Local Union No. 638, Plumbers

516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of the United As- sociation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada and Consolidated Edison Com- pany of New York, Inc. Case 2-CC-1135 June 17, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On January 22, 1970, Trial Examiner Benjamin A. Theeman issued his Decision in the above-enti- tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Union had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, 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 Respondent Union filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. 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,2 and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner. 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- ' We hereby correct the following inadvertent error in the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision- the beginning of fn 14 should read as follows "Fee testified .." rather than "Daly testified " Y We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that, at the time of the Respondent's August 1969 activities, Courter was a neutral because "there was no legal method by which Courter could comply with the union's de- mands to fabricate the pipe " In this connection, in addition to the other factors cited by the Trial Examiner, we note that Courier's original ar- rangements with Hydronic and Consolidated Edison, which resulted in Courier's relinquishing control over the work , were made with the express consent-on two occasions-of Daly, Respondent's business agent Courter had no way of foretelling that Respondent would thereafter change its mind, and acted in reliance on Daly's original assurances mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent Union, Enterprise As- sociation of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprin- kler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In- dustry of the United States and Canada, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BENJAMIN A. THEEMAN, Trial Examiner: The complaint' alleges in substance that the Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprin- kler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefitters of New York City and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of the United Association of Jour- neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitters Industry of the United States and Canada (Respondent or Union), induced or en- couraged employees of Courter & Company, Inc. (Courter), to refuse to unload and install at the 74th Street powerhouse jobsite, New York City, of the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed), certain prefabricated pipes purchased by Con Ed from Hydronic Fabrications, Inc. (Hydronic), delivered by Hydronic to Con Ed at the 74th Street jobsite, with the object (a) to force or require Courter and Con Ed to cease (1) using or otherwise dealing in the products of Hydronics and (2) doing business with Hydronic, and (b) to force or require Con Ed and Courter to cease doing business with each other, all in viola- tion of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B)2 and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq. (the Act). ' The charge was filed August 8, 1969, by Consolidated Edison Com- pany of New York , Inc Complaint issued September 3, 1969 2 The pertinent part of this section is 8(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- (4)(1) to engage in , or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employ- ment, to use, manufacture, process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles , materials, or commodities or to perform any services, or (ii) to threaten, coerce , or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where an ob- ject thereof is. M (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 183 NLRB No. 61 LOCAL UNION NO. 638 , PLUMBERS The Respondent denied the commission of the un- fair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in New York City on November 12, 1969. The General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent appeared by counsel. The parites were given full opportunity to participate, adduce evidence, and examine and cross-examine wit- nesses. Oral argument was had. No briefs were filed.' Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: 517 representative of its annual operations, Hydronic fabricated, sold, and distributed pipe and other products valued in excess of $50,000, of which pipe and other products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said place of business in in- terstate commerce directly to States of the United States other than New York. Con Ed, Courter, and Hydronic are employers and persons engaged in commerce and in an indus- try affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tions 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE EMPLOYERS Courter, a New York corporation, has main- tained an office and place of business at 317 West 13th Street, in the city and State of New York, and at various jobsites in the State of New York, includ- ing the 74th Street jobsite, where it is, and has been, a mechanical contractor in the construction industry, engaged in the installation of power piping and related systems. During 1969, a period representative of its annual operation generally, Courter, in the course and conduct of its business, contracted with Con Ed to perform work valued in excess of $50,000 at the 74th Street jobsite. Con Ed, a New York corporation, has main- tained an office and place of business at 4 Irving Place in the city and State of New York, and vari- ous other places of business in the State of New York, including a powerhouse at 506 East 74th Street, New York City (the 74th Street jobsite), where it is engaged in the