Intl. Brothd. of Electrical Wkrs, Local 134

202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO; Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO; Local 165, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Illinois Bell Telephone Company. Case 13-CC-619 October 17, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA On June 11, 1969, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents' had engaged in certain unfair labor practices 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 supporting brief, the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, a brief in support of cross-exceptions and in reply to the Respondents' exceptions, and a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. The Respondents filed a brief in answer to cross-exceptions. 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 cross-exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,I 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 Respondents , Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Local 165, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, their officers , agents, and representatives , shall take the At the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted the General Counsel's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it applied to the International Accordingly, "Respondents" hereinafter is used to refer to Locals 134 and 165 'We hereby correct the Trial Examiner's inadvertent reference to the "1200" Bell employees to read "12,000," in section III, A, of his Decision action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION SAMUEL M SINGER, Trial Examiner This proceeding, tried before me in Chicago, Illinois, on March 26 to 27, 1969, pursuant to a charge filed on August 28 and complaint issued on September 12, 1968, concerns allegations that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by engaging in certain secondary boycott activities. In essence, the complaint alleges that Respondent Locals 134 and 165,' by picketing a construction project (Winston Tower No. 3, in Chicago), induced and encouraged employees to engage in work stoppages, and threatened, restrained, and coerced persons engaged in commerce, with an object of forcing or requiring Winston Gardens, Inc., Winston-Muss Corporation, their subcontractors, and other neutral employers to cease doing business with the Charging Party (Bell Telephone). All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses Briefs were received from all. Upon the entire record' and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED Bell Telephone, an Indiana corporation, with its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, and branch offices and places of business in Illinois and Indiana, is engaged in the business of providing telephone services as part of a nationwide telephone system. During the 1968 calendar year, a representative period, it derived gross revenues in excess of $1 million from communication services between points within Illinois and Indiana and points in other States. Winston Gardens, an Illinois corporation, with its principal office and place of business in Palatine, Illinois, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Winston-Muss, the owner of the Winston Tower No 3 construction project.3 During the calendar year 1968, Winston and its subcontractors at that construction project received and used there materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000, shipped directly from points outside Illinois I find that Bell Telephone, Winston-Muss, and Winston Gardens at all material times have been persons engaged in commerce or industries affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction here is proper. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent Locals 134 and 165 (herein collectively referred to as the Union) are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At the hearing I granted General Counsel 's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it applied to the International (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO) 'Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated May 16, 1969 'Because of the identity of their interests, Winston Gardens and Winston-Muss will usually be referred to collectively as Winston 179 NLRB No. 33 INTL. BROTHD . OF ELECTRICAL WKRS , LOCAL 134 203 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background, Bell's Work at the Construction Project' On May 8, 1968,' the approximately 1,200 Bell employees represented by the Union commenced a strike against Bell in support of economic demands in mid-contract negotiations under the wage reopener clause in the subsisting collective agreement. Bell's main facilities in Chicago, "as well as other projects" where Bell did business , were picketed until September 23. As presently indicated, the picketing of the project here involved (Winston Tower No. 3) began on August 27 and ended on September 6.6 Winston Tower No 3 is one of a complex of four apartment condominiums, costing an estimated $5 to $6 million to build. Owners of the apartment ("tenants") began moving into the building on July 1 By August 24, 100 to 150 of the 251 apartments were occupied, none with telephone connections. Winston Project Manager Speer credibly testified that prior to that time he had received "numerous calls from occupants of the