N Y District Council No 9

NY DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 9 New York District Council No. 9 Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO and Strip Clean Floor Refinishing & Painting Corp. Case 29-CC-201 August 27, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS On March 26, 1970, Trial Examiner Harry H. Kuskin issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the com- plaint be dismissed in that regard. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. 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 here- by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and supporting briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, New York District Council No. 9 Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhang- ers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. Member Brown, dissenting: In furtherance of a primary labor dispute with Delta, Respondent Union threatened to, and did, picket Delta's operations at the Board of Education (BOE) project. This picketing complied in all respects with the criteria for presumptively lawful picketing set forth in Moore Dry Dock.' Whatever effects there ' Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547, 293 may have been on BOE, a neutral in the dispute, were incidental to Respondent Union's lawful picket- ing activities.2 That Respondent Union communicated with BOE in an effort to avoid taking picketing action against Delta was hardly sufficient, in my judgment, to convert Respondent's lawful picketing into unlawful secondary conduct.' At no time during such conversations did Respondent threaten, or even suggest, that it would picket either BOE or the latters employees. discussed in Local 761, IUE v NL R B [General Electra] 366 U S 667,673,677-681 t Local 761, IUE v NLRB [General Electric ] 366 U S 667. 672-674 ' Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 [Food Eniploier c Council, Inc ] v NL.R B 296 F 2d 368, 373 (C A D C), Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 471 (Wyckoff Plumbing), 135 NLRB 329, 331-332, Truck Drivers & Helpers Local No 592, Teamsters (Estes Express Lines, Inc), 181 NLRB No 121 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HARRY H. KUSKIN, Trial Examiner- This proceeding was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on December 1 and 2, 1969. A complaint, as amended at the hearing, issued herein on October 17, 1969, based on a charge filed by Strip Clean Floor Refinishing & Painting Corp., herein called Strip Clean, on August 15, 1969, in which it is alleged that New York District Council No. 9 Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL- CIO, herein called Respondent, has, by certain described conduct, violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (n)(B) of the Act by threatening the Board of Education of New York City, herein called the Board of Education, orally and in written communications, with picketing and with other economic reprisals if Strip Clean and Delta Contracting Corporation, herein called Delta, were permitted to continue working at Public School 228, located in Brooklyn, New York, herein called P S. 228, and by thereafter, in futherance of its labor dispute with Delta, engaging in picketing at P.S 228 and causing employees of the Board of Education and of other persons engaged in commerce to strike and refuse to perform services for their respective employers, all with an object of forcing and requiring the Board of Education to cease doing business with Delta and of forcing or requiring other persons normally doing business with the Board of Education to cease doing business with the Board of Education. In its answer, as amended at the hearing, Respondent denies that it has engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged herein. Upon the entire record,' including my observation of ' Respondent filed a motion herein to correct the transcript of these proceedings The General Counsel filed a reply thereto and a cross motion to further correct the transcript Thereafter the General Counsel filed an errata relating to the aforesaid reply and cross motion, as well as additions to his cross motion to further correct the transcript Counsel for Respondent, in turn, filed his own affidavit in which he opposes, (cont'd) 185 NLRB No. 33 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the witnesses, including their demeanor while on the witness stand, and after due consideration of the briefs of the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION The complaint, as amended, alleges, and Respondent admits, that the Board of Education is an agency of New York City operating the public system of New York City; and that, during the past year, which period is representative of its annual operations generally, it purchased and caused to be delivered to its New York City places of business directly from states outside the State of New York various materials, the value of which exceeded $50,000. The complaint, as amended, alleges further and Respond- ent admits that, at all times material herein, (1) Strip Clean has been a New York corporation and has maintained its principal office and place of business in the Bronx, New York, where it is engaged in residential and commercial painting contracting and related services; and (2) Delta has similarly been a New York corporation with its principal office and place of business in the Bronx, New York, where it is engaged in commercial painting contracting and related services; and, further, Delta has contracted with the Board of Education to perform certain services at P.S. 228, and has, in turn, subcontracted some of this work to Strip Clean. I find, upon the basis of the foregoing, and as Respondent also admits, that the Board of Education is a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce. I also find that the purchases of the Board of Education which are affected by the dispute have a substantial impact upon the shipment of goods and supplies in interstate commerce and upon industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) and Section 2(6) and (7) and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. in certain instances, the General Counsel's cross motion to further correct the transcript, basing such opposition on the transcript itself and on his recollection of the testimony Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I shall grant the motion of Respondent and the cross motion of the General Counsel, as supplemented, with respect to all proposed corrections which are not contested herein As to those corrections proposed by Respondent which are contested by the General Counsel, I shall grant those proposed by Respondent on p 13, 1 19 and on p 428, I 5, however, i shall deny those proposed by Respondent on p 18, I 16, p 19, I 24, p 343, I 1, and p 353, 11 21 and 22, and shall, instead, grant the corrections at these respective places proposed by the General Counsel in addition, I shall deny those proposed corrections appearing in the General Counsel's cross motion which are objected to by Respond- ent, namely, those on p 144, I 11, p 148, 1 16, p 158, 1 11, p 158, 1 20, p 294, 1 15, p 310, 1 4, and p 311, 1 4 While I note that there are in the above motions a considerable number of imprecise designations of the lines on the given pages on which corrections are sought, I have not specifically corrected these imprecise designations because, in all instances, the line mentioned should either bear the number immediately preceding or immediately following