Local 825, Operating Engineers

Local 825, International Union of Operating En- gineers, AFL-CIO and Morin Erection Co., Inc. Case 22-CC-320 October 31,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On February 14, 1967, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respond- ent filed exceptions to the Decision, together with supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 825, International Union of Operating En- gineers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order , as herein modified: 1. Add the following words to the end of para- Although the Trial Examiner recommended in his Remedy that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the specified unfair labor practices in respect to any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , his Recommended Order was inad- vertently more limited As we agree that a broader order is appropriate here, we have modified the Recommended Order accordingly. Cf Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers,AFL-CIO, et al. (U- nited Engineers and Constructors , Inc) 138 NLRB 279, enfd 322 F 2d 478 (C A 3) In agreeing with the Trial Examiner that Respondent 's picketing did not conform to Moore Drydock standards , Member Fanning relies solely on the facts that picketing took place at a time when Morin was not engaged in its normal operations and was not limited to places close to the situs where Morin would normally perform its roof decking job graph 1(b) of the Recommended Order, and to the end of each indented paragraph of the Appendix: ", or with any other employer or person." 2. Delete from paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished" and substitute therefor "on forms provided. . . . STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHIL SAUNDERS , Trial Examiner : Upon a charge filed on August 11, 1966, by Morin Erection Co., Inc ., herein the Charging Party or Morin , the General Counsel issued a complaint dated September 30, 1966 , alleging that the Respondent , Local 825 , International Union of Operat- ing Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein the Union or Respond- ent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Union filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices . The parties were represented by counsel and participated fully in the hearing before me, and briefs were filed. Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser- vation of witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Morin is a corporation duly organized under, and exist- ing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Connecticut. At all times material herein, Morin has maintained its prin- cipal office and place of business in Bristol, Connecticut, and is now, and at all times material herein has been con- tinuously, a subcontractor engaged in the business of providing and installing steel decking and related services at various jobsites located in the State of New Jersey and in other States of the United States, including Connec- ticut, New York, and Massachusetts. In the course and conduct of Morin's business operations during the preceding 12 months, said operations being representa- tive of its operations at all times material herein, Morin provided and performed construction and erection ser- vices valued in excess of $ 100,000, of which said services valued in excess of $50,000 were provided and performed within States of the United States other than the State of Connecticut wherein Morin is located. At all times material herein, Allan Bros. & O'Hara, herein called Allan, has been a general contractor en- gaged in construction of a manufacturing and office build- ing for Waldron-Hartig Company at South Bound Brook, New Jersey, herein called the South Bound Brook site. At all times material herein, Volunteer Structures Company, herein called Volunteer, has been the subcon- tractor of Allan for the erection of structural steel at the South Bound Brook site; and Morin has been the subcon- tractor of Volunteer for the erection of steel deck at the South Bound Brook site. At all times material herein, United Crane & Shovel Company, herein called United, has maintained its prin- cipal office and place of business in Kenilworth, New Jer- 168 NLRB No. 1 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sey, and is now, and at all times material herein has been continuously, a subcontractor engaged in the business of providing and performing crane services and related ser- vices at various jobsites located in the State of New Jersey.' It is alleged, and I find, that Morin, Allan, Volunteer, and United, each is now, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in indus- try affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the poli- cies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction therein. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that in pursuance of a demand that Morin employ a member of Respondent to maintain welding machines used by Morin, Respondent, on August 10, 1966, induced individuals employed by United to en- gage in a strike and has thereby threatened and coerced United. It is further alleged that on August 11, 1966, Respondent maintained pickets at the South Bound Brook jobsite and, by this conduct, induced individuals employed by United, Allan, and others, to engage in a strike against their employers, and threatened and coerced United, Allan, and others. Finally, it is alleged that Respondent engaged in such acts and conduct with an object of forcing and requiring Allan, United, and others to cease doing business with Morin. As noted above, Allan is a general contractor engaged to construct a plant for Waldron-Hartig in Bound Brook, New Jersey. Volunteer is a subcontractor to Allan to per- form the steel work, and Morin has a subcontract from Volunteer to supply the metal roof decking. The evidence in this record shows that the Charging Party's vice pre- sident, Simeon Morin, visited the jobsite in early July 1966 and spoke to William Crum, general superintendent for Allan, and that Crum told him there seemed to be a problem involving Respondent, and that he wanted Morin to try to solve the problem before he sent his men to the job. Morin then went onto the actual jobsite and was directed to Victor Belmonte, shop steward for the Respondent. Morin asked Belmonte if there was any problem with his company, and Belmonte told him that there seemed to be one, and that Morin should contact the Respondent's business agent, Jack Smith, and gave him Smith's telephone number.2 Belmonte further in- formed Morin that before he did any work at the jobsite he had to have a clearance from the Union. On or about August 8, 1966, Simeon Morin called Smith, and Smith informed Morin that there was a problem at the Waldron- Hartig job pertaining to welding machines. Smith asked Morin if he was going to use any engineers on his welding machines, and Morin said no. Morin then asked Smith what would happen and Smith replied, "We'll see what happens." On August 9, 1966,3 Morin hired a crane from United to be sent to the jobsite the following day. On August 10 the crane was sent to the jobsite with two employees of United, an operator and an oiler, both members of Respondent. Upon arrival, Morin's ironworkers and the crane operators and oiler started assembling the boom of the crane, and John Cyr, Morin's foreman at the job, was directing his men in helping to set up the crane for hoist- ing. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent's steward at the site, Vic Belmonte, came over and told the operating en- gineers of United that before they continued to work, they should call the union hall and obtain a clearance. The crane engineer thereupon left to make a telephone call, and upon returning stated that they could not do any work, and that a business agent was coming to the job. A short while thereafter, Jack Smith, business representa- tive of Respondent, came to the jobsite, and in the trailer office asked Morin whether he was going to put an operating engineer on his welding machine. When Morin refused, Smith told him the job would not proceed. Smith and Belmonte then walked out of the trailer, and the two employees of United refused to do any work as they had not received a clearance from Smith. That same after- noon- August 10- Crum heard that there was going to be a picket line set up on the next day so he contacted Belmonte and asked him about it. Belmonte then in- formed Crum that there would be pickets at the jobsite in the morning because Morin would not put an operating engineer on his welding machine. Crum told Belmonte that he could not understand this because as yet Morin had not used any welding machine on the job. Crum then also communicated with Morin and informed him to keep off the job until he had satisfactorily settled his dif- ferences with the Respondent. This record clearly establishes that on the morning of August 1 I the Respondent picketed the jobsite at its two entrances with signs that read: INFORMATION To PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OF MORIN ERECTION COMPANY DO NOT RECEIVE AREA STANDARD WAGES BENEFITS AND WORKING CONDITIONS Belmonte was one of the Respondent's pickets who car- ried a sign, and no employees of any of the various trades employed at the site, approximately 80 in number, started working at 8 a.m. - their normal time to commence work. Also, several concrete trucks were lined up or parked in the entrance driveway leading to the jobsite. When Crum learned of the picketing, he sought out Belmonte and ascertained from him Jack Smith's telephone number, but Crum could not contact Smith until 9 a.m. Crum then called Charles Aughinbaugh, plant manager of Waldron- Hartig Company, and for whom the new building was being constructed. After hearing about the pickets, Aughinbaugh immediately came to the jobsite and inquired of Belmonte as to who was in charge of the I During the trial of the case, General Counsel moved, without objec- tion, to delete specific references in the complaint to J.S R Construction Company and any activity at a Jersey City jobsite Accordingly, the remaining issues are concerned with the activities of Respondent at the South Bound Brook jobsite z In late June 1966, Belmonte had also informed Crum that Morin had encountered some difficulties with the Respondent on previous jobs. 3 All dates are 1966 unless specifically stated otherwise LOCAL 825, OPERATING ENGINEERS 3 picket line. Belmonte informed Aughinbaugh that he was in charge, and in a discussion