United Bthd. of Carpenters Local 745

684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO and James W. Glover, Ltd. Case 37-CP-12 September 29, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On January 9, 1969, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 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 and 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 Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondent, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and .Joiners of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO. its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. in adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondent picketed Glover's freeway project with a recognitional or bargaining object, we agree that the facts set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision support such a conclusion However, we also find additional evidence of a recognitional or bargaining object in the admission by Respondent's financial secretary Yanagi that Glover would have had to meet every term and condition in Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement, including the recognition and union-security clauses, before Respondent would be satisfied that Glover was meeting area standards TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION S f 3TEy1ENT OF I IIE CASE HOWARD M'ERS, Trial Lxamincr This proceeding. with the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein respectively called the General Counsel' and the Board) and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent), being represented by counsel was heard before the Trial Examiner, at Honolulu, Hawaii, on October 10 and 11, 1968,2 upon a complaint dated September 20. issued by the General Counsel, through the Director of Region 20 (San Francisco. California), and Respondent's answer duly filed on September 26. The complaint, based upon a charge and an amended charge duly filed on August 2 and September 16, respectively, by James W. Glover, Ltd. (herein called Glover), alleged, in substance, that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended from time to time, herein called the Act.' Upon the entire record in the case' and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following ` FINDINGS OF FAC I I GLOVERS BUSINESS OPERATIONS Glover, an Hawaiian corporation, has Its principal offices and place of business at Honolulu, Hawau, where it is operating, and during all times material has operated, as a general contractor in the building and construction industry. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, Glover's out-of-State purchases of material and supplies used in the course and conduct of its business exceeded $50.000 in value during the aforesaid period, Glover rendered services, valued in excess of $50,000, to the State of Hawaii, which as an agent of the federal government, during all times material has been constructing a defense highway commonly referred to as the Lunalilo freeway. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, the undersigned finds, in line with established Board authority, that Glover is, and at all times material has, engaged in commerce, or in a business affecting commerce. within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that its business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the assertion of jurisdiction This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing 'Unless otherwise noted all dates herein mentioned refer to 1968 'Specifically, as to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged that commencing from on or about July 1, and until on or about August 27, Respondent picketed the Lunaldo Highway construction job of Glover protesting the purported substandard wages, hours, and other conditions of employment on that job, that an object of the picketing was to force or to require Glover to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the collective bargaining representative of Glover's carpenters or to force or require said employees to accept or to select Respondent as thtir collective bargaining representative notwithstanding that Respondent had not been certified as such representative, and that said picketing has continued for more than 30 days without a petition having been filed under Section 9(c) of the Act Respondent's answer denied the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged 'Including the briefs riled by the General Counsel and Respondent's counsel on November 18, and which have been carefully considered 'At the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, for lack of proof Decision thereon was reserved The motion is hereby disposed of in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations hereinafter set forth 178 NLRB No 109 UNITED BTHD. OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 745 685 H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of Glover. Iii. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Prefatory Statement` Some 8 years prior to the opening of' the hearing in the instant proceeding, Respondent, through its financial secretary and business agent. Stanley Yanagi, requested Herbert Van Order, Glover's president to recognize and to bargain with Respondent as the collective bargaining representative of the carpenters then in Glover's employ. Apparently, nothing materialized with regard to the request referred to immediately above for there was no communication between Respondent and Glover until June 2, 1967, on which date the Honolulu Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO (herein called the Council)' addressed a letter to Glover reading as follows The AFL-CIO Honolulu Building & Construction Trades Council in behalf of the local unions in the building and construction industry in Hawaii hereby requests information regarding wages, hours and working conditions under which each of your employees works. Please understand that we request this information not for the purpose of organizing your employees or for the `Certain evidence was adduced at the hearing relating to events occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing and the service of the charge filed herein Said evidence was received, not as a basis for any finding of unfair labor practices as such, but solely for such effect it might have in elucidating, evaluating, and explaining the character and quality of Respondent 's alleged illegal conduct after the cut-off date. It is well settled that Section 10(b) of the Act allows consideration of related acts transpiring prior to the statutory limitation date for the purpose of throwing light on the specific conduct within the period in issue Local Lodge No 1424, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO v N L R B [Bryan Manufacturing Co J. 362 U S 411, N L R B v Sharpies Chemicals . inc , 209 F 2d 645 (C A 6), N L R B v Clausen . Fredrica. d/h/a Lu:erne Hide & Tallow, 188 F 2d 439 (C A 3), N L R B. v General Shoe Corporation . 192 F 2d 504 (C A 6), Superior Engraving Company v NLRB, 183 F 2d 783 (C A 7), NL RB. v White Construction and Engineering Co, Inc. 204 F.2d 950 (C A. 5), N'L.R B v. Brown and Root, Inc , d/b/a Ozark Dam Constructors and Flrppin Materials Co 203 F 2d 139 (C A 8), Banner Die Fixture Co . 109 N LR B 1401, Florida Telephone Corporation, 88 NLRB 1429 , Sun Oil Company, 89 NLRB 833 It is also well settled that to prove Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices it must be shown that the acts and conduct relied upon occurred within the permissible, 6-month period or extended into said period. Joanna Cotton Mills Co . N L R B . 176 F 2d 749 (C A 4), Steward Warner Corp v N L R B . 194 F 2d 207 (C A 4), Superior Engraving Company v N L R B. supra. Universal Oil Products Company. inc., 108 NLRB 68. 'The council is composed of various Honolulu Local unions representing employees working in the Honolulu building and construction industry The council's top governing bodies consist of a Board of Business Representatives ( formerly known as the Executive Board ) and a Board of Trustees These boards are composed of delegates selected by the various Local unions affiliated with the Council Stanley S Yanagi and Walter H Kupau for the past several years have been Respondent's delegates to the Council and each is on either one or both boards The members of these boards hold regular meetings at which matters of particular concern to the affiliated locals, jointly , or singularly, are discussed The Council's main duties or objects consist of giving advice and assistance to its affiliates in their disputes with the employers engaged in the Honolulu building and construction industry , picketing a particular employer or a group of employers with whom an affiliate has a labor dispute, and otherwise assist its affiliated locals in all other labor matters or disputes purpose of obtaining recognition of our Council or its affiliated unions as the exclusive bargaining representative of your employees. We would appreciate having this information from you as soon as possible in order to determine whether or not your employees are working under substandard wages, hours and working conditions. Not having received an answ er to the above quoted letter, the Council , under date of June 5, wrote Glover as follows: This is to protest the substandard wages and/or working conditions of your employees . Unless prevailing wages, hours and working conditions are established for your employees performing construction work , our Council will picket your projects Please understand that it is not our intention to have such work assigned to any employees of unions affiliated with our Council , nor is it our intention to picket for recognition or to have you bargain with our Council or its affiliated unions. Our only reason for picketing will be to inform the public and to protest the hours, substandard wages and working conditions of employees performing such work. Upon establishment by you of prevailing wages, hours and working conditions to employees , we will cease picketing. Without waiting for a reply to either of the above quoted letters, the Council , on June 1967, picketed the Glover Lunalilo freeway job projects . The legend appearing on the picket signs read: The AFL-CIO Honolulu Building & Construction Trades Council protests the sub-standard wages, hours and conditions of employment on this job by Jas. W. Glover. Ltd. The AFL-CIO Honolulu Building & Construction Trades Council does not intend by this picket line to induce or encourage the employees of any other employer to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to work. This picket supplied by the AFL-CIO Honolulu Building & Construction Trades Council. During the course of the 1967 picketing at the Glover Lunalilo freeway project. Walter H. Kupau, Respondent's then business agent and at the time of the hearing herein its Administrative Assistant , was, not only the Council's picket captain "in charge of posting pickets" at said project, but he also was , as George V. Clark, Glover's construction manager testified, "one of the hardest working pickets" at said jobsitc. Apparently, being of the opinion that the aforementioned picketing was unlawful , Glover filed with the Board a