IBEW, Local 480

IBEW, LOCAL 480 413 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480, AFL-CIO and Gulf Coast Building and Supply Company, Inc. Case 15-CC-302 June 26, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On January 24, 1968, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 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 and briefs, and the entire record in the 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 Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480, AFL-CIO, its of- ficers, agents, and representatives, shall take the ac- tion set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. ' In affirming the Trial Examiner's finding of an 8(b)(4)(B ) violation, we do not, in the circumstances of this case , rely on his conclusion that evidence of Respondent 's unlawful object was reflected in the fact that Respondent 's picketing did not conform to the standards set forth in Sailor's Union of the Pacific, AFL (M«ue Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547, in that Respondent "did not seek permission from Gulf Coast (the general contractor ) to picket inside the Tracetown project closer to where Gulf Electric's employees were working." Member Fanning, in agreeing that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and ( ii)(B) of the Act, relies only on evidence that Respon- dent's pickets induced McCullough, an employee of a neutral employer, to refuse to cross the picket line. See his general views as expressed in Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. II ( General Telephone Company of California), 151 NLRB 1490, fn . 4, and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. I I (L. G. Electric Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766, 769. 172 NLRB No. 64 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION SYDNEY S . ASHER, JR., Trial Examiner: On March 28, 1967, Gulf Coast Building and Supply Com- pany, Inc., Mobile, Alabama, herein called Gulf Coast, filed charges against International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 480, AFL-CIO, Jackson, Mississippi, herein called the Respondent. Amended charges were filed on July 25, 1967. On August 22, 1967, the General Coun- sel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against the Respondent alleging that since on or about February 28, 1967, Respondent has induced and encouraged employees of Gulf Coast, Wood Mechanical Contractors, Delta Steel Company, and other persons, to engage in strikes, and has threatened Gulf Coast, Wood Mechanical Contractors, Delta Steel Company, and other per- sons; and that an object of this conduct is to force or require Gulf Coast, Wood Mechanical Contrac- tors, Delta Steel Company, and other persons to cease doing business with Gulf Electric Construc- tion Company, Inc., herein referred to as Gulf Elec- tric. It is alleged that such conduct violates Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii )(B) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. Thereafter, the Respondent filed an answer denying most of the material allega- tions of the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me on October 9, 10, and 11, 1967, at Jackson, Missis- sippi.' All parties were represented and were af- forded an opportunity to participate fully in the hearing. Since the close of the hearing all parties have filed briefs, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this case, including my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BOARD 'S JURISDICTION Gulf Coast Building and Supply Company , Inc., is an Alabama corporation with its principal office and place of business in Mobile , Alabama, where it is engaged in commercial and residential construc- tion. It is the general contractor for the construc- tion of the Tracetown Shopping Center located in Natchez, Mississippi , herein called the Tracetown project. During the 12-month period preceding Au- gust 22, 1967, Gulf Coast purchased materials valued at more than $50,000, which were shipped directly to it at the Tracetown project from points outside the State of Mississippi. At all material times, Gulf Electric Construction Company , Inc., a Florida corporation, herein called Gulf Electric, has performed work at the Tracetown project pursuant to a subcontract with ' Immediately prior to the opening of the hearing , with the consent of all parties, a preheating conference was held at Jackson , Mississippi. All parties were represented and were afforded an opportunity to participate fully therein 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gulf Coast, for which services Gulf Electric has received or will receive during a 12-month period beginning in February 1967 in excess of $100,000. At all material times, Wood Mechanical Contrac- tors, herein called Wood, and Delta Steel Com- pany, herein called Delta, have performed work at the Tracetown project pursuant to subcontracts with Gulf Coast. Both Wood and Delta are, and at all material times have been , engaged in the build- ing and construction industry. In view of the above facts , it is concluded that Gulf Coast and Gulf Electric are, and at all material times have been , engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS AGENTS The complaint alleges , the answer admits, the Board has found,2 and it is now found that the Respondent is, and has at all material times been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The complaint alleges , the Respon- dent admitted at the prehearing conference, and it is found that John L. Erickson is, and at all material times has been, business manager of the Respon- dent and its agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. The complaint alleges and the answer denies that Herbert Robinson , Jeff Laird , and Richard Walters are, and at all material times have been, authorized pickets and agents of the Respondent within the meaning of the Act. Erickson admitted that the Respondent authorized the picketing described hereafter, and that Robinson , Laird, and Walters were paid by the Respondent to conduct such picketing. Accordingly, in agreement with the com- plaint, it is found that, at all material times, Robin- son, Laird, and Walters were agents of the Respon- dent within the meaning of the Act.3 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Events The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is found that, at all material times, the Respondent was engaged in a labor dispute with Gulf Electric. It had no labor dispute with Gulf Coast or any em- ployers engaged in work at the Tracetown project other than Gulf Electric. On February 28, 1967, the Respondent began picketing the only entrance to the Tracetown pro- ject. The picket bore a sign reading: NO DISPUTE WITH ANY OTHER EMPLOYER I.B.E.W. LOCAL 480 PROTESTS SUB STANDARD WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF GULF ELECTRIC CONSTR . CO., INC. ELECTRICAL CONTR. NO DISPUTE WITH ANY OTHER EMPLOYER Some employees of neutral subcontractors, in- cluding some of Wood's employees, refused to cross the picket line . Other employees crossed the picket line and went to work inside the Tracetown project. On either March 15 or March 304 Gulf Coast opened a new "south gate" to the Tracetown pro- ject. It bore a sign reading: South gate . Gulf Electric Construction Com- pany, Inc. This entrance reserved for em- ployees of, and carriers of suppliers making deliveries to, Gulf Electric Construction Com- pany, Inc. At the same time , a sign was placed over the original gate which read: North gate. This entrance reserved for em- ployees of, and carriers and suppliers making deliveries to [here some names were listed.] Employees of carriers and suppliers making deliveries to Gulf Electric Construction Com- pany prohibited from using this gate. Em- ployees or carriers of suppliers making delive- ries to Gulf Electric Construction Company must use south gate. There was also an arrow pointing toward the south gate. Upon the establishment of the south gate, the picket moved from his former location to the new south gate . While the south gate was in existence, no picketing was conducted at the north gate. In early June Gulf Coast demolished the "south gate," leaving the original gate as the sole remaining en- trance to the project. The Respondent 's picket then returned to the position he had occupied before the "south gate" had been opened. The picketing ceased on June 23 . All in all, there was picketing at one gate or the other continuously from February 28 until June 23 , except for part of the day on March 22 . Throughout this period the employees of Gulf Electric continued to work at the Tracetown project behind the picket line. B. Violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) 1. Inducement and encouragement a. Contentions of the parties The complaint alleges that, since on or about February 28, 1967, the Respondent "has induced ' International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480 ( Vickers, Inc., Div. of Sperry Rand), 156 NLRB 629, 630. 3 The complaint alleges, and the answer denies , that certain other in- dividuals were agents of the Respondent. I find it unnecessary to decide these issues. ' All dates herein refer to the year 1967 IBEW , LOCAL 480 415 and encouraged .. . employees of Gulf Coast, Wood Mechanical Contractors , Delta Steel Com- pany, and other persons to refuse to perform ser- vices for their respective employers and to engage in work stoppages ... has picketed or caused to be picketed the Tracetown [project] , and has ordered, directed , instructed, requested , and appealed to the [said] employees ... to refuse to perform services and to cease work for their respective employers." The answer denies these allegations. b. From February 28 to March 15 or 30 The Board has held picketing at the secondary employer 's premises alone is not per se "inducement or encourage- ment" within the meaning of clause (i). Whether picketing constitutes "inducement or encouragement" of employees of secondary employers to engage in work stoppages or refusals to perform services is an issue to be resolved in the light of all the evidence in a particular case.5 What is the evidence here? During the period from the commencement of the picketing until the opening of the new "south gate," the Respondent placed a picket at the only entrance to the project then in existence. This was the entrance through which employees of neutral employers entered the jobsite. Clayton Spillman, business representative of Laborer's Local 747 in Natchez, testified: Q. Is it customary in this area for one build- ing trades union to honor the other building trades picket line? A. I am sure that it is. And Erickson admitted on cross-examination: Q. (By Mr. Darby) What was the policy that you thought that existed among the building and trades unions and their members? A. It is ... common knowledge that most craftsmen that belong to the building trades, or individual craft unions do not cross the picket signs if it is by another craft, or even by their own building and trades. The correctness of the . views thus expressed by Spillman and Erickson is attested to by the fact that the Respondent's picketing at the entrance to the Tracetown project did, indeed , keep some em- ployees of neutral employers from performing work behind the picket line . But this was not all. On March 1 Walter McCullough, a truckdriver em- ployed by Delta, arrived at the Tracetown project with a truckload of steel consigned to Gulf Coast. The truck bore Delta's name on its side . Seeing two pickets at the entrance, McCullough stopped his truck, got down, and approached them on foot. He testified: TRIAL EXAMINER: Did you talk to both of them? THE WITNESS: Yes, Sir. TRIAL EXAMINER: So the three of you put your heads together, or did you talk to them individually? THE WITNESS: No, sir, I tried to talk to them individually. And I just told them that-when I walked up there, they just told me not to cross the picket line. [Emphasis supplied.] From this it is concluded that the Respondent's pickets, Robinson, Laird, or Walters, orally ap- pealed to McCullough, an employee of a neutral employer making a delivery to a neutral employer, not to cross the picket line. For these reasons, it is found that during this period the Respondent in- duced and encouraged employees of neutral em- ployers to engage in a work stoppage. c. From early June to June 23 In early June, when the new "south gate" was demolished , the picket returned to his original posi- tion at the only remaining entrance to the project. As they had all along, employees of neutral em- ployers, of necessity, utilized this entrance-the only one left. Thus, as before , the picketing in- duced and encouraged these employees not to cross the picket line. But the pickets did not only carry a sign. During this period, upon instructions of Erickson, they also maintained a written record of the identity of individuals and the license numbers of vehicles crossing the picket line. Such recording constituted additional inducement and encourage- ment of employees of neutral employers not to cross the picket line .6 2. Object a. Contentions of the parties The complaint alleges that "[a]n object [of the inducement and encouragement ] was and is to force or require Gulf Coast , Wood Mechanical Contractors, Delta Steel Company, and other per- sons ... to cease doing business with Gulf Elec- tric." In his brief, the General Counsel contends: "A brief review of ... the record as a whole will reveal a scheme on the part of [the] Respondent to force Gulf Coast and other persons to cease doing business with Gulf Electric." ° Upholsterers Frame & Bedding Workers Twits City Local No. 61, af- filiated with Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Minneapolis House Furnishing Company and L. S. Donaldson Company), 132 NLRB 40, 41. See also Local 459, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (Friden, Inc and Novelty Veiling Co, Inc ), 134 NLRB 598, 599 But compare International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Over-the- Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen and Warehousemen, Local No 41, A. F of L., 96 NLRB 957, 958, and Local No. 25, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America, AFL-CIO (King's Bakery, Inc.), 116 NLRB 290, 293 s 1 need not, and do not, decide whether, as the General Counsel and Gulf Coast contend, such listing was engaged in even before the establish- ment of the new "south gate " Nor need I decide whether the Respondent induced or encouraged employees of neutral employers not to work in the project during the period when the separate "south gate" was in existence 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The answer denies the allegations of the com- plaint. Pointing out in its brief that "the picketing at all times was conducted in keeping with the Moore Dry Dock standards" and that "While impor- tant , the location of the union 's activities is not conclusive," the Resgondw& -eonter>ds that the General Counsel has failed to prove "that the ob- jectives of Local 480 were to compel Gulf Coast to cease doing business with Gulf Electric." b. Conclusions The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, speaking through Judge Moore, recently stated: In determining the objectives of Local 25, the Board is entitled to look to the totality of the union 's conduct, and it is not bound by the union 's signs or professed object in picketing. [Cases cited.] The fact that the union might have had other, valid reasons for picketing- e.g., to enforce area standards-does not ab- solve it from having an illegal objective.7 Applying that principle to the instant case, the record herein contains clear and convincing evidence that an object of the Respondent's con- duct was proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 1. Where, as here , a common situs is involved, the Board in Moore Dry Dock' laid down certain standards to aid in determining whether picketing is primary or secondary. One standard is that picket- ing "limited to places reasonably close to the loca- tion of the situs" may be considered primary. Here, however, Erickson admittedly did not seek permis- sion from Gulf Coast to picket inside the Tracetown project closer to the place where Gulf Electric 's employees were working. Thus, the possi- bility that neutrals would become involved was enhanced.' 2. The executive board of the Respondent met on March 15. The minutes of this meeting contain the following entry under the heading "Business Manager reports": Our sister local, No #605 has crossed our picket line on the Natchez Miss.Tracetown Shopping Center job. In addition, Erickson admitted reporting to the Respondent 's members or executive board that members of the Plumbers Union were working be- hind the picket line. (As Gulf Electric was the elec- trical subcontractor, these plumbers presumably worked for a neutral employer.) This reveals the Respondent's interest in keeping employees of neutral employers from working inside the Tracetown project. 