Local 307, Plumbers

652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 307, Plumbers-United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (AFL-CIO); Local 697, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Northwestern Indiana Build- ing and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO and Meyer Plumbing, Inc. Cases 13-CC-668, 13-CC-669, and 13-CC-670 December 31, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND BROWN On June 5, 1970, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and Counsel for the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations I of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondents, Local 307, Plumb- ers-United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (AFL-CIO); Local 697, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; and Northwestern Indiana Building and Construction i In adopting the Trial Examiner's findings, we rely only on his conclusions that the record as a whole establishes that the Respondents' picketing was in support of direct appeals to Vail , the neutral general contractor, to cease doing business with Meyer as the plumbing subcontractor on the construction site Specifically, the facts show that the Trades Council, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. MEMBER BROWN, dissenting: Unlike my colleagues, I can find no basis for concluding that the Respondents herein picketed for an illegal secondary object of compelling Vail, the neutral general contractor, to cease doing business with Meyer Plumbing. There is, in fact, no evidence to indicate that the objective was other than that stated on the picket signs and the circular distributed by the pickets-i.e., to publicize the fact that Meyer did not conform to area standards and to secure the payment of the going rate and benefits-and the Trial Examiner relies on inferences and conclusions not justified by his findings. While the incidents noted by my colleagues in their footnote I did occur, a reading of the Trial Examiner's Decision reveals that they have been taken out of context and do not support the finding for which they are utilized. It is apparent that Plumbers Local 307 was engaged in area standards picketing, and the Trial Examiner so concluded in the third paragraph of part IV of his decision. That Respondent knew that Meyer did not and probably would not meet the area standards is clear. But, there is no support for the further conclusion in the same paragraph that the main objective (or even an object) was to have Meyer removed from the job. While Boyd, the general contractor's official, was told that Meyer was "unfair," this term was defined at all times as a firm not meeting the current wages and other benefits in the area and never as one not under contract with the Union. Furthermore, at all times Boyd was told that the way to have the pickets removed was for Meyer to pay the area rates or for Boyd to get proof that Meyer was paying the prevailing wage. It was only in response to Boyd's inquiry as to whether, if Meyer were not on the job, he (Boyd) would have any problems that the Union stated that if Meyer were not on thejob there would be no reason for picketing. But, such a response is obviously true whatever the object of the picketing might be. And, undoubtedly any other response would be construed by my colleagues (and I would be inclined to agree) as indicating that the protest was directed to someone other than Meyer. Thus, saying that if Meyer were removed there would be no reason for picketing, and ceasing to picket upon advice that Meyer was no longer on the site, are meaningless in any efforts to determine whether some underlying purpose existed. Further- Respondents told Vail's official, Boyd, that Meyer was " unfair" , offered him a list of "fair" plumbing contractors, asked Boyd whether he would cancel his contract with Meyer and give it to a "fair" plumbing firm, and indicated that if Meyer were replaced the pickets would be removed 187 NLRB No, 94 LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS 653 more, all discussions with the general contractor and other neutrals concerning removal of the pickets were at the neutrals' instigation and not upon request of the Respondents, and the offer of a list of "fair" employers which was made, was withdrawn as soon as Boyd stated that Meyer's bid had been low and certain of the "fair" employers had submitted bids that were much higher Finally, there is no evidence that any of the pickets directed any comments or sought in any way to induce neutral employees not to cross their picket line Nor is there any basis for concluding that in fact any union representative talked to Hobbs, the electrical subcontractor, the testimony is that Hobbs told Boyd that either three union representatives had been to see him or that one had visited him on three occasions, which indefinite testimony the Trial Examiner admitted for only a limited purpose This leaves only the single inquiry whether Boyd would replace Meyer, and this standing alone is insufficient to warrant finding the unlawful object in this case The Trial Examiner's finding that the picketing was for the purpose of inducing members of other labor organizations to honor the picket line is set forth in his footnote 5-clearly it is based on the mere fact of the picketing itself To adopt such a conclusion would mean that every instance of common situs picketing necessarily includes the unlawful objective of appeal- ing to neutral employees to honor the picket line and to refrain from performing their duties for their own employer Such a holding would be in direct conflict with the holding