building that they had heart trouble and so forth" and wanted telephones, but that he advised the tenants that "due to the fact that there was a strike on, there was nothing [he] could do for them." After a preliminary investigation of the project on Friday, August 23, Bell Plant Engineer Brown and 11 other supervisory employees went to the project on Saturday and Sunday (August 24 and 25) to complete the necessary work to provide telephone service. During the 12 hours (starting at 8 a.m.) on each of these days, the crew uncoiled the "main" cable (previously installed, infra) and fastened it to a basement wall. They then proceeded to do the cable and conduit work, preparatory to installing telephone instruments . This work and that presently described (infra) admittedly was of the type ordinarily performed by the strikers. Bell had undertaken to prepare and provide telephone service for the Winston project as early as March 1967, when Winston's architect (Barbanel) requested Bell Plant Engineer Maierhofer "for a conduit recommendation " The latter thereupon visited the project and conferred with Winston's then Project Superintendent (Sussman) "at least a couple dozen times" regarding the layout of the work to be done - including the location of the main cable and time of its installation . Winston's architect and Bell personnel would exchange diagrams and blueprints and discuss the problems that came up. Thus, after consultations , it was agreed to relocate the path of the underground service ("main") cable from one end of the project to another, in order to save on the amount of trenching Winston in effect gave Bell an "easement" for the main cable and dug the trench for it without charge. It also furnished (free of charge) interior space, closet space, user shafts, and conduit. The cable and other telephone equipment remained Bell property. These arrangements 'The findings in this and subsequent sections are based on uncontradicted testimony and stipulations Respondents did not call any witnesses, but cross-examined witnesses called by General Counsel. 'Unless otherwise indicated , all dates are 1968 'Prior to September 6, the Regional Director filed, pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act, a petition with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division ) to enjoin the picketing Without taking evidence, the Court, on assurances from the parties that the picketing had ceased , ordered "the cause stricken from the calendar without prejudice and with leave to reinstate on motion of any party " between Winston and Bell were in keeping with practices followed by Bell at other projects involving other builders On Monday, August 26, at around 5:30 p.m , the Bell crew returned to the project. By 1:30 a.m. (Tuesday) they had completed the cable work, placed the conduits going to the apartments, and installed telephones for six occupants whom Winston regarded as "emergency" cases: two physicians, a pharmacist, and three cardiacs. Bell Plant Engineer Brown testified that he purposely got to the project after 5.30 p.m. so that his crew "wouldn't be there when the trades are there." No employees of other employers were on the scene when the work was performed. B The First Day's (August 27) Picketing, the Union's "Threat" to Winston Between 8 . 30 and 8:45 a.m. on Tuesday (August 27), pickets from Locals 134 and 165 began to patrol the intersection of Kedzie Avenue and the private driveway, the sole vehicular entrance to Winston Tower No 3, wearing apron-type signs , reading INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS AFL-CIO ON STRIKE AGAINST ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY The pickets stopped to talk with drivers bringing supplies (such as kitchen equipment), telling the drivers that they were "on strike against Illinois Bell" and requesting them to "recognize their picket line " The drivers "backed off and went on [their] way," without making deliveries. The pickets also spoke to drivers of trucks servicing residents of Winston Tower No. 3, including cleaning, diaper service, and maintenance truckdrivers. Some of these, however, crossed the picket line Employees of the general contractor (Winston Gardens) and of its subcontractors (electricians, tilemen, etc.), who had commenced working before the pickets arrived, continued to work the entire day. The pickets remained at the project until 4.15 or 5 p.m No Bell employees worked at the project during these hours. Winston Project Superintendent Speer credibly testified that after the picketing started he "made certain" that no telephone work "would be done," by requesting Bell not to further schedule such work. At around 11 a.m. on the same day (August 27), Speer telephoned the Union's "strike director" Ahern, asking him "the reason" for the picketing. Ahern said that "work was done by the Bell people over the weekend, and that was the reason for the pickets being out there." When Speer explained that the six telephones installed were for cardiacs, physicians, and pharmacists, Ahern stated that his "main complaint" related to the cable work done over the weekend "which was permanent installation." Around 3 p.m., Speer again telephoned Ahern, complaining that he "was bottling up the job and putting 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [him] in a bad condition " He offered "to send [Ahern] a letter guaranteeing, from this time on, until such time as the strike ended, that there would be no . Bell . employees allowed on my property." Ahern answered that he was "very sorry, but he could not go along with that," adding that "the pickets would continue . until the permanent installation that the Bell people had installed on the previous Saturday and Sunday was disconnected and removed from the job." He went on to say that he would have had "no complaint" about the telephone installations for the six individuals if the Company had hung only "temporary cable from . . the main line on Kedzie, through the windows of the individual apartments " Speer again telephoned Ahern at around 6 p m., asking "if there was any possibility about . . removing the pickets the following morning" Ahern replied, "No, that they would be there." Thereupon Speer made "a proposal" that if Ahern or one of his men "would come out and give an estimate of a time, manhours, costwise . . . that was spent by Illinois Bell during this two-day period, [Speer] would reimburse it into the Union fund or strike fund." Ahern replied, "Positively not, that no deals could be made," repeating his earlier statement that "the only way the pickets could be removed would be to remove the permanent installation from the job." C. August 28 -- September 6 Picketing The Union again picketed the project on the next day (Wednesday, August 28) from around 7 15 a.m. to 4 30 p m Close to 100 employees of the general contractor (Winston Gardens) and its subcontractors were scheduled to work on that day 15 to 20 carpenters and laborers for Winston, 35 to 40 for M Ecker (painting and drywall contractor), 15 or 16 for Coleman Floor (ceramic and resilient tile contractor), 5 or 6 for Nadolna Brothers Plumbing; 5 or 6 for R. Martin and Company (heating and ventilating contractor); and 12 to 15 for United Light (electrical contractor) However, only Nadolna's five or six plumbers, already on the project when the pickets arrived, worked that day. The others, who arrived after the pickets (between 7.30 and 8 a.m.), "just didn't attempt to cross the picket line." As on the previous day, no Bell employees were at the project. As previously noted, the Union continued to picket through Friday, September 6. No craftsmen worked on Thursday, August 29; 15 to 20 percent of those scheduled to work on the next day (August 30) were on the job By the end of that week (September 6) half of the men scheduled on the project reported for work Apparently in the meantime,' Speer, who had been under "pressures" from cardiac patients and other tenants for telephone service, prevailed upon Ahern (the Union's strike director) to approve telephone installations in emergency cases Ahern agreed "to cooperate" as regards those "that are desparately [sic] in need of phone service . providing the customer would contact Mr Ahern or one of his assistants and get approval " Under the agreed procedure, the Union would notify Speer's office of its "approval" and it, in turn, would convey the information to Bell Telephone which would then make the installation. Bell Plant Engineer Brown testified that his crew alone installed 25 or 30 telephones in "emergency cases" - all during regular daytime hours 6 'Project Superintendent Speer could not fix the date, but the context indicates that it was before the picketing ceased on September 6 D Analysis and Conclusions As found, after unsuccessful contract negotiations, the Union on May 8, 1968, called a strike against Bell. On August 24 through August 26 (Saturday through Monday), Bell managerial employees completed the cable work and installed six telephones at the Winston project (Winston Tower No. 3). From August 27 through September 6, the Union picketed the project, the common worksite of various secondary or neutral employers, including Winston Gardens (general contractor) and its subcontractors. As a result, employees of these secondary employers refused to perform services. In issue here is whether the picketing and other conduct engaged in by the Union constituted proscribed secondary activity within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act. For reasons stated below, I find that they did 1. Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B), insofar as here relevant, prohibits a union or its agents from inducing or encouraging employees of a secondary employer to refuse to handle products or perform services, and from threatening, restraining, or coercing secondary employers, where an object of such conduct is to force or require a secondary employer to cease doing business with the primary or disputing employer. Thus, a violation under these statutory provisions requires two elements (1) an object to bring about cessation of business between the primary and secondary employers; and (2) inducement of secondary employees and coercion of secondary employers to achieve the proscribed objective. 