Local 103, Electrical Workers

LOCAL 103, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 339 Local Union 103 of Greater Boston International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and A. B. Caiani, Inc. Case 1-CC-741 October 27, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On July 8, 1969, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin 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, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and the Respondent, Charging Party, and General Counsel filed briefs in support of their respective positions' 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 hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, Local Union 103 of Greater Boston International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Boston, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order 'Respondent' s request for oral argument is hereby denied , since the record , exceptions, and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties 'Member Fanning concurs in the finding that Respondent's picketing violated Sec 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) However, he bases his conclusion solely on the evidence that the Respondent' s picketing was not conducted in conformity with the standards set forth in Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547 See Member Fanning' s separate statement of position in General Telephone Company of California, 151 NLRB 1490, fn 4 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Louis LIBBIN, Trial Examiner Upon charges filed on January 14 and March 12, 1969, by A. B. Caiani, Inc., 179 NLRB No. 57 herein called Caiani or the Charging Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 7 (Boston , Massachusetts), issued a complaint , dated March 14, 1969 , against Local Union 103 of Greater Boston International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent , alleging, in substance, that Respondent engaged in conduct which constituted unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act In its duly filed answer , Respondent, in substance, denies all unfair labor practice allegations Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held before me at Boston , Massachusetts, on April 15, 1969. All parties were represented at the hearing and were given full opportunity to participate therein . By May 19, 1969, all parties filed briefs which I have fully considered. For the reasons hereinafter indicated , I find that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act Upon the entire record in the case,' and from my observation of the witnesses while testifying under oath, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Citadel Construction Company, herein called Citadel, is a Massachusetts corporation engaged in the general contracting business. A B Caiani, Inc , the Charging Party herein, is a Massachusetts corporation engaged as an electrical contractor in the building and construction industry. During the calendar year 1968, Caiani purchased and received materials and equipment valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped from outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Caiani for use within said Commonwealth and other States. During 1968 and 1969 Citadel was the general contractor on a construction job at a Zayre Department Store in the Saugus Plaza shopping center in Saugus, Massachusetts There were about 16 or 17 subcontractors, including Caiani, on this job Upon the above admitted facts, I find that Caiani is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Caiani, Citadel, and the subcontractors engaged in building construction services on the Zayre construction job in the Saugus Plaza shopping center are persons engaged in the building and construction industry, which is an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act II THE RESPONDENT AND ITS AGENTS The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that Local Union 103 of Greater Boston International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, the Respondent herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act. I further find, as the complaint alleges and the answer also admits, 'I hereby grant the General Counsel 's unopposed Motion, dated May 13, 1969, to correct the typewritten transcript of testimony in three specific respects and have made the requested corrections I also note and correct the following obvious , inadvertent errors in the typewritten transcript of testimony On p 48, 1 15, "Wouldn 't" is changed to "Didn 't", on p 54, I 24, "stull" is changed to "stuff ', and on p 72, 1 22, "from" is changed to "to" and "classifying" is changed to "clarifying" and on I 23, "that" is changed to "that's " 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that at all times material herein Don J Berry and Everett M Warren, Assistant Business Managers of Respondent, have been agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ,A. Introduction 'The Issues Citadel Construction Company, herein called Citadel, was the general contractor on a construction job at a Zayre Department Store in the Saugus Plaza shopping center on U S Route I in Saugus, Massachusetts The job began on October I, 1968, and consisted of the remodeling and building of additions to the store as well as the building of additional small stores. Citadel