the one men- tioned, and the references are readily recognizable in addition to all the foregoing corrections , the transcript is inaccurate in various respects relating primarily to comments by the undersigned, and it is hereby further corrected in the manner indicated in Appendix "B " [Appendix B omitted from publication ] Ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I find also, and Respondent does not deny, that, as alleged, New York District Council No. 9 Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL- CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Some Background Facts In 1964, at the time Delta began to do business, it entered into a contractual relationship with Respondent. Thereafter, in 1965, Delta agreed with Respondent to be bound, for the period of August 1, 1965 to July 31, 1968, by a contract between Respondent and the Association of Master Painters and Decorators of the City of New York, Inc.' On July 15, 1968, while the latter contract was still in effect, Delta entered into a contract with the Board of Education to do post modernization painting and finishing and incidental repairs at P.S. 228 for the amount of $58,200. On September 9, 1968, after the expira- tion of the above bargaining agreement, Delta and Respond- ent entered into a "Memorandum of Independent Contractor Agreement, Effective September 9, 1968," in which they obligated themselves to "live up to and conform with all the provisions, terms and conditions of the prior agreement, except as modified and amended by the new agreement" between Respondent and the Association; in addition, Delta agreed "to execute a more formal instrument as soon as [it] is notified by the Union that the same has been pre- pared," and that this formal agreement would supercede the memorandum agreement in all respects.' Subsequent thereto, either in September or October, Respondent submit- ted to Delta such a formal bargaining agreement covering the period until July 31, 1971, but Delta declined to sign the agreement because of an unsettled and disputed claim by Respondent against Delta in the amount of about $26,000 for pension and fringe benefits assertedly due under Delta's preexisting contracts with Respondent. During August or September 1968, Delta subcontracted to Stnp Clean some of the painting work to be done for the Board of Education at P.S. 228. At about the same time, Strip Clean executed a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent. However, this latter contract was cancelled by Respondent on September 19, 1968, on the ground that "Strip Clean is the alter ego of Delta and under the rules of [Respondent] this is not permissible."' Whereupon, Delta cancelled its subcontract with Strip Clean. Work was begun by Delta itself at P S 228 during the latter part of 1968. Delta started with carpentry work and other repairs; it did no painting work because the ' Delta was not a member of the Association ' It was stipulated that this memorandum of agreement is binding on Delta ' Although John Durandes, the general manager of Delta, testified to the contrary, it would appear, and I find, that Respondent had, by this time, determined that Delta was an unfair employer N Y DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 9 295 overcrowded condition of the school precluded such activity. Painting work did begin thereafter in February or March 1969, but a concentrated effort in this direction occurred in the latter part of June 1969. The above-mentioned dispute between Respondent and Delta, which had affected the consummation of a new agreement in 1968, came to the attention of the Board of Education In early January 1969, Respondent sent a letter to the Board of Education complaining that "Delta was not paying the prevailing rate and fringe benefits."5 Thereupon Richard J. Martin, the Director of Maintenance and Operation of the Board of Education, convened a meeting at his office in early January 1969, to which all interested parties in the dispute were invited . Present in behalf of the Board of Education were Martin; Charles Francescani, chief of the field section, bureau of mainte- nance; Irving Golden, Esq, a lawyer attached to the Board of Education staff; and a Mr Houston. Attending at the instance of Respondent were Frank Schonfeld , its secretary- treasurer; Carl Blum, administrative aide to Schonfeld; and Samuel Hirsch, executive secretary of the Joint Industry Board.' And attending for Delta were John Durandes, its general manager; and a Mr. Feinstein, its lawyer During the meeting, Respondent's representatives claimed that Delta owed Respondent about $26,000 consisting of unpaid employee fringe benefits and a fine levied against Delta. Durandes, in turn, disputed the amount claimed but indicat- ed that if Delta could be shown that it owed the money, it would pay. The upshot of the meeting was an amicable ' Art 63 of the above-mentioned contract between the Board of Education and Delta provided , in relevant part , that the wages to be paid for a legal day's work to laborers, workmen, or mechanics employed upon work contemplated by this contract "shall not be less than the 'prevailing rate of wage' `and supplements as required ' and defined in Section 220 of Labor Law " Attached to the invitation from the Board of Education to contractors to bid on the work to be done at P S 228 was a section on wage rates which the office of the Comptroller of the City of New York established , pursuant to Section 220 of the Labor Law of the State of New York, for laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed by private contractors under contracts involving public work between any agency of the City of New York and such private contractors With specific reference to painters, the Comptroller set forth the rate per hour for painters, painters on steel, painters on swing scaffolds, and painters apprentices , and also set forth figures as to the supplement benefits, including fringe benefits and payment into the insurance fund Also relevant, in connection with the issues herein, are arts 5 and 21 of this contract between the Board of Education and Delta Thus, in art 5, the contractor undertook that he "shall not have work performed nor shall he employ labor or means that would in any way cause or result in a suspension , or delay of, or strike upon the work to be performed hereunder of any of the trades working in and about [P S 228] or in or about any other buildings of the Board [of Education] or working upon any of the premises of the City of New York " And art 21 provided , in relevant part , that "the Board [of Education] shall have the right to declare The Contractor in default on the whole or any part of the work if at any time the [Executive Director of the office of School Buildings] is of the opinion and shall so certify to the Board [of Education] that The Contractor is or has been wilfully or in bad faith violating any of the provisions of this contract " The Joint Industry Board is comprised of seven members from Respondent and seven members from contractors serving the painting industry Schonfeld and Blum are part of the office force which handles administrative details for the Joint Industry Board Included among their functions are to collect pensions and welfare and annuity contributions for the Painting industry insurance funds and to take action with respect to reported violations of a collective -bargaining contract either by Respond- ent or by a member of the Painting Industry arrangement that representatives of Respondent, of