of Moore Dry Dock2 that common situs picketing may be lawful if it conforms to the standards there set forth in the absence of evidence which indicates some other prohibited object No such evidence exists here Accordingly, I would dismiss the complaint in its entirety 2 Sailors Union of the Pacific A FL (Moore Dry Dock Company) 92 NLRB 547 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE F FREY, Trial Examiner The issues in this case, which was heard before me at Chicago, Illinois, on February 19, 1970, with all parties appearing by counsel, are whether the above-named Respondents herein desig- nated in order as Plumbers 307, Electrical Workers 697, and the Council, picketed ajobsite of Vail Rubber Products Corporation (herein called Vail) in furtherance of a dispute of Plumbers 307 with Meyer Plumbing, Inc (herein called Meyer) and thereby induced employees of Hobbs Concrete Construction Company, Inc (herein called Hobbs) and other employers to strike or refuse to perform services for their employers, and threatened and coerced Vail, Hobbs, anu other employers, all with the object of forcing and requiring Vail and other persons to cease dealing in the products of or doing business with Meyer, and to do business only with an employer employing members of Respondents, so that Plumbers 307 thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U S C Sec 151, et seq (herein called the Act), and all Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act The issues arose on a complaint consolidating the above cases and issued December 30, 1969, by General Counsel of the Board through the Board's Regional Director for Region 13,i and answer of Respondents which, as amended, admitted jurisdiction but denied the commis- sion of any unfair labor practices At close of the trial all parties waived oral argument, but written briefs filed by General Counsel and Respondents have been carefully considered by me in preparation of this Decision Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor on the stand, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE EMPLOYERS AND THEIR BUSINESSES Meyer is an Indiana corporation engaged in residential and commercial plumbing and heating installation work in Hammond and other cities in Indiana During 1969, Meyer had a direct inflow of materials and products valued in excess of $50,000 Vail is an Indiana corporation engaged in warehousing industrial rubber products in Hammond, Indiana, and Hobbs is an employer engaged in the concrete construction business in Hammond and other cities in Indiana Respondents admit, and I find, that Meyer, Vail, and Hobbs are each employers within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEIR AGENTS Each of Respondents is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and George B McCarthy, as business agent, is and has been an agent of Plumbers 307, Harold P Hagberg as business manager, Harold C (Cy) Mendelsohn as assistant business manager, and Robert Schumann as assistant business manager, are and have been agents of Electrical Workers 697, and Sam F Spitale, as president, is and has been an agent of the Council within the meaning of Section 8(b) and 2(13) of the Act Plumbers 307 and Electrical Workers 697 are members of the Council III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On October 13 or 14, 1969, Vail began construction of a warehouse facility in Hammond, Indiana (herein called the i The complaint issued after Board investigation of various charges filed in the three cases by Meyer on November 10 and 14 1969 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD jobsite) On September 26, 1969, it engaged Meyer as the jobsite from October 23, 1969, through December 9, subcontractor for installation of plumbing fixtures at the jobsite, and on October 1 engaged Hobbs as subcontractor for installation of concrete flooring and awarded the electrical work to A & W Electrical Service Inc (herein called A & W) At all times material herein Plumbers 307 has had a labor dispute with Meyer, but none with Vail, Hobbs, or A & W Hobb's employees began concrete work and Meyer began plumbing work at the jobsite on October 14 1969 On October 22, Sam F Spitale, president of the Council, called William A Boyd, president of Vail, and learned from him that Vail was the owner and general contractor at the jobsite He reminded Boyd that all work done on buildings in that area was done by members of the building trades unions, and he hoped that would continue On further questioning he learned that Vail subcontracted the concrete work to Hobbs and electrical work to A & W He commented that both concerns were `fair contractors" When Boyd told him Meyer had been awarded the plumbing contract because he had the lowest price Spitale said Meyer was "not a fair contractor in the area Boyd asked what that meant, and Spitale said a "fair contractor" meant someone who "was fair with us " and who paid the prevailing wages established in the area ', he commented that Meyer did not pay those wages, but employed "foreigners" and "exploited" them by paying them only about $4 an hour 2 Boyd replied he did not know about that, and that his only responsibility was to put up a building for Vail at the lowest competitive cost, and he did not know who was "fair" with Spitale and who was not Spitale asked who was doing the carpentry, painting, heating, and air-conditioning work on the job Boyd said those contracts had not yet been awarded Spitale said he would have the business agents of the unions give him a list of "fair" contractors in the area in these trades, including the plumbing trade Boyd said he had no objection