charge' alleging, in substance that said picketing was violative of the Act. Prior to the issuance of any complaint in the aforesaid proceeding, Glover and the Council entered into a written agreement , which was approved by the then Acting Director for Region 20 on October 13, 1967, wherein the Council agreed, among other things, to post at its offices, for a specified length of time, copies of a notice, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:' WE WILL NO7 picket James W. Glover, Ltd. (herein called Glover) or cause Glover to be picketed where an 'Case 37-CP-l l 'Said agreement also stated , "The signing of this Settlement Agreement does not constitute the admission of any unfair labor practice " 686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD object thereof is to force or require Glover to recognize or bargain with Building and Construction Trades Council of Honolulu. as the representative of any employees of Glover or to force or require any employees of Glover to accept or select said Building and Construction Trades Council of Honolulu as the collective bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(b)(7) subparagraph (c) of the Act. The aforementioned picketing ceased upon the execution of said agreement or shortly thereafter. B The Pertinent Facts1° Commencing in or about April 1968. and continuing for some months thereafter, discussions were had at Respondent's staff meetings regarding an "organising campaign" to be instituted by Respondent against those Honolulu employers engaged in the building and construction industry. including Glover, with whom Respondent did not have collective bargaining agreements. As part of said organting program, which was to continue "for the rest of this year, anyway", Respondent he projects of a planned to establish picket lines at the- number of those building contractors with whom it did not have collective bargaining agreements, especially at the jobsites under construction in the Waikiki area Several days immediately prior to June 26, either at a meeting held in Yanagi's private office located in Respondent's headquarters, at which discussion was had regarding the success Respondent had in obtaining recognition and signed collective bargaining agreements that week from eight or ten "new" building contractors, or immediately after the conclusion of said meeting, Kupau informed Yanagi that Glover "was paying substandard wages and conditions Yanagi, without inquiring where Kupau had obtained his information that Glover was paying its employees substandard wages and that they were working under substandard conditions. accepted Kuapu's report as being true and correct Despite his complete reliance upon Kupau's report, Yanagi, nonetheless, on June 26. wrote Glover as follows- The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 745, hereby requests information regarding the wages, hours, and working conditions under each of your employees work. Please understand that we request this information not for the purpose of organizing your employees nor for the purpose of obtaining recognition of our Local Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of your employees. We would appreciate rcceiN mg this information from you as soon as possible in order to determine whether In the light of the undersigned ' s observation of the conduct and deportment at the hearing of all the persons who testified , and after a very careful scrutiny of the entire record, all of which has been carefully read and part of which have been reread and rechecked several times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect to the credibility problems here involved. of the tact that in many instances testimony was given regarding events which took place months prior to the opening of the hearing, and of the fact that very strong feelings have been generated by the circumstances of this case, coupled with the fact that it would unnecessarily protract this Decision to summarize all the testimony or to spell out fully the confusion and inconsistencies therein, the following is a composite picture of all the tactual issues involved and the conclusions based thereon The parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions, findings, and conclusions, the record as a whole has been carefully considered , relevant cases have been studied, and each contention advanced has been weighed, even though not specifically discussed herein or not your employees are working under substandard wages, hours. and working conditions. Regarding his reasons for writing the above-quoted June 26 letter Yanagi testified as follows: Q No. I'm asking you your reason for sending the letter. You wanted to get information? A. Yes. Q 1 thought you just told us that you knew what the information was. A I didn't hear it from the horse's mouth. Q Oh. So, you did question Mr. Kupau when he told you A. No. When he told me this, this is why we wrote to Mr Glover. Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Yanagi, but I'm confused. Would you please clarify this for me? A. Mr Kupau said be was paying substandard wages. This is why we're sending this, to have proof that he is. whatever Mr. Kupau says. Mr. Kupau says that the wages were substandard We in turn wrote to Mr. Glover Q. But if you believed what Mr. Kupau told you, why did you have to make an inquiry of Mr. Glover? A This is make it official. Q. What do you mean "official"'? A As a matter of saying Q. Pardon? A. Official information to Mr. Glover to find out. Q Why did you have to make it official to Mr. Glover? A. This is my practice Q. What does this serve? What purpose does this serve? A. Well, it give if Glover paying---to find out whether Jimmy Glover is complying with what Mr K pau has told me. Q it may be my fault here. but I'm not understanding you in this situation Please correct me if I say something wrong. I'm trying to understand your testimony You spoke to Mr. Kupau. He told you that the Glover company's wages and hours and working conditions were below standard. You believed hitn. A. Yes Q But notwithstanding that. you sent a letter to the Glover company asking them about their wages, hours and working conditions. Is that correct'' A. Yes * * * * * Q. (By Mr. Letter) Now, will you please explain to me because -maybe I'm not too bright, but I don't follow this Why did you send this letter it you already had the information? A To have it on the record like that. Q To have what on the record? The letter' A. From Jimmy Glover answering my letter Q Well, what other records were you trying to make by sending this letter" A. To respond to my letter there Q What kind of record were you trying to make? A. If lie's paying working conditions Without waiting for a reply to his aloresaid June 26 letter to Glover, Yanagi. the next day, June 27, wrote Glover as follows UNITED BTHD. OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 745 687 This is to protest the substandard wages and/or working conditions of your employees. Unless prevailing wages, hours, and working conditions are established for the employees performing construction on all of your projects, our Local Union will picket said projects. Please understand that it is not our intention to have such work assigned to any employees affiliated with this Local Union nor is it our intention to picket for recognition or to have you bargain with our Local Union Our only reason for picketing will he to inform the public and to protest the hours, substandard wages, and working conditions of employees performing such work. Upon establishment by you of prevailing wages, hours, and working conditions to your employees, we will cease picketing The sole reason, Yanagi testified, for sending the June 27 letter instead of waiting for Glover to reply to his June 26 letter or waiting for Glover to supply the information requested in said letter was due to the fact that on the afternoon of June 27, Kupau showed him some papers which Kupau said were Glover's "payroll paper" [sic] and that alter looking at one of said papers, which simply contained, to quote Yanagi, "a lot of names on the one side and the wages on it," he decided to write the June 27 letter. At about 6:30 a.m. on Monday, July 1" without waiting for any reply from Glover to either of the above-quoted letters or for Glover to supply the data requested therein, about 10 or 11 picketers12 appeared at the Glover Lunalilo freeway construction project carrying signs reading' The AFL-CIO Carpenters Union Local 745 protests the substandard wage,, hours or conditions of employment on this job by Jas W. Glover. This AFL-CIO Union Local 745 does not intend by this picket line to induce or encourage the employees of any other employer to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to work. This picket supplied by the AFL-CIO Carpenters Union Local 745. Regarding his reason for instituting and the object of. the picketing referred to immediately above. Yanagi testified as follows Q. (By Mr. Segal)" Now, Mr. Yanagi, directing your attention to the picketing of the Glover job in July and August of 1968, would you please tell the Trial Examiner what was the object of that picketing? A As the letter states, that they weren't paying wages and working conditions, substandard wages and working conditions. Q. And what was the object of the picketing? A. To notify the public that Mr. Jimmy Glover is not paying-is paying substandard working conditions. Q. You say he is not paying. You mean he was paying - A. Tie's not paying That's why we put the sign to the public, that Jimmy Glover is not paying. They are paying substandard wages and working conditions. Q. And you mentioned the letter. Was it your object to have Glover pay the wages and working conditions "Yanagis above-quoted June 27 letter was received by Glover on Friday, June 28 Work upon the project in question is performed Monday through Friday only "Kupau was the picket captain "Respondent's counsel that are set forth in that letter? A This is what we anticipate Jimmy Glover would pay. Q. And was that your object when you set up the pickets on July 1st, 19689 A Yes. The prevailing "cost" of the fringe benefits given by the Hawaiian general construction contractors at the time of the sending of the aforementioned letters of June 26 and June 27 was fixed by the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations14 for persons employed on Public Construction jobs, such as Glover's Lunalilo freeway project, at 15 cents per hour per employee for health and welfare, 15 cents per hour per employee for pensions, and one cent per hour per employee for training. The credited, undenied evidence establishes that at the time of the sending of the two aftermentioncd letters by Respondent to Glover. Glover was paying the carpenters working on the Lunalilo freeway project the prevailing union base wage of $4 90.15 In addition, Glover (a) was paying each of said carpenters fringe benefits in cash the sum of 21 cents per hour," (b) was paying directly to the HMSA 11 cents per hour per employee" for a health and welfare plan, (c) was paying directly to an insurance company $1.25 per hour for each person in its employ for a period of 6 months or more for "a life insurance program with