production, sale, and dis- tribution of electricity and steam. During 1969, a period representative of its annual operations, Con Ed, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its 74th Street powerhouse oil and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 of which such oil and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were trans- ported and delivered to its 74th Street jobsite in in- terstate commerce directly from States of the United States other than New York, and in foreign commerce directly from foreign countries. Hydronic, a New York corporation, has main- tained an office and place of business at 3375 Royal Avenue in Oceanside, New York, where it is engaged in the fabrication, sale, and distribution of pipe and related products. During 1969, a period The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The issues herein are adequately set forth in the Statement of the Case. B. Con Ed and Courter Contract for Construc- tion Work at the 74th Street Powerhouse Jobsite Early in 1969' Con Ed started to modify its powerhouse at 74th Street in New York City. In March, Con Ed entered into a contract with Courter that the latter install a water treatment system and make certain alterations in the steam system as part of the modification.' The Courter contract required Courter to install and erect pip- ing. The contract did not require the pipe to be fabricated by Courter, nor did it specify a company that was to fabricate the pipe.' The contract showed that December 15 was the date the modified plant was to start operating and November 1 as the date by which Courter was to complete its work. When Courter contracted with Con Ed it was al- ready busy with another construction job which would prevent Courter from fabricating pipe for Con Ed either at its plant or at the 74th Street jobsite. In effect, Courter knew that if it were to fabricate the pipe for the Con Ed job, it would not be able to meet the November 1 date. This condi- tion was also known to Con Ed and the Union. Daly, business agent for the Union, gave assurances to Con Ed prior to the time of the execution of the Courter contract' that Courter could install pipe at the 74th Street jobsite that was not fabricated by Courter but fabricated by another company. ' Motion by counsel for the Charging Party dated December 12, 1969, to correct the transcript is granted. All dates herein are 1969 ' Con Ed's purpose was to increase the output of its plant from 350,000 pounds per hour to 1,150,000 pounds per hour to meet the increased steam demands in upper Manhattan . By doing this, Con Ed would eliminate the operation of its 60th Street station which , if operated , would be in violation of the pollution laws e In lieu of placing the contract in evidence the parties stipulated In its original specifications under a contract between Courter and Company and Consolidated Edison Company, Courter was required to install and erect piping There is no i equirement that such pipe be fabricated either by Courter and Company or by anyone else. No issue is raised in this proceeding regarding the effect on the parties of this and other Daly assurances mentioned in this proceeding 519 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. The Union Contract Employees of Courter were members of the Union. Courter was a member of the Mechanical Contractors Association of New York, Inc. (MCA). The Association and the Union had entered into a labor agreement terminating June 30, 1969, con- taining rule V8 and rule X referring to the fabrica- tion of pipe before installation. Rule X stated in part:9 Acetylene, electric or other forms of cutting or welding shall be done either in the shop or on the job of the direct employer at the option of the employer. In this instance Courter was a "direct employer" within the meaning of rule X. Rule X was con- tinued in effect after the termination of the MCA contract. Con Ed, Courter, and Hydronic at all times herein were aware of the existence of rule X and its effect on pipe that was to be installed in the 74th Street jobsite. - D. Courser Contracts With Hydronic To Prefabricate Pipe In March, after receiving the Con Ed contract, Courter entered into a contract with Hydronic providing that the latter fabricate pipe from sketches submitted to it by Courter and deliver the. assembled pipe to the 74th Street jobsite.10 Prior to the execution of the contract, Courter asked Hydronic for assurances that the Union would create no problem. Hydronic received such assurances from Daly after Hydronic assured Daly it would comply with rule V of the labor agreement in fabricating the pipe. Hydronic advised Courter of this fact and the contract was concluded between them." Between the months of April and June Hydronic delivered to Courter at the 74th Street jobsite 160 pipe assemblies (about 10 to 12 truckloads). These assemblies were unloaded by employees of Courter and installed by them in the plant.' E. Daly, Business Agent of the Union, Advises Courser They Have Breached Rule X In June and July three conversations occurred between Daly and Fee, a steamfitter's superinten- ' In effect rule V required that the fabrication of pipe "must be per- formed by journeymen steamfitters or apprentices working in units of two, one of whom must be a steamfitter " Rule X has been in existence more than 20 years ° The Union represented the employees of Hydronic also " There is no issue with regard to the Hydronic/Courter contract " Usually pipe was installed the same day it was delivered In no event was pipe installed more than a week later 13 The "Sheridan decision" dated June 24 was so designated because Sheridan was the arbitrator who wrote it The decision pointed out that frequently during the pendency of the agreement containing rule X a busi- ness agent of the Union