Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 178

PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO 178 Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 178 and Springday Company, Division of Dayco Corpora- tion. Case 17-CC-411 September 25, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On June 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Sidney J. Barban issued his decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Union had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs to certain of the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearings 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 the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER 'Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 178, their officers, representatives, and agents, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. The Respondent's exceptions are in part directed to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3) We find insufficient basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings in this case TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 725 SIDNEY J BARBAN, Trial Examiner- This matter was heard at Springfield, Missouri, on March 12, 1970, upon allegations in the complaint issued January 23, 1970 (based upon a charge filed on November 26, 1969, and amended on December 23, 1969)" The complaint alleges that the above-named Respondent (herein the Union), in support of a labor dispute with Broyles Plumbing Company (herein Broyles), established and maintained a picket line at the Springfield, Missouri, facility of the above-named Charging Party (herein Spnngday), at time that Broyles was not engaged in business operations at Springday, coercing per- sons engaged in an industry affecting commerce, and induc- ing individuals employed by Springday and Bramer Con- struction Company ' (herein Bramer) (with which two companies the Union had no dispute) to cease work in the course of their employment, with an object of forcing and requiring Springday and others to cease doing business with Broyles, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii) (B) of the Act The answer to the complaint denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. It is admitted that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and that Springday, which shipped from its Springfield facility to places,outside Missouri goods valued in excess of $50,000 in a recent annual period, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. U )on the entire record in this case, from observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. RELATIONSHIP OF THE COMPANIES Spnngday is engaged in manufacturing operations at its Springfield facility, employing in excess of 1,000 produc- tion and maintenance employees who are represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by the United Rubber Workers, a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. During the period here in question, Spnngday had engaged Bramer to construct an addition to its plant and Bramer was engaged in this project upon the Spnngday premises using employees represented by the Carpenters and the Laborers unions. Springday also engaged Broyles to furnish labor to install a boiler on the plant premises, for which Broyles was to be paid on a time basis. As described hereinafter, Broyles began this work on November 24, but was dismissed from the plant premises before the end of the workday after the Union began picketing at the edge of the plant premises, and the work was thereafter completed by workers employed by Springday. No relation- ship between Broyles and Bramer is shown in the record. ' All dates herein, unless otherwise noted, are in 1969 185 NLRB No. 102 726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ii. GEOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS The Springday plant is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Battlefield Road and Scenic Drive, in an isolated, somewhat "rural" area There is a facility on the northwest corner of that intersection referred to as Horner Box Company. There is also one farmhouse in the vicinity z Other residences, and homes being devel- oped, are some distance away and apparently not in the normal traffic pattern involving the Springday plant. There are no other shops or commercial enterprises in the area The Springday premises has a frontage on Battlefield Road in excess of 1,200 feet (measured by the scale of G.C's Exh. 3). It would appear from one photograph in evidence that the premises may be enclosed, at least in part, by a chain link (or similar construction) fence. The main entrance to the plant, used by the production and maintenance employees, Bramer, Broyles on November 24, and by others visiting the plant, is on Battlefield Road. This is approximately 250 feet from the eastern corner of the premises. The boilerroom in which Broyles was to perform services is set back approximately 360 feet from Battlefield Road. If measured along the line of Battle- field Road, the entrance to the boilerroom from a small paved area immediately in front of the boilerroom (marked with an "x" on G.C.'s Exh. 3) is approximately 540 feet west from the main entrance road and about 420 feet east from the point on Scenic Drive at which Springday maintains an entrance to the plant for its research and development employees. According to the uncontroverted testimony of John McCarty, Jr (herein "McCarty"), the business agent of the Union, Battlefield Road is "fairly heavily traveled" by automobiles.' There are no pedestrian walkways on Battlefield Road at this point and there are no street lights illuminating the area at night. iIi. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Start of the Picketing Broyles began work in the Springday boilerroom about 8 a.m., on November 24. The Broyles truck, apparently distinctively marked, was parked on the paved strip in front of the boilerroom. McCarty states that he caused a picket to be set up at the Springday plant that day about 12 noon, at which time, he asserts, the Broyles truck was parked at the plant. The picket sign, carried by Virgil Ebright, was hand lettered, the name of the Union being in heavy black letters, with the remaining legend considerably smaller in size. The sign reads as follows: i General Counsel has requested that the transcript be corrected by the insertion of the word "farmhouse" after the word "one" on 1 23,, p 126 No opposition has been filed The record is clear that this was the reference in the testimony and accords with my recollection The motion is granted. ' In its brief, the Union contends that it was prejudiced because the Trial Examiner sustained General Counsel's objection to the further question that Battlefield Road "is one of the major traffic headaches in the city right now, isn't it?" However, aside from the fact that the inquiry was cumulative, McCarty was not shown competent to testify to this conclusion LOCAL UNION 178 PLUMBERS AND FITTERS -is protesting the substandard conditions of employ- ment of employees of BROYLES PLBG COMPANY on this job. -is not attempting to organize the employees of said Co. and is not requesting recognition by said Co. -is not attempting to induce any individual employed by any person in the course of his employment not to pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not to perform any services. -is not attempting to induce any person to cease doing business with said company. -does not have a dispute with any other craft or employer on this job. This notice is addressed only to the general public ° The picket at first was observed some 60-70 feet west of the main entrance on Battlefield Road, but, about 1:30 p m., a man was seen directing the picket to walk farther east in the immediate vicinity of the main entrance, where the picket thereafter carved his sign, crossing the entrance road on every second or third turn. Since only McCarty was shown to have control over the picketing, it is inferred that it was he who directed the picket to walk at the main entrance rather than farther west along Battlefield Road Before 2 o'clock that afternoon, Springday engineer Patterson told the two Broyles' employees working in the boilerroom that it had been decided that they should leave the plant at 3 o'clock that day. Patterson testified that the Broyles' workers left about that time. Shortly after 3 p.m., Patterson saw a Broyles' truck on Battlefield Road with two men driving west along Battlefield Road. McCarty testified that "in the neighborhood of 3 o'clock" he saw the truck moved inside the plant. He further asserted that he did not see the truck leave the plant, or see the truck at all thereafter. In fact, McCarty testified that he had no knowledge that Broyles' men "had ever left the project." This is difficult to believe. The evidence is convincing that Broyles' employees left the Springday plant about 3 p.m It is inferred therefore that the Broyles' truck passing the plant at that time was the truck which had just previously been on the Springday premises. McCar- ty must have seen it, unless he had left before that time, which is not necessarily inconsistent with his specific testi- mony (although the impression was that he had remained). His uncertainty as to when picketing ceased that afternoon also might indicate that he left before the cessation of the afternoon picket activity. In any event, the Union must be charged with the knowledge of Ebright, the picket, who had been placed there to serve the Union's purposes I find that Ebright who was unquestionably there at the time, saw the truck and Broyles' two employees leave ' The Union sought to prove that at the time the picket was set up, McCarty was aware of the working conditions of Broyles' employees through conversations with Horace Pittman who had worked for Broyles approximately 7 months previous , and from others unnamed General Counsel argues that this evidence is not entitled to credence or weight It is considered unnecessary to resolve this issue in order to decide this matter, as set forth hereinafter PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO 178 the plant about 3 p.m., that afternoon.' McCarty, as his "best judgment," said that the picket left that afternoon about 4.45 p.m. Springday's Attempts to Contact the Union Richard Kortjohn, personnel manager for Springday, sent the following telegrams to McCarty, addressed to his home and to his office, about 5 30 p.m., on November 24: We protest the picket by your union at the Springday plant Your picketing was conducted while Broyles Plumbing Co was not on the premises We have estab- lished an