the Joint Industry Board, and Durandes would meet in an effort to resolve the matter. After the meeting that day, there was some further discussion among some of those who attended the meeting. The testimony is in conflict as to whether requests were then made of Respondent by Board of Education representa- tives to be notified in advance of any picketing should that eventuate because of a failure to resolve the dispute. Blum and Hirsch testified that there was such discussion with Martin and Francescani. However, Martin denied that he spoke to anyone from Respondent after the meeting that day and added that there was no such discussion during the meeting; and Francescani could not recall anyone in the group mentioning picketing that day, nor did he recall asking anyone to let the Board of Education know if Respondent was going to picket Delta at any of the schools. I note, too, that Blum acknowledged that he testified before Judge Travia in the injunction proceeding in the Federal District Court arising out of the subsequent picket- ing, (1) that he probably brought up the subject of picketing; and (2) that he told Francescani that Respondent was contemplating picketing if the difficulties between Respond- ent and Delta were not resolved; and (3) that "[he] also suggested at that time we write to the Board" I note, also, in the case of Hirsch, that, although he could not recall while testifying herein whether Durandes was involved in the postmeeting discussion concerning the contingency of a picket line, he acknowledged testifying before Judge Travia that Durandes was present and that Francescani talked to Durandes about wanting him to straighten out the matter because if there was any picketing, his contract with the Board of Education might be in jeopardy. In all these circumstances, including their acknowledged testi- mony before Judge Travia, and as Blum's and Hirsch's testimony herein seemed to be influenced by their strong partisan feelings in the matter, I find that the record does not preponderate in favor of a finding that any repre- sentative of the Board of Education at that meeting or immediately thereafter requested either Blum or Hirsch, or both of them, to have Respondent notify the Board of Education in advance of any picketing. However, I find further, in this connection, on the basis of the entire record that (1) representatives of the Board of Education have made it known to unions performing work at any of its locations that the Board of Education was interested in knowing, whenever a labor dispute developed in the course of such work, if there would be any picketing, and (2) it is the practice of the representatives of the Board of Education, upon being notified that picketing was going to occur at a school, to ask for a letter to that effect from the union involved. The dispute between Respondent and Delta was not resolved thereafter; it eventuated in picketing by Respondent at P.S. 228, which began on September 4 and continued through October 10, 1969. On the latter date, during the pendency of the above mentioned injunction proceeding before a Federal District Court of the Eastern District of New York, which proceeding was instituted by the 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Counsel pursuant to 10 of the Act,' Respondent agreed to cease the picketing while awaiting a determination by Judge Travia on the 10 petition . An injunction against such picketing issued on October 31. The last day of picketing was October 10, 1969. B. The Critical Events and the Alleged Secondary Boycott Activity The critical events span the period beginning in June 1969 and ending on October 10, 1969.8 During that period Respondent made some visits to the jobsite and sent three letters and a telegram to the Board of Education bearing dates of July 1 , 14 and 29 and August 14. I shall treat with these matters in detail hereinafter On or about June 30, around 1 or 1:30 p .m , Barney Beard, the business representative of Respondent, went to the jobsite at P S 228 and there observed two painters on an outside scaffold . He spoke to them, and upon learning that they were employees of Delta, told them that he had orders from Respondent saying that Delta was unfair, that Delta owed money to the welfare and pension fund, and further that he was to tell them to stop working.' At this, the men stopped working and went inside the building to change their clothes. Durandes arrived on the jobsite about this time and spoke to Beard . After learning what Beard had done, Durandes told Beard that he had "no right to stop the men", and, to Beard's answer that he had orders from Respondent to do so, Durandes replied that "[he is] going to bung in 10 men from a different local " Sometime during this episode, Beard entered the building During his stay, he went to the custodian's office ' As heretofore found, the complaint herein issued on August 15, 1969 All dates hereinafter are in 1969 Although Durandes testified that Beard made two visits to the jobsite, one on June 27 and one on June 30 , during which Beard spoke to painters on the job , Beard insisted that this happened only once during this period and it could have been "the first [of July], the thirtieth or the thirty first [of June] " I note , too, that Durandes' pre-hearing affidavit to a Board agent is at odds with his testimony , in that his affidavit speaks of a visit to the P S 228 jobsite on or about the first of July of " 10 or 12 business agents or District Council Members- I don't know which," and a visit to the same jobsite by "Beard, a business agent of District Council 9" about 2 days thereafter I am persuaded that had Beard been there on the two occasions , the affidavit would have identified Beard as being among the 10 or 12 business agents, too in all these circumstances, I find that Beard was there only on one of these two occasions referred to in Durandes ' affidavit and that this occurred on or about June 30 And assuming that there was a prior visit by unidentified representatives of Respondent to the jobsite on another occasion in June , I make no findings thereon, as absent any identification of such representatives in the record Respondent is precluded from adequately contesting the testimony adduced by the General Counsel in that regard " ° Although Beard denied that he went into the building that day or that he telephoned or spoke to anyone from the Board of Education while at the jobsite , I am satisfied that he did both , in view of Francescani's credible testimony that , at the end of June , he received a telephone call from P S 228 and in the course thereof spoke to a person who identified himself as a business agent for Respondent in this connection, I infer and find , from the coincidence that Beard was admittedly on the jobsite at the end of June and from Francescani's further credible testimony as to the train of events which followed his conversation with the business agent, that Beard was , in fact, the business agent involved in the telephone conversation and, from there, spoke on the telephone with Francescani.10 Beard told Francescam, according to the latter's credible testimony, that Delta "had not cleared its problems with the union and that if Delta continued to work there, [Respondent] would have to picket the school "" At this, Francescani asked Beard to have an officer of Respondent call him and Beard agreed to do so. That afternoon , Frances- cam received a telephone call from Blum , the administrative aide to Schonfeld , who is Respondent's secretary-treasurer, in which Blum voiced , in effect, what Beard had said, i.e. that "he had tried to solve the problem with Delta and Delta had not cooperated, and that, if Delta continued to work, [Respondent] would picket." Whereupon, Frances- cani asked Blum to put it in writing . Blum agreed to do so" and, in consequence, by letter dated July 1, Schonfeld wrote to Hugh McLaren of the Office of School Buildings of the Board of Education concerning the matter. When the letter" reached Francescani , he discussed the problem with Martin and Golden , and a decision was reached con- cerning it. Pursuant thereto, Delta was called by him and told to stop working and to try to resolve the problem; in addition , the custodian of P S 228 was called by him and told not to allow Delta into the school . 