dugan advised him that he would have to get rid of L.G. "or else they wouldn't pull the pickets off the job." When Lammens agreed to get rid of L.G., Dugan replied, "Well, just your word isn't good enough. You have to have a signed con- tract with an AFL union for us to pull the pickets off. You have to show us that contract before we will pull them off." As indicated by our dissenting colleague, in the Moore Dry Dock case,,- the Board established certain standards for picketing of a 'Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 547. 154 NLRB No. 59. INT'L BROTHERHOOD, ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 767 common jobsite which, if followed, would presumptively indicate that the picketing union was attempting to limit its dispute to the primary employer and not to enmesh other, neutral employees. In the Plauehe Electric case 2 the Board commented on these standards indicating that they "are not to be applied on an indiscriminate `per se' basis, but are to be regarded merely as aids in determining the underlying question of statutory violation." Viewed in isolation, the picketing here involved would have been lawful under the criteria evolved by the Board, for, as our dissenting colleague correctly states, the picketing was conducted in accordance with the standards the Board announced in the Moore Dry Dock case. Had the IBEW done no more than that, no violation of Sec- tion 8(b) (4) (B) would be proved, even though the record shows employees of the general contractor and the neutral subcontractors did not cross the picket line thereby causing a virtual cessation of all work on the project. Yet, "in any of these secondary boycott situations the ultimate determination depends upon the Union's objective. Often `the line is fine,' and circumstances of the particular case must supply the answer to which way the chips are to fall." 3 Here, the picketing does not stand ' in isolation. Our dissenting colleague views Dugan's exchange with Lammens as "nothing more than expressions of [the Union's] intention to continue to exercise its right to picket L.G. at the site in a lawful manner." We cannot agree with this characterization of the Union's objective. Rather, we understand Dugan's words to mean that an object of the IBEW was to replace L.G. Electric, a contractor whose employees were represented by District 50, UMW, with a contractor who had an AFL collective-bargaining agreement. Were it otherwise, Dugan need only have said that if L.G. Electric paid wages up to those in area contracts, the picketing would cease. It is immaterial that the Union may have also had a second, lawful, objective. A unanimous Board so held in the Centlivre case,4 stating: We are persuaded that picketing by a union in the construc- tion industry to interrupt business relations between a neutral general contractor and an identified subcontractor constitutes a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (B) notwithstanding the fact that the picketing also has a lawful concurrent objective .... alnternationat Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc.), 135 NLRB 250. 3 Local 761 , International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers v. N.L.R.B., 278 F. 2d 282 , 285 (C A.D C.). * Northeastern Indiana Building & Construction Trades Council ( Centlivre Village Apartments ), 148 NLRB 854 , enf. denied on other grounds 352 F. 2d 696 (C.A.D C.). See also Meat & Highway Drivers, etc, Local No. 710 ( Wilson & Co. ) v. N.L.R.B., 335 F. 2d 709 (CA.D.C.), where the court noted that unlike violations of Section 8(b)(4), object was not an element of the unfair labor practice in 8(e ) cases. 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we conclude from an examination of the entire course, of conduct engaged in by the IBEW that it would not have been satisfied with anything less than the removal of L.G. Electric from the jobsite, and that this unlawful object, as well as the lawful object of maintaining area standards, was reflected in the picketing. Unlike our colleague, we are unable to separate the picketing from the. accompanying statements explaining when picketing would cease. We, therefore, conclude that not only the making of such statements but also the picketing which makes the statement meaningful must be enjoined. 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 Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modi- fied herein, and orders that the Respondents, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO ; Car- penters Union Local No. 710; and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No 494, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,' as so modified : 1. Add the following as paragraph A, 2, and renumber present paragraph A, 2, as paragraph A, 3: "2. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining A. E. Lammens, Ehinger R Dunlap, Viking Automatic Sprinklers, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require the afore- said employers or persons to cease doing business with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc." 2. Add the following as paragraph B, 2, and renumber present paragraph B, 2, as paragraph B, 3: "2. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining A. E. Lammens, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require A. E. Lammens, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc." 3. Add the following as paragraph C, 2, and renumber present paragraph C, 2, as paragraph C, 3: "2. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining Ehinger & Dunlap or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require Ehinger & Dunlap, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc." 5 The telephone number for Region 21 , given at the bottom of Appendixes A, B, and C attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision , is amended to read: 688-5229. INT'L BROTHERHOOD, ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 769 MEMBER FANNING, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with my colleagues that Respondents Carpenters and Plumbers violated the Act in the manner set forth by the Trial Examiner. I do not agree, however, that the statements of IBEW agents Dugan and McCall that the picketing at the Cherry Avenue project would continue as long as L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc., remained on the jobsite, constitute unlawful threats, restraint, or coercion. Nor do I agree that, even if such statements are unlawful, they are so inextricably interwoven with the IBEW's picketing, found by the Trial Examiner to be primary in nature, that the latter is necessarily tainted thereby.6 In the Moore Dry Dock case,7 the Board established a set of standards which a picketing union is required to observe at a common jobsite in order to demonstrate that. it is attempting to limit its dis- pute with the primary employer working at that site and that it is not seeking to enmesh other, neutral, employers who are also work- ing at that site. The IBEW's picketing here was directed only against L.G. Electric at the Cherry Avenue job, which was found by the Trial