entrance to be used exclusively by Broyles Plumbing Co and we demand that you cease picketing our main entrance on Battlefield Road At the time these telegrams were sent, Kortjohn stated he did not know exactly which gate would be reserved for Broyles However, he was advised shortly thereafter that Broyles would use the Scenic Drive gate normally used by the 75 research and development employees Broyles was notified that evening to use only the Scenic Drive entrance when arriving for work the next morning. McCarty testified that he received these telegrams (or one of them) at his office at 10 a m., the next morning He stated that he did not remove the picket, which was again at the Springday premises that morning, because he "had no knowledge as to whether the truck and the men had ever left the project or not."6 As considered in more detail below, McCarty, his son Larry McCarty, and James R. Mills an executive board member of the Union, also picketed the Springday premises on the evening of November 24. Kortjohn, who apparently was unaware that McCarty was on the picket line, called his home that evening about 11 p.m., and asked for him. Kortjohn told Mrs. McCarty (who identified herself) that the pickets were back, that he had reports of employee difficulty in getting into the parking lot on plant premises and asked if there were any way that she could "get word" to her husband, or that Kortjohn could talk to him, to which she replied, "No, I don't know where he is or what time he will be back " At this point, Kortjohn complained to Mrs McCarty that McCarty had put up the picket even though Broyles was not then on the premises, to which she answered that McCarty would not do this. The following morning, notwithstanding the establishment of a separate gate for Broyles, as described hereinafter, Springday notified Broyles not to return to the plant until further advised Broyles did not return to the plant on November 25. When picketing continued in the vicinity of the main gate, Kortjohn, about noon, called McCarty's office, at which time his secretary told Kortjohn that McCar- ' The Union stated at the hearing that Ebright had been subpenaed, but was unable to come to the hearing to testify because of illness. Though advised that the Trial Examiner would consider a continuance in order that his testimony might be secured , the Union did not request this action ' The Union claims in its brief that it was prejudiced by the Trial Examiner's ruling striking McCarty's testimony concerning trucks McCar- ty said he knew had been hidden on other projects This is rejected. The Trial Examiner considers McCarty's problems on other projects, if any, too remote to open them up for litigation in this matter 727 ty was out of the office, and that she did not know where he was, or when he would be back. Kortjohn then told the secretary that Broyles was not working at the plant, but the picketing continued at the main employees' entrance, and asked that she locate McCarty and inform him. She said she would try. That afternoon, Kortjohn sent an identically worded telegram and a letter to McCarty confirming that Broyles was not on Springday premises, asserting that the picketing was interfering with deliveries and services, and stating that unfair labor practice charges were being filed McCarthy testified that he received these communications the next day, November 26, by which time the picket had been removed. The Union contends that Springday was also responsible for communications between Bramer and McCarty on November 25, which will be discussed below in connection with the picketing activities of that day. Picketing During the Evening , November 24 About 8 o'clock on the evening of the 24th, McCarty, Larry McCarty, and James Mills began carrying the picket sign previously described, in the vicinity of the main entrance to the Springday premises It was dark, and a number of persons coming into the plant stopped their cars and asked the pickets what the cause of the activity was.' Richard L. Pittman (herein Pittman), who works on the 11-7 shift, testified that when he stopped his car right at the main employees' entrance on Battlefield Road that evening, a picket detached himself from a group of men standing on the corner of the drive and walked up to Pittman's car. Pittman testified that "I asked him what had happened, and he said that the Company had employed nonunion help to come in and do work, and if I remember right, he said something about pipefitters or plumbers, I can't recall on dust that, and later on he stated if I was union not to cross the line, and if I was otherwise go ahead, and I stated well, I was a supervisor, I was going ahead." McCarty, Larry McCarty, and Mills, though they could not identify Pittman, each testified substantially that they told questioners that night that the sign was an informational banner and that they were protesting substandard wages and conditions paid by Broyles. Each denied telling any of the questioners that evening that they should not cross the picket line if they were union The testimony of Pittman as to this incident is credited. His testimony was brief, straightforward, and gave the appearance of veracity. It is also consistent with other evidence in the record which, as discussed hereinafter, is convincing that the Union's picketing