14 Also according " Although Durandes testified that he was present during this conversa- tion and spoke to Francescani, too, i note that Francescam did not mention this In all the circumstances , including the developments of the next few days, as found herein , I find that, contrary to Durandes, he did not then speak to Francescani , nor did he have a followup conversation with Francescam that afternoon, as he further testified, in which he agreed to stop work at P S 228 " Blum testified that , after hearing from Beard , he telephoned Francesca- m and told him of Beard's visit to P S 228 and of Beard's finding two men there who were working for Delta , that Respondent had been unable to resolve its dispute with Delta , and that in keeping with his promise last January to give advance notice of any action to be taken, he was letting Francescani know that "we contemplated picketing Delta " Also according to Blum , Francescam asked him to write to the Board of Education about Respondent 's intention to picket and he , in turn, spoke to Schonfeld and Hirsch , the executive secretary of the Joint Industry Board , about this " The letter is in evidence as G C's Exh 3 and reads as follows We are resuming our request that the above be declared a nonrespon- sive employer At a previous hearing, District Council 9 agreed to withhold its request since the staff and personnel at your office, and Mr Delta, indicated that they thought the difficulties that existed could be rectified However, this has not been so in fact, there are liens pending against this corporation by the Painting Industry Insurance Fund and others , stemming from violations of the Trade Agreement Furthermore , we are notifying you of our intent to take necessary economic action at any location at which we find this employer working Specifically , we intend to picket the ob site at P S #228 in Brooklyn where we are informed that this company might resume work for your organization `° It is apparent that Francescani had not yet heard of Strip Clean when this action was taken by the Board of Education Thus , Francescani testified that he first heard of Strip Clean from the Board 's Regional Office when he was called about a charge filed by Strip Clean in Case 2-CD-399, and the record shows that the charge in question was filed on July 14 , 1969 However, in view of the testimony of Beard that Durandes told him during the conversation at the jobsite that he was going to bring in 10 men from a different local, and in view of Durandes' testimony that, at about this time, he subcontracted to Strip Clean the work remaining to be done by Delta at P S 228 , and that Strip Clean's employees who were represented under a collective agreement between Strip Clean and Local 7, were already on the job, I infer , and find, that Strip Clean and its employees had been installed on the job before the orders to stop work were issued N. Y DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 9 to Francescam, he then noted on the above letters of July 1, "for the file," the following: "Contractor not working until a settlement is reached. Custodian notified. [signed] C.F. 7/3/69." On July 14, Respondent followed up its letter of July 1, above, by a telegram from Schonfeld to McLaren, which read as follows: Re Delta Contracting Corporation As Per Letter July 1, 1969 Delta Contraction [sic] Corp In Violation Of Union Contract Under Payment To Pension And Insurance Funds Amounting To $22,516 98 Job Will Be Picketed Request Immediate Resumption Of Board Of Responsibility Hearing And Cancellation Of Board Of Education Contract Under Article 5. On July 17, a meeting was convened at the instance of officials of the Board of Education to discuss complaints from Respondent about Delta. Present for the Board of Education were Martin and several others. Present for Delta were Durandes and its attorney, Feinstein. Durandes also brought to the meeting a Mr. Kerr, who claimed to be a delegate from Local 7. Respondent was not invited to the meeting and was not represented. Durandes there made known that he was no longer doing the work under his contract with the Board of Education but had subcon- tracted to Strip Clean. This, in turn, caused Martin to raise the question of whether the fact that Strip Clean was dealing with a union other than Respondent created a jurisdictional dispute. At this juncture of the meeting, or on the following day, according to Martin, he received a telephone call from Blum, in which Blum said that "he had given up on being able to resolve matters with Delta and that they were going to be forced to picket." Martin then explained to Blum what he had learned at the meeting about Strip Clean. Blum's response was that he knew about this, that Strip Clean was an "alter egd' of Delta since Strip Clean was owned by the brother- in-law of Durandes and that the fact that Strip Clean was the subcontractee did not alter the situation. Martin then indicated that the labor dispute was now "a jurisdiction- al dispute and that they should take it up through proper legal channels instead of trying to get [the Board of Educa- tion] to resolve this," and that "[he] didn't think [the Board of Education] could resolve it." The conversation ended with Blum saying that "they were going ahead with the picketing." There is testimony in the record by Blum that he spoke to Martin on the telephone about the fact that Respondent contemplated picketing at P S. 228. Howev- er, he placed the time of the conversation "around early September," after he had sent Beard to P.S 228 to check on the job in early September and Beard had reported back to him what he had found. In his version of the conversation with Martin, he told Martin what Beard had reported, and Martin said that Strip Clean was working there and the employees on the job were affiliated with Local 7 His reply to Martin was that Strip Clean was not signed with Respondent, that he did not know who Local 7 was and that "we were getting ready to picket Delta Contracting." I note, in this connection, that Blum insisted, during cross examination, that he had no knowledge of Strip Clean doing any painting for Delta at P.S. 228 297 or any other school until Beard reported to him in early September concerning the P.S. 228 job. Yet, he acknowl- edged that "he [had] had dealings with Strip Clean" before the above telephone conversation, that he had discussed with Schonfeld "the body" of the correspondence consisting of three letters and a telegram sent by Respondent to the Board of Education during July and August; and that Respondent's July 29 letter to the Board of Education says, in part, "With regard to subcontractors allegedly taking over the work from Delta, may I call your attention to the