between them Aughinbaugh stated that unless the dispute was settled or corrected, Morin would not continue on the job. Aughinbaugh then asked Belmonte to remove the picket line, but Belmonte replied that he did not have authority to do so and that Jack Smith would have to be contacted. Aughinbaugh and Belmonte then went to the trailer office where Belmonte place a telephone call to the union hall and a connection was made with Jack Smith. Belmonte spoke to Smith relating the above statements made to him by Aughin- baugh at the picket line, and then Aughinbaugh spoke to Smith and reiterated that he would remove Morin from the job unless he straightened out his problems. Belmonte then got back on the telephone conversing further with Smith, and shortly thereafter the picket line was disbanded and all employees at the site returned to their jobs except the two employees of United who continued in their refusal to operate the crane. On or about August 18, Morin attempted to use a small electric welding machine at the jobsite. Shop Steward Belmonte called Crum's attention to Morin's use of this welding machine, and Crum then directed Morin to stop using the machine since he could not afford another work stoppage, and the understanding was that Morin would not use welding machines until his differences were set- tled. Morin then removed or quit using this welding machine. The Respondent offered some testimony through Jack Smith to the effect that he really did not know what the dispute was all about. Smith ventured that when he and Morin were in the trailer office on August 10, as afore- stated, Morin only "raved" at him, and that he, therefore, just "walked out." Smith admitted, however, that when Aughinbaugh spoke to him over the telephone on August 11 and thereby informed the Respondent that Morin would be removed from the job unless his troubles were settled- Smith then told Belmonte to "put the job back." Victor Belmonte also suggested in his testimony that he really did not know too much about the dispute in question. Belmonte stated that the pickets were already at the jobsite when he arrived on the morning of August 11, and that he merely joined them. He further denied telling Aughinbaugh that he was in charge of the picket line. It seems to me it is unnecessary to further relate any of the other denials or testimony given by the two wit- nesses for the Respondent because, in the final analysis, they both admit on cross-examination that they had ample knowledge of the dispute in question, and I find that the Respondei.c caused the work stoppage by establishing the picket line on August 11 when Morin refused to place an operating engineer on his welding machine. I submit that if the picket line merely resulted from various rumors floating around the jobsite as the Respondent endeavored to show, it is highly unlikely that Smith would have immediately removed the pickets when he was given assurances that Morin would no longer be on the job if his troubles were not settled. Clearly, the pickets were the result of the dispute between Morin and the Respondent. Various other arguments are also presented by the Respondent and they fall within the following categories: The Respondent contends that there is insufficient evidence to show that Belmonte is an agent of the Respondent, and that he did not induce or encourage any individual employed by United to engage in a work stop- page; that the record fails to establish that United is a neutral employer within the meaning of the Act and that Morin and United are at least joint employers; that the picketing completely conformed to the Board's Moore Dry Dock doctrine, 92 NLRB 547; and that irrespective of any of the foregoing, no acts or statements by anyone connected with the Respondent has an objective as al- leged in the complaint. As pointed out, the first argument is quite readily disposed of on the basis of testimony by Belmonte him- self that he was Respondent's shop steward at the jobsite. This record also shows that Belmonte informed Crum of Respondent's problem with Morin, he told the United employees to call the hall before doing any hoisting work, he later introduced Simeon Morin to Smith, he identified himself to Aughinbaugh as being in charge of the pickets, and finally Belmonte called off the picket line and directed the strikers to return to work after talking with Smith, an acknowledged and admitted agent of the Respondent. These activities of Belmonte, unrenounced by Respondent and authorized by Smith, lead to the in- escapable conclusion that Belmonte was Respondent's agent at this jobsite, and I so find.4 The Respondent's second argument is also without merit. The contention that United and Morin are joint employers is based on the fact that Morin's supervisors exercise some degree of control over the two crane opera- tors assigned by United while they are working at the jobsite. While it is true that Morin's foreman may have generally directed the crane crew as to the material to be hoisted and where it was to be placed, Morin had no con- trol over the selection of the crane employees. Morin rented from United a crane and crew for a flat sum fixed in advance, including provision for overtime.5 As pointed out Morin had no control over these employees so that