Examiner to be a primary site in the dispute between those two parties. Lammens and all others working at the site knew, merely from reading the picket signs, that IBEW's dispute was with L.G. Electric. Under these circumstances, I would hold that the IBEW's statements to Lammens, that the picketing would continue while L.G. remained on the job, were nothing more than expressions of its intention to continue to exercise its right to picket L.G. at the site in the lawful manner prescribed by the Board .8 These statements were made in response to Lammens' query as to what he could do to get rid of the picketing. Certainly, Lammens was no more "en- meshed" in the IBEW-L.G. Electric dispute when he heard these statements than when he merely saw the picketing and read the picket signs. I think it totally unrealistic to rule that a general con- tractor in such a situation is uninvolved and unaffected by the act of 6 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11 ( General Tele- phone Company of California), 151 NLRB 1490, my separate views at footnote 4 7 Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547. 8 Contrary to my colleagues , I do not think that Dugan 's statement to Lammens, quoted by the majority, that Lammens had to have a contract with an AFL union before the pickets would be removed , represented the actual position of the IBEW As part of his response to Lammens ' inquiry, Dugan specifically advised Lammens that he ( Dugan) took his orders from IBEW Assistant Business Manager McCall and that Lammens should contact McCall. The Trial Examiner found that, when Lammens did so, McCall 's state- ment of the IBEW's position did not include a requirement that Lammens hire an AFL- CIO contractor to replace L.G. Under these circumstances I would not find that the IBEW's picketing had as an object any such requirement . This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that there was no picketing after March 10, the day on which Lammens spoke to Dugan and McCall , once L G . was removed from the job, even though Lammens had not obtained an AFL-CIO contractor to replace L G. I would find that its object was as I have described above. 206-446-66-vol 154 50 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD picketing against a subcontractor on his jobsite and then, suddenly, is drawn into that dispute when a union agent articulates what the general contractor knew from the commencement of the picketing, namely, that he was in a position to remove the source of the dispute from his job by removing the offending subcontractor. Yet, this is what the majority does in the case before us. The Board's decision in General Drivers, Chauffeurs, and Helpers, Local Union No. 886 (The Stephens Company), 133 NLRB 1393, is particularly instructive in this regard. Referring to the Union's "second letter" to a neutral employer, which stated that any picketing which might take place at the neutral's premises would conform to the Moore Dry Dock standards, the Board stated, at page 1396, that : We have no evidence of subterfuge or bad faith on the part of Respondent in circulating this letter. We do not, therefore, find any unlawful threat or coercion in the second letter since the letter does no more than state the Union will exercise its lawful rights. The Respondent was entitled to publicize its dispute with Stephens by all lawful means; it cannot then be unlawful to advise secondary employers that all such means will be used. I would apply the same rationale to the facts herein, as the IBEW, when it told Lammens that the picketing would not cease as long as L.G. Electric was on the job, merely stated that it would continue its lawful picketing of L.G. Electric in accordance with the Moore Dry Dock standards. Indeed, the instant case may be the easier one, as the picketing was underway and could then be observed to con- form those standards, whereas Stephens involved only a statement of intention with no positive assurance as to the manner of any subsequent picketing.' Accordingly, I would find the IBEW's picketing herein lawful and dismiss the complaint in this respect. 9 See also Construction, Building Material and Mi8cellaneous Drivers, Local Union No 83, etc. (Marshall & Haas), 133 NLRB 1144, 1146, wherein, under similar circum- stances, the Board held that the "mere giving of notice of prospective strike action against a subcontractor to the prime contractor [was not] a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B)." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on March 20, 1964, and amended on June 10, 1964, by Jones & Jones, Inc., and Interstate Employers Association, Inc.,' herein referred to jointly as Charging Parties, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint 2 dated July 21, 1964, alleging that the Respondents, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, herein called Electrical Workers, Carpenters Union Local No. 710, herein called Carpenters, and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 494, herein called Plumbers, had engaged in and were engaging 'Amended at hearing to correctly reflect current identity. 2 Case No. 21-CC-768 severed after settlement during hearing. INT'L BROTHERHOOD, ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 771 in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.), herein called the Act. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner in Los Angeles, California, on October 7, 1964. The parties waived oral argument and briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondents Electrical Workers and Plumbers, Respondent Carpenters, and Intervenor have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS The following jurisdictional facts are undisputed. Interstate is an employer associa- tion composed in part of employers in the building and construction industry. Inter- state exists in part to represent those of its employer members in the building and construction industry who have so authorized it in collective bargaining with labor organizations and to negotiate collective-bargaining agreements for and on behalf of said building and construction members in bargaining unit with labor organizations. The building and construction members in bargaining unit located in the State of California annually purchase and receive goods, materials, and supplies valued in excess of $50,000, which are either purchased and received directly from suppliers outside the State of California, or are purchased and received from suppliers located within the State of California who, in turn, purchased and received said goods, materials, and supplies directly from concerns located outside the State of California. L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc., herein called L.G., is engaged at South Gate, California, as an electrical contractor in the building and construction industry. At all times material herein, L.G. has been an employer member of Interstate, and has been one of the building and construction members in bargaining unit. L G., in the course and conduct of its business operations, annually purchases and receives