to that Spitale said there would be a meeting of the Council that night where the matter of the plumbing contractor was sure to come up, and asked if Boyd would be interested in hearing the results of the meeting Boyd said he would be Spitale said Boyd would hear from him On or about October 21, Business Agent McCarthy of Plumbers 307 noticed a Meyers truck with two workmen on the jobsite, when he was checking working conditions at another, unionized building project across the street from the Vail jobsite He decided to picket the Vail jobsite, so called union counsel and secured approval for use of picket signs and handbills which Plumbers 307 had used previously in its dispute with Meyer Plumbers 307 picketed 2 As Spitale explained to Boyd at the November 5 meeting discussed below and McCarthy admitted in testimony the prevailing wage was the union wages (and working conditions ) established in the area by negotiations between the building trades unions and contractors In this period the basic union scale for plumbers was $6 30 an hour S Both Spitale and McCarthy in testimony defined a fair plumber or fair contractor as an employer who paid the prevailing wage and observed the prevailing working conditions in their area and a union plumber or contractor is one who agrees with the union to pay such wages and observe such working conditions t I find the above facts from stipulated facts and credible testimony of Boyd as corroborated in part by admissions of Spitale and McCarthy I do 1969, using a picket sign which read as follows MEYERS PLUMBING -INC - FAILS TO MEET PREVAILING WAGES & CONDITIONS THIS NOTICE is addressed only to the Public It is not addressed to any employers or employees, nor is anyone asked to cease doing business with anyone Please read handbill which spells out purposes of patrolling PLUMBERS UNION 307 AFL-CIO While picketing that Respondent distributed a handbill, copy of which is attached hereto as "Appendix D " When the picketing started, employees of Hobbs were the only craftsmen working at thejobsite Late on the afternoon of the 23rd, Spitale called Boyd, told him that the matter of the plumbers had come up at the Council meeting, and "the men were very angry " Boyd replied that was evident, as there was a picket line on the job Spitale said he would have McCarthy call Boyd the next day to give him a list of "fair plumbers " On the morning of the 24th, McCarthy called Boyd, saying he did so at the request of Spitale, and that he had a list of "fair" plumbers 3 Boyd named four plumbing contractors besides Meyers, and asked if they were "fair" plumbers McCarthy said they were Boyd said he had received bids from them which were 2 or 2-1/2 times larger than Meyer's bid He asked McCarthy what he meant by a "fair" plumber, and McCarthy replied "fair with us" After Boyd explained the other bids, McCarthy replied "there is no sense in sending you the list then "4 On the afternoon of October 23, Boyd was advised by Hobbs that union business agents had visited the jobsite, and that he would have to stop work as soon as his men finished unloading a concrete truck on the site When that was finished, Hobbs' men stopped work, and apparently did not resume work during the picketing 5 On or before November 4, Stephen Lloyd, an officer of A & W, asked Boyd if he had any objection if Lloyd called not credit testimony of the two union agents at variance therewith because both were confused and McCarthy gave self contradictory testimony about the dates of their talks with Boyd The inference that McCarthy must have started his economic action at the jobsite on or after October 21 but not earlier is also compelled by his patent inability to explain why he waited over a week after his claimed observation of the Meyer truck at the site before starting his picketing For the same reason as well as Spitale s argumentative attempt to place his talks with Boyd about October 14 I do not credit Spitale s placement of the talks with Boyd on that date nor his claim that Boyd said the plumbing contract had not been let or that Boyd of his own accord asked for a list of fair contractors I find these facts from uncontradicted testimony of Boyd Since LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS 655 Electrical Workers 697 to find out if the picketing problem could be solved, because A & W was unable to work while the picketing continued .6 Boyd said he had no objection. On Tuesday morning, November 4, Lloyd called Mendel- sohn at the office of Electrical Workers 697 to seek his assistance in solving the picketing problem, indicating that Boyd was agreeable to a meeting with Spitale and McCarthy. Mendelsohn telephoned Boyd, saying he understood Boyd had a problem on the jobsite, and asked Boyd to outline it. Boyd told him of the picketing by the Plumbers, after he had given the plumbing work to Meyer, the low bidder, and that A & W was his electrical subcontractor. Mendelsohn said he would discuss the problem with agents of the various unions meeting that morning, to try to find a solution to the problem. At close of a council meeting held that morning, Mendelsohn told Spitale about the picketing, and said Lloyd would like them to meet with Boyd, and requested Spitale to set up a meeting of himself, Mendelsohn, and McCarthy with Boyd. McCarthy agreed, so he, Spitale, and Mendelsohn went to Boyd's office about 1 p.m., after a preliminary call to set up a meeting. Boyd did not show up due to other business, but called Mendelsohn later, apologized for his absence, and then arranged to meet with the three agents the next day at the office of Electrical Workers 6.97. Boyd met with the