gave permission to a direct employer to install pipe that had been fabricated by another company The decision held that the dent employed at the 74th Street jobsite by Courter. Fee was a member of the Union. In the first conversation in the latter part of June, Daly and Fee discussed the fact that the labor agreement was nearing its termaintion date and that there were rumors the men were dissatisfied with the way in which the pipe fabrication was being handled. Daly then advised Fee that under the cir- cumstances and in view of the Sheridan decision13 "he would have to bring Courter and Company up on charges" for violation of rule X. In the second conversation, a little later in June, Daly again advised Fee that Courter would be brought up on charges; that this would be done though it meant retracting the assurance that he, Daly, had earlier given Con Ed that there would be no problem because of fabrication by Hydronic." In the third conversation, the early part of July, Daly confirmed to Fee that he had decided to bring Courter up on charges. is Between the time of the second and third conver- sations, the Union held a meeting at which the membership discussed and decided not to amend rule X. F. Con Ed Modifies the Courter Contract and Contracts With Hydronic Because of the issuance of the Sheridan decision and the vote of the Union to maintain rule X unchanged, Con Ed considered the job schedule at 74th Street to be in jeopardy and notified Courter accordingly. Then, by letter dated July 15, Con Ed unilaterally modified the Courter contract to pro- vide in effect that Con Ed would supply the pipe for Courter to install.16 Con Ed also advised Courter that a downward revision in price was expected. Courter was given no choice with regard to the amendment. Subsequently, Con Ed entered into a contract with Hydronic providing that Hydronic furnish pipe to Con Ed for installation by others. The contract designated no company to do the in- stallation. G. Hydronic Delivers Pipe; the Union Prevents it From Being Unloaded and Installed During the first week in August , Fee told Daly that Con Ed was going to deliver pipe to the jobsite. union business agent had no authority unilaterally to amend rule X and that the direct employer by installing such pipe was liable for breach of the agreement Mention of the contents of the Sherifan decision is no indica- tion that the Trial Examiner agrees with its holdings 14 Daly testified he had promised the Con Edison Company that there wouldn't be any problem relative to the fabrication because they insisted that the Con Edison Company had to have this plant for December 15 opera- tion and that he understood their problem as well as our problem and he assured them there wouldn't be any problem relative to fabrication 15 Charges were filed by the Union by letter dated July 1, 1969 '6 No issue is raised in this proceeding as to the effect of Con Ed's amendment or its action in so doing LOCAL UNION NO. 638, PLUMBERS Daly responded that he would have to inform the employees of Courter that they could not install the pipe if and when it came to the job. On August 7, a truckload of fabricated pipe ar- rived at the jobsite from Hydronic for delivery to Con Ed. The parties admit that it was the obligation of the employees of Courter to unload the pipe. The shop steward of the Union acting on instruc- tions from Daly told the men not to unload the truck. The truck was not unloaded and left. On August 12 another truckload of pipe was delivered. At that time the shop steward was under union instructions to unload the pipe but not to in- stall it until further word. The pipe was unloaded but was not installed until about 2 weeks later.17 Analysis and Conclusions Under the terms of the Con Ed/Courter contract as amended by Con Ed, the possibility that Courter might do the work of the fabrication of pipe was eliminated. Thus, there was no "cutting or welding" of pipe to be done by Courter in its shop or on the job that would make rule X applicable to that con- tract. This result was Con Ed s objective. The con- tract requirement that Courter install pipe furnished by Con Ed remained in force. Except for the action of the Union there is nothing in the record to show that Courter's employees were prevented from installing the pipe. It follows then that the Union's action to prevent the unloading and installation of the fabricated pipe on August 7, and the installation of the pipe on August 12, could not have been taken to preserve or enforce its rights under rule X as that rule affected the Con Ed/Courter contract, or to demand that Courter carry out its terms under the MCA agreement. The record does not support Respondent's con- tention that Con Ed's amendment was the result of the collusive or conspiratorial action of Con Ed, Hydronic, and Courter. The record details the ac- tion taken by Con Ed that resulted in the July amendment of the Courter contract. Such action was no more than to advise Courter that the amendment would happen. There is no evidence that (a) Con Ed consulted Courter in any way be- fore the amendment occurred; (b) Courter had anything to do with the award of the contract to Hydronic; or (c) Con Ed and Courter acted in any collusive manner to bring about either the amend- ment, or the award to Hydronic. There is no question that Con Ed knew that the pipe already in- stalled had been fabricated by Hydronic from plans and specifications given to Hydronic by Courter. But it is considered reasonable that under these cir- cumstances Con Ed with its operation date in 17 Daly testified he did not stop the installation of the pipe Whether he personally gave the orders or not is immaterial The shop steward testified he was acting under union instructions 18 This conclusion is in no way altered by the fact that Con