goods, materials, and supplies located within the State of California who, in turn, purchase and receive said goods, materials, and supplies directly from concerns located outside the State of California. A. E. Lammens, herein called Lammens, is engaged at Buena Park, California, as a general contractor in the building and construction industry. At all times herein, Lammens has been engaged at Long Beach, California, as the owner-builder in the construction of an apartment building, herein called apartment project. At the apartment project Lammens undertook to perform a part of the construction work with his own employees, but subcontracted other portions of the said work to various subcontractors, including the electrical work to L.G., the plumbing work to Ehinger & Dunlap, herein called Dunlap, and the automatic sprinkler work to Viking Auto- matic Sprinklers, herein called Viking. It is alleged that Lammens, Dunlap, Viking, Interstate, and L.G. are each, and at all times material herein have been, a person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act. I so find .3 It is alleged, and I find, that Interstate and L.G. each is now, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction herein.4 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent Electrical Workers, Carpenters Union Local No. 710, herein called Respondent Carpenters, and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 494, herein called Respondent Plumbers, are each a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. s Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 299 (S. M. Kisner (deceased ), et al., d/b/a S. M. Sinner & Sons ), 131 NLRB 1196. See also, Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board (1961), p. 130. 4 Siemons Mailing Servtice, 122 NLRB 81. 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Issues In general, the complaint alleges that Respondent Electrical Workers engaged in improper common situs picketing, at an apartment construction site, on March 10, 1964, in furtherance and support of its labor dispute with a nonunion electrical sub- contractor, L.G., and orally appealed to individuals employed by the general con- tractor, Lammens, a secondary employer, to cease work at said apartment project, and threatened said general contractor with continued picketing unless said electrical subcontractor was removed from the apartment project, that in furtherance and sup- port of the electrical workers dispute Respondent Carpenters and Respondent Plumbers orally instructed, directed, and appealed to secondary employees to engage in work stoppages and to cease performing services for their respective employers at said apartment project, and that an object of such conduct was to force or require various secondary employers to cease doing business with the nonunion electrical subcontractor. Respondents filed answers generally denying the substantive allega- tions of the complaint and the commission of unfair labor practices. Background-the Events of March 9 and 10, 1964 The essential facts in this case are substantially undisputed, insofar as the main issues are concerned. As noted above, Lammens is a general contractor engaged in the building and construction industry in and around Buena Park, California. At all times material herein, Lammens, as the owner-builder, was engaged in the construc- tion of an apartment building on Cherry Avenue, in Long Beach, California. At the apartment project, Lammens undertook to perform a part of the construction with his own employees, but subcontracted other portions of the said work to various subcontractors, including the electrical work to L.G., the plumbing work to Dunlap, and the automatic sprinkler work to Viking. Yale Camp and Don Brown, employees of L G., were working at the apartment project, on March 9, 1964, when they were approached by a representative of the Electrical Workers, identified as Dials Camp related that Dial, in seeking Camp's identity, acknowledged having previously met him on a job in Torrance, California. Dial advised Camp that Ray Shannon 6 had advised Dial that Camp was working at the apartment project. Dial asked Camp if he had a dues receipt. Camp responded that he did not have one for the Electrical Workers.? Camp then asked Dial "are you going to shut the job down or throw us off." Camp related that Dial responded "yes," then asserted "Well, I better not say." At that time Dial asked Brown for his dues receipt, which Brown produced. Camp related that Brown had dues receipts from both Local 11 and District 50.8 Camp related that he asked Dial if the Elec- trical Workers would have pickets out and Dial responded in the affirmative. It is undisputed that the Electrical Workers did establish a picket line about 8 a.m. on March 10, 1964, and that Business Agent Shannon was present, in an automobile adjacent to the jobsite, at that time.9 Lammens credibly related that on the morning of March 10, 1964, his foreman on the apartment project, Grober, called and advised him that the Electrical Workers had picket line on the job, and that the plumbers, automatic sprinkler employees and carpenters had left. Lammens called the Electrical Workers in Wilmington, California, and was advised that they represented Local 11. Lammens talked to Joe Dugan, business representative of Local 11, District 2. Dugan, in response to Lammens' inquiry, acknowledged that he was responsible for the pickets. Lammens rs While Dial was present during the hearing he was not called as a witness It is undisputed that Ray Shannon, who was present during the hearing but was not called as a witness, is a business agent for the Electrical Workers. "It appears that Camp Is a member of District 50, United Mine Workers. 8In crediting Camp I am not unmindful of Respondent's efforts to reflect bias and hostility toward the Electrical Workers on the part of Camp. Dial, while present, was not called as a witness, and Camp's testimony relative to the events of March 9 stand undisputed. Camp's demeanor was Impressive and I find his effort to reconcile his testi- mony with his pretrial statement, which was made between April 15 and 20, 1964, forthright. 