it could secure the performance of their work in order to ac- complish the results contemplated by the leasing arrange- ment with United. Clearly, United had the two engineer employees on its own payroll, and the routine instructions and safety requirements exercised by Morin's foreman while the crane is hoisting decking materials to the roof do not amount to the type of control that would classify them as joint employers. In accordance with the above, I find that United was a neutral party or employer. Turning now specifically to August 10 and the events that immediately preceded. We can clearly see that Respondent had a basic dispute with regard to Morin's refusal to employ a member of the Respondent to main- tain its welding machine. Evidence in this record reveals that Project Superintendent Crum, was informed of the problem by Belmonte in June; Morin spoke to Smith on August 8, and after being informed that Morin would not employ an operating engineer on the welding machine, Smith stated, "We'll see what happens;" and beforehand, Morin had also been told by Crum to work out some sort of an agreement with the Respondent before starting his work at the jobsite. In light of such evidence there can be little doubt as to Belmonte's purpose when he first en- countered United's employees and instructed them to call the union hall before commencing their work. After plac- 4 It is well established by the Board and the courts that a union is tributor Drivers, Local 830, 281 F.2d 319, 321-322 (C.A 3), see also responsible under the Act for the unlawful conduct of a job steward acting N.L.R B v. Acme Mattress Co., Inc., 192 F.2d 524,527 (C.A. 7) within his general scope of authority N L.R B. v. Brewery and Beer Dis- 5 G.C. Exhs. 2, 3, and 4. 336-845 0 - 70 - 2 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing the call United employees refused to operate the crane. Shortly thereafter, Jack Smith arrived and in- formed Morin that the job would not proceed as Morin had continued in his refusal to employ an operating en- gineer on the welding machine. Again the two employees of United refused to operate the crane. These actions and incidents on the part of Respondent's agents show that the object of their activity was directed at United, and that Respondent sought to bring about a cessation of busi- ness between Morin and United-a neutral in the,dispute over the welding machine.6 Such is sufficient to constitute inducement within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, and I so find.7 This record shows that the picketing on August II closed down all the work at the South Bound Brook site as no employees of any contractors crossed the picket line. As aforestated, the Respondent contends that the picketing was in conformity with the Moore Dry Dock standards. The Board's recent consideration of the law pertaining to common situs picketing returns to the first principles of the Moore Dry Dock case, supra, wherein limitations were established to insure that all reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent enmeshment of neutrals in the primary employer's dispute. In Millwrights Local Union No. 1102, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Dobson Heavy Haul, Inc.), 155 NLRB 1305, the Board applied these standards. These requirements for legal common situs picketing set forth in Moore Dry Dock were: (1) that the picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of the dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises; (2) at the time of the picketing that the primary employer is engaged in its nor- mal business at the situs; (3) that the picketing is limited to places close to the location of the situs; (4) that the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the pri- mary employer. However, in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861, et al. (Plauche Electric Inc.), 135 NLRB 250, 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." In International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 441, AFL-CIO (Suburban Development Co.; O'Brien Electric Co.), 158 NLRB 549, the Board stated in part as follows: . the question of whether or not otherwise lawful picketing is so intertwined with direct secondary ap- peals to constitute part of an overall pattern of con- 6 Smith admitted that the Respondent had no problem with any of the other employers working at the jobsite including the employers previously mentioned herein , and had no current difficulties with Beers Erectors and Buck Construction Company who were also working on the job at the time in question ' In this regard, the Act provides as follows (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- (4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual em- ployed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his em- ployment to use, manufacture , process, transport, or otherwise han- dle or work on any goods , articles, materials , or commodities or to perform any services, or (u) to threaten, coerce or restrain any person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is duct designed to enmesh neutrals must necessarily turn on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the instant case the picketing does not stand in isola- tion, and must be decided on