fact that under the terms of the Trade Agreement signed by Delta Contracting Corp., Delta assumes responsi- bility that the work will be done by the sub-contractor in accordance with the Trade Agreement. Further we have previously established Strip Clean Painting is an alter ego for Delta Contracting Corporation " In light of the above, I find that the inherent probabilities of the situation are that Blum was cognizant of the subcontracting by Delta to Strip Clean at the time when, according to Martin, Blum telephoned him In all these circumstances, including the fact that Martin impressed me as a forthright witness and as more reliable than Blum, I credit Martin and find that Blum did telephone Martin on July 17 or 18 and that the content of the conversation was as testified to by Martin. As already noted, a subsequent development during July was the letter of July 29 from Respondent to the Board of Education. The burden of the letter was that the Board of Education call a meeting of the Board of Review for the purpose of cancelling the contracts of the Board of Education with Delta The entire text of the letter was as follows: In further clarification of our telegram of July 14, 1969, requesting "immediate resumption of Board of Responsibility hearing and cancellation of Board of Education contract, under Article V", please be advised that the money due to the Pension and Insurance Funds, $22,516.98, is separate and apart from the list of names and amounts previously given to Mr. Durandes, of Delta Contracting Corp., in connection with the hearing in your office held on Thursday, January 2, 1969, at 10:00 A M Included in the above figure of $22,516.98 is an item of $380 00, a check dated November 15, 1968, (prior to the meeting in your office on January 2, 1969), which was a payment to the Painting Industry Annuity Fund. This check had been returned by the bank for insufficient funds and is still outstanding. Subsequent to that meeting, we have made every effort to bring Delta Contracting Corp into good standing with the union to avoid any drastic action Unfortunate- ly, we have not been successful and we must insist that there is more than adequate ground for the Board of Review to resume its hearing with a view to cancella- tion of the contracts of Delta Contracting Corp. With regard to sub-contractors allegedly taking over the work from Delta Contracting Corp., may I call your attention to the fact that under the terms of the Trade Agreement signed by Delta Contracting Corp, Delta assumes responsibility that the work will be done by the sub-contractor in accordance with 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Trade Agreement Further, we have previously established that Strip Clean Painting is an "alter egd' for Delta Contracting Corp. The charges we have made are serious. Because we are mindful of serving the best interests of the schools as public spirited citizens, we must insist that such gross and repeated violations , involving large sums of money, should not be ignored We want to avoid any scandals involving execution of painting contracts, both from the point of view of our Union, as well as the board of Education and the City of New York We trust that you will set a date for a meeting of the Board of Review, to go into this matter, at your earliest convenience. On August 13, 1969, the Board of Education conducted a meeting of its Board of Review to consider the matter of declaring Delta in default on Delta's contracts with it covering various schools in various New York boroughs, including the one covering P S. 228 . Prior thereto, it had received a recommendation from Martin, its Director, Divi- sion of Maintenance and Operation, that Delta be declared in default on these contracts in accordance with the provi- sions of Article 21. Also operative factors in the calling of this meeting were the above-described written communi- cations to it from Respondent of July 1, 14, and 29 and the telephone calls from Respondent to Francescani on or about June 30 and the telephone call from Respondent to Martin on July 17 or 18. So far as appears, among those present at the Board of Review meeting were McLaren and Francescani for the Board of Education, Hirsch for the Joint Industry Board , and Durandes and Feinstein for Delta. After considerable discussion, the meeting ended without the Board making any finding of default by Delta. One of the two developments in the wake of the August 13 meeting was a letter dated August 15, from Martin to Delta, directing Delta to resume work wherever Delta had theretofore suspended work and authorizing Delta to use Strip Clean as a subcontractor "pending an audit of [Strip Clean's] books and records to determine if it is paying the prevailing rate of wages and benefits as represent- ed in a letter of recent date from Strip Clean Floor Refinish- ing and Painting Corporation, addressed to the Board of Education." The letter then continued with the following admonition: This Division has been advised by the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, District Council No 9 of New York City that if either you or Strip Clean Floor Refinishing and Painting Corporation perform any work in our schools, that picket lines will be placed around the premises and thereby cause a suspension or delay of or strike of any trades working in or about the premises in question. Your attention is directed to Article 5 of your contract which reads as follows. "The Contractor shall not have work performed, nor shall he employ labor or means, in the carrying out of this contract that would in any way cause or result in a suspension, or delay of, or strike upon the work to be performed hereunder of any of the trades working in or about the premises herein described, or in or about any other building of The Board or working upon any of the premises of The City of New York." In the event such suspensions, delays or strikes develop at the premises , this Division will recommend that the Board of Education avail itself of the appropriate remedies which are consistent with the terms of your contracts. The other development in the wake of the August 13 Board of Review meeting was a letter dated August 14 from Schonfeld to McLaren. The pertinent portions of the letter are as follows- Please be advised that until such time as Delta Contract- ing Corp arranges to pay its obligations for its employ- ees' pension, welfare, insurance and annuity benefits, District Council 9 will picket any jobs which it should work on or which any of its sub-contractors should be engaged in on Delta's behalf. This includes Strip- Clean Floor Refinishing and Painting Co., and any other such sub-contractor. I am notifying you of this because the Board of Education has a number of outstanding, uncompleted contracts with Delta . As long as Delta Contracting is under obligation to pay pastdue fringe benefits, we would regard its employment of a subcontractor as a subterfuge to evade Delta's obligations under its contract with Dis- trict Council 9 Therefore, whether Delta Contracting Corp. does the work, or whether the work is done by a sub-contractor, the terms of the Trade Agreement, as above, still apply Furthermore, with regard to Strip-Clean Refinishing and Painting Corp., they signed a contract with us on September 11, 1968. However, we revoked this contract, effective September 19, 1968, when we deter- mined that the employment by Delta of this company was a device by Delta to continue working while in violation of its contract with District