9I find it to be of no consequence whether Dial volunteered the information that there would be pickets the following morning or whether the information resulted from a ques- tion propounded by Camp. INT'L BROTHERHOOD, ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 773 inquired as to what he could do to have the picketing removed . Dugan advised Lammens that Lammens would have to get rid of L.G. "or else they wouldn't pull The pickets off the job." Lammens then advised Dugan that he would get L.G. off the job. Dugan responded "Well, lust your word isn't good enough, you have to have a signed contract with an AFL union for us to pull the pickets off. You have to show us that contract before we will pull them off." 10 Dugan acknowledged telling Lammens that when L.G. was taken off the job the pickets would be removed. Dugan advised Lammens that McCall was the individual Dugan took orders from, and suggested that Lammens call McCall. Dugan, the only witness who testified relative to the legend , related that the picket sign read: L.G. Electric does not pay the prevailing wage scale conditions. Long Beach Building Trades Council Local II IBEW 11 Dugan explained the meaning of the sign to be that the L .G. did not pay a 1 percent payment to the IBEW benefit board. Dugan acknowledged that the picket line was established after Dugan received -a call from Shannon, inferentially advising Dugan that L.G. was doing the electrical work on the apartment project. Dugan advised McCall that he was putting a picket line on the project. Lammens related he called McCall, assistant business manager of Local 11, in Los Angeles. Lammens asserted that McCall inquired if Lammens would get L G. "off the job." Lammens responded that he would. McCall then advised Lammens "If they are not there in the morning, we will pull the pickets off." 12 McCall also advised Lammens that if L.G. came back on the job at any time in the future that the picket line would be reestablished. L.G. was removed from the job, and there was no picketing after March 10. The existence of the picket line resulted in the carpenters, employed by Lammens, plumb- ers, employed by Dunlap, and automatic sprinkler employees employed by Viking, engaging in work stoppages and to cease performing services for their respective employers at the apartment project. The circumstances of these work stoppages, by employees of Lammens and subcontractors, with whom the Electrical Workers had no dispute, are next set forth. Carpenters Activity Hurbert W. Grober was employed by Lammens, on the apartment project, as carpenter foreman. It is undisputed that Grober is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, is a member of Carpenters Local 1140, and was a working foreman On March 10, 1964, four journeymen carpenters, other than Grober, were employed at the apartment project. Grober related that he observed the pickets shortly after lU Dugan asserted that when Lammens called him "I told him that L G. Electric, that we did put the line on them, and as long as they were on the job, that as far as I was concerned , the line would remain as long as they were on the job." Dugan did not remember telling Lammens anything about getting an AFL-CIO electrical contractor on the job On this conflict I credit Lammens. ll However, serious doubt exists , which I find it unnecessary to resolve , that the identity "Long Beach Building Trades Council" appeared on the sign . William E. Parsons , business agent of the Carpenters , in relating a conversation he had with Fore- man Grolier , infra, asserted that his union did not recognize "the electrical union as an authorized picket line," and the only picket line they would recognize would be a Build- ing Trades picket line Parsons was present during the period of picketing and, it is inferred, saw the sign Clinch , a witness for General Counsel, described the picket line as being by the Electrical Workers. Clinch made no reference to the Building Trades Council. 12 Lammens' recitation of his conversation with McCall stands undisputed . McCall did not appear as a witness However, Lammens became confused as to whether McCall also advised Lammens that he had to get an AFL-CIO contractor to replace L G. In view of the fact that Lammens' pretrial statement related this portion of his conversa- tion with Dugan, but failed to include this portion of his asserted conversation with McCall, I do not credit Lammens ' assertion that McCall made such a request . Lammens pretrial statement was made on March 27, 1964 . I find his explanation of the omission unconvincing. 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 a.m., after work had begun. He talked to Ray Shannon, who was in charge of the picketing. Grober inquired of Shannon what he should do. Shannon responded that he would not advise him one way or the other, but advised Grober to call the Carpenters' business agent. Grober called Local 710, talked to the assistant business agent, explained the existence of a picket line, and requested advice. The assistant business agent advised that the business agent was not present and that the assistant could not advise Grober. Grober then responded that he would wait on the job until they sent a business agent to tell him what to do. Grober returned to the job, told the four carpenters who were working what had transpired, and advised them they could either go home, work, or wait for the arrival of the business agent. Grober related that the four carpenters conferred, decided to leave and did so. Grober related that the Carpenter business agent, William E. Parsons, arrived at the project about 11 a.m. and had a conversation with Shannon , which inferentially Grober did not overhear. Grober related that he asked Parsons what the situation was and what he should do. Parsons responded that he could not advise Grober what to do. Grober then inquired "Well, let me put it this way: As a union, do we observe this picket line?" Receiving an affirmative answer from Parsons , Grober then asserted "Then, it is my understanding that if we observe this picket line, then, I am subject to fine if I work." Grober related that Parsons did not respond but nodded his head affirmatively. 13 Grober related that he was advised to stop by the hall the following morning and check with Parsons as to whether everything was settled. Following these instructions, Grober did check with Parsons and was advised that it was all cleared up and that he could go to work.14 That Parsons knew the reason for the picket line is obvious from his assertion "Mr Lammens was supposed to call me the next day and let me know whether the union ... or the electricians, the same electricians were on the job." Plumbers' Activity George Clinch related that he was employed by Dunlap, on March 10, 1964, as a journeyman plumber. He is a member of Local 78, but at the time in question had a travel card in Local 494, Long Beach. When he arrived at the apartment project, with another plumber, he noted the presence of the pickets. Clinch and his companion had been assigned to this particular job on this particular day to help two other plumbers catch up on the work. Clinch, asserting "We didn't have any intention of crossing any picket line," related that the group wanted to have some- thing definite, if possible, to go on before they left the job. As a result, Clinch called Harold McCray, business manager of the Plumbers. Clinch advised McCray that the Electrical Workers had a picket line and inquired if McCray could give them any information as to what they should do under the circumstances . McCray responded that he could not advise him in any way, then asserted that when he (McCray) was a journeyman he never crossed any picket line. Clinch acknowledged 13I find of no consequence Grolier's admitted recitation , in his pretrial statement, of March 27, 1964, that Parsons had failed to answer this question, earlier in the same conversation. 