Carpenters Local Union No. 944

CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 944 563 where in either case an object thereof is to cause the aforementioned employers to cease doing business with I. C. Minium. LATHERS LOCAL UNION No. 252, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION, 477, AFL-CIO, 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, 17th Floor, U.S. Post Office and Court House, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, Telephone 688-5840. Carpenters Local Union No. 944 ; Bricklayers, Masons & Tile Setters, International Union Local No. 20 ; Plumbers & Steam- fitters Local No. 364 ; Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477; and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 509 and Interstate Employers Association ; and Ralph Duris Carpenters Local Union No. 944; Bricklayers, Masons & Tile Setters International Union Local No. 20 ; Plumbers & Steam- fitters Local No. 364; Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477; and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No . 509 and Interstate Employers Association ; and Gulf Construction Company Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 364 and Interstate Employers Association ; and Ralph Duris d/b/a Ralph Duris Plumbing. Cases 31-CC-10-1 (formerly Case 21-CC-824- 1), 2 (formerly Case 21-CC-884-2), and 31-CP-1 (formerly Case 21-CP-152). June 16, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On November 17, 1965, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 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 there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondents had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that such allegations be dis- missed. Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting 159 NLRB No. 41. 564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD briefs. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions with a support- ing brief. The' National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. 1. Gulf Construction Company, a general contractor , is engaged in the construction of a retail store complex in San Bernadino, Cali- fornia. One of its subcontractors, Ralph Duris, a nonunion , subcon- tractor, began work on this project on December 14, 1964. The following day, Respondent Plumbers Local 364 began picketing this project with signs saying Duris was unfair and had substandard working conditions. Pickets handed out leaflets saying that the picketing was only for the informational purpose of advertising substandard working conditions , and _ that' the pickets were not asking employees of other employers to stop working or to stop mak- ing deliveries, or employers to stop doing business with Duris. The picketing continued until January 25, 1965, although Duris did not work on the project after December 29, 1964, because he could not proceed until other crafts had completed certain work. A car- penter and a laborer who were working on the project at the com- mencement of the picketing continued working, but other crafts scheduled to report for work after the start of the picketing refused to cross the picket line to, go to work. During the course . of the picketing,, on December 21, 1964, Nathan Ferguson , construction foreman for subcontractor National Refrigeration Company, called Louis Bergan, a business agent for Plumbers Local 364. During the conversation Ferguson told Bergan that he had a truck coming in with material and he would like some information to relay to the company. Bergan replied that the picketing was informational and "You'd better not unload the truck ." The Trial Examiner, while concluding that Plumbers Local 364 violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act by unlawfully ,inducing Ferguson not to work, did not find the picketing by the Plumbers to constitute a violation inas- much as this picketing met the standards established by the Board in the Moore Dry Dock case.' Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we are of the opinion that, in the circumstances of this case , the Plumb- ers' picketing violated Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii) (B) of the Act. While literal compliance with the standards of Moore Dry Dock may indicate the primary nature of common situs picketing, the 1 92 NLRB- 547. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 944 . 565 Board has held that such an inference is not conclusive but may be negated by other relevant evidence disclosing the respondent's true objective to be the enmeshment of neutral employers and employees into the primary dispute.2 Here, all the evidence, including the unlawful inducement of Ferguson, indicates that the Plumbers' object in picketing was to cause the general contractor to cease doing busi- ness with Dui is. Thus, on December 21, 1964, James Gorman, an officer of the general contractor, called Business Agent Bergan of the Plumbers and asked him why, since Duris did not have any employees on the job at that time, the Plumbers did not pull its pickets off. The business agent replied that his union had a right to, picket until the general contractor got rid of.Duris and replaced him with a union contractor. During the first week in January 1965, J. P. Kinnikin, another officer of the general contractor, called Plumbers' Business Agent Gus Janke and asked what could be done to have the pickets removed from the job. The answer was that the general contractor would have to remove Duris and employ a plumb- ing contractor acceptable to the Plumbers. On January 13, Kinnikin spoke to Jahnke at the j obsite being picketed, and said that the Plumbers Union was picketing the general contractor. At first, the business agent denied this, but then blurted out, "[L] et's face it, we don't put pickets on a job site just to inform the public. We put them there to close the job down. We only call it informational picketing to make it legal." From an examination of this entire course of conduct, we are con- vinced, and accordingly find, that the picketing engaged in by Plumbers Local 364 was deliberately designed to enmesh neutral employers into its dispute with Duris. For this reason we conclude that the conduct of Respondent Plumbers Local 364 was secondary in nature and in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.3 2. During December 1964 there were picket lines on three proj- ects on which Electric Air Conditioning was the electrical subcon- tractor, including the Gulf Construction job in this case. From December 17 through 21, Irving Kuechler, the president of Electric, was in daily contact with Charles Gier, business agent for IBEW Local 477, the collective-bargaining representative for Kuechler's employees. During one of their conversations, Gier informed Kuech- ler that the picket lines were authorized, and, in response to a ques- 2L.G. Electric Contractors, Inc. (Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11), 154 NLRB 766. S Member Fanning would find the picketing by Plumbers Local 364 to be separable from its oral inducement and lawful . Therefore, Member Fanning would merely order Plumb- ers Local 364 to cease and desist from unlawful inducement . See General Telephone Company of California (Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11), 151 NLRB 1490, footnote 4. 566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion by Kuechler, said that, if Kuechler's employees crossed the picket lines, they would be subject to disciplinary action. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that this statement about dis- ciplinary action was coercive, was made for the purpose of causing the neutral employer, Electric, to cease doing business with the gen- eral contractor who would in turn cease doing business with Duris, and was, therefore violative of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) proscribes the use of threats, coercion, or restraint on a neutral employer in support of a dispute with a pri- mary employer. In this case, Gier's statement amounts to a threat by the IBEW to Kuechler that the IBEW would induce its members not--to work for Kuechler while the picket line was in existence. Moreover, it is clear that this conduct goes beyond normal persuasion since Kuechler was faced with a possible loss of its contract and a suit for breach of contract if it was unable to complete its work because of inability to obtain needed electricians. Consequently, we find that IBEW Local 477, through this conduct of Gier, violated Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. 3. The Trial Examiner found that Carpenters Local 944 was responsible for the conduct of George Learned, an organizer for the District Council of Carpenters, in informing George Rule, a carpen- ter in the employ of Gulf Construction, that, under the bylaws of the Carpenters, he should not be working behind the picket line, and in informing J. P. Kinnikin, a vice president of Gulf, that if Carpenters went ahead and worked, they might be fined. We dis- agree. The record reveals that Learned is a member of Carpenters Local 944, and is a delegate from his Local to the Council. He is not an officer of the Local and is paid in his capacity as organizer for the Carpenters District Council by the Council and not the Local. To hold Local 944 responsible for the conduct of the Council and its agent, Learned, it must be shown that the Council and its agents were acting as agents of Local 944. The mere fact that Learned is a delegate from his Local to the District Council does not create an agency relationship between the Council and the Local.4 Absent affirmative evidence of an agency relationship, the General Counsel has failed to meet his burden of proof, and we shall therefore dis- miss the complaint allegation against Carpenters Local 944. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following modifications : 5 [1. Paragraph A. 1(b) is amended by inserting at the beginning thereof the words : "Engaging in or ...." 'Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia , etc. (Charles B. Mahin), 149 NLRB 646, 659. 5 The provisions of the notices attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision are modified to conform to the above modifications including the deletion of Appendix B. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 944 567 [2. Delete paragraph B and reletter present paragraphs con- secutively. , [3. Relettered paragraph E is amended by inserting at the end thereof the words : ", and (5) that Respondent Carpenters Local Union No. 944 has engaged in a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act."] MEMBER BROWN took no part in the above Decision and Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION - STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case with all parties represented was heard before Trial Examiner James R. Webster in Los Angeles, California, on June 3 and 4-1965, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Carpenters Local Union No. 944 (herein referred to as Carpenters) Bricklayers, Masons & Tile Setters International Union _No. 20 (herein referred to as Bricklayers), Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 364 (herein referred to as Plumbers), Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477 (herein referred to as_ IBEW), and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 509 (herein referred to as Sheet Metal Workers), all of whom are respondents herein. The complaint was issued on March 9, 1965, upon charges filed December 22, 1964, and amended on February, 8 and on February 9, 1965, in Cases 21-CC- 824-1-2, and filed on January 20, 1965, in Case 21-CP-152. The complaint alleges that the Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and (7)(C) of the Act by picketing activities and activities related thereto. The General Counsel and Respondents have filed briefs and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS The Gulf Construction Company herein called Gulf, a general construction com- pany, is engaged in the construction of a complex of retail stores in San Bernardino, California, known as the Alpha Beta project. Subcontractors on this project are Electric Air Conditioning Company, herein called Electric, for the electrical and sheet metal work; National Refrigeration Company, herein called National, for the refrigeration work; Walter Hebron, herein called Hebron, for the masonry work; and Ralph Duris, herein called Duris, for the plumbing work. For use on this project, Gulf has received lumber of a value of $10,934 from suppliers in the State of California, which lumber originated outside the State of California; National received material and supplies for use on this project of a value of $50,391 directly from suppliers and manufacturers outside the State of California; Electric has received for use on this project supplies and materials of a value of $10,191 directly from suppliers and manufacturers outside the State of California; Duris, during the calendar year 1964 received supplies and material of a value of $150,000 of which, materials and supplies of a value of $13,000 were received directly from points outside the State of California. An undetermined - amount of the remaining supplies and materials, purchased from suppliers within the State of California, originated at points outside the State of California. I find that Gulf, Duris, National, Electric, and Hebron are employers within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(a) (4) of the Act.' II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1 Building and Construction Trades Council of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (Golding and Jones, Inc.), 139 NLRB 1370 ; Commass,on House Drivers, Local 400, Team- sters (Euclid Foods, Incorporated, d/b/a Bondi's Mother Hubbard Market), 118 NLRB 130. 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Picketing by Respondent Plumbers Duris commenced work at the Alpha Beta project on December 14, 1964. He does not have a contract with any of the labor organizations involved herein; approximately 8 years ago he had a contract with the Plumbers. None of the Respondents are currently certified by the Board as the bargaining representative for any of Doris' employees, and no petition has been filed with the Board under Section 9(c) of the Act by any of the Respondents concerning any of his employees. On December 15, 1964, the Plumbers commenced picketing at the Alpha Beta project with signs bearing the following legend- "Ralph Duris Plumbing-Unfair to Plumbers Local No. 364-Sub-standard working conditions-Plumbers Local No. 364." Picketing continued to January 25, 1965, except for weekends and a few days of bad weather. The picketing was done during the normal working hours of the day, except on occasions it did not commence until 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning, and on some days would be discontinued prior to the end of the working day. Duris worked on the project from December 14 through 19 and on December 23, 24, and 29, 1964. Some carpentry work by employees of Gulf was done until December 29, 1964; thereafter, until the picketing ceased on January 25, 1965, no crafts worked on the project. Duris ceased work on the