2. Based on the entire record, I find that an object of the picketing was the involvement of neutrals such as Winston Gardens and its subcontractors in the Union's dispute with Bell, in order to force Winston to cease doing business with the primary employer by bringing illegal pressures on Winston and its subcontractors. In Moore Dry Dock Company,' the Board set down the criteria, which since have been "widely accepted by reviewing federal courts" (Local 761, IUE v. N L.R B, 366 U S. 667, 677), for determining when picketing at a common or mixed situs may be presumed to be for a primary or secondary objective In order to qualify as primary picketing under these established criteria, it must appear, among other things (a) that the "picketing is strictly limited to times when the sous of dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises", and (b) that "at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs "10 The picketing here failed to meet both of these requirements The undisputed evidence establishes that no Bell employees were on the jobsite and that Bell was not engaged in its normal business there during the picketing (August 27 to September 6) Indeed, as soon as the picketing commenced, the general contractor (Winston Gardens) The record does not disclose the total number of installations (including those pursuant to Union "approval") made by Bell during the strike Project Superintendent Speer testified , and counsel for Bell (in explaining Bell's inability to comply with a subpena calling for records ) maintained, that no such records were available-Speer averring that Winston never kept records thereon and Bell's attorney asserting that work orders on special jobs were later replaced by new work orders (since "all of this work has been redone since then"), the original orders then being destroyed in accordance with "routine" procedure Respondents produced one work order showing installation of two telephones around September 4 for the building manager handling maintenance (Arthur Rubloff Company) which Speer regarded as special work, and "very important" for emergencies as in the case of "a fire " Bell Plant Engineer Brown testified that this installation was done after 5 30 p.m when no pickets were around 'Sailor's Union of Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Co ). 92 NLRB 547, 549 "The other requirements are that the picketing be limited to places INTL BROTHD. OF ELECTRICAL WKRS,LOCAL 134 "made certain" that no Bell work was to be performed on the premises by requesting the primary employer not to schedule additional work Cf. Painters District Council No 38 (Edgewood Contracting Co ), 153 NLRB 797, 800. The Union nonetheless insisted on picketing the project even though the project superintendent offered to "guarantee" that no Bell personnel would be allowed thereon until the strike ended. Nor did the Union accept the project superintendent's offer to reimburse the Union for the financial loss its members might have incurred because of Bell's cable work during the strike, insisting that the secondary employer (Winston) dismantle and remove it as a condition to withdrawing the pickets. The Union thus brought home to the secondary employer the danger of doing business with Bell, demonstrating thereby that it was being punished for allowing the primary employer to work on the jobsite, irrespective of time and circumstances Apart from disclosing a secondary objective, the Union's action was tantamount to a threat to continue the picketing unless the permanently installed cable was removed - a threat in itself constituting a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(n)(B). See International Hod Carriers, Local No 1140 (Gilmore Construction Company), 127 NLRB 541, 545, Local 575, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Dierickx Vending Co , Inc ), 141 NLRB 592, 597, Local No 41, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (New York Telephone Company), 162 NLRB 620, 624 Under all the circumstances I find that an object of the picketing was to implicate neutral employers in the Union's dispute with Bell, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 3. It is equally clear that by its picketing and verbal appeals to secondary employees to respect the picket line, the Union induced and encouraged employees of secondary employers to withhold their services. "The normal purpose of a picket line is to persuade employees not to cross it." N L R B v Dallas General Drivers, Local No 745, 264 F.2d 642, 648 (C A 5) See also' Printing Specialties Union v LeBaron, 171 F 2d 331, 334 (C.A. 9) The Union's conduct also constituted restraint and coercion of neutral employers doing business at the jobsite, particularly of neutrals whose employees engaged in work stoppages which prevented the employers from carrying on their usual business at the jobsite See International Hod Carriers, Local No. 1140 (Gilmore Construction Co ), supra, 127 NLRB 541 Indeed, the picketing here would have constituted unlawful inducement and coercion even if it had failed of its objective, i e , if the secondary employees had not withheld their services See N L R B v. Associated Musicians, Local 802, 226 F.2d 900, 904-905 (C.A. 2). 