Council 9. The device was the more obvious, incidentally, by reason of the fact that Ada Gloro (Mrs. John Durandes), the president of Delta, is the sister of Mr. Felix Jose Gloro, the principal of Strip-Clean In this connection we cite the following Article VII, Section 1(n) from our contract "The Union shall not enter into a contract with an employer who is indebted under the terms of this Agreement or any prior Agreement by reason of his non-payment of wages, wage benefits, annuities, penalties or liquidated damages as assessed by the Joint Industry Board, whether such employer proposes the making of such con- tract under his own name or under the name of any firm or corporation in which he is a principal or has a substantial interest." For the above reasons, apart from the question of any Union affiliation or lack of affiliation, it is clear that, on the basis of our contract with Delta, District Council 9 has more than ample legal ground to picket Delta or any sub-contractor engaged in doing Delta' work. Accordingly, if Delta should resume work, we will ask the public and our men to give us every N Y DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 9 possible legal support to assist us in maintaining the wages and benefits of our members. On August 18, Strip Clean was at work at P.S. 228, performing painting work under its subcontract with Delta It continued such work during the rest of August and most of September. On September 2, Beard paid a visit to the P.S. 228 jobsite where he made an on-the-spot observation that Strip Clean was doing the painting work and was employing painters, who were adherents of Local 7. Beard relayed this information to Blum via telephone1 from the school building and, in consequence, he was given instructions to commence the picketing On September 4, as stipulated by the parties, picketing began at P S 228; the picket signs carved the following legend- DELTA CONTRACTING UNFAIR TO DC 9, AFL-CIO 227 WEST 17TH STREET, NEW YORK CITY FOR UNDERPAYMENT TO INSURANCE AND PENSION FUNDS The picketing continued until October 10. Notwithstanding the picketing, Strip Clean continued to work at P.S. 228 until September 26. At that time, Strip Clean, on its own, ceased work temporarily, leaving a large scaffold and other equipment on the premises Thereafter, shortly before December 1, Strip Clean returned to P.S. 228 in order to complete the work under its subcontract As heretofore found, Respondent agreed to cease the picketing on October 10, while awaiting a determination by Judge Travia in the pending 10(1) injunction proceeding instituted by the General Counsel, and an injunction issued thereafter on October 31. C Analysis and Conclusions It is apparent from all the foregoing that the labor dispute herein was between Respondent and Delta and arose over Delta's nonpayment into Respondent's pension and fringe benefit funds of certain claimed deficiencies; and that, although the Board of Education had no labor dispute with Respondent, it became enmeshed in the dispute " 1 have heretofore found, contrary to Beard's testimony, that he did not speak to Francescani from a telephone inside the school building on this occasion, but did so on the occasion of his prior visit to the Iobsite on or about June 30 1fl Although the Board of Education is not an employer within the Act's meaning, it is a person engaged in commerce within the definition of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act and is entitled to the full protection of the Act See Plumbers, Steamfitters, Refrigeration, Petroleum Fitters & Apprentices of Local 298 A F of L ei al v (ounri of Door, a Municipal Corporation, et al , 359 U S 354 299 between Respondent and Delta 16 In the latter connection, I have heretofore found that there were three oral communi- cations from Respondent to the Board of Education to the following effect- (1) on or about June 30, Beard, Respondent's business agent, telephoned Francescani, the chief of the field section in the Bureau of Maintenance of the Board of Education and said, in relevant part, that "[Delta] had not cleared its problems with the union and that if Delta continued to work there [Respondent] would have to picket the school"; (2) later that same day, Blum, the administrative aide to Respondent's secre- tary-treasurer, telephoned Francescani and said, inter alia, that "he had tried to solve the problem with Delta and Delta had not cooperated and that, if Delta continued to work, [Respondent] would picket"; and (3) on either July 17 or 18, Blum telephoned Martin, the director of maintenance and operation of the Board of Education, and said, in relevant part, that "he had given up being able to resolve matters with Delta and that they were going to be forced to picket." As also found herein, there were, in addition, some written communications from Respondent to the Board of Education, namely, three letters dated July 1, and 29 and August 14, respectively, and one telegram dated July 14. An examination of these docu- ments establishes, I find, the following. (1) Respondent's July 1 letter requested that the Board of Education declare Delta a nonresponsible employer," and also notified the Board of Education of "[Respondent's] intent to take neces- sary economic action at any location at which we find this employer working. Specifically we intend to picket the jobsite at P.S. 228 in Brooklyn where we are informed that this company might resume work for your organiza- tion", (2) Respondent's telegram of July 14 stated that Delta was in violation of its contract with Respondent and that the "fob will be picketed," and requested, at the same time, "immediate resumption of Board of Responsi- bility hearing and cancellation of Board of Education con- tract [with Delta] under Article V", (3) Respondent's July 29 letter was in further clarification of the above telegram and said "unfortunately we have not been successful [in resolving our dispute with Delta] and we must insist that there is more than adequate ground for the Board of Review to resume its hearing with a view to cancellation of the contracts of Delta Contracting Corp"; it also stressed the seriousness of its charges and said, in that connection, "we want to avoid any scandals involving execution of painting contracts, both from the point of view of the Union as well as the Board of Education and the City of New York"; and (4) Respondent's letter of August 14 advised the Board of Education that "until Delta pays its obligations under its contract with Respondent in respect to employees' pension, welfare, insurance and annuity bene- fits, [Respondent] will picket any jobs which [Delta] should work on or which any of its subcontractors [including Strip Clean] should be engaged in on Delta's behalf."" " Such a determination would, according to the terms of the contract between the Board of Education and Delta, result in a cancellation of the contract 18 I note that this written communication did not, in haec verba, seek a cancellation by the Board of Education of its contracts with Delta 300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Finally, I have also found that these oral and written communications culminated in picketing by Respondent on September 4 to October 10 at P S 228, with picket signs which referred to Delta as unfair to Respondent because of underpayment to insurance and pension funds The law is clear that Respondent may, under the proviso to Section 8(b)(4)(B), lawfully engage in "a primary strike or primary picketing" against Delta and/or