project on December 29 for the reason that he was unable to continue working until certain work was com- pleted by other crafts. He had no equipment or material on the jobsite on any of the days his employees did not work following December 19. He testified that he would have continued to perform his contract in January if he could have done so without being dependent on other contractors to perform certain work. The General Counsel contends that the picketing violates Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and (7)(C) of the Act and that the motive of Respondent Plumbers in its picketing is manifested in statements made by its representatives to representa- tives of Duris and to representatives of General Contractor Gulf, and by the fact that picketing was conducted at times when Duris was not on the project. The statements made by Plumbers representatives, Louis Bergan and Gus Jahnke, busi- ness agents, are as follows. On December 21, 1964, James Gorman, a vice president of Gulf called Bergan and told him that Duris did not have any men on the job, and he asked why they did not pull their pickets off. Bergan replied that the picketing was informational and that they had a right to picket until Gulf got rid of Duris and had a union plumber on the job-until Duris' contract was terminated. During the first week in January 1965, J. P. Kinnikin, a vice president of Gulf, called Gus Jahnke and asked him what Gulf could do to get the pickets removed from the job. Jahnke replied that Gulf would have to remove Duris as the plumbing contractor and employ someone who was acceptable to the Plumbers. On January 7, 1965, Gulf sent a telegram to the Plumbers advising them that Duris was no longer working on the Alpha Beta project and has no equipment on the jobsite, and requesting the immediate removal of the pickets. On January 11, 1965, Kinnikin called Jahnke and asked if he had received Gulf's telegram. Jahnke answered that he had and had replied by letter that Gulf should "please advise us if you have another contractor employed, and if so, may we have proof that such a contractor exists." Kinnikin stated that he was considering Bell Plumbing Com- pany and asked if this company was acceptable, and Jahnke replied that it was. On January 11, 1965, Doris and his management consultant, Frank Calhoun, went to the offices of Respondent Plumbers. Calhoun asked Jahnke what could be done about getting the pickets off the Alpha Beta job, and Jahnke replied, "Doris knows; he's been with us before." Calhoun then asked if Duris was acceptable to the Plumbers-that is, whether or not the Union would sign another contract with Duns; and Jahnke said, "Yes." Calhoun then asked what agreement it is that he wanted signed. Jahnke gave him a booklet, but Calhoun observed that it contained no place for signatures. Jahnke then gave him a lettersized copy of the agreement which contained spaces for signatures. He stated that Duris would have to sign this document. Calhoun looked through it and suggested that Duris would be willing to sign this agreement for the Gulf job only. Jahnke said, "No, he wouldn't sign the agreement for one job only, but that it would have to include all of those jobs and that it would also have to be for the life of the agreement." Calhoun stated that he would have to read the agreement further and would let Jahnke know what their decision would be. About this time a Mr. Mautz, executive secretary CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 944 569 for the Building and Construction Trades Council of San Bernardino and River- side Counties, came in. Mautz asked Calhoun if he would mind taking a slip of paper with him. Mautz then went into another room and came back with a small slip of paper on which was typed the following: In accordance with your request, we are presenting you with a speciman[sic] of our current agreement , solely for the purpose of acquainting you with the standards of wages and working conditions existing in this area. We do not want you to sign this , and this is not to be construed as an offer by this organization to enter into a contract with you. Mautz handed the slip of paper to Jahnke who read it and in turn handed it to Calhoun. As Calhoun and Duris started to leave, Jahnke asked to see the agree- ment he had given them. He wrote across the back of the copy, "This copy is not to be signed." On January 13, 1965, Duris sent Jahnke a telegram stating that he agreed to com- ply with the employment standards contained in the Union's current agreement and would send the Union and Gulf verified copies of wages, hours worked, rates of pay, and other necessary information for all his employees on the Alpha 'Beta job. He requested that Jahnke immediately remove pickets and notify Gulf that he had no objections to Duris or his employees on said jobsite . In answer to this telegram, Jahnke sent Duris a registered letter the same day asking that Duris "please send me documented evidence that you are complying with the standards in the current labor agreement now in effect for the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry of Southern California," with a copy of the Union's letter going to Gulf. On January 13, 1965, Kinnikin had a conversation with Jahnke at the jobsite. Duns was present. Kinnikin told Jahnke that the Union was picketing him. Jahnke said, "No, read the sign." Kinnikin said that it did not make any differ- ence what the sign said ; that the job was completely closed down and no one would cross the picket line. Jahnke stated, "Oh , what the hell, let's face it; we don't put pickets on a job just to inform the -public . We put them there to close the job down . We only call it informational picketing to make it legal." Kinnikin then turned to Duns and told him that it seems there are only two solutions to their problem-one , Duris to join or sign an AFL-CIO . contract, or else Gulf employ an AFL-CIO plumbing contractor. On January 14, 1965, Kinnikin called Jahnke and told him that Gulf had received a proposal from Westover Plumbing Company to complete the plumbing contract, and he asked if this company was acceptable to the Union. Jahnke replied that it was. Kinnikin read to Jahnke a purchase order Gulf was preparing to send to Westover; Jahnke replied that the pickets would be off the following morning. On the following day picketing continued and Westover did not work. On January 18 Calhoun called Jahnke regarding Jahnke's letter of January 13. He assured Jahnke that Duris would pay the wage scale and the other fringe bene- fits necessary to comply with the Union 's contract. Jahnke asked, "Well, how are you going to pay the fringes?" Calhoun replied that it made no difference to Duris whether these were paid into the trust funds or directly to the workmen . Jahnke said, "Well, I'm following advice from my attorney," and he gave Calhoun the name of his attorney and asked Calhoun to call him. The next day Calhoun called Miller's office, and left word for Miller to call him as Miller was in conference at the time. On January 22 Gulf contracted with Monarch Plumbing Company to finish the plumbing work. Representatives of Monarch assured Kinnikin that they would take care of the picketing matter with the Union . On the same day Kinnikin sent Duris a telegram terminating his contract. On Monday, January 25, pickets were at the jobsite ; Kinnikin called Jahnke and told him of this fact. Jahnke said he would get them off, and within an hour he came to project and removed the pickets. Sometime in December shortly after the picketing commenced, Bergan delivered to the pickets a stack of handbills with instructions to distribute these handbills when any questions were asked them. These handbills were reprints of handbills previously used by the Plumbers , and contained the following language: TO THE PUBLIC: Plumbers Local No. 364, AFL-CIO, of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties is conducting informational picketing on this construction project for the sole purpose of advertising to the public that the employees of Ralph Duris Plumb- ing have working conditions which are below the established prevailing build- ing trades standard for this area. 