14 Parsons related that he had gone to the jobsite, on March 10, 1964, as the result of Grolier's telephone call. Grober inquired if he would have to leave the job. Parsons advised Grober that he could not tell him to leave the job Grober, according to Parsons, then asked if he worked behind the line if Parsons would prefer charges against him Parsons asserted that he responded that he would not. Parsons asserted that the reason that he would not prefer charges was because the Carpenters did not recognize the Electrical Workers as an authorized picket line. The only picket lines they recognized were those of the Building Trades. Parsons stated that in answer to Grolier's inquiry as to whether he would be subject to a fine that Parsons responded in the negative. Parsons was then self-contradictory in asserting that the word "fine" was not mentioned. According to Parsons, Grober had advised him that Lammens was going to try to straighten the job out , and as a result Parsons assumed that Lammens would call him. It was for this reason that Parsons asked Grober to call him the following day Parsons related that Lammens never did call him. Parsons was self-contradictory as to the reason why Grober was to call him the following morning First asserting "He was to ask me if the men could go back to work" and later asserting "I couldn't tell him not to work down on that job." Parsons denied that Grober called him on the morning of March 11. To the extent Parsons' testimony is at variance with that of Grober, I credit Grober INT'L BROTHERHOOD, ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 775 that McCray advised him that it was a matter within his discretion.15 Clinch acknowledged advising the other plumbers that McCray could not give them any information. Clinch then advised the others of McCray's statement that when he was a journeyman he did not cross a picket line. The plumbers then left. Automatic Sprinkler Employees It is undisputed that Lester R. Stanley and Harold Burnham, employees of Viking, arrived at the apartment project on March 10, 1964, and saw an Electrical Workers picket. Upon inquiry by them, of what it was all about, the picket advised that he did not know, that he was sent to picket the job. Thereupon, Stanley and Burnham left the jobsite, without performing any work, and proceeded to another job. Contentions of Parties-Concluding Findings Respondent Electrical Workers contend that the picketing herein was primary picketing and thus not unlawful. This Respondent asserts that the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the object of the picketing was to force the general contractor to cease doing business with L.G. Respondent asserts that the picketing would be primary if it conformed to the Moore Dry Dock standards,16 and if its conduct indicated no other ulterior, secondary motive. It is then urged that the secondary motive can not be inferred because the picketing union informed the sec- ondary employer that he can get rid of the picket line by removing the primary employer. It appears undisputed, and I find, that L.G., the electrical subcontractor, is the primary employer or person in this case against whom the Respondent Electrical Workers may lawfully engage in a "primary strike or primary picketing" under the proviso to Section 8(b)(4)(B), and that Lammens, Dunlap and Viking, are sec- ondary employers who may not be threatened, restrained, or coerced, and whose employees may not be induced or encouraged to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services, for proscribed objects. The facts disclose that L.G. was the only nonunion subcontractor on the apartment project, in the sense that L.G. did not have an agreement with this Respondent. On the day following the discovery of this fact, by Respondents representative Dial, a picket line was established which resulted in a cessation of work by the employees of the neutral general contractor and other neutral subcontractors. It is patent that the picket line was established, pursuant to the prediction of Dial, for the purpose of shutting the job down or causing the removal of L.G. Business Representative Dugan acknowledged establishing the picket line at the request of Shannon. It is undisputed that McCall, Dugan, and Shannon are agents of the Electrical Workers. Shannon, however, when asked about the nature of the dispute by Grober, and inferentially by Stanley and Burnham, supplied no information. The removal of L.G., from the project, was the condition precedent demanded by both Dugan and McCall, upon advice by Lammens of the work stoppage, and Lammens inquiry relative to the picketing. In addition, I have found McCall advised Lammens that the picketing would be resumed if L.G. returned to the job. The picketing terminated and work was resumed by the employees of neutral employers only upon Lammens compliance with these demands. While the picketing was at a common situs, I find it was at a primary jobsite. It is undisputed that the dispute was between this Respondent and L G. However, the fact is that the dispute did affect and now affects the neutral contractor and neutral subcontractors. The Supreme Court has noted that at the same time that Section 7 and 13 safeguard collective bargaining, concerted activities, and strikes between the primary parties to a labor dispute, Section 8(b)(4) restricts a labor organization and its agents in the use of economic pressure where an object of it is to force an employer or other person to boycott someone else. In a parallel factual situation with that of the instant case the Court held that a strike with such an object was an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(A).17 N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et al. (Gould & Preisner), 341 U.S. 675, 687, 689. 15 McCray, who appeared as a witness, did not dispute the recitation of Clinch relative to what was said during the telephone conversation. McCray, however, did dispute Clinch's testimony that Clinch had used the word "we" in asking for instructions. In view of the language of Section 8(b)(4)(1), which prohibits inducement or encourage- ment of "any individual," I find it unnecessary to reaolve this conflict. 16Sazlors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Cc,), 92 NLRB 547, 549. 17 Now Section 8(b) (4) (B). 