appeal was directed to those persons using Spnngday' s main entrance, and particularly Springday's employees, rather than an unidenti- fied "general public," as the Union seems to contend. ' Spnngday works three shifts, from 7 a in to 3 p in to 11 p in , and 11 p in to 7 am The evidence indicates that McCarty was aware of the shift changes 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD About 11:30 that evening, after the shift change, the three men departed and the picketing ceased that evening 9 Picketing During November 25 About 5 a in, November 25, Spnngday posted signs at the Battlefield Road entrance, and at the Scenic Drive entrance to the plant. These were handlettered. The sign at the Battlefield Road entrance, which was on a pole stuck into the ground on the east side of the entrance, facing so that it could be seen by a person walking in an easterly direction toward, or standing at the entranceway, read as follows: NOTICE This Entrance is not to be used by Employees of Broyles Plumbing Co. Broyles Plumbing Co. Employees are to use Entrance on Scenic Dr THE SPRINGDAY PLANT The sign at the Scenic Drive entrance was likewise on a pole stuck into the ground. It restricted that gate to Broyles and Spnngday research and development employees, and advised all others to use other gates. About 6 o'clock that morning, Ebright began picketing again at the main entrance to the plant on Battlefield Road. There was no picketing at the Scenic Drive entrance Early that same morning, Paul A. Bramer, Jr, an officer of Bramer Construction Company, called McCarty at his office but was unable to reach him. McCarty called Bramer back about 11 a.m Bramer related the conversation as follows: "I told Mr. McCarty that I understand there was a problem at Springday because of a Plumbers picket that was on the premises, and Mr. McCarty said that there was a picket at the Springday location because there was a nonunion plumbing contractor performing work in the building I told him that this plumbing contractor was not a subcontractor of ours, he was not employed by us, and that I was interested in getting the picket off so that our people would return to work and we could ' There is a possible intimation in the Union's brief that this cessation of picketing was connected with Kortjohn's earlier call to Mrs McCarty ("At 11 p in Kortjohn called McCarty's wife at home and told her that Broyles employees were not present at Springday The picketing was stopped at 11 30 p in " This has been considered and is found to be without support in the record Mrs McCarty stated that she did not know where her husband was or how to get in touch with him There is no evidence that she did send McCarty a message at the picket line Telephoning would appear out of the question at that place and time McCarty, further, throughout the hearing denied any knowledge that Broyles' truck or men had ever left Springday's premises complete our contract, and Mr McCarty said that the picket would remain on the premises as long as the nonunion plumbing contractor was there. I asked him what it would take to get the picket off, and he said that if Springday would get rid of the nonunion plumbing contractor and give the work to his people, that he would take the picket off in a minute. . He further said that he wanted someone with authority from Springday to call him and tell him that this would be carried out, and I told him that I would pass the information on to Springday."' Bramer testified on cross-examination that his reason for calling McCarty was "Because I was interested in getting the picket off the job so that we could continue with our work " There is no other evidence in the record as to the effect of the picketing upon Bramer's operation at Springday At approximately 2 to 2 30 p.m., Bramer states that McCarty called him back to advise that no one from Springday had contracted him, "and he said the picket would stay on there until they did and that was it." McCarty's account of these conversations, in pertinent part, is as follows. "Mr Bramer asked me what the picketing was about at the Springday plant, . . . and I dust told him it was an informational picket banner . . Well, he says, "You know I have a job out there and I am in the process of being able to collect some money off that and I need it . I says, You have known me for a number of years and you know that I don't want to hurt anybody ' I says, `If there is some solution that can be worked out, I will be glad to take and work that out.' " McCarty further testified that Bramer told him that Kortjohn had contacted him because it was thought that Bramer could get the picket line removed McCarty stated Bramer then asked, "What would it take?. . . I need to complete my job," to which McCarty replied, "Well, I like to see things straightened up." Bramer then said, according to McCarty, that he would see what he could do, and in a later telephone conversation he told McCarty that the had been in contact with Springday and that McCarty would be getting a telephone call. McCar- ty asserted that he received no telephone call and had no meeting with Springday. The Union argues that Bramer should be discredited because, it is asserted, he made the call to McCarty and testified under pressure from Springday, and was not clear in his description of the