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This picketing it to protect and maintain the working conditions for plumbers which have been established by Plumbers Local No. 364 after many- years of struggle and negotiation. We are not asking any employees employed by any employer on this job to stop working, stop making deliveries nor do we intend to coerce any employer to stop doing business with Ralph Duris Plumbing. This picketing is only to advise the public of sub-standard working conditions. PLUMBERS LOCAL NO. 364, AFL-CIO Riverside & San Bernardino Counties B. Conclusions as to the picketing by Plumbers 1. As an alleged violation of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act The principal issue here is whether the picketing is "primary" or "secondary." Section 8(b)(4)(B) protects the right of a union to engage in primary picketing where not otherwise unlawful. Section 8(b) (4) also gives to secondary employers the right not to have their employees induced or encouraged to refuse to work for them. Thus, in delineating the areas of these two rights, a union's conduct become illegal when it, by means other than primary picketing, induces or encourages employees of neutral employers to withhold their services from their own employ- ers. Reconciling these two rights becomes more difficult where employees of the primary employer and of secondary employers are working at a common situs. When a union engages in primary picketing it hopes (and by its picketing it is inducing and encouraging) that employees of neutral employers will honor the picket line and withhold their services and trade from the primary employer, and in turn, to this extent, limit their services to their own employer.2 The Board in the Moore Dry Dock case, 52 NLRB 547, announced four criteria for delineating primary from secondary picketing in common situs situations. These are (1) that the picketing must be limited to times when the primary com- pany, but for the picketing, would have been engaged in its normal operations at such situs; 3 picketing must be limited to places reasonably close to the operations of the primary employer's workers; (3) the pickets must show clearly that their dispute is with the primary employer alone; and (4) the primary employer's work- ers must be engaged in the company's normal business. In the instant case the picketing of Duris by the Plumbers meets each of these tests. It is true that picketing continued at times when employees of Duris were not on the project; but, except for approximately 2 hours on January 25th, at all times that picketing was conducted, Duris was under contract with Gulf and would have continued work on the job but for the effect of the picketing. I find that the picketing of Duris was primary picketing; thus the inducing and encouraging of employees of secondary employers that was incident thereto, or a by-product there- of, does not violate the Act, and this is so even though this result was desired and intended. Although the Plumbers hoped and intended "to close the job down," this was the desired effect of its primary picketing and does not in itself render the primary picketing illegal or secondary .4 2. Picketing as an alleged violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) The issue here is whether the object of the primary picketing of Duris by the Plumbers was (1) to advise the public and all concerned that Duris maintained 2 See the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Local 761, IBEW (General Electric Com- pany ) v. N.L.R B., 366 U.S. 667. Where is occurs that an employee of a secondary em- ployer has been induced to refuse to cross a picket line, the Board has held that the refusal is protected activity and that the neutral employer may replace such employee the same as be could an economic striker (142 NLRB 192) ; the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, however, reversed this part of the Board' s decision and held that the employer was justified in discharging the employees for refusing to work. (56 LRRM 2866) L G. Everiet, Inc. 3 Moore Dry Dock requirement as interpreted by the Board in New Power Wire and Electric Corp. (Local 3, IBEW), 144 NLRB 1089; Brownfield Electric, Inc. (IBEW, Local 861 ), 145 NLRB 1163. ' Ri88 cb Co ., Inc., 130 NLRB 943. A union engaging in legal primary picketing may nevertheless violate the Act by making direct appeals to secondary employees. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 944 571 substandard wages and working conditions, or (2) to force him to recognize and bargain with the Plumbers as the representative of his employees. I find from a preponderance of the testimony that the, object of the picketing was to force Duris to recognize and bargain with the Plumbers. On January 11, 1965, Duris and his management consultant met with Jahnke, business agent of the Plumbers, and discussed what it would take to end the picketing. Until Mautz, of the Building and Construction Trades Council, came into the room, Jahnke said that Duris would have to sign the union agreement, and that it would have to be for all jobs and for the life of the contract-not for the Alpha Beta job only. On January 13, 1965, Gulf's Vice President Kinnikin told Duris in the presence of Jahnke that Duris would either have to join or sign an AFL-CIO contract, or else Gulf would have to employ an AFL-CIO plumbing contractor. On January 18, Jahnke questioned how Duris was going to pay the fringe benefits under the Union's contract-that is, without being signatory to the contract. The wording of the handbills given to the pickets and the statements and promptings of Mautz on January 11 are not sufficient to negate the impact of these statements of Jahnke. Since the picketing of Duris was for the object of forcing or requiring him to recognize or bargain with the Plumbers as the representative of his employees, and since the picketing was conducted without a petition having been filed under Sec- tion 9(c) of the Act within a period of 30 days from the commencement of such picketing, and in fact not having been filed at any time,material hereto and since the Plumbers is not currently certified as the representative of Duris' employees, I find that Respondent Plumbers have violated Section 8(b) (4) (C) of the Act. C. Statement of representative of Plumbers to foreman of Subcontractor National On December 21, 1965, Nathan Ferguson, construction foreman for Subcontrac- tor National, came to the Alpha Beta jobsite regarding the installation of refrigera- tion. There was no picket at the project at the time, and he called Bergan of Respondent Plumbers to see if there was still any dispute. Bergan stated he would check to see. After a short absence from the telephone, he reported that there was still trouble there, that the job was being picketed, and that Ferguson was not to work. Ferguson then said he had a truck coming with material and he would like to have some information to relay to his company. Bergan said that he did not care to discuss the