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In Richfield Oil 18 the Board found the Moore Dry Dock, supra, tests were not met, and that picketing was secondary and not primary, where the picket gave an evasive answer, suggestive of a negative response, to the employee of a third party who had business with a neutral employer at the picketed premises. This conduct was coupled with a prepicket request of the Respondent that the neutral employer "avoid complications" with the primary employer. In the instant case no different result obtains where the picket remained silent, in terms of expressing ignorance of the reason for the picket line, or a refusal to advise employees of neutral employers as to the nature of the dispute. I have found that the picket, Shannon, caused the picket line to be established and knew the reason for it. This conduct is coupled with a demand by Respondents agents, Dugan and McCall, that Lammens remove L.G., and cease doing business with L.G. at the apartment project, as a condition precedent to removal of the picket. Such an object is proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) (B). In Plauche Electric 19 the Board stated the Moore Dry Dock standards "are not to be applied on an indiscriminate per se basis for the totality of the Union's conduct in a given situation may well disclose a real purpose to enmesh neutrals in a dispute, despite literal compliance. But compliance or noncompliance with the Moore Dry Dock criteria will normally shed light on the Union's true objective. At the very least, noncompliance with the standards justified a presumption or inference that the picketing at the mixed situs had an illegal secondary object. And once the illegal object is established, the picketing becomes unlawful under Section 8(b) (4) if its further shown that it operated to induce or encourage secondary employees, or to threaten, coerce, or restrain secondary employers.20 Having found that the picketing was for a proscribed object it follows that it was unlawful. The picketing induced and encouraged the employees of neutral employ- ers to engage in a refusal to perform services. The threat of Respondent to con- tinue the picketing unless L G. was removed from the job constituted a threat, coercion, and restraint of Lammens, Dunlap and Viking. The object was to compel Lammens to cease doing business with L.G., and to compel Dunlap and Viking to cease doing business with Lammens, in order to compel Lammens to cease doing business with L.G. I find the above-described conduct of Respondent Electrical Workers violated the provisions of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. Local Union 825, International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers (Carlton Broth- ers Company), 131 NLRB 452, 453. Carpenters General Counsel asserts, correctly, that Parsons, after conferring with Shannon, advised Grober that the picket line was recognized by the Carpenters and that if Grober worked behind the line he would be subject to a fine. It is urged that Par- sons thereby induced and encouraged Grober not to work and that this conduct was violative of Section 8(b) (4) (1) (B). It is further urged that since the inducement and encouragement was successful that Lammens was thereby threatened, restrained, and coerced within the meaning of (ii). Since the four carpenters had left the jobsite before the arrival of Parsons it is essential to determine if Foreman Grober, a working foreman, who worked at the jobsite with the tools of the trade, is an individual within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i). The Supreme Court has held the question of the applicability of subsection (i) turns upon whether the Union's appeal is to cease performing employment services, or is an appeal for the exercise of managerial discretion. Servette, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 377 U.S 46, footnote 4. 1 find Parsons' appeal to Grober, not to work behind the picket line, was addressed to an individual within the meaning of subsection (i) 21 18 International Brotherhood of Botilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America, etc. (Richfield Oil Corporation), 95 NLRB 1191 10 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861 (Plauche Elec- tric, Inc ), 135 NLRB 250; see also Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (New Power Wire d Electric Corp., et at.), 144 NLRB 1089, 1093 20 See also Columbus Building and Construction Trades Council ( The Kroger Co ), 149 NLRB 1224; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 5 (Jack E. Stemrock, d/b/a Bethel Electric ), 146 NLRB 339; Hodcarriers' and Construction Laborers' Union Local 300 (Fiesta Pools, Inc., et al.), 145 NLRB 911. 21 See also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 313 (James Julian, Inc.), 147 NLRB 137; Local Union No. 505, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et at. (Carolina Lumber Company ), 130 NLRB 1438, 1443. INT'L BROTHERHOOD, ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 777 The Supreme Court has held that the words "induce or encourage" are broad enough to include in them every form of influence and persuasion. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. v. N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694. I find Parson's threat of a fine, if Grober worked behind the picket line, constituted inducement and encouragement of an individual engaged in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal, in the course of his employment, to perform any services, within the meaning of subsection (i). The Board has found "inducement" where a union representative advised the steward representing his union that he (the representative) would not work behind a picket line. Local Union No. 789, International Hod-Carriers', etc. (H. E. Doyle, et al., dibla Doyle & Russell), 125 NLRB 571, 573. The question remains whether such inducement or encouragement was for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B). The facts in the Doyle & Russell case, supra, are not unlike the facts herein in relation to both the Plumbers and Carpenters, neither of whom, so far as the evidence herein shows, engaged in picketing or were engaged with the Electrical Workers in a joint venture, nor is there any contention that any of the three Respondents were agents of the others. In that case the Board said (at 574): At the time of the aforementioned inducements, these Respondents were clearly aware that a picket line had been established, but there is no evidence that they had any information as to the purpose of that picket line 22 Nor does it appear that they were in any event concerned with whatever that purpose might have been; rather, their only concern was that their members not work behind a picket line. Nevertheless, a natural and foreseeable consequence of their con- duct, in inducing their members to cease working for [neutral subcontractors], and one which they must therefore be deemed to have intended, was to force [the neutral subcontractors] to cease doing business with [the primary con- tractor]. The Board has thus equated the reasonable and foreseeable consequences of an act as synonymous with an object.23 The Board has consistently held that a strike, or work stoppage, against a neutral employer constitutes restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii). International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 313 (James Julian, Inc.), 147 NLRB 137. It is undisputed that Parsons is the Carpenters' business agent, for whose conduct this Respondent is liable It follows that the Carpenters are liable not only for the inducement and encouragement but also for the work stoppage by Grober, the employee of a neutral employer, and the resultant restraint and coercion of Lam- mens. I have found an object of this conduct, and the natural and foreseeable con- sequences of it, was to force or require Lammens to cease doing business with L.G., an object proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (B). Accordingly, I