Strip Clean," but it may not, for proscribed objectives , threaten, restrain, or coerce the Board of Education , a neutral to the labor dispute, or induce or encourage the employees of the Board of Education to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services. However, Respondent contends, in effect, in its brief, that the essential elements of a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act have not been established Thus, it asserts that the oral or written communications which were directed to the Board of Education did not constitute acts of coercion or restraint because these communications (1) were in response to the request of the Board of Education that Respondent keep it advised regarding Respondent's intention to picket; (2) were, insofar as they were in writing, in accord with the practice of the Board of Education of requiring complaints to be in writing before it would take action ; and (3) constituted legitimate demands, in its role as a member of the public, that the Board of Education, a governmental organization , enforce the terms of its contract with Delta And it urges further that its picketing was not directed against the Board of Education and, even if so directed, such picketing was in the nature of a primary dispute with the Board of Education, in that, as a member of the public, it was pursuing the legitimate objective of getting the Board of Education, a governmental agency, to enforce a contract that the Board of Education had with Delta , with respect to Delta's violation of New York state law. I am unpersuaded by Respondent 's contentions. The oral and written communications to the Board of Education are to be considered together As such, they constitute pressure upon the Board of Education to take the necessary steps leading to the cancellation of its contract with Delta. The consequence of cancellation would, of course, be the cessation by the Board of Education of doing business with Delta. This pressure to cancel was coupled by Respond- ent with expressions of intention to picket so long as Delta continued working for the Board of Education at P.S. 228 and other jobsites. Although Respondent seeks to import a doctrine akin to waiver into the situation by claiming that its communications were not coercive because they were in response to the request of the Board of Education at the January meeting to be kept advised regarding Respondent 's intention to picket, such argument is unavailing to Respondent because I have found that the record does not support its factual premise that there was such a request . However, even assuming such a request, the Board of Education would have indicated thereby no " The General Counsel conceded that Strip Clean was the ally and/ or was doing the struck work of Delta As such , I find, Strip Clean stands in the same position as Delta vas a vas Respondent in the instant labor dispute more than that it would be better able to cope with an objectionable situation involving picketing of school premis- es, if it was alerted to such situation before the inception of the picketing. It would be straining to the breaking point to hold that the Board of Education would thereby be implying a waiver of its right to protection under 8(b)(4) of the Act 20 And insofar as the Board of Education has a practice, upon being notified that picketing was to occur at a school, to ask for a written communication to that effect from the union involved , and granting that such practice was invoked here, it constituted no more than an effort on the part of the Board of Education to have the notification of the impending objectionable situation formalized in the interest of being able to cope with it better administratively . Further, while it cannot be denied that, in its role as a member of the public , Respondent was within its rights in demanding that the Board of Education, as a governmental organization, enforce the terms of its contract with Delta, it is, of course, also true that Respondent was, at all relevant times, directly involved in the matter which gave rise to its demands upon the Board of Education Indeed , in its letter of July 29 to the Board of Education , the only communication in which it made mention of its role as a public citizen in making its demand upon the Board of Education to cancel its contract with Delta , Respondent indicated that its demand was prompted also by its direct involvement in a labor dispute with Delta. Thus, the letter said, in relevant part, "we want to avoid any scandals involving execution of painting contracts , both from the point view of our Union, as well as the Board of Education and the City of New York." (underscoring supplied). In all these circumstances , I conclude and find, that Respondent made clear to the Board of Education through these written and oral communications that it intended to picket and that an object of such picketing would be to get the Board of Education to cease doing business with Delta because of Respondent's labor dispute with Delta over the claimed violation by the latter of its union contract.21 With respect to Respondent's contentions addressed to the picketing itself, it is true that the picket signs made no mention of the Board of Education and mentioned only Respondent's labor dispute with Delta, and further that the General Counsel concedes , in its brief, that there has been substantial literal compliance with Moore Dry Dock standards" in the picketing that took place at P.S 228. However, these standards are not to be applied on an indiscriminate per se basis but are to be regarded merely _° Such a waiver would, in any event , be against public policy " in this connection , the July 14 telegram, which the July 29 letter was meant to clarify further, read, in relevant part, "As Per Letter July 1, 1969 Delta In Violation Of Union Contract Underpayment To Pension And Insurance Funds Amounting To $22,516 98 Job Will Be Picketed " " The standards set forth in Moore Dry Dock Co, 92 NLRB 547, are, in substance , that the picketing disclosed that the dispute was with the primary employer , that the picketing occurred when the situs of the dispute was located on the premises of the neutral or secondary employer, that the picketing was limited to the situs of the dispute, and that the primary employer was then engaged in its normal business at that situs N Y DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 9 as aids in determining the underlying statutory violation." Here, the picketing does not stand in isolation. It was preceded by the aforementioned communications which sought to involve, and did involve, the Board of Education in Respondent's labor dispute with Delta , and, during these communications, Respondent foretold its intention to picket the school, without restriction or limitation , in the event of the failure to resolve the labor dispute , and clearly indicated the objective, because of such failure , of having the Board of Education cancel its contract with Delta and cease doing business with Delta . It follows therefore that there is no legal substance to Respondent's contention that its picketing was not directed at the Board of Education. Nor can Respondent take legal refuge in its alternative position that, even if its picketing was directed at the Board of Education, such picketing was in the nature of a primary dispute with Board of Education in that, as a member of the public, it was pursuing the legitimate objective of getting the Board of Education , a governmental agency, to enforce