matter with him over the phone. Ferguson insisted that he needed information to give to his company. Bergan replied that there was infor- mational picketing there and that, "You'd better not unload the truck." -Ferguson exercises the authorities of and is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. He has also worked out of Respondent Plumbers for several years and his "travel card" is with this Union most of the time. Ferguson being a foreman, the principal issue here is whether subsection (i) or subsection (ii) of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act is applicable. I do not find that the statements of Bergan, that Ferguson was not to work and had better not unload the truck, constitute threat, coercion, or restraint within the meaning of subsection (ii), but it does constitute an inducement or encouragement within the meaning of subsection (i). As stated by the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Servette, Inc.,5 "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 man- agerial discretion." Ferguson is a union member; from this fact and the tenor of the exchange between Ferguson and Bergan, I find that Bergan's remarks and appeal was to Ferguson as a union member and as an "individual" within the meaning of subsection (i), and was for the object of forcing or requiring National to cease doing business with Gulf and Gulf to cease doing business with Duris. I therefore find that by this conduct Respondent Plumbers have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act, but not subsection (ii). D. Conduct of Respondent Carpenters On December 17, 1964, George Learned, an organizer for the San Bernardino and Riverside Counties District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 5 377 U.S. 46. 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD herein referred to as, District Council, had a conversation at the Alpha Beta jobsite with George Rule, a carpenter in the employ of Gulf . He told Rule that it was in the by-laws that he should not be working behind the picket line. Section 6, article II of the trade rules of the District Council provides that "any member failing to respect a duly authorized picket line recognized by the San Bernardino-Riverside Counties District Council of Carpenters , may be fined." While Learned was talking with Rule on December 17th, Vice President Kinnikin of Gulf walked up, and Learned told him that he hated to see him getting himself "in this kind of mess." Kinnikin asked what he meant by this, and Learned replied, "Employing Ralph Doris as a plumber ." Kinnikin asked what was the matter with Duris, as he understood that he belonged to District 50, United Mine Workers. Learned said they did not recognize District 50. Kinnikin asked if they recognized "this so-called informational picket line" as an official picket line, and Learned replied that they did. Kinnikin asked if he was going to pull the carpenters off the job, and Learned said no, he was not going to stick his neck out; that all he could do was remind them of what they had signed . At that time George Rule asked if he could work or not, but Learned avoided an answer and Rule walked away. Kinnikin then asked what would happen if the carpenters went ahead and worked, and Learned replied, "Well, they might get fined." The issue here is whether or not Learned, an organizer for the District Council was an agent of Respondent Carpenters in the statements he made to Rule and to Kinnikin . (The District Council is not a respondent in these proceedings.) Learned is a member of Respondent Carpenters and has been since 1946; he is also a delegate of said Union to the District Council. There are 10 local union affiliated with the District Council, and Respondent Carpenters is one of these. Contracts with employers are with the District Council and all of the affiliated locals; the geographical jurisdiction where the job is performed determines the jurisdiction of the local as to the policing of the contract and the hiring hall. Sec- tion 3 , article I of the bylaws of the District Council provides as follows: This council shall be the central governing body and shall have legislative and executive powers on all matters relating to the general interest and wel- fare of our Local Unions and their members . The Council shall have the power to establish uniform dues and initiation fees, to frame working and trade rules that are consistent with the Constitution and Laws of the United Brotherhood, and enforcement of same in this district. They shall have the power to collect and retain all fines levied by the Council for violation of the laws, trade and other rules of the District Council. The Alpha Beta job is in the jurisdiction of Respondent Carpenters. Considering the joint venture type of relationship between the District Council and Respondent Carpenters and Learned's relationship to the two organizations, I find that in the statements made by Learned at the Alpha Beta jobsite on December 17, he was an agent of Respondent Carpenters. I also find that his statement to Rule that it was a violation of the bylaws for him to work behind the picket line was for the object of forcing or requiring Gulf to cease doing business with Duris, and that it constitutes a violation of subsection (i) of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.6 The fact that Rule continued to work and has not been disciplined by the Carpenters does not mitigate the violation. I find that Learned's statement to Kinnikin was for the object of forcing or requiring Gulf to cease doing business with Duris , and that it constitutes a violation of subsection (ii) of Section 8(b)(4)(B ) of the Act. Respondent contends that Learned's statement that employees "might get fined," made to an employer, does not constitute a threat, coercion, or restraint within the meaning of the section of the Act involved. I find to the contrary. It is a threat of the likelihood of financial loss to employees of the employer. The fact that the loss would be incurred by the employee rather than the employer does not warrant a contrary finding. The fact that the loss "might" occur, also, is not a factor Q Speed-Line Manufacturing Co , Inc (Asbestos Wart cis ), 137 NLRB 1410 ; Kn al, of Plumbing and heating Co. (Construction Labor Union No 1,05 ), 149 NLRB 1138 The following related cases are distinguishable as they involve Section 8 ( b)(1)(A) and the proviso thereto Allis -Chalmers Mfg Co , 149 NLRB 67, enfd. 358 F 2d 656 , Tawas Tube Products, Inc, 151 NLRB 46. In these cases it is held that it is not a violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A ) of the Act for a union to fine a member for crossing a lawful picket line. It becomes a violation of the Act where a fine is administered or threatened for a purpose or an objective proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) of the Act. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 944 573 warranting a contrary conclusion. The trade rules of the District Council speci- fied that it is a finable offense for a member to work behind a picket line; Respond- ent had the ability to make the threat a reality. E. Conduct of Respondent IBEW On December 17, 1964, employees of subcontractor Electric were scheduled to work on the Alpha Beta project, but returned to the Company's shop after observ- ing the picket line. Irving Kuechler, owner of Electric, called Charles Gier, busi- ness representative for IBEW, and told him of the picketing. Gier did not know about the picketing and stated that he would check into the matter. On the follow- ing day, Kuechler spoke with Gier on the telephone. Gier stated that he had checked on the picketing and that it was an authorized picket line. Kuechler then asked if the men crossed the picket line, would disciplinary action be taken against them, and Gier said, "Yes." 7 The principal issue here (the same as in the prior paragraph) is whether.or not the statement to an employer that union members would be disciplined if they - crossed the picket line constitutes threat, coercion, or restraint within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act. Although the complaint broadly groups all alleged conduct of the Respondents as violative of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii), I find that the statements of Gier do not constitute a violation of subsection (i) as it was not made to an "individual" within the meaning of that subsection; but I find that the statements made for an object of forcing or requiring Electric to cease doing business with Gulf and Gulf to cease doing business with Duris, do consti- tute a violation of 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. Gier threatened that disciplinary action (which could normally be equated to economic loss) would be taken against employees of Electric if they crossed the picket line. F. Conduct of Respondent Sheet Metal Workers On December 18, 1964, James Sampson, sheet metal foreman for subcontractor Electric, called Paul Healy, a business representative for Sheet Metal Workers con- cerning the picketing at the Alpha Beta project. Healy told him that it was the Plumbers that had the picket line, that it was recognized, and that he would stay clear of it if he were Sampson until he got further information on it. Sampson being a formean, the principal issue here is the same as in paragraph (c) above- whether subsection (i) or subsection (u) of Section 8(b)(5) of the Act is appli- cable, I find that the statement of Healy contains no threat, coercion, or restraint within the meaning of subsection (ii), but it does constitute an inducement of encouragement within the meaning of subsection (1). Sampson, as sheet metal foreman, is in a position of first-line supervision above the workman, and has the authority to hire and fire workmen. Respondent's appeal that he stay clear of the job is both an appeal that he exercise his managerial dis- cretion and not take a crew of men to the Alpha Beta project, and also that he himself not perform any work on the project. In normal practice in the building and construction trades, a foreman is a union member, and counsel for Sheet Metal Workers in his brief acknowledges that Healy's statements were made to Sampson as an individual and as a union member. I find that by Healy's statement to Samp- 7I credit I{uechler's testimony on this point. There were picket lines at three projects in December 1964, on which he was a subcontractor. He was in almost daily contact with Gier on these matters, and received the same information from Gler a few days later in connection with a Metropolitan Life Building project in San Bernardino . His testi- mony is substantiated by letters written by him on December 21, 1964, to Gulf and to the general contractor on the Metropolitan job, and by an affidavit given to a Board agent on December 23, 1964. Counsel for IBEW contends that guechler apparently has his conversations with Gier on the two projects mixed up and cannot recall as to what was in fact said regarding the Gulf job. Gier could not recall the details of his separate conversations with guechler, but he denied telling him in any conversation that electri- cians would be disciplined if they crossed the picket line. He testified also that no union member has never been disciplined for crossing a picket line . He acknowledged that guechler mentioned the fact that carpenters were working behind the picket line. He was asked on the witness stand if any bylaw or the constitution of the IBEW urges or warns men not to cross picket lines, and he answered , "Not directly, no, I don't think so." All factors considered , I credit guechler's testimony and discredit Gier's denials. 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD son, made for an object of forcing or requiring Electric to cease doing business with Gulf and Gulf to cease doing business with Duris , Respondent Sheet Metal Workers violated Section 8(b) (4) (i ) (B) of the Act, but not subsection (ii) .8 G. Conduct of Respondent Bricklayers On December 18, 1964, subcontractor Hebron , the masonry contractor on the Alpha Beta project, had two telephone conversations with Joe Stella, a business agent for Respondent Bricklayers , about the picketing at this project. Hebron asked about the status of, the job as far as the picketing was concerned and whether it was legal picketing. Stella replied that "if there were pickets there, they couldn't cross the picket line." That evening they had substantially the same conversation by telephone. Hebron concluded that the reason they could not cross the picket line was that they would then be subject to fines. Hebron testified that he has been a member of Respondent Bricklayers for 25 years, and it is "common knowledge" that bricklayers crossing the established picket line-let's say legitimate picket lines are subject to fine." Hebron testified that Stella did not say to him, but that this was the "impression" he got from Stella's statement .9 Rather than viewing the statements of Stella as a threat to Hebron of economic loss to his employees if they worked behind the picket line, I find that the state- ments constitute a threat by the union representing the employees to Hebron that his employees could not work behind the picket line. I find that this threat not to work was for an object of forcing or requiring Hebron not to do business with Gulf and in turn Gulf not to do business with Duris and that it constitutes a viola- tion of Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. I find no evidence of a violation of subsection (i) of Section 8(b)(4)(B) by Respondent Bricklayers. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, occurring in connection with the operations of the employers named in section I, have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents Carpenters , Bricklayers, Plumbers, IBEW and Sheet Metal Workers have engaged in activities violative of the Act, I shall recom- mend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the, above findings of facts, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Gulf Construction Company, Electric Air Conditioning Company, National Refrigeration Company, Walter Hebron, and Ralph Duris are each employers within the meaning of Section 2(2)' of the Act and are engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6). and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. Carpenters Local Union No. 944, Bricklayers, Masons & Tile Setters Inter- national Union Local No. 20, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 364, Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477, and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 509 are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By picketing Ralph Duris as described in paragraphs A and B,2 of section III of this Decision, with an object of forcing or requiring Duris to recognize or bar- gain with Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 364, without said Respondent being currently certified, as the representative of his employees and without a petition being filed within , a reasonable period of time under Section 9 (c) of the Act, Respondent Plumbers has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. 