the overall pattern of con- duct and the particular circumstances involved herein. To find that the Respondent's actions and conduct were legal or permissible I would have to conclude that Belmonte's and Smith's statements and conversations with neutral parties were nothing more than expressions of the Respondent's intention to continue to exercise its right to picket Morin at the site in a lawful manner. I cannot agree with such a characterization of the Respondent's objec- tive.8 From the record it is not obvious that Belmonte's and Smith's statements and conduct were not mere lawful expressions of their right to picket Morin, but rather were unlawful threats and picketing for the purpose of forcing the neutral contractors to require Morin to abandon his refusal to employ an operating engineer on the welding machine. Viewed in the light of the applicable legal princi- ples set forth above, it is quite evident that the Respond- ent's picketing did not conform with Moore Dry Dock standards for lawful picketing at a common situs, and that it was directed at, and was intended to involve, secondary employers and their employees. This conclusion is based on the following evidence in the record: (a) Statements in June made by Belmonte to Crum that Morin had encountered trouble with the Respondent on previous jobs, and that unless Morin "got right" with the Respondent the operators would not work. (b) Belmonte's statement in July to Morin that there was a problem between him and the Respondent. (c) Smith's statement to Morin on August 8, "We'll see what happens," after Morin had replied that he would not hire an engineer. (d) Belmonte's statement on August 10 to the crane operators that they should call the union hall for clearance before working. (e) Smith informing Morin on August 10 that the job would not proceed. (f) Belmonte informing Crum on the afternoon of Au- gust 10 that there would be pickets because Morin would not hire an engineer (g) Crum telling Morin on August 10 to keep off the job until he had settled his difference with Respondent. (h) Belmonte telling Aughinbaugh on August 11 that he was in charge of the picket line. (i) Aughinbaugh on August 11 telling Belmonte and Smith that unless the dispute was settled Morin would no longer be on the job. (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling , transporting , or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer , processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor or- ganization has been certified as the representative of such em- ployees under the provisions of Section 9 " See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No II, AFL-CIO, et al (L G Electric Contractors, Inc), 154 NLRB 766 Also, Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council (Centlivre Village Apartments), 148 NLRB 854, wherein the Board held the union violated 8 (b)(4)(B) notwithstanding the facts that the picketing also had a lawful concurrent objective i LOCAL 825, OPERATING ENGINEERS ^ 5 Certainly, Belmonte's statement to Crum that the job was going to be picketed Onstituted a threat to Allan, the neutral secondary employer of Crum, and further in- dicated that an objective of the picketing would shut down the entire job. Crum also understood the meaning of the above because he then immediately asked Morin to stay off the job. Moreover, as pointed out, the objective of the Respondent to force Allan to remove Morin from the job was borne out by the manner in which the picket- ing ceased . As soon as Aughinbaugh assured Belmonte and Smith that Morin would be kept off the job until he straightened out his problems with Respondent, Smith told Belmonte to remove the pickets. From the credited testimony in this record, it is further noted that the Respondent gave no indication that it was not attempting to enmesh neutral employers in its dispute with Morin, and in the final analysis, I am unable to separate the picketing from the accompanying statements by Belmonte and Smith , as aforestated. Finally, no attempt was made by the Respondent to picket the sites where United's crane was being made ready for hoisting and where Morin 's foreman and some of his employees would initially gather, nor was any at- tempt made to picket the actual situs of Morin 's work sta- tions. It would seem obvious to me that had the Respond- ent actually intended to restrict its threats and picketing to Morin- without the desire to involve neutral em- ployers- these alternatives would have been selected and used . Furthermore , the picketing was conducted on the morning of August 11 when Morin did not have a welding machine in operation, and at the time in question was not performing any work claimed by the Respondent. Clearly, therefore , the picketing was directed in an at- tempt to enmesh the neutral employers. Contrary to the Respondent's contention, all of the foregoing clearly discloses that the Board's Moore Dry Dock standards for lawful picketing at a common situs was breached. The picketing took place at a time when Morin was not engaged in its normal operations as the crane was never allowed to operate; the picketing was not limited to ' places close to the dispute situs whereat Morin would normally perform his roof decking job; and the overall pattern of conduct and statements of Smith and Belmonte clearly shows the Respondent's intent to in- volve neutrals so as to apply sufficient pressure on Morin to persuade him to relinquish his continual refusal to hire an engineer on the welding machine. In accordance with the above, I find that the Respond- ent violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by picketing the jobsites on August 11, 1966. 