a contract that the Board of Education had with Delta, with respect to Delta's violation of New York state law. Thus, assuming without deciding, that picketing for such a purpose is, in the circumstances , primary picketing,24 I cannot find, on this record , that this was the only purpose of the picketing. Thus, the picket signs made no mention that the picketing was for the purpose of eliciting a public response to an alleged failure of the Board of Education to ent _ rce a contract it had with Delta, with respect to Delta's violation of New York state law. Indeed, the only reference thereon was to Respondent's labor dispute with Delta . And I have heretofore found that, in the one instance during Respondent's communica- tions to the Board of Education in which it made mention of its role as a public citizen in making its demand upon the Board of Education to cancel its contract with Delta, Respondent indicated that its demand was also prompted by its own direct involvement in a labor dispute with Delta. Accordingly, as the picketing had as an objective the cessation by the Board of Education to do business with Delta because of Respondent's labor dispute with Delta over its claimed violation by the latter of its union " See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861 and Arneth Lard, its agent, and Plauche Electric Inc, 135 NLRB 250, 255, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No 11, AFL-CIO, et al and L G Electric Contractors Inc, et al., 154 NLRB 766 " NL R B v Building Service Employees, 396 F 2d 131 (C A 1) cited by Respondent, is not diapositive of the issue The cited case involved a petition to hold a union in contempt of the Court's decree enforcing the Board's cease and desist order grounded on 8(b)(4)(B) violations One of the matters alleged in support of contempt was the picketing by the union of the Massachusetts Board of Education at the building housing the Department of Education, in an attempt to prevent the Department from awarding a building-cleaning contract to a nonunion cleaner Although the Court refused to hold the union in contempt for such picketing, it did so because, in its view, the picketing of a state agency which has no customers raised questions substantially different from the union's picketing of private employers which gave rise to the Board order, and this called for initial statutory interpretation by the Board And the Court held further that "this action is intended to be without prejudice to any further Board action to determine whether the Department activity violated Section 8(b)(4) " 301 contract, which is a prohibited objective under the Act, the picketing herein runs afoul of the Act. It follows from all the foregoing, and I conclude, and find, that by its written and oral communications revealing its intention to picket, and by its picketing at P.S. 228, Respondent threatened, coerced, and restrained the Board of Education, where an object thereof was to force or require it to cease doing business with Delta and/or Strip Clean, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act.25 However, I find differently with respect to the allega- tions of the complaint, as amended, that Respondent violated 8(b)(4)(i)(B) by the picketing herein. The record fails to demonstrate that any of the employees of the Board of Education were induced or encouraged by Respondent to engage in a work stoppage.26 And I cannot find, in view of the concession of the General Counsel that the picket signs and the picketing conformed to the standards of Moore Dry Dock, that the necessary effect of the picketing was to induce or encourage any employees of the Board of Education at P S. 228, who may have been exposed thereto, to engage in such stoppage in violation of the Act. Accordingly, I find that the allegations of the com- plaint, as amended, that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) have not been sustained.21 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board of Education is a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act 3. By threatening, restraining, or coercing a person in an industry affecting commerce with an object of forcing him to cease doing business with another person, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B). 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not induced or encouraged employees to engage in a work stoppage in violation of 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 11 See Local 2669, affiliated iiith Sullold Counts Divtnct Council of Carpenters Untied Brotherhood of Carpenters rind Joiners of -1 menu a AFL-CIO (T& D Roofing Co Inc ), 173 NLRB No 188 International Brotherhood of Eler iris al Won,et i Lo( al Union No 11 AFL-CIO (L G Elea tnc ( ontrai tore Inc et al ), vupra , Build,n Se, i u e L niplo i eev International Union, i ocal Vo 105 [Industrial Janitorial Service Inc 151 NLRB 1424 i4 I note that the record also fails to disclose the nature and extent of the employee complement of the Board of Education at P S 228 at the time of the picketing herein All that does appear is that employees of Strip Clean were on the jobsite during the picketing until they stopped work on September 26 at the instance of Strip Clean because Strip Clean was short of funds 37 See Building Service Employees International Union, Local No 105 (Industrial Janitorial Service, Inc ), supra 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies 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, I recommend, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, that Respondent, New York District Council No 9 Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1 Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restrain- ing the Board of Education of New York City, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require the Board of Education of New York City, or any other person, to cease doing business with Delta Contracting Corporation and/or Strip Clean Floor Refinishing & Paint- ing Corp 2 Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its offices and meeting halls copies of the notice marked "Appendix "2$ Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being signed by a representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous 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 (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the said Regional Director for posting by the Board of Education of New York City, Delta Contracting Corpora- tion, and Strip Clean Floor Refinishing & Painting Corp., if they are willing, at locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not found herein. Z° In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 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 Sec 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 Appeails, the words in the notice reading, "Posted by Order of the National 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 these Recommendations are adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the aforesaid 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 WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the Board of Education of New York City, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where an object thereof is to force or require the Board of Education of New York City, or any other person, to cease doing business with Delta Con- tracting Corporation and/or Strip Clean Floor Refinish- ing & Painting Corp. NEW YORK DISTRICT COUNCIL No. 9 BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone 596-3535