4. The Union's major contention (br. pp 8-10) is that Section 8(b)(4) of the Act is inapplicable here since no "cease doing business" object was present The Union argues that this section was designed "to protect the commercial relationships between competitive entities who reasonably close to the situs of the dispute, and the picketing disclose clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer Although the Moore Dry Dock standards "are not to be applied on an indiscriminate 'per se' basis" (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc ), 135 NLRB 250, 255), noncompliance of the picketing therewith "justifies a presumption or an inference that the picketing at the mixed situs has an illegal secondary object," thus placing the burden on the union to rebut the presumption Glass Workers Local Union 1892. Brotherhood of Painters, Paperhangers and Decorators of America, AFL-CIO (Frank J Rooney, Inc), 141 NLRB 106, 115 205 face the rigors of the market place" and not "a monopoly," like Bell, "with no competition in the field of telephonic communications " It claims that Bell was doing business "with the apartment owners who subscribed to the telephone service" and not with Winston (br. p 10). In short, the Union contends that this case does not present "a typical common situs situation" (br p 13) to which the Moore Dry Dock criteria apply. I do not agree. As the Board and courts have repeatedly indicated, the term "doing business" must be construed broadly, in order to effectuate the Congressional intent of "shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own" N L R B v Denver Building & Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S 675, 692.u "The Board and courts have held that `the victim's neutrality' is `conceived to be the central element of Congressional concern in this area' and that Congress did not intend to confine Section 8(b)(4) to a strict and precise definition of terms which would limit its application in protecting neutral employers " Salem Building Trades Council, supra, 163 NLRB No 9 That a "business relationship" existed between Bell (the primary employer) and Winston (the secondary employer) is established by the frequent consultations and dealings between them Even before the telephone subscribers became known, representatives of the two employers conferred about the location of the Bell telephone cables and equipment on the project Plans and diagrams were prepared by Bell engineers and submitted to Winston's architect for approval. As the iob progressed, employees of Winston and its subcontractors used the wiring and other work specifications set out on the diagram in guiding and laying out their own work. In accordance with custom, Winston did the trenching for the main cable and furnished interior space, riser shafts, and conduit for Bell equipment and cables while Bell supplied the materials (including telephone instruments) Bell also did the cable work, wiring, and other installation. To be sure, neither paid the other for materials and services, but this does not mean that they were not "doing business" with one another The mutual benefits they derived furnished adequate consideration for their arrangement Insofar as Winston was concerned, telephone service to prospective tenants was an important factor in renting or selling its apartments To exclude dealings with a public utility such as Bell from the protective scope of Section 8(b)(4), as the Union would do, would indeed carve an important exception to the section. Neither legislative history, decisional precedent, or logic warrants such construction.' 2 To the contrary, the Board has in the past found labor organizations in violation of Section 8(b)(4) for disrupting or interfering with dealings between neutrals and public utilities, such as telephone companies. See Local No 41, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, (New York Telephone Company), 162 NLRB 620; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11 (General Telephone Company), 151 NLRB 1490; Local No 3, International Brotherhood of Telephone Workers (Campanella Corporation), 175 NLRB No. 118. "See also Salem Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO (Cascade Employers Association . Inc ), 163 NLRB No 9, enfd 388 F 2d 987 (C A 9), Sheet Metal Workers International Association , Local Union No' 295, 131 NLRB 1196, 1199, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501 v NLRB B. 181 F 2d 34, 37 (C A 2), affd. 341 U S 694 "As stated in Department Specialty Store Employees' Union, Local 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In any event, assuming, arguendo, no "business relationship" between Bell and Winston, the picketing here nonetheless was secondary -and unlawful, an object thereof having been to disrupt Winston's business relations with its subcontractors. A business relationship between primary and neutral employers is not a sine quo non for a secondary boycott. As stated in Miami Newspaper Pressmen's Local No. 46 v. N L R B , 322 F. 2d 405, 410 (C.A D C ), affg. 138 NLRB 1346, 1353: "Although it is frequently true that the object of secondary picketing is to obstruct dealings with the primary employer, Congress did not so limit its language. . [T]he central legislative purpose . . was to confine labor conflicts to the employer in whose labor relations the conflict had arisen, and to wall off the pressures generated by that conflict from unallied employers . Many secondary employers would have no occasion to have commercial intercourse with the primary employers " Accordingly, I reject the Union's contention that the picketing here was privileged because a "cease doing business object" did not exist 11 5 The Union also contends (br.p.l l)that here "there,is an ally situation between Winston . and Illinois Bell which would take the picketing outside the prohibition of 8(b)(4) " Pointing to the "cooperation" between Bell and Winston in