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 the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the Respondent's repeated violations of the Act, particularly with regard to 8(b)(4) violations,9 it may reasonably be anticipated that Respondent will engage in similar unfair labor practices . I shall , therefore , recom- mend that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labor practices in respect to any other per- son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce. 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. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Morin, Allan, Volunteer, and United are each em- ployers and engaged in commerce or in an industry affect- ing commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Allan, Volunteer, and United, and other employers, to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employ- ment to perform services, an object thereof being to force the above-named employers , and others , to cease doing business with Morin , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. By the acts described above in paragraph 3 for the objects set forth above in said paragraph , Respondent did threaten , coerce , and restrain , and is now threatening, coercing, and restraining Allan, Volunteer, and United, persons engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce , and the Respondent thereby has engaged in and is now engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations described in section 1, above , have a close , intimate, and substantial relationship to trade , traffic , and commerce " Local Union 825, International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Carleton Brothers Company), 131 NLRB 452, Local 825, In- ternational Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (R G Maupai Co, Inc.), 135 NLRB 578, Local 825 , International Brotherhood of Operat- ing Engineers (Warren George , Inc), Case 22-CC-99 (unpublished), Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, et al (United Engineers & Constructors , Inc.), 138 NLRB 279, enfd. 322 F 2d 478 (C A. 3, 1963 ), Local Union 825, International Union of Operating Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent , Local 825, Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, its of- ficers, agents , and representatives shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed Engineers , AFL-CIO (Nichols Electric Company), 140 NLRB 458, enfd. 326 F 2d 213 (C A 3, 1964 ), adjudged in criminal contempt 57 LRRM 2143 (C A 3, 1964), cert. denied 379 U S 934, Local Union 825, Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Schwerman Co of Pa, Inc ), 139 NLRB 1426, Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, et al (Utilities Line Construction Co , Inc ), 159 NLRB 1416 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by United, Allan, Volunteer, or by any other person en- gaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his em- ployment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi- als, or commodities, or to perform any services; or (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining United, Al- lan, Volunteer, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require the aforesaid employers and others to cease doing business with Morin Erection Co., Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office, meeting halls, and all other places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies ofthe attached notice marked "Appendix."to Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 22, signed copies of said notice for posting by Morin Erection Co., if willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. i i 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 11 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 Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith." Dated By NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our mem- bers that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Allan Bros. & O'Hara, Volunteer Structures Company, United Crane & Shovel Com- pany, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, except Morin Erection Co., Inc., to engage or refuse 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 any of the aforesaid employers or persons, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with each other or with Morin Erection Co., 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 affect- ing commerce, when an object thereof is to force or require said employers or others to cease doing busi- ness with Morin Erection Co., Inc. LOCAL 8 25, INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF OPERAT- ING ENGINEERS , AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) APPENDIX (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 members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jer- sey 07102, Telephone 645-2100.