three agents above on the afternoon of November 5; Schumann and Hagberg of Electrical Workers 697 and a Mr. Wilson of the Carpenters' Union were also present. At the outset, Boyd outlined Vail's business and the purpose of its new Hammond building in answer to questions of Hagberg, and explained that his added job of acting as general contractor for it was new to him. He then mentioned that Meyer had the plumbing contract, and referred to the picketing at the jobsite and the problem it presented. Spitale told Boyd that members of the unions represented at the meeting would not work with Meyer plumbers, because he did not pay the prevailing wage in the area, and his plumbers did not have skill acquired by men who went through the apprentice program of the Plumbers Union. Boyd replied that if he was obligated to use only subcontractors whose employees were members of their various unions, this jobsite had been known to contractors in Illinois and Indiana as far back as June, when Vail had solicited bids for the various jobs, so it was the responsibility of Spitale to give him in June a list of those contractors whose employees would work with each other, so that Boyd could have made a choice, but it was now November. Hagberg asked if Boyd knew whether or not Meyer was "a member of the Plumbers Union." Boyd said he did not know that, any more than about any other contractors on the job, he only asked each if he was licensed to operate in Hammond. Boyd then asked what could be done about the problem of the pickets, asking "if Meyer was not on the job, would I have any problems?" Spitale referred this to McCarthy who replied that if Meyer were not on the job, there would be no reason for picketing. There was some discussion of the union apprentice programs and prevailing wages for this job. Boyd asked what "prevailing wages" were, and Spitale indicated they were the union wages and working conditions established in the area by negotiations between the craft unions and contractors, so that contractors would be in a position to bid jobs "on a fair and honest basis," and area workmen could make a decent living. Spitale said Meyer hired "foreigners" and workers not familiar with the prevailing wages in the area, and paid them only $4 an hour, and that they did not understand that if they were journeymen plumbers they could get more money if they requested the prevailing wage. Boyd asked if the pickets would be removed if Meyer paid the prevailing wage, and McCarthy replied that if it was proven to him that Meyer paid it, he would remove the pickets. Hagberg then asked Boyd if he would be willing to cancel the Meyer contract and give the balance of that work to a "fair" plumber. Boyd replied that this was not a "fair" question, that there must be some other alternative. Hagberg asked McCarthy if he knew of any other solution. McCarthy replied he could not think of any, other than to cancel the contract and give it to a "fair" plumber. Boyd commented that he had received bids from some contrac- tors he assumed were "fair," but their bids were more than 2 or 2-1/2 times larger than that of Meyer. McCarthy commented that Meyer's bid was too low. Spitale asked Boyd if he would object to placing the remaining subcontractors with "members of the Building Trades." Boyd replied that if Spitale would give him a list of those members, he would send them specifications for bids, and if they were competitive, he would not hesitate to place contracts with them. At this point, the union agents held a private caucus, after which Spitale told Boyd that McCarthy had indicated that the way to remove the pickets was to get proof that Meyer was paying the prevailing wage, and that the only solution was to cancel the Meyer contract and give the balance of the work to a "fair" plumber. Boyd replied that he did not think this was a fair solution, any more than it would be fair to cancel the contracts of all union contractors and give them to nonunion contractors. At the request of Spitale, McCarthy showed Boyd a list of "fair" plumbers. Boyd looked it over, recognized some contractors on it as having submitted bids, so he told the agents who they were and the amount of their bids, and also stated that several on the list had refused to bid. McCarthy and Hagberg then left the room, and Spitale told Boyd an impasse had been reached, and suggested that he go home and "sleep on it," and check with Meyer about proof of payment of the prevailing wage, and give McCarthy the information. Boyd suggested that McCarthy should also "sleep on it" and maybe Spitale could prevail on him to remove the pickets. Spitale said he would call Boyd in a few days about it. On the way out of the meeting, Boyd met Mendelsohn, told him about the discussion, and suggested it would be better for him to call McCarthy. Mendelsohn Spitale had advised Boyd on October 22 that Hobbs was a "fair" or union contractor, it is a fair inference that his employees refused to cross the picket line of Plumbers 307 as soon as it was set up. It is a well-known fact of industrial life, recognized by the courts, that one of the main purposes and usual effect of a picket line set up by one labor organization is to induce members of other labor organizations to honor it by not crossing it, which in most instances results in a refusal of members of the latter unions to work for their employers behind the picket line. See I.B.E. W. Local 501 v. N.L.R.R., 341 U.S. 694,703,704; U.M.W. District 12 (Truax-Traer Coal Co., Inc.), 177 NLRB No. 27. 6 1 infer that A & W was a "fair" or union contractor with union employees, from Spitale's remarks about him to Boyd as found above. 