circumstances of the calls, while, it is urged, McCarty was "quite specific and clear" in his testimony about these conversations, and because his version was consistent with the Union's position that it was engaged in informational picketing only, protesting Broyles' substandard conditions. However, it did not appear to me that Bramer testified "under stress" as the Union claims, but on the contrary, he made a favorable impression, giving a credible account ' Although the objection was not made at the time that the testimony was taken, the Union argues in its brief that both Bramer's testimony and that of Pittman referred to above should be disregarded because not alleged in the complaint However, it is not required that General Counsel allege his evidence in the complaint, and, in any event, these matters were thoroughly litigated at the hearing and may properly be decided here PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 178 of the conversations with McCarty.10 McCarty testified under a handicap, because of a hearing problem, but rather than being clear and specific, as claimed, I found the conversations, as he related them, to be vague and evasive. Moreover, I am convinced, from the record as a whole, that it was not McCarty's intent, as the Union asserts, to engage only in "informational" activity and avoid enmesh- ing others in the dispute with Broyles, but that his true purpose was that stated to Bramer. At the outset, notwithstanding McCarty's testimony that the picket sign was "carried as close to the boilerroom where, to our knowledge, [the] work was being performed as we could carry it," the evidence is that McCarty directed the picket to an area to the east, closer to the main entrance to Springday, rather than somewhat farther to the west, where he would have been closer to the boilerroom, in front of which the Broyles truck was parked at the time. I also find it difficult to believe that McCarty did not know or was not made aware that the Broyles truck left the Springday premises about 3 p.m. on the 24th. It is further quite clear that McCarty did not return to the Springday plant at 8 p.m. on the evening fo the 24th to engage in publicity picketing addressed to the general public. The area was dark, without any street illumination, and with no pedestrian traffic which might be interested in reading the relatively small lettering on the sign. It was manifestly not addressed to the automotive traffic passing by. The picketing that evening was obviously direct- ed to those who might use the main entrance of the plant that evening, and in particular the Springday employees coming in on the 11 p.m. shift. After that change of shift the pickets disbanded and left the premises. The fact that these activities were designed to induce a cessation of work among Springday employees is further confirmed by the testimony of Richard Pittman that he was asked by the picket not to cross the line if he were union McCarty testified that about 4 p.m. on the 25th he ordered that the picket be removed because he thought that the public had been well informed as to the picket by "publicity through the news media, et cetera." Counsel for the Union in a letter to counsel for Springday, dated November 26, stated to be in response to the correspondence of Kortjohn to the Union, asserted that "the picket has been withdrawn" in reliance "on your statement that there are no employees of Broyles Plumbing Co. at work at this time." Conclusions From the above, it is clear that the Union's picketing activity was conducted in such a manner, and at times and places, that would induce and encourage employees of Spnngday and Bramer, as well as others using Sprinday's main entrance, to cease work and to refuse to perform services in the course of their employment, and thereby 10 I have carefully considered the Union's arguments concerning the circumstances of Bramer's call to McCarty, and find, in accordance with Bramer's testimony, that he called McCarty, before speaking to Spnngday, and had not been advised that Springdgy wanted him to call McCarty to get the picket line removed, but did so because he wished to have the picket removed in aid of his own operations 729 to threaten, coerce, and restrain Springday, in order that Springday would be forced and required to cease doing business with Broyles As the record shows, the Union's tactics indeed succeeded in disrupting the business relation- ship between Springday and Broyles The union contends that these were not its objectives, pointing particularly to the words on its picket sign . Howev- er, the Union's conduct rendered the disavowals on the sign rather sterile Instead of avoiding the enmeshment of neutral parties and picketing only Broyles, the Union deliberately picketed as close as possible to the main entrance used by Springday employees and others, rather than close to the area where the Union admittedly knew the work was being done. The Union further picketed in the evening of the 24th at a time and under circumstances deliberately designed to encourage and induce Springday employees coming in on the 11-7 shift to cease work. This is confirmed by Pittman, who testified to a direct appeal from the picket not to go in to work. The objective of the Union is revealed by the testimony of Bramer that McCarty asserted that the