find that by the above- described conduct the Carpenters violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Plumbers General Counsel asserts that when Clinch was advised, by McCray, that McCray "never crossed a picket line when he was a journeyman," the intent was to induce and encourage the plumbers not to cross the picket line, and that this constituted a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B). It is further urged that since there was a work stoppage, by the plumbers, that such conduct constituted the proscribed threat, restraint, and coercion of Dunlap, a neutral, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). This Respondent correctly asserts that there is no evidence that the Electrical Workers had sought its aid in this dispute. In fact this record contains no evidence that McCray had any knowledge other than that gained as the result of the telephone conversation with Clinch. Respondent urges that McCray first asserted to Clinch that he could not advise him in any way, then made the assertion as to what he did as a journeyman. It is further urged that Clinch and the others had no intention of crossing the picket line, thus could not have been induced or encouraged not to cross it by reason of the assertion of McCray. I find no merit in the last contention. Intervenor urges that there is no showing in the record that the plumbers, other than Clinch, might not have crossed the picket line absent McCray's statement. ^ Here, however, Parsons inferentially learned of the nature of the dispute and told Grober to call the hall the following day to find out if the men could work. x' See also National Maritime Union of America ( Houston Maritime Association, Inc.), 147 NLRB 1243. 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Clinch was unequivocal in first asserting that he and the other plumbers had decided, after conferring among themselves, not to cross the picket line. He explained the telephone call was merely because they wanted "something definite, if possible, to go on before they left the job." I am unable to conclude that the plumbers would not have crossed the picket line under any circumstances. It may well be that their inclination was not to cross, but the purpose of the telephone call, as Clinch stated was to learn the attitude of their union. It is reasonable to conclude their subsequent conduct resulted from McCray's statement that he never crossed a picket line as a journeyman. The Board has found such a statement, by a union representative, constituted inducement and encouragement. The Board further found the natural and foresee- able consequences of this conduct, in the inducement of neutral employees, was to force the neutral employer to cease doing business with the primary employer. Doyle & Russell, supra. The Board has held in numerous cases, that to constitute inducement in the statutory sense, it is not necessary that the Union's appeal succeed in producing a strike or concerted refusal to work; it is enough that the appeal was made for that purpose. Local 1016, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, et al. (Booher Lumber Co., Inc.), 117 NLRB 1739, 1747. It is undisputed that McCray is business manager of the Plumbers, for whose con- duct this Respondent is liable. It follows that the Plumbers are liable not only for the inducement and encouragement but also for the work stoppage by Clinch, the employee of a neutral employer, and the resultant restraint and coercion of Dunlap. An object of this conduct , and the natural and foreseeable consequences of it, was to force or require Dunlap to cease doing business with Lammens, in order to compel Lammens to cease doing business with L.G., an object proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (B ). Accordingly, I find that by the above-described conduct the Plumbers violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion the operations of Lammens, Dunlap, Viking, and L.G. set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and 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. Respondent Electrical Workers, Respondent Carpenters, and Respondent Plumbers, are each a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Lammens, Dunlap, Viking, Interstate, and L.G., are each employers and en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. By the conduct set forth in section III, supra, Respondent Electrical Workers has induced and encouraged individuals employed by Lammens, Dunlap, and Viking to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employer, and has restained and coerced Lammens, Dunlap and Viking, with an object of forcing or requiring Lammens to cease doing business with Lammens, in to force or require Dunlap and Viking to cease doing business with Lammens, in order to compel Lammens to cease doing business with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. 4. By the conduct set forth in section III, supra, Respondent Carpenters has induced and encouraged individuals employed by Lammens to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employer, and has restrained and coerced Lammens, with an object of forcing or requiring Lammens to cease doing business with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. 5. By the conduct set forth in section III, supra, Respondent Plumbers has induced and encouraged individuals employed by Dunlap to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employer, and has restrained and coerced said Dunlap, with an object of forcing or requiring Dunlap INT'L BROTHERHOOD, ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 779 to cease doing business with Lammens in order to compel Lammens to cease doing business with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. 6. By the conduct set forth in section III , supra, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) (B) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, it is hereby recommended: A. That the Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors , and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of A. E. Lammens, Ehinger & Dunlap, Viking Automatic Sprinklers, or any other employer except L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc., to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employer, and has wise handle or work or any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require A. E. Lammens, Ehinger & Dunlap, Viking Automatic Sprinklers, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a)Post at its office and meeting halls in Wilmington and Los Angeles, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 24 Copses of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by this Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by this Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 21 signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A" for posting by A. E. Lammens, Ehinger & Dunlap, and Viking Automatic Sprinklers, if they are willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith 25 B. That the Respondent, Carpenters Union Local No. 710, its officers, representa- tives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of A. E. Lammens, or any other employer except L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc., to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufac- ture, 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 A. E. Lammens or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls in Long Beach, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 26 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by this Respond- ent's' authorized representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous u In the event this Recommended Order be 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 enforced 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". In 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 28 See footnote 24. 