3. On the morning of March 22, at Worley's request, Erickson temporarily removed the picket. That night a regular meeting of the Respondent's membership was held . The minutes contain the fol- lowing entry: Bro. Erickson reported on results of picket on Natchez Tracetown job. Wood Mechanical & Electrical has been awarded the electrical labor on this job. Erickson admitted that he had spoken to Worley on the telephone earlier that day, and that he informed the membership at the meeting that the picket had been removed . On the basis of these admissions and the above-quoted entry in the minutes ,10 it is con- cluded that Erickson took down the picket line temporarily that day because he understood (rightly or mistakenly ) that Gulf Coast had awarded or would award to Wood (a firm with which the Respondent had a collective -bargaining contract ) all the electrical work previously subcon- tracted to Gulf Electric; in short, that Gulf Electric would be eliminated from the Tracetown project. 4. On the morning of March 23 Bruce Worley, assistant vice president of Gulf Coast, J. B. Flem- ing, an official of Gulf Electric, and Paul Gilmet, Gulf Electric's general superintendent , conferred with Erickson in Worley's trailer. Worley, on behalf of Gulf Coast, offered : " From now on we will pay the union wage scale to Mr. Fleming 's men . We will maintain the working standards , whatever they are." He asked : "would this satisfy Mr. Erickson's requirements?" Erickson was noncommittal. Flem- ing "offered to sign an agreement with Mr. Erickson , a working agreement for that job only." Erickson declined . On March 25, in a telephone conversation with Dixon Pyles, Esq., the Respon- dent's attorney, Worley repeated his offer to pay the electricians employed at the Tracetown project "the union wage rate [ and] we would abide by any established working condition." Pyles promised "to look into it."" Worley heard nothing more con- cerning his offer or Fleming's. Pickets remained posted at the jobsite for approximately 3 months thereafter. This indicates the Respondent 's lack of interest in obtaining area wages and working condi- tions for Gulf Electric's employees. 5. A prehearing statement given by Erickson to a Board agent was put into evidence. It contains the following paragraph: During our conversation in Worley's trailer on the morning of the 23rd, some one either Worley or Fleming asked me for a copy of our ' N.L.R.B. v. Local 25, International Brotherhwrd of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Emmett Electric Co . J, 383 F. 2d 449,453 (C.A. 2). "Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547. ° Teamsters Local Union No. 408 (Chas. S. Wwxl & Co.), 132 NLRB 117, 125. 11 Erickson testified that the entry was erroneous . I do not credit this on- corroborated testimony. 11 The findings regarding the March 23 meeting and the March 25 telephone conversation are based upon Worley 's testimony . It is found that, during the March 25 telephone conversation, Pyles was an agent of the Respondent acting within the scope of his authority to receive commu- nications from Worley regarding this labor dispute. IBEW , LOCAL 480 contract so that they could look it over and see what the area scale and working conditions were. I told them I would give them one. How- ever, I never did. Moreover, Erickson admitted that, before establish- ing the picket line, he had made no attempt to con- tact any official of Gulf Electric. This further un- derscores the Respondent's apathetic attitude toward securing standard wages and working condi- tions for employees of Gulf Electric. It may be that the protection and maintenance of area standards was one of the objects of the Respondent's conduct, but in my opinion it clearly was not the sole object. Consideration of the five factors discussed above convinces me that an ob- ject of the picketing was to put pressure upon Gulf Coast, a neutral, so that it would cancel its contract with Gulf Electric, the primary employer, and the latter firm would be banished from the Tracetown project. Such an attempt to enmesh Gulf Coast in a dispute not of its own making violates Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.12 C. Violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) The complaint alleges that since on or about February 28, the Respondent "has threatened, coerced, and restrained Gulf Coast, Wood, Delta, and other persons" and that an object of this con- duct "was and is to force or require Gulf Coast, Wood Mechanical Contractors, Delta Steel Com- pany, and other persons ... to cease doing business with Gulf Electric." The answer denies these allega- tions. It is found that by picketing from February 28 to March 15 or 30, and from early June to June 23, which caused employees of neutrals to withhold their services, by appealing to McCullough not to cross the picket line, and by maintaining a written record from early June to June 23 of the identity of individuals and the license numbers of vehicles crossing the picket line, the Respondent threatened, coerced, and restrained Gulf Coast, Wood, and Delta, all of whom were engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce. 13 For reasons set forth above, it is concluded that an object of this conduct was to force or require Gulf Coast to cease doing business with Gulf Electric. Accordingly, this conduct was proscribed by Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act." Upon