did not have any of its own employees actually engaged in construction work on this job There were about 16 or 17 subcontractors on the job, including Electrical Subcontractor Caiani, the Charging Party herein All subcontractors, except Caiani, employed union labor Respondent informed Citadel that Caiani was not living up to area practices and standards and that it would have to picket the job for that reason Respondent picketed the jobsite on January 13 and 14, 1969 During that period the job was completely shut down because the other trades refused to work while the picketing was in progress. Citadel thereupon replaced Caiani with an electrical subcontractor whose employees were represented by Respondent, and work on the job resumed The principal issue litigated in this proceeding is whether, as the General Counsel contends, Respondent engaged in its conduct with an object of shutting down the job and thereby forcing Citadel to cease doing business with Caiani in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act or whether, as Respondent contends, the sole object of its conduct was to inform the public of Caiani's alleged failure to conform to area or community practices and standards B The Undisputed Facts' Caiani started working at the jobsite in the latter part of October, 1968, performing work of a preliminary or temporary nature for 2 days This consisted of moving some parking lot light poles and reconnecting them in a new location outside the Zayre store and of performing some temporary wiring After Caiani had completed this work, Respondent's Assistant Business Manager Everett Warren, an admitted agent, visited Citadel's Superintendent King in his office in a trailer on the jobsite. King was in charge of the Saugus construction job and was the highest management representative on the jobsite Warren introduced himself and gave his business card to King Warren then asked King if he was aware that Caiani "did not live up to area practices and standards " King replied in the negative, adding that Caiani had only been doing temporary work and that he did not believe Caiani had the contract for the full job Warren then asked if Caiani would come back on the job. King replied that he did not know. The findings in this section are based on exhibits which are not in dispute and on the credited and undisputed testimony of General Counsel's witnesses Joseph L King , Construction Superintendent of Citadel, Roy Christie, President and Secretary of Citadel, and Alexander Caiani, President and Treasurer of Caiani Respondent's sole witness was William Sullivan, a member of the Respondent who acted as a picket at the jobsite on January 13, 1969 Subsequently King saw Caiani, the President and Treasurer of Caiani, advised him of King's conversation with Warren, stated that Caiani had better get this resolved, and gave him Warren's card. After a number of unsuccessful attempts, Caiani finally reached Warren by telephone during November 1968 After identifying himself, Caiani stated that he was informed that Warren wanted him off the Saugus job. Warren said that was right When Caiani asked for the reason, Warren replied that Caiani did not meet the community standard and did not pay the union scale Caiani asked how Warren knew what Caiani was paying his men Warren replied that he had spoken to some of Caiani's employees on a job in Woburn, Massachusetts, about a year before. Warren refused Caiani's request that he name the job and the men to whom he had spoken Caiani offered to pay union scale in accordance with the community standards if Warren would state what those standards were. However, Warren refused to specify the standards which he claimed Caiani was not observing, and stated that Caiani would not work in harmony with the union men on the job Caiani asked Warren for certain information for his employees about Respondent and about joining Respondent's organization He also asked if Respondent would take his employees as members if they voted to join. Warren told Caiani that his employees could not join Respondent unless they were approved Caiani suggested as a further alternative that he was prepared to turn the job over to Barden, a friend of his who is a union electrical contractor, if Barden would be permitted to use Caiani's men if he did not have enough men of his own. Warren stated that he was not interested in that arrangement but just wanted Caiani off the job Warren then indicated that he would send Caiani the union information which he had requested During November 1968, Caiani worked on the jobsite for 2 days performing additional electrical work. While Caiani was working, Warren appeared on the jobsite again but did not talk to King or make any effort to contact Caiani After Caiani completed his work on the second day, Warren appeared on the jobsite frequently to check and see whether Caiani had returned to work there Thereafter, Caiani received from Warren a letter, dated December 2, 1968, which made no reference to the information requested by Caiani but, instead, enclosed a questionnaire, labeled "Questionnaire to Determine Rates of Pay and Fringe Benefits," with a request that Caiani fill it out and return it The bottom of this questionnaire contained the following Notice All information given in this questionnaire may be used as evidence before the National Labor