780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by this Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 21 signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B" for posting by A. E. Lammens, if it is willing, at places where he customarily posts notices to his employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respond- ent has taken to comply therewith 27 C. That the Respondent, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 494, its officers, rep- resentatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of Ehinger & Dunlap, or any other employer except L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc., to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufac- ture, 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 Ehinger & Dunlap, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business. with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls in Long Beach, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C." 28 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by this Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by this Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 21 signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C" for posting by Ehinger & Dunlap, if it is willing, at places where it customarily posts notices to its employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respond- ent has taken to comply herewith.29 It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order the Respondents shall notify the said Regional Director, in writing, that each will comply with the foregoing Recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring Respondents to take the aforesaid action. 27 See footnote 25. n See footnote 24. 2D See footnote 25. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL No. 11, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS, AND TO ALL EMPLOYES OF A. E. LAMMENS, EHINGER & DUNLAP, AND VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS 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 induce or encourage any individual employed by A. E. Lam- mens, Ehinger & Dunlap, Viking Automatic Sprinklers, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, except L.G. Elec- tric Contractors, Inc., to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, articles, or commodities, or to perform any serv- ices where an object thereof is to force or require any of the aforesaid employ- ers or persons, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with each other or with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any of the above-named employers or persons, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting INT'L BROTHERHOOD, ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 781 commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said employers or persons to cease doing business with any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 11, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CARPENTERS UNION LOCAL No. 710, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF A. E. LAMMENS 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 induce or encourage individuals employed by A. E. Lammens or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce except L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc., to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods , materials, articles, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require A. E. Lammens, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with each other or with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the above-named employer, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require the said employers or persons to cease doing business with any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce. CARPENTERS UNION LOCAL No. 710, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. APPENDIX C NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 494, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF EHINGER & DUNLAP 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, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Ehinger & Dunlap, or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, except L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc., to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture , process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, articles, commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require any of the aforesaid employers or persons to cease doing business with each other or with L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the above-named employer, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where 782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an object thereof is to force or require the said employer or person to cease doing business with any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce. PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 494, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Wanzer Dairy Co. and Edwin Johnson Milk Drivers' Union, Local 753, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Wanzer Dairy Co.) and Edwin Johnson Milk Drivers' Union, Local 753, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Wanzer Dairy Co.) and Lawrence Gaertig. Cases Nos. 13-CA- 6229-1, 13-CB-1615-1, and 13-CB-16154. Augu&t 27, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On May 28, 1965, Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and a brief in support, thereof; Respondent Union filed briefs in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and an answering brief. 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 [Members Fanning, 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 exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. ' It may be that Respondent Union harbored more animosity toward Johnson based on his intraunion activities than is found by the Trial Examiner . However, upon the entire record, including particularly the pertinent contract provisions and the evidence of past experience under the contract which appears to support the Union 's application of it against Johnson , we are not persuaded that such animus was the motivation for the Union's insistence that Johnson be removed as a route driver in favor of Anderson. 154 NLRB No. 66.