8 N.L.R.B. v. Servette, Inc., 367 U.S. 64. 0 Counsel for General Counsel offered In evidence the affidavit of Hebron in which he states that Stella "told me that the bricklayers would be subject to fine if they crossed the picket line." This is not in complete accord with Hebron's testimony on the witness stand, and I find that Stella did not use these words to Hebron but that Hebron con- chided that this was the reason why the employees could not work behind the picket line. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 944 575 4. By the conduct described in paragraph C of section III of this Decision, thereby inducing and encouraging an individual employed by National Refrigera- tion Company to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use or handle any material or to perform any services , with the object of forcing or requiring National Refrigeration Company to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Company and Gulf to cease doing business with Ralph Duris, Respondent Plumbers has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) (B) of the Act. 5. By the conduct described in paragraph D of section III of this Decision, (a) thereby inducing and encouraging an individual employed by Gulf Construction Company to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use or handle any material or to perform any services, and (b) thereby threatening, coercing, and restraining Gulf Construction Company, both with the object of forc- ing or requiring Gulf Construction Company to cease doing business with Ralph Duris, Respondent Carpenters has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 6. By the conduct described in paragraph E of section III of this Decision, thereby threatening, coercing, and restraining Electric Air Conditioning Company with the object of forcing or requiring said employer to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Company, and Gulf to cease doing business with Ralph Duris, Respondent IBEW has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. 7. By the conduct described in paragraph F of section III of this Decision, thereby inducing and encouraging an individual employed by Electric Air Condi- tioning Company to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use or handle any material or to perform any services , with the object of forcing or requiring said employer to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Com- pany, and Gulf to cease doing business with Ralph Duris, Respondent Sheet Metal Workers has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 8. By the conduct described in paragraph G of section III of this Decision, thereby threatening, coercing, and restraining Walter Hebron with the -object of forcing or requiring said employer to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Company and Gulf to cease doing business with Ralph Duris, Respondent Brick- layers has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B ) of the Act. 9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 10. Respondent Plumbers has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. 11. Respondent IBEW has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) (B) of the Act. 12. Respondent Sheet Metal Workers has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 13. Respondent Bricklayers has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is hereby recommended: A. That Respondent, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 364, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing or causing to be picketed , or threatening to picket or causing to be picketed, Ralph Duris with the object of forcing or requiring said employer to recognize or bargain with said Union as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring his employees to accept or select said Union as their collective-bargaining representative, said Union not being currently certified as the representative of such employees, and a petition under Section 9 (c) of the Act not having been filed within a reasonable period of time from the commencement of such picketing. ' (b) Inducing and encouraging individuals employed by National Refrigeration Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting 576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use or handle any material or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require National Refrigeration Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Company or Ralph Duris. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices, meeting halls, and at all places where Respondent Plumb- ers customarily post notices to members, copies of attached notice marked "Appen- dix A." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 3, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of this Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 3 signed copies of the said notice for posting by Ralph Duris, National Refrigeration Company and Gulf Construction Company, if they are willing, at places where notices to their respec- tive employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith 11 B. Respondent Carpenters Local Union No. 944, its officers, agents, and represent- atives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Gulf Construction Com- pany, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use or handle any material or to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require Gulf Construction Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to cease doing business with Ralph Duris. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Gulf Construction Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to cease doing business with Ralph Duris. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices, meeting halls, and at all places where Respondent Car- penters customarily post notices to members, copies of attached notice marked "Appendix B." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of this Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained for 60 consecutive days, thereafter, in conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 31 signed copies of the said notice for posting by Gulf Construction Company and Ralph Duris, if they are willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith is to In the event 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 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" n In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 therewith." 12 See footnote 10. 13 See footnote 11. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 944 577 C. Respondent Electrical Workers Local Union No. 477, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Electric Air Conditioning Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said Employer, or any other person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce, to cease doing busi- ness with Gulf Construction Company or Ralph Duris. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices, meeting halls, and at all places where Respondent IBEW customarily posts notices to members, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix C" 14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of this Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 31 signed copies of the said notice for posting by Electric Air Conditioning Company, Gulf Construction Com- pany and Ralph Duris, if they are willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.is D. Respondent Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No 509, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Electric Air Conditioning Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use or handle any material or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to cease doing business with Gulf Construc- tion Company or Ralph Duris. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices, meeting halls, and at all places where Respondent Sheet Metal Workers customarily posts notices to members, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix D." 16 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representa- tive of this Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 31 signed copies of the said notice for posting by Electric Air Conditioning Company, Gulf Construction Com- pany, and Ralph Duris, if they are willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.17 E. Respondent Bricklayers , Masons and Tile Setters , International Union Local No. 20, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining Walter Hebron, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Company or Ralph Duris. 14 See footnote 10. 15 See footnote 11 11 See footnote 10. 17 See footnote 11. 243-084--67-vol. 15 9-3 8 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices, meeting halls, and at all places where Respondent Brick- layers customarily post notices to members, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix E." 18 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of this Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 31, signed copies of the said notice for posting by Walter Hebron, Gulf Construction Company and Ralph Doris, if they are willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.19 F. It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges (1) that Respondent Plumbers has engaged in a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act, (2) that Respondent IBEW has engaged in a violation of Section 8(b) (4)(i)(B) of the Act, (3) that Respondent Sheet Metal Workers has engaged in a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act, (4) that Respondent Bricklayers has engaged in a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. IT is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless on or before 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, the Respondents notify the Regional Director for Region 31 that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issue an order requiring that Respondents take the action aforesaid. Is See footnote 10. 1e See footnote 11. APPENDIX A To ALL MEMBERS OF PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL No. 364 AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF RALPH DURIs AND NATIONAL REFRIGERATION COMPANY AND GULF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 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 Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed Ralph Duris where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to recognize or bargain with this Union as the representative of his employees or to force or require the employees of Ralph Duris to accept or select this Union as their collective-bargaining representative, in circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by National Refrig- eration Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use or handle any material or to perform any services where any object thereof is to force or require said employer or persons to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Company or Ralph Duris. PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL No. 364, 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, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, Telephone 688-5840, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. [Appendix B omitted from publication per footnote 5 of Board's Decision.] CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 941 579, APPENDIX C To ALL MEMBERS OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 477 AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF ELECTRIC AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY, RALPH DURIS, AND GULF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Electric Air Conditioning Com= pany, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer or persons to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Company or Ralph Duris. ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 477, 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, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, Telephone 688-5840, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. APPENDIX D To ALL MEMBERS OF SHEET METAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL No. 509 AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF ELECTRIC AIR CONDITIONING COMANY, RALPH DURIS, AND GULF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Electric Air Conditioning Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use of handle any material or to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require said employer or persons to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Company or Ralph Duris. SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 509, 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, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, Telephone 688-5840, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. APPENDIX E To ALL MEMBERS OF BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND TILE SETTERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL No. 20 AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF WALTER HEBRON GULF CON- STRUCTION COMPANY AND RALPH DURIS 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 Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Walter Hebron, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer or persons to cease doing business with Gulf Construction Company or Ralph Duris. BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND TILE SETTERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL No. 20, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, Telephone 688-5840, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Pullman Industries, Inc., Employer-Petitioner and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Pullman Metal Workers Union, Intervenor. Cases 7-RrI- 566, 567, and 7-RC-7105. June 16,1966 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, pis amended, a consolidated hearing was held before Hearing Officer Joseph B. Bixler. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Brown and Zagoria]. Upon the entire record in these cases, including the brief filed by the Employer-Petitioner,' the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.2 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In Case 7-RC-7105, the Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's South Haven, Michigan, plant. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that these employees are an accretion to the unit of employees at the Employer's Pullman, Michigan, plant, and therefore the petition, filed on November 9, 1965, is barred by the contract, effective from January 12, 1965, until January 12, 1968, between the Employer and the Intervenor covering the Pullman employees. In Case 7-RM-566, the Employer seeks an election in a unit comprising the employees at its Pullman and South Haven plants, and, in Case 7-RM-567, it i The Employer-Petitioner has requested oral argument . This request is hereby denied because the record and the brief adequately present the issues and the position of the parties. a Pullman Metal Workers Union , herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a claimed contract interest in the employees involved. 159 NLRB No. 44.