accidental death and dismemberment features";" and (d) had a profit-sharing plan for each regular employee in its employ for 3 years or more." Under date of August 20, Glover wrote Respondent setting forth the details by which its employees were paid, including the cost of the fringe benefit each employee received The letter compared the wages and fringe benefits received by the Glover employees with those"cost items" provided for in the agreement which Respondent then had with the Hawaii general construction contractors .211 Under date of August 27, Respondent replied to the Glover letter referred to immediately above wherein Respondent again asserted that Glover's working conditions were substandard. Respondent's August 27 letter asserted that Glover frequently put laborers to work doing carpentry work and paid them the lower wage rate of laborers for doing such work The credited evidence, however, shows that when Glover's carpenters perform laborers' work, they receive the higher carpenters' rate of pay and when Glover's employees perform work in job classifications rated higher than their normal classifications, they receive the higher wage rate. The aforementioned August 27 letter complained about the rates Glover paid its employees for "shift work." Glover does not have employees on shift work The letter "The fixing of wages and fringe benefits for these employees are made by the director of this agency pursuant to Chapter 9(a) of the Revised Laws of the State of Hawaii "This was the then prevailing base wage scale as fixed by the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations "This sum is "broken down" as follows 15 cents per hour for pensions, 5 cents per hour for health and welfare, and one cent per hour for training "This amount was raised to 13 cents on July 17 "Glover pays the entire premium for this insurance "Each employee under said plan has a 30 percent vested interest immediately after becoming under it, at the end of ten years of service the employee has a 100 percent vested interest, ten percent of Glover s annual operating profits goes into the plan, and the employee covered by the plan shares in it in accordance with his years of service and salary earned "Approximately 470 of such employers 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD also complained that Glover employees received "regular rates" when called to do emergency work. The credited evidence shows that Glover pays its employees at time and a half for emergency work. The August 27 letter also stated that Glover paid nonregular employees at less than the "prevailing practice for carpenters in Hawaii." Glover does not hire nonregular employees. Respondent, in said letter claimed that Glover did not reimburse its employees for tools lost "by theft while in the custody of the Company" The evidence established that Glover does reimburse employees in the event to such loss by theft. Respondent asserted in said letter, that Glover did not meet a prevailing practice covering meals and lodgings for employees brought to work from "Neighbor Islands." During 1968 Glover hired no one from the "Neighbor Islands." Respondent claimed, in said letter, that Glover had no grievance procedure for its employees. The record shows that Glover has processed employee grievances through its managerial hierarchy The 1968 Lunalilo freeway project picketing ceased on August 27. At no time during the said picketing (July I through August 27) did Respondent file a petition seeking to be certified as the collective bargaining representative, as provided for in Section 9(c) of the Act, for the Glover employees. C. Concluding Findings This case presents the comparatively rare situation where the recitation of the facts leading up to the picketing reveals its unlawful nature. The very sequence of events, as epitomized in Section 111 B, above, surrounding the institution of, and the picketing, itself, renders immediate suspect of Respondent's explanation in justification of its conduct. Thus, in the face, of the overwhelming credited evidence that the picketing was plainly attributed to Respondent's attempt to force or require Glover to recognize or to bargain with it as the collective representative of Glover's employees, or to force or require Glover's employees to accept or select Respondent as their collective bargaining representative, Respondent urges that the true object of its picketing at the Lunalilo freeway project was not, as alleged in the complaint, for the purpose of obtaining recognition from Glover as the collective-bargaining representative of Glover's employees or for the purpose of organizing Glover's employees, but that the sole purpose of the picketing was to protest to the public the substandard working conditions prevailing at the jobsite in question. The record as a whole does not bear out Respondent's contentions. In fact, the record clearly establishes the contrary. Although the wording of' Respondent's picket signs complies with the standard language required for picket signs which inform the public of substandard working conditions existing on a particular job, the words on the signs are not the only indicia of intent which the Board utilizes in determining whether picketing is protected or proscribed." Had Yanagi investigated the wages paid Glover's employees and the conditions under which they worked, or at least had waited for Glover to reply to his two June letters or had waited for Glover to supply the information "See. for example , N L R B v Local 182. Teamsters [Woodward Motors[, 314 F 2d 53 (C A 2) requested in said letters, instead of placing pickets at the Lunalilo freeway project the next working day after Glover had received the second of the said June letters, merely on the strength of Kupau's statements that the employees in question were being paid substandard wages and working under substandard conditions and upon a prelunctory examination of a single sheet of paper containing simply "a lot of names on the one side and the wages", which paper Kupau informed Yanagi was part of Glover's "payroll paper", Yanagi would have discovered that Kupau had not given him the true facts. Nor had the aforesaid "payroll" paper revealed the true facts. Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that Yanagi was not at all interested whether or not Glover's employees were being paid the prevailing union wage scale or were working under standard conditions, but was solely interested in forcing or requiring Glover to recognize and bargain with Respondent as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of Glover's employees or to force or require Glover's employees to accept or select Respondent as their exclusive bargaining representative. Under the circumstances and upon the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that, by engaging in the acts and conduct found above, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. At the hearing and in its brief, Respondent points to the fact that the picketing did not induce any individual employed by any other employer not to pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not to perform any services. What ever may be said of said contention the fact remains that since Respondent's picketing was for an illegal objective it is immaterial whether or not the conduct was effective.22 The Trial Examiner has carefully considered Respondent's contention that the picketing was prompted. in part, by Glover's failure to maintain adequate safety standards for its employees, and finds this contention, as well as the various other contentions advanced by Respondent to support its defense that the picketing was lawful, and finds each of them to be without substance or merit. IV. THE Ll FFCT OF THE LNFAIR L&BOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III B. above, occurring in connection with the business operations of Glover as described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and such of them as has been found to constitute unfair labor practices. tend to lead to labor disputes burdening commerce and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in conduct violative of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following. "Carolina Lumber Co , 130 NLRB 1438 UNITED BTHD. OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 745 689 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO, is, and during all times material was, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. James W. Glover. Ltd, is, and during all times material was, an employer engaged in commerce, or in a business affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7).of the Act. 3 By picketing James W. Glover, Ltd., for more than 30 days without filing a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act, with an object of forcing or requiring Glover to recognize or to bargain with it as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of Glover's employees, or to force or require Glover's employees to accept or select it as their exclusive bargaining representative, Respondent has, and,is, engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER notices to Glover employees are customarily posted Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed by Respondent, be forthwith returned to said Director for disposition by him. (c) Notify the Director for Region 20. in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.24 "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 be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " "In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 UNITED BROTHERHOOD' OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 745, AFL-CIO Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors. and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing Glover's Lunalilo freeway project, or picketing any other Glover construction project or causing any Glover projects to be picketed, where an object thereof is to force or require Glover to recognize or bargain with it as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of Glover's employees or to force or require any employee of Glover to accept or select it as his collective bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices and meeting halls, and at all places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. (b) Mail or deliver to the Director for Region 20 signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting at the premises of Glover, the latter willing, in places where Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT picket James W',Glover. Ltd., (herein called Glover) or cause Glover to be picketed where an object thereof is to force or require Glover to recognize or bargain with us, as the representative of the employees of Glover or to force or require any employees of Glover to accept or select us as their collective bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(b)(7) subparagraph (c) of the Act. Dated By UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 745, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) 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. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1311 Kapiolani Blvd , Suite 308, Honolulu. Hawaii 96814, Telephone 808-558-797.