Relations Board and/or any court of competent jurisdiction Caiani did not complete and return to Warren this questionnaire because the latter had not kept his promise to send the information which Caiani had previously requested Moreover, after noticing the above-stated caveat on the bottom, Caiani asked and was advised by his attorney not to send the information to Respondent However, after having been unable to reach Warren by telephone, Caiani did inform Warren by letter, dated December 13, 1968, of his unsuccessful attempts to reach Warren and that he was still waiting for the information and forms which Caiani had previously requested Warren replied by letter, dated December 16, 1968, in which he again failed to furnish the requested forms and information but instead stated that Respondent was not trying to organize Caiani's employees, that he just wanted LOCAL 103, ELECTRICAL WORKERS the information called for in the questionnaire and that, in view of Caiam's failure to return the completed questionnaire, he must assume that Caiani did not meet the community standards Caiani returned to the job again shortly before Christmas, 1968, for additional 2 days of temporary work At that time Warren again visited Citadel's Superintendent King on the jobsite and informed King that Respondent was going to picket the job because Caiani did not live up to area practices and standards King replied that he thought the matter had been resolved Warren stated that he had not received the information which he had requested Caiani to supply. The following morning Warren appeared at the jobsite with two men about 7 15 However, because of the inclement weather, no work was being performed and no picketing took place Caiani began working on the job regularly in early January, 1969, after having been awarded the contract to perform the electrical work on the remodeling phase of the job. On Thursday, January 9, Warren appeared at the jobsite and asked King if Caiani was on the job. When King replied in the affirmative, Warren stated that he was going to have to start picketing the following Monday to inform the public that Caiani did not live up to area practices and standards, adding that he already had 40 men lined up for picket duty, with 8 men to picket per day King asked Warren if he would attend a meeting the next day with Caiani, Citadel's President Roy Christie, Caiani's Attorney Fitzpatrick, and King Warren stated that he would have to check with his superiors and did not know whether he could attend Such a meeting was held the next day but neither Warren nor any representative of Respondent attended About 7.15 on Monday morning, January 13, Warren arrived on the jobsite with seven other men They posted themselves in groups of four at each end of the two entrances to the shopping center with signs reading A B. CAIANI, INC DOES NOT CONFORM TO COMMUNITY STANDARDS FOR WAGE AND FRINGE BENEFITS AND WORKING CONDITIONS THIS SIGN IS NOT FOR ORGANIZATIONAL PURPOSES OR TO INDUCE EMPLOYEES NOT TO WORK ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 103 I. B. E. W A F L -C I.O. The jobsite was picketed in this manner on January 13 and 14 from approximately 7 30 a in to 4 30 p.m., thereby covering the normal working hours of those employed by the subcontractors on the job. While the pickets never physically stopped anyone from entering the shopping plaza or the jobsite, the entire job was completely shut down during those 2 days as the 35 to 40 employees working for union subcontractors at that time refused to cross the picket line or work behind the picket line. When Caiani saw that the picketing had begun, he instructed his employees on January 13 to go to another job, and informed King that his men would not be on the job until the matter was resolved. That same day Caiani also conferred with Christie and they decided that Caiani should stay off the job until this matter was resolved. Consequently, Caiani did not perform any electrical work on the jobsite during January 13 and 14, 1969. About 7 30 am on January 14, the second day of picketing, King approached Warren on the picket line, 341 advised that Caiani's men were not and would not be on the job, and asked if there was any reason why the rest of the men [the other trades] could not go back to work inasmuch as Caiani's men were not on the job. Warren replied that he never stopped anyone from working and that the pickets were going to remain to inform the public that Caiani did not live up to community standards King further asked Warren whether he would remove the pickets if King kept Caiani off the job "until we either brought in another contractor or this was resolved between A B Caiani and Local 103 " Warren replied in the negative, reiterating that the pickets would remain to inform the public of the situation Respondent continued to picket the jobsite until 4 30 p m on January 14 although neither Caiani nor any of his employees, officials or equipment were on the jobsite at any time that day No picketing occurred on January 15. All the employees scheduled to work that day thereupon returned to work, except employees of Caiani. Superintendent King refused to call Caiani back to work because King believed there would be a further delay in his time schedule due to another work stoppage if Caiani were back on the job. In a telegram dated January 18, 