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD said he would. About 4 days later, Spitale called Boyd to find out what had happened, and Boyd replied that no progress had been made, that he had not called McCarthy, but had gone to see the National Labor Relations Board.7 On December 9, 1969, after a hearing in the local United States District Court in which General Counsel of the Board failed to secure a preliminary injunction on a petition against Respondents under Section 100) of the Act, Boyd sent telegrams to Respondents advising them that as of December 3, Meyer no longer had a contract at the jobsite. Upon receipt of the telegram Plumbers 307 removed the picket line the same day. Boyd had begun negotiations with another plumbing contractor on Decem- ber 3, but did not sign a contract with him until January 3, 1970. IV. ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES, AND FINAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS THEREON General Counsel argues in the main that the picketing by Plumbers 307 and the actions of all Respondents at the November 5 meeting amounted to unlawful pressure on neutral employers, obviously Vail, with the illegal object of forcing Vail to cease doing business with Meyer, a primary employer with whom Plumbers 307 had a labor dispute. Respondents reply that the picketing of Plumbers 307 was at all times legal "area standards" picketing designed solely to publicize Meyer's continued failure to meet area standards in wages and working conditions, in terms previously approved by the Board in two cases involving this Respondent, one of them also involving Meyer." Respondents also rely on a complete absence of actual coercion of employees of neutral employers at the jobsite, and an alleged absence of any action or remarks by any of Respondents on November 5 or any other time indicating a desire to eliminate Meyer from the jobsite, or which might be construed to convert legal "area standards" picketing into illegal conduct later. If I accept the premise, as General Counsel seems to, that the picket signs and handbills were a mechanical indication of legal "area standards" picketing, it is settled that this is only one circumstance to be considered, and that the legality or illegality of the picketing and its object must be found from consideration of the existence (or absence) of prior and later facts and circumstances .9 Various actions r The facts as to the November 5 conference are found from a composite of credible testimony of Boyd, Spttale, McCarthy, Mendelsohn, and Hagberg I do not credit the formal denials by the union agents of any mention of cancellation of the Meyer contract, because of Spitale's and McCarthy's admission that if Meyer was "off the job," the picketing would stop, which is tantamount to saying that if his contract were cancelled, the pickets would be removed Hagberg also admitted he and the other agents may have mentioned the Meyer contract, besides Boyd, although he professes not to recall the details of this, I also note that, in their carefully worded, but at times self-contradictory versions of the meeting , none of the agents, particularly Spitale, clearly stated that they offered the request for proof from Meyer of payment of the prevailing wage as the only, or sole, means to remove the pickets, but only as one way to do it, and I must infer that they made even this suggestion with "tongue in cheek," so to speak, knowing from the continuing labor dispute between Plumbers 307 and Meyer that Boyd could never get Meyer to increase his wage scale or working conditions to meet the union scale or standards I believe this solution was stated only for the purpose of giving a semblance of legality to the picketing as "area standards" picketing and by appearing to conform their stated desires to the wording of the picket signs and the handbills, and and remarks of Respondents' agents before and after the picketing started strongly impel the conclusion that the real objective of Respondents at all times was to force Vail to cease doing business with Meyer so that he would cancel his plumbing contract and award that work to a "fair" or union plumber At the outset, Respondents admit that Plumber 307 had a long running labor dispute with Meyer because that employer was not unionized and did not pay the prevailing union wages nor conform to the union working conditions in the area, as established by contracts between employers and building trades unions affiliated with the Council. See footnote 3, and cases cited in footnote 8 above. It is also clear from the actions of Spitale before work started at the jobsite that the council, acting for its member unions including Plumbers 307 and Electrical Workers 697, was vigilant to police all new construction projects in the area to make sure that only union contractors adhenng to area standards were employed thereon. Thus, when Spitale learned from his regular perusal of construction industry reports about the Vail project, he indicated to Boyd that he hoped all work on the job would be performed by workers affiliated with the local building trades unions, expressed approval of two of Vail's subcontractors as "fair" or unionized contractors, but disapproved of Meyer who was not, and offered to "assist" Vail by giving Boyd lists of union contractors for plumbing and four other types of work involved at the jobsite.t° McCarthy admitted he began the picketing as soon as he saw Meyer equipment and workmen at the jobsite, because union plumbers were working in the area on a project across the street; as he does not claim that any of these plumbers had any connection