the above findings of fact and upon the en- tire record in this case, I make the following: is The General Counsel and Gulf Coast contend that many other matters (including the fact that before the picket line was established Erickson notified officials of other unions in the Natchez area of his plan) prove the illegal object of the picketing However , I base my finding only on the five enumerated factors . I deem it unnecessary to decide whether other facts also support the conclusion reached , as such decisions would merely be cu- mulative and would not alter the recommendation which I make herein. Local 171, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Joseph J Bancs, d/b/a Bancs Floor Covering), 167 NLRB 981; and Building and Construction Trades Council of Fond du Lac County, et al. (Roger W. Peters Construction Co., Inc.), 168 NLRB 606, fn. 1. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 417 1. Gulf Coast Building and Supply Company, Inc., Gulf Electric Construction Co., Inc., Wood Mechanical Contractors, and Delta Steel Company are, and at all material times have been, engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Wor- kers, Local 480, AFL-CIO, is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals em- ployed by persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring Gulf Coast Building and Supply Company, Inc., to cease doing business with Gulf Electric Construction Co., Inc., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 4. By coercing or restraining persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or requiring Gulf Coast Building and Supply Company, Inc., to cease doing business with Gulf Electric Construction Co., Inc., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce, and constitute unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER It is recommended that International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local 480, AFL-CIO, Jackson, Mississippi, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any person engaged in commerce or an industrustry af- fecting commerce , other than Gulf Electric Con- struction Co., Inc., to engage in, a strike or refusal IS See Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16 (Cal-Neva Insulation Coin- pany), 163 NLRB 511. 14 The General Counsel produced evidence tending to show that on March 6 Riddle and Hale, masonry contractors, entered the Tracetown project and that the picket told them "Don't cross the picket line " In his brief, the General Counsel states: "The evidence does not support the al- legation that the utterances directed toward Hale and Riddle constitute a separate violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B ) of the Act and the General Counsel does not seek a finding on this basis." In view of this statement, I place no reliance on this alleged incident in concluding that the Respon- dent violated that section of the Act 354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 1 - 28 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the course of their employment to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Gulf Coast Building and Supply Company, Inc., or any other person, to cease doing business with Gulf Electric Construction Co., Inc. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining any person engaged in commerce or an industry affect- ing commerce where an object thereof is to force or require Gulf Coast Building and Supply Com- pany, Inc., or any other person, to cease doing busi- ness with Gulf Electric Construction Co., Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is.found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in Jackson, Mississippi, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of the said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be 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 the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and return copies of the said notice to the said Regional Director for posting by Gulf Coast Building and Supply Company, Inc., Wood Mechanical Contractors, and Delta Steel Company, should these companies be willing , at all places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.16 "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : " Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 480, AFL-CIO, AND TO EMPLOYEES OF FIRMS WORKING ON, OR DELIVERING TO, THE TRACETOWN SHOPPING CENTER IN NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of•the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or en- courage any person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce , other than Gulf Electric Construction Co., Inc., to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of their em- ployment to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Gulf Coast Building and Supply Company, Inc., or any other person, to cease doing business with Gulf Electric Construction Co., Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce , or restrain any person engaged in commerce or an indus- try affecting commerce , where an object thereof is to force or require Gulf Coast Build- ing and Supply Company, Inc., or any other person, to cease doing business with Gulf Elec- tric Construction Co., Inc. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 480, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) Dated By This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. If members or employees have any question con- cerning this notice or compliance with its provi- sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Loui- siana 70113, Telephone 527-6361.