1969, Caiani advised Respondent as follows In order that there may be no misunderstanding, please be advised that I will pay my employees on the Citadel Construction Company job at the Zayre store in accordance with your union rates and fringe benefits or any other rates and benefits which you claim accord with community or area standards. Please advise me immediately as to the rates of pay and other benefits you believe conform with such standards I am sending copies of this telegram to Citadel Construction Company and to Albert J Hoban, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board. On Monday morning, January 20, Warren appeared on the jobsite and asked Citadel's Superintendent King if Caiani was working on the job When King replied in the negative, Warren stated that he intended to come back to make sure that Caiani was no longer working on the job Warren also warned King that if Caiani did come back on the job, Warren would have no choice but to resume the picketing again King replied that that was the reason he was going to keep Caiani off the job, adding that he did not want a resumption of the picketing. On that same day, January 20, Citadel's President Christie telephoned Respondent's Assistant Business Manager Berry, an admitted agent After Berry admitted having received Caiani's telegram, Christie asked if it would be possible for Caiani to return to work Berry replied that there first had to be a meeting between Respondent and Caiani When Christie then asked if Caiani could start work immediately, Berry answered that if Caiani went on the job before the meeting took place, the picketing would be resumed As a result of this conversation, Christie made arrangements to have Renzi Electric Company, a union contractor, perform the work which would have been performed by Caiani at the jobsite Meanwhile, in response to Caiani's telegram of January 18, Respondent's Assistant Business Agent Warren advised Caiani, by letter dated January 21, that he would like to meet with Caiani at Respondent's office "for the purpose of giving you related information which you requested in your telegram." Caiani thereupon telephoned Respondent's office and, in Warren's absence, arranged with Berry for a meeting at Respondent's office on January 23 at 2 p.m. On the morning of January 23, 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Berry cancelled the meeting by the following telegram to Caiani Please be advised that we have been informed by the Renzi Electric Company of Dedham, Massachusetts that they are now engaged in performing the work in question on the Saugus Shopping Center and have been on the jobsite since January 21, 1969, at 8 a m Therefore, it would appear that you no longer have an interest in the job and our meeting for 2 p m Thursday, January 23, 1969 would be of no use C. Analysis and Conclusions Simply stated, Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act is violated when a union engaged in conduct which induces or encourages employees of neutral or secondary employers to engage in a work stoppage or to refuse in the course of their employment to perform services, or which threatens, restrains or coerces such employers, in each case with an object of enmeshing the neutral or secondary employers in the primary dispute and thereby pressuring them to cease doing business with another person In the instant case, the record unmistakably demonstrates, contrary to Respondent's position at the instant hearing, that Respondent had a labor dispute only with Caiani because of Caiani's alleged failure to pay the accepted standard wages and fringe benefits in the community Accordingly, I find that Caiani was the primary employer involved in this controversy and that Citadel and the other contractors on the jobsite were neutral or secondary employers Respondent contends that it engaged in lawful primary picketing of an informational nature, that the sole object of the picketing was to inform the public about Caiani's failure to conform to community standards and practices, that the picketing conformed with the standards prescribed by the Board in its decision in Moore Dry .Dock' for common situs picketing, that the statements of its agents to Superintendent King and President Christie of Citadel did not constitute unlawful threats, and that the work stoppage by neutral employees was merely a byproduct of the primary picketing. In support of these contentions Respondent relies primarily on the wording of the picket signs, the statements of its agents to King and Christie concerning the nature of the picketing, and the fact that the pickets did not prevent anyone from working on the jobsite. "It is well settled, however, that the Board is not bound to accept such signs and statements at face value, but is entitled to consider the totality of the Union's conduct " N.L.R.B v Knitgoods Worker, Local 155, 403 F 2d 388, 390-391 (C A. 2). The undisputed evidence shows, as Respondent must concede, that the picketing did in fact induce employees of the neutral or secondary employers to cease work and thereby brought about a complete shutdown of the job for a period of 2 days. It is also clear, as the record further demonstrates, that as a result of the work stoppage induced by the picketing and to avoid further work stoppages from a resumption of such picketing, Citadel replaced Caiani