with the Vail project, this reason does not make sense, except to support an inference that his real desire was to prevent payment by a nonunion contractor (with whom his union was feuding) of wages lower than union wages at a site in the area adjacent to a project where his members were working; and since he and Spitale also admitted they never tried to talk to Meyer before or after the picketing began in an effort to find out what his current wage scale was or to get him to pay the prevailing union scale,ii it is a fair inference that McCarthy at all times was trying to prevent a breach of the prevailing union working standards, not by appeals to the public or negotiation with Meyer, but by getting Meyer off the Vail job. This objective becomes thus to hide the real purpose of the picketing, i e , to oust from a job which was otherwise staffed by union workmen a single contractor who was nonunion " Plumbers Local Union 307 (Meyer Plumbing), 146 NLRB 888, and Plumbers Local Union 307 (Zimmerman Plumbing & Heating), 149 NLRB 1361 q Local No 4, Hoisting and Portable Engineers, etc (0 DiMascio Construction Corp), 167 NLRB No 123, NLRB v Local 25, IBEW (Emmett Electric Co), 383 F 2d 449 (C A 2) 10 Spitale admitted he knew Meyer did not pay union wages from past experience with Meyer , and information gathered from former employees of Meyer who had joined Plumbers 307 McCarthy' s knowledge that Meyer was nonunion came from the same source Spitale also admitted his overtures to Boyd were in course of his normal duties as a council officer to keep track of new construction in the area and offer his "services" to contractors, particularly those new in the area, in the procurement of subcontractors who pay the prevailing, or union wages 11 Both officials admitted their last information on the subject was received from former Meyer employees about July. 1969 LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS 657 clearer from the remarks of Hagberg, Spitale, and McCarthy at the November 5 meeting when they bluntly suggested to and then told Boyd that the only solution to the picketing problem was to cancel Meyer's contract and give the remainder of that work to a "fair" or union plumber. The clinching proof of this objective lies in the fact that McCarthy removed the picket line as soon as he received a mere telegram from Vail stating that Meyer was off the job, without making any attempt to find out from Vail of elsewhere who the new plumbing contractor was, or whether he was a "fair" contractor; this supports the inference that the main objective all along was to get the nonunion Meyer off the job so that Vail would have no alternative but to turn to a union plumber; the maintenance of area standards was at most an incidental result which Respondents clearly expected to flow from the elimination of Meyer. While I have found, contrary to Boyd's testimony, that the three business agents did point at the November 5 meeting to the procurement of proof of Meyer's payment of the prevailing wage as an alternate means of removing the picket line, I have also noted the almost parrot-like similarity of their versions of this portion of the meeting, in contrast with their vagueness about the discussions on prevailing wages, Vail's business, and other topics on which Boyd testified clearly and impressively, which supports the conclusion that their offer of the alternate solution was not bona fide, but made with "tongue in cheek," so to speak, as an obvious attempt to clothe the picketing, signs, and handbills with an appearance of legality, although they knew Plumbers 307 had been unable to force Meyer to become "union" apparently since as early as 1963 (see decision in 146 NLRB 888, issued April 1964), and hence they must have known that Boyd had no means, legal or otherwise, or chance to force Meyer under his subcontract to conform to the higher union wage standards In addition, the admitted failure of Spitale or McCarthy to contact Meyer, the primary employer, about his known failure to meet area standards is another strong indication that Respondents' claimed objective of preserving area stand- ards was a mere pretext. Local 480, IBEW (Gulf Coast Building and Supply Company, Inc.), 172 NLRB No. 64; Local 4, Hoisting, etc. (0 DiMascio Construction Corp.), supra. For these reasons, I conclude that Respondents' main objective was to force Vail to cancel the Meyer contract, thereby requiring it to cease doing business with Meyer, an objective proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, and that the existence of a secondary legal objective, such as preservation of area standards, did not serve to absolve them from the consequences of having an illegal objective. N L R B v. Local 25, IBEW (Emmett Electric Co ), 383 F.2d 449, 453 (C A. 2) As agents of the three Respondents in concert told Boyd that the only solution to the picketing problem was to cancel Meyer's contract and replace him with a "union" plumber, a proscribed objective, their remarks constituted threats, restraints and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(n) of the Act, for the plain implication of their remarks was that the picketing would continue and Vail would suffer economic loss through failure of unionized employees of other subcontractors to work during the picketing, unless Meyer were eliminated from the job. Local Union No. 11, IBEW (L. G Electrical Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766; United Association of Journeymen, etc., Local 32 (A & B Plumbing, Inc.), 171 NLRB No. 66. I also find and conclude that the picketing by Plumbers 307 for the proscribed objective aforesaid