picket would be removed if "Spnngday would get rid of the nonunion plumbing contractor and give the work to his people." The parties have extensively argued whether the Union's purpose in picketing Springday was further evidenced by the fact that a considerable part of the picketing took place when Broyles was not on the plant premises (the Union asserts that it was unaware that he had left), and that the picketing on the 25th continued at the main entrance although the posted sign forbade Broyles to use the entrance (the Union claims that it was not informed which entrance has been assigned to Broyles). While these factors tend to confirm the findings and conclusions previ- ously stated, that the Union deliberately sought by its picket activity to put pressure on Springday in order to force Springday to get rid of Broyles, those findings and conclusions were reached upon the record as a whole, which clearly supports those findings and conclusions quite independently of the fact that the Union picketed Spring- day's premises while Broyles was not on the premises, and continued to picket the main gate after it was posted against use by Broyles. On the basis of the above and the record as a whole, it is found and concluded that the Union, Respondent herein, by its picketing activities at the Spnngday plant on November 24 and 25, engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Springday is and at all material times has been an employer engaged in commerce withing the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2. The Union and United Rubber Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Springday and Bramer to engage in -refusals in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring Springday to cease doing business with Broyles, and thereby threatening , coercing, 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and restraining Springday with the object aforesaid, the Union, Respondent herein, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, which unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that'the Union , Respondent herein, has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondent Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 178, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from. (a) Inducing or encouraging, by picketing or any other means, any individual employed by a person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce (other than Broyles Plumbing Company), to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to perform services, where an object there of is to force or require Springday Company, Division of Dayco Corporation, or any other person to cease doing business with Broyles Plumbing Company. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Springday Com- pany, Division of Dayco Corporation or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce (other than Broyles Plumbing Company), where an object thereof is to force or require Springday Company, Division of Dayco Corporation, or any other person to cease doing business with Broyles Plumbing Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and main- tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall " 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 Appeals, 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 " be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 17 sufficient copies of said notice, to be furnished by him for posting by Springday Company, Division of Dayco Corporation, and Bramer Construction Company, if they are willing, at places where said notice will come to the attention of their employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations in the complaint that the Union, Respondent herein, engaged in conduct designed to force or require Bramer Construction company to cease doing business with Broyles Plumbing Company be dismissed " In the event that Respondent has not so notified the Regional Director prior thereto, upon adoption of this recommended order by the Board, Respondent shall be required, as part of the Order of the Board, to notify the Regional Director within 10 days after the action of the Board, what steps it has taken to comply with the Order of the Board APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage, by picketing or any other means, any individual employed by persons subject to the National Labor Relations Act (other than Broyles Plumbing company) to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Spnngday Company, Division of Dayco Corporation or any other person to cease doing business with Broyles Plumbing Company. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Springday Company, Division of Dayco Corporation, or any other person subject to the National Labor Relations Act (other than Broyles Plumbing Company), where an object thereof is to force or require SPRINGDAY COMPANY, DIVISION OF DAYCO CORPORA- TION, or any other person to cease doing business with Broyles Plumbing Company. PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION No. 178 (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. PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO 178 731 Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Mis- its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 610 souri, 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.