with a union electrical contractor. Therefore, "the key factor is the objective of the union activity, whether it is aimed at the primary employer [Caiani] or whether it is also aimed at pressuring the secondary employer" (Emphasis in original ) I B E W, Local 480 v. N L R B, 413 F.2d 1085 (C.A.D.C.). 'Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock) , 92 NLRB 547 Upon consideration of the entire record as a whole, I am convinced and find that, notwithstanding the wording on the picket signs and the protestations of Respondent's agents, an object of Respondent's activity was to enmesh the neutral or secondary employers in the dispute so as to force Citadel to stop doing business with Caiani In making this finding I have been primarily motivated by the following factors 1 Respondent's Assistant Business Manager Warren concentrated his efforts on Citadel by repeatedly approaching Citadel's Superintendent King on the jobsite and making a point of discussing Respondent's dispute with Caiani and the action Respondent intended to take, as previously found Indeed, the only contact initiated by Respondent in connection with this dispute was with Citadel Thus, after Caiant had completed his first 2 days of temporary work on the job in late October 1968, Warren immediately contacted King on the jobsite to advise him that Caiani was not conforming to area standards. Yet, as previously found, Warren obviously had no current knowledge at that time on which he based his claim and had made no genuine effort to obtain any current information relating thereto Then when Caiani had completed his second period of temporary work shortly before Christmas, Warren lost no time in approaching King on the jobsite again and in warning King that Respondent was going to picket the job because Caiani was not living up to area practices and standards. On January 9, 1969, Warren again approached King on the jobsite and, after ascertaining that Caiani was working on the job, warned King that Respondent was going to start picketing the following Monday to inform the public about Caiani not conforming to area standards and practices. Warren even impressed on King the number of pickets he had available for the entire week and the manner in which the pickets would be used. Even after Caiani's January 18 telegram to Respondent to the effect that Caiani would comply with community standards as soon as Respondent would advise what they were, Warren appeared on the jobsite on January 20 and again warned King that if Caiani did come back to the job Respondent would have no choice but to resume its picketing.' 2 Warren made it clear to Caiani that Respondent's real purpose was to get Caiani off the job, as previosuly found. Thus, while on the one hand warning King that Respondent was going to picket the job because Caiani was not conforming to community standards and practices, Warren on the other hand refused to inform Caiani, upon the latter's request in November 1968, about the nature of the standards which Respondent claimed Caiani allegedly failed to follow Moreover, Warren indicated, and Respondent's subsequent conduct verified, that he had no knowledge of the standards and practices which Caiani was following at that time. Finally, not only did he on that same occasion reject Caiani's alternative suggested arrangement whereby Caiani's men would work for a union contractor on the job, but Warren made it clear that he was only interested in getting Caiani off the Saugus job. 3 Respondent's picketing failed to conform with all the conditions of Moore Dry Dock, supra Thus, one of the conditions is that picketing must be limited to times when the primary employer's employees are engaged in their 'That same day President Christie telephoned Respondent 's Assistant Business Manager Berry who admitted receiving Caiam's telegram of January 18 but also warned Christie that picketing would be resumed if Caiani went back on the job before Respondent had a meeting with Caiani LOCAL 103, ELECTRICAL WORKERS employer's normal business at the common situs As previously found, Caiani's employees did not work on the job on either of the 2 days of picketing, King told Warren soon after the picketing started on the second morning that Caiani was not working and would not be working there until the matter was resolved, and neither Caiani nor his employees nor his equipment were anywhere on the premises during the second day of the picketing. Moreover, also as previously found, when King asked Warren that morning whether he would remove the pickets if Caiani were kept off the job "until we either brought in another contractor or this was resolved between A B. Caiani and Local 103," Warren replied in the negative, adding that the pickets would remain to inform the public of the situation Thus, the continued picketing with full knowledge and , notice that Caiani and his employees were not and would not be on the jobsite further demonstrates Respondent's objective of exerting pressure on the neutral employees and employers. Local Union No. 519, Association of Journeymen of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 416 F.2d 1 120 (C.A.D C ), Local 254, Building Service Employees International Union, 173 NLRB No 49; Local 4, Hoisting and Portable Engineers, IUOE, 167 NLRB 123. 