was well calculated to, and in fact did, induce employees of neutral employers to withhold their services, within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act, as well as threatening, coercing and restraining Vail and other neutral employers within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act. On the latter aspect, it is clear from testimony of Boyd and admissions of Hagberg and Mendelsohn that the picketing, followed by the coercive remarks of the three business agents on November 5, caused Boyd to cancel the Meyer contract, and also caused A & W, another neutral employer whose employees were members of Electrical Workers 697, to contact Mendelsohn and Hagberg and cause the latter to initiate the discussions and meeting between Spitale, McCarthy, and Hagberg and Boyd, as found above, because A & W wanted a solution found to remove the picket line so that its employees would work. L. G. Electrical Contractors, Inc., supra; Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 364, et als. (Ralph Duris Plumbing), 159 NLRB 563. I also find and conclude that the three Respondents acted in concert in pursuing the proscribed objective aforesaid, from the time of the joint suggestions of their agents to Boyd on November 5 about elimination of Meyer in order to remove the picket line, which amounted to an adoption of the picketing of Plumbers 307 by the other Respondents, and an approval of continuance thereof unless Meyer was cancelled out. Hence, it is clear that all Respondents are jointly and severally liable from and after November 5, 1969, for the unlawful picketing and other conduct found above for a proscribed objective, which violated the Act to the extent found above.12 In summary, I conclude on all the above facts and circumstances and the applicable law, that (1) by picketing the Vail jobsite from October 23, 1969, onward, Respon- dent Plumbers 307 engaged in, and induced and encour- aged employees of Hobbs, A & W, and other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, (2) that Electrical Workers 697 and the Council engaged in the same conduct from November 5, 1969, onward by adopting the picketing of Plumbers 307, and by said picketing and other conduct found above Plumbers 307, Electrical Workers 697, and the Council, and each of them have threatened, coerced, and restrained Vail and other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, all with an object of forcing and requiring Vail and 12 In reaching the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, I have without merit carefully considered other arguments made by Respondents, and find them 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other persons to cease using, handling, transporting or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with Meyer. By such picketing and other conduct described above, for the objective aforesaid which is proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, Respondent Plumbers 307 has engaged from October 23, 1969 onward in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act, Respondents Electrical Workers 697 and the Council have done the same from and after November 5, 1969, and all Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(n)(B) of the Act. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Vail and Meyer described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. VI. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist from such practices, and take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Vail, Meyer, and Hobbs are employers engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act. 2. Each of Respondents is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in, and inducing and encouraging employees of Hobbs, A & W, and other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce, to engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, with the object set forth above, Respondents and each of them have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Vail and other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce by means of picketing and other conduct found above, all with the object set forth above, Respondents and each of them have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 13 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 On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondents, Local 307, Plumbers, United Associa- tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (AFL-CIO), Local 697, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Northwestern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council, and their respective officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any employees of Hobbs Concrete Construction Company, Inc., A & W Electrical Service, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, strikes, or refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, and from threatening, coercing, or restraining Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other person to cease using, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Meyer Plumbing, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is hereby found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at their respective offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A," "Appendix B," or "Appendix C," as applicable.13 Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by authorized representatives of Respondents, shall be posted by each of said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by each for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Promptly after receipt of copies of said notices from said Regional