drawing "plans for the locations of the telephone property," in placement of such property (cables, wires, and telephones) "throughout the facilities of Winston Tower No 3" by "easement," in scheduling Bell work "at the convenience of both companies before the strike began," and in Winston's permitting "the strikebreakers" to perform during the strike, the Union argues (br p. 12) that Winston "voluntarily allowed itself to become enmeshed in the labor dispute by knowingly assisting the struck work " The contention is without merit The "ally" doctrine has heretofore been applied to situations. (1) where a secondary employer performs "struck work," i.e., work which, but for the labor dispute, the primary's employees would ordinarily perform; or (2) where the operations of the secondary and primary employers are commonly owned and controlled to such an extent that the two may be regarded as a single-employing enterprise.1d In these cases the secondary employer loses its protected neutral status under Section 8(b)(4). Neither situation is present here. Common ownership and control is not claimed and there is not a scintilla of evidence that Winston performed, attempted to perform, or was capable of performing the struck work. The fact that Winston may have "cooperated" with Bell in providing telephone service to the tenants - by scheduling the Bell work and allowing Bell management employees access to the property during the strike - is not crucial. Winston' s interest in 1265 v NLRB B. 284 F 2d 619, 626 (C A 9) "We must keep in mind that this type of legislation is remedial in character and is to be broadly and liberally construed to accomplish its intended purpose It is the judicial responsibility of the courts to find that interpretation , in this type of legislation, which can most fairly be said to be imbedded in the statute in the sense most harmonious with its theme and with the general purposes which Congress has manifested In construing a statute the mischief sought to be remedied should be considered " "In view of the above findings , I need not pass upon the further question whether the picketing was unlawful because an object thereof was to cause a cessation of business between Bell (the primary employer) and occupants of the building (apartment purchasers in the condominium ) who ordered telephone service It would appear, however, that these tenants qualify as "persons" entitled to be free from the coercive pressures proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) See fn 11, supra completing the job was no different from that of any other victim of a secondary boycott who deals at arm's length with a disputing employer (e.g , a general contractor doing business with a picketed nonunion subcontractor on a construction site). Nor, in the circumstances of this case, is it determinative that Winston sanctioned placement of Bell property "throughout" the plant and, as is customary in telephone installations, that Winston granted Bell certain "easements " Although "there are many situations in which the answer to a dispute under [8(b)(4)(B)] is easily derived by the application of such legalistic formulae as `independent contractors,' `co-employers,' or `allies .' . . . it is equally clear that there is a zone of dispute in which such formulae are useless, and the answer must be derived by applying the intent of the statute to the facts in the case." Local No 24, international Brotherhood of Teamsters v. N L R B., 266 F 2d 675, 680 (C.A.D.C.), Building Service Employees International Union, Local 32-J v NLRB , 313 F.2d 880, 883 (C.A D.C.) Effectuation of the statutory intent here dictates the conclusion that Bell was a neutral employer rather than an "ally" of Winston. 6. The Union' s remaining contentions require only brief treatment. Its claim that the Winston project was the "primary situs of Bell" (br. p. 7), because Bell retained title to property (cables, wires, etc.) incorporated into the building, is tantamount to a claim that public utilities such as telephone companies (and others such as gas and electric companies retaining possession or title to similar equipment) fall outside the protective scope of Section 8(b)(4), a claim already rejected. In any event, common situs picketing when no primary employees are on the scene does not become primary action merely because property of the primary employer is present. The Columbus Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO (Merchandise Properties, inc ), 149 NLRB 82, 91, enfd. sub nom International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 688, 359 F.2d 385 (C.A 6), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, (Plauche Electric, Inc ), 142 NLRB 1106, 1109, enfd 353 F.2d 736 (C A. 5) As to the Union's claim (br pp 13-14) that its picketing after Bell personnel ceased working at the project (on Monday, August 26) was lawful - because the Union was allegedly "unable to ascertain" when Bell personnel would reappear, particularly since they traveled in unmarked vehicles - it is evident that the Union was in truth indifferent and unconcerned about Bell's work schedule. To begin with, it made no attempt to learn if Bell scheduled further operations. Cf Local Union 469 of the United Association of Journeymen (Hansberger Refrigeration & Electric Co ), 135 NLRB 492, 493; Office & Professional Employees, Local No. 