4 The picketing took place only during the normal work hours of the various construction trades on the job Although the retail establishments at the shopping center had to use the same entrances and exits as the contractors on the jobsite, the picketing started each day more than 2 hours before any of the retail establishments opened for business and ended several hours before the stores closed That picketing coincided solely with the normal work hours of the construction trades on the jobsite, warrants the inference that Respondent was not solely concerned with informing the public of the situation relating to Caiani D Concluding Findings I find that the subcontractors engaged in building construction services on the Zayre project in the Saugus Plaza shopping center are, as alleged in the complaint, persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act Accordingly, I find that by its picketing activities on January 13 and 14, 1969, Respondent induced and encouraged individuals employed by persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a work stoppage and to refuse in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring Citadel Construction Company to cease doing business with A. B Caiani, Inc., and thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. I further find that the picketing warnings made by Assistant Business Managers Warren and Berry, Respondent's admitted agents, to Citadel's Superintendent King and President Christie, respectively, to the effect that Respondent would picket the jobsite if Caiani were permitted to work on the job, constitute threats within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act.' I also find that by such threats and picketing with the foregoing proscribed object, Respondent threatened, coerced or restrained Citadel Construction Company and other persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce and thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act 'See, e g , Local 254, Building Service Employees International Union. AFL-CIO, 173 NLRB No 49 IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 343 The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the employers named in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free now of commerce CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By its picketing activities on January 13 and 14, 1969, Respondent induced and encouraged individuals employed by persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a work stoppage or in a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services with an object of forcing or requiring Citadel Construction Company to cease doing business with A B. Caiani, Inc , and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 2 By the foregoing conduct and by threatening Citadel that it will picket the jobsite if A B Caiani, Inc. were permitted to work on the job with the aforestated object, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent, Local Union 103 of Greater Boston International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Inducing or encouraging, by picketing or other means, any individuals employed by persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce (other than A B. Caiani , Inc ) to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Citadel Construction Company or any other person to cease doing business with A B. Caiani, Inc. (b) Threatening , coercing, or restraining Citadel Construction Company or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce (other than A. B. Caiani , Inc ), where an object thereof is to force or require Citadel Construction Company or any other person to cease doing business with A. B Caiani, Inc. 2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act- (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the attached notice marked "Appendix. Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 1, sufficient copies of said notice, to be furnished by him for posting by Citadel Construction Company and all other persons engaged in building construction services on the Zayre project in the Saugus Plaza shopping center, if they are willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region I, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith ' 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 If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" 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 1 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION 103 GREATER BOSTON INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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, by picketing or any other means, any individuals employed by persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce (other than A B Caiani, Inc ) to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Citadel Construction Company or any other person to cease doing business with A. B. Caiani, Inc WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Citadel Construction Company or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce (other than A B Caiani, Inc ), where an object thereof is to force or require Citadel Construction Company or any other any other person to cease doing business with A B Caiani, Inc Dated By LOCAL UNION 103 GREATER BOSTON 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, 20th Floor, John F Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 617-223-3300 OF