Director, return to him signed copies for posting by Vail Rubber Products Corporation, Hobbs Concrete Construction Company, Inc., and A & W Electrical Service, Inc., if they be willing, at their places of business, including the Vail jobsite at 6944 Parrish, Hammond, Indiana, and all other,lobsites at which any of said employers may be working within the territorial jurisdiction claimed by said Respondents and each of them, and all places where notices to employees of said employers are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in 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 " LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS 659 writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken by Respondents to comply herewith.14 14 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby advise all members of Local 307, Plumbers, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (AFL-CIO), and Vail Rubber Products Corporation, Hobbs Concrete Construction Company, Inc., and A & W Electrical Service, Inc., and their employees, that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce, or encourage employees of Hobbs Concrete Construction Company, Inc., A & W Electrical Service, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object of such conduct is to force or require Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other person to cease using, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Meyer Plumbing, Inc. LOCAL 307, PLUMBERS, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA (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, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7572 APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby advise all members of Local 697, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Vail Rubber Products Corporation, Hobbs Concrete Construction Company, Inc. and A & W Electrical Service, Inc., and their employees, that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce, or encourage employees of Hobbs Concrete Construction Company, Inc., A & W Electrical Service, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object of such conduct is to force or require Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other person to cease using, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Meyer Plumbing, Inc. LOCAL 697, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (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, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7572. APPENDIX C NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby advise all members of Northwestern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and Vail Rubber Products Corporation, Hobbs Concrete Construction Company, Inc. and A & W Electrical Service, Inc, and their employees, that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce, or encourage employees of Hobbs Concrete Construction Company, 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Inc, A & W Electrical Service, Inc, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to use , manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object of such conduct is to force or require Vail Rubber Products Corporation or any other person to cease using, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Meyer Plumbing, Inc NORTHWESTERN INDIANA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, 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, 881 U S Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7572 APPENDIX D The peaceful patrolling is being done by Plumbers Local Union No 307 of the AFL-CIO As a union we are, of course, pro-union but this is not why we are picketing True, we always like to see members of the union employed not only because they are our members , but also because we know that as the result of their intense training and experience and the completion of a five-year apprenticeship program these men are qualified to give the finest service and perform work with the expert craftsmanship which they have learned But we have an additional interest in our area We believe it is our obligation along with other residents of the area to maintain a certain standard of living A standard of living comes from wages and conditions and we believe the wages and conditions which permit the maintenance of our standard of living and your standard are those which prevail in the general area Once these wages and conditions which prevail are reduced this means that the standard of living is reduced and it is not only reduced for the mechanic but it is reduced in the entire community as well because the merchant, the professional man and anyone who business is dependent upon the prevailing wage of the mechanic is hurt when prevailing wages are not met And , this is why we are patrolling Meyers Plumbing, Inc is not meeting prevailing wages and conditions and this, in our opinion, represents a threat to the entire community This notice is addressed only to the public It is not addressed to any employers or to any employees There is no intent or attempt to induce or encourage employees of any employer, or any person to engage in a refusal to work, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials and so on No one is requested to cease performing any services No one is requested to cease doing business with any one person There is no intent to have any particular work assigned to anyone , nor is there an intent to seek recognition or start bargaining We believe that the people in this area should be familiar with what is going on and that is the sole purpose of patrolling Plumbers Local Union No 307 Affiliated with A F L -C 10