3 (American President Lines, Ltd ), 156 NLRB 1342, 1344 (1966). More importantly, it had no reason to believe that the Bell work, previously confined to weekend and weekday evening hours, would be continued during daytime (7:30 a.m to 5 p.m.) hours when the craftsmen of the secondary employers were on the job. Other factors, including the Union's refusal to discontinue the picketing until the completed Bell cable work was dismantled and removed, point to a secondary objective The instant case does not present a situation, like that relied on by the Union, where "See N L R B v Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics, Local 459, 228 F 2d 553, 557-559 (C A 2), Bachman Machine Co v N L R B, 266 F 2d 599, 603-605 (C A 8), Miami Newspaper Pressmen's Local No 46 v N L R B, 322 F.2d 405, 409-410 (C.A D C.) INTL. BROTHD. OF ELECTRICAL WKRS,'LOCAL 134, 207 the primary employer continued to engage in normal operations at the common situs during intermittent and temporary absences of primary employees 15 Finally, for reasons already indicated, I reject the Union's contention (br. p. 10) that the objective of its picketing "was in reality" nothing more than "one of advertising to the public the fact of its dispute with the primary employer, Bell " See Local Union No 519, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry (H L Robinson and Associates) v. NLRB, 70 LRRM 3300, 3304 (C.A.D.C.). Moreover, it is clear that "an object" of the picketing, even if not the sole one, was secondary and unlawful. See N L R B v. Denver Bldg & Constr Trades Council, 341 U.S 675, 689. For all of the foregoing reasons I find and conclude that the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 134 and Local 165 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 2. Bell Telephone, Winston Gardens, and Winston-Muss are employers engaged in commerce or industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act 3. By engaging in, inducing or encouraging individuals employed by persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal to perform services, and by threatening, coercing, or restraining persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with the object of forcing or requiring Winston Gardens and Winston-Muss to cease doing business with Bell Telephone, the Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend the customary cease-and-desist order and the usual affirmative relief ordered in cases of this nature, including posting of notices Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the following: the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Winston Gardens, Inc., Winston-Muss Corporation, or such other person to cease doing business with Illinois Bell Telephone Company. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Winston Gardens, Inc., Winston-Muss Corporation, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require Winston Gardens, Inc., Winston-Muss Corporation, or such other person to cease doing business with Illinois Bell Telephone Company 2 Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at their offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by their authorized representatives, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to 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) Furnish said Regional Director with signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by Winston Gardens, Inc., and Winston-Muss Corporation, they being willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith " "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 Appeals 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 the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX RECOMMENDED ORDER Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,, AFL-CIO, and Local 165, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, their officers, representatives, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Winston Gardens, Inc., Winston-Muss Corporation, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in "See Plauche Electric, supra. 135 NLRB 250, 255, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , Local 861, AFL-CIO (Brownfield Electric. Inc ). 145 NLRB 1163, New Power Wire & Electric Corp v NLRB,340F2d71,74(CA 2) NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 134, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, AND LOCAL 165, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO 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 induce or encourage employees of Winston Gardens, Inc., Winston-Muss Corporation, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to strike, picket, or refuse to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require such corporation or person to cease doing business with Illinois Bell Telephone Company. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Winston Gardens, Inc., Winston-Muss Corporation, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require such corporation or person to cease doing business with Illinois Bell Telephone Company. LOCAL 134, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO (Labor Oorganization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) Dated By LOCAL 165, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, 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, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7570