Ed, Courter, and the Union knew in March that Courter would be unable in the future to fabricate the pipe either at its plant or on the job 519 jeopardy should request Hydronic to continue the fabrication of the pipe for delivery to Con Ed. Ac- cordingly, it is concluded from the record as a whole that Con Ed, Courter, and Hydronic did not act collusively or conspiratorially in amending the Courter contract and granting the new contract to Hydronic.18 Courter was a direct or primary employer of members of the Union but (and what follows is the key to this decision) under the amended contract it was not a direct or primary employer of such em- ployees for the purpose of fabricating pipe. Under the amended Con Ed/Courter contract, the Union's demands were directed to no provision that Courter was obligated to perform or responsible to accom- plish. Thus under the terms of the amended con- tract, there was no legal method bjy which Courter could comply with the Union s demands to fabricate the pipe. The foregoing makes it obvious that the object of the Union's action was directed at the contract between Con Ed and Hydronic. The record clearly shows that the actions taken by the shop steward on August 7 and August 12 were pursuant to the Union's instructions and resulted from the fact that the pipe was fabricated by Hydronic and not by Courter. The record shows further the Union's ac- tions induced and encouraged Courter's employees on those days to refuse to handle and to install the pipe delivered by Hydronic to the 74th Street jobsite. It follows that an object of the Union's con- duct was to compel (a) Con Ed and Courter to cease using and handling pipe fabricated by Hydronic, or any other employer than Courter and (b) Con Ed and Courter to cease doing business with Hydronic or with each other. Such conduct is proscribed by the Act and constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. In Enterprise Association, etc. (Consolidated Edis- on Company of New York, Inc.), 124 NLRB 521, the Union, Courter, and Con Ed were parties to a proceeding before the Board involving an action arising out of the effect of rule X that was almost on all fours with the action in this case. The Board found that the Union had violated the then Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act.19 The Board's Order was enforced in 1961 by the Second Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. Enterprise Association of Steam, etc. (Con- solidated Edison Co.), 285 F.2d 642. In dealing with similar situations where prefabricated material has been delivered to con- struction sites, the Board has developed what it designates as the right-to-control test for establish- ing neutral employers and to distinguish between primary and secondary employers. This test has is Now Section 8(b)(4)(B) under the 1959 amendment of the Act with no significant changes in text 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD received court approval" and was recently used by the Board in finding a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) in Local 636, etc. (Mechanical Contrac- tors Association of Detroit, Inc.), 177 NLRB 189.21 In that case the Board said: In deciding that Page was not the primary employer, we have used the "right to control" test.7 This is the most readily available analyti- cal tool in deciding the primary-secondary dichotomy and conforms, we believe, with the Congressional intent in proscribing secondary boycotts. It has received the approval of a number of Courts of Appeals.8 As explained by Judge Prettyman:' The basic criterion is, as the statute (Section 8(b)(4)) specifically provides, the object, or objects, of the union action. So the problem is: What was the object? The Board has held several times that, if a union demands that a contractor do something he is powerless to do except by ceasing to do business with somebody not involved in the dispute, it is manifest that an object of the union is to induce this cessation of business. The courts to which this problem has come have agreed with the holdings. ' Idem [as footnote 6 Pipe Fitters Local No 120 (Mechanical Con- tractors' Association of Cleveland, Inc ), 168 NLRB 991, Local 5, Plumbers (Arthur Vennert Company), 137 NLRB 828, enfd 321 F 2d 366 (C A D C ), cert denied 375 U S 921, International Longshore- men's Association (Board of Harbor Commissioners), 137 NLRB 1178, 1182,enfd 331F2d712,717(CA 3)] " National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v N L R B , 354 F 2d 594 (C A 7), Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, U.B of C v NLRB, 339 F 2d 142 (C A 6), N L R.B v International Longshoremen 's Association, 331 F 2d 712 (C A 3), Local 5, Plumbers (Arthur Venneri Company) v NLRB , 321 F 2d 366 (C A D C ), N L R B v Enterprise Association , 285 F 2d 642 (C A 2) ° Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, U.B of C v N.L R.B , 339 F.2d 142, 145 (C A 6). We think this is rational and proper reasoning. It is concluded that the facts in this case are governed by the above decisions. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Courter & Company, Inc., and Hydronic Fabrications, Inc., are employers engaged in com- merce or industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. On August 7 and 12, 1969, Respondent vio- lated Sections 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by engaging in certain conduct found in section III. 4. The said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Union has engaged in un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, the customary cease-and-desist order and the usual affirmative re- lief ordered in cases of this nature, including post- ing of notices, is recommended. Respondent, as shown above, has previously en- gaged in the same type of behavior which the Board has found violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. This fact did not deter the Union from repeat- ing the illegal behavior. Under such circumstances, a broad order is recommended.22 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the fol- lowing is hereby made and issued: RECOMMENDED ORDER Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from inducing or encourag- ing the employees of Courter & Company, Inc., or of any other employer or person, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other- wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi- als, or commodities or to perform any services for their employers; or coercing and restraining Courter & Company, Inc., or any other employer or person where an object thereof is (1) to force or require Courter & Company, Inc., or any other em- ployer or person to cease purchasing, using, handling, transporting, or otherwise working on pipe fabricated by Hydronic_7abrications, Inc., or 2° See fn 8 in text quoted below 21 See also Local No 742, etc (J L Simmons Company, Inc ), 178 NLRB 351 " Cf Local No 636, United Association of Journeymen (Detroit Edison Company and Westinghouse Electric Corporation), 123 NLRB 225 LOCAL UNION NO. 638 , PLUMBERS any other employer or person on behalf of Con- solidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., or any other employer or person, (2) to force or require Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and Courter & Company, Inc., to cease doing business with each other or with Hydronic Fabrications, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify the members of Enterprise Associa- tion of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefit- ters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus- try of the United States and Canada that Respon- dent has no objection to the installation of or other- wise handling piping at any project of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., that has been prefabricated by any employer for and on behalf of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (b) Notify the members of Enterprise Associa- tion of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefit- ters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus- try of the United States and Canada that any previ- ous instructions, requests, or appeals which Respondents have made against installing or other- wise handling pipe at projects of Consolidated Edis- on Company of New York, Inc., fabricated for or on behalf of Consolidated as set forth in (a) above have been withdrawn. (c) Post at the offices of Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneu- matic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of the United Association of Journeymen and Ap- prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix. "23 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being duly signed by offical representatives of the Union, shall be posted im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 2 signed copies of said notice in sufficient number for posting by Courter & Company, Inc., by other members of Mechanical Contractors Association of New York, Inc., and by Hydronic Fabrications, Inc., and they being willing, at all locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in 521 writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.24 Pa In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " $' 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all sides had the opporutni- ty to present their evidence it has been found that we violated the law by committing unfair labor practices. Accordingly we post this notice and we will keep the promises that we make in this notice. WE WILL NOT (a) induce or encourage the employees of Courter & Company, Inc., or of any other employer or person to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods , articles , materials , or commodi- ties, or to perform any services for their em- ployers or ( b) coerce and restrain Courter & Company , Inc., or any other employer or per- son, where an object thereof in either instance is (1) to force or require Courter & Company, Inc., or any other employer or person to cease purchasing, using , handling, transporting, or otherwise working on pipe fabricated by Hydronic Fabrications , Inc., or any other em- ployer or person on behalf of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., or any other employer , or (2) to force or require Con- solidated Edision Company of New York, Inc., and Courter & Company, Inc., to cease doing business with each other or with Hydronic Fabrications, Inc. WE WILL and do hereby cancel and withdraw any orders and instructions given to our mem- bers and any other individuals not to install work upon or otherwise handle pipe at projects of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., which pipe was fabricated for or on behalf of Consolidated as set forth in the preceding paragraph. 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I ABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL, and do hereby, notify our mem- bers, and other individuals employed by Courter & Company, Inc., that we have no ob- jection to their installing, working upon, or otherwise handling pipe at projects of Con- solidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., which pipe was fabricated for or on behalf of Consolidated as set forth in the second preced- ing paragraph. PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATION OF STEAM, HOT WATER, HYDRAULIC, SPRINKLER, PNEUMATIC TUBE, ICE MACHINE AND GENERAL PIPEFITTERS OF NEW YORK AND VICINITY, LOCAL UNION No. 638 OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE This is an official notice and must not be defaced jy anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Telephone 212-264-0300