Electrical Workers, Local 640

456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo- cal Union 640 and its Agent, Glynn Ross and Brown Wholesale Electrical Company. Case 28-CC-321 May 21, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On January 13, 1971, Trial Examiner George Chris- tensen issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that the 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 at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion together with a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional 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 Ex- aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re- spondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640 and its agent, Glynn Ross, its offic- ers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. ' The original charge was filed on March 20, 1970, an amended charge was filed on April 27, 1970 A par 9(d) was added to the complaint by motion on June 16, 1970, alleging in substance that the Union, by its agent Jim Wilson, on or about May 28, 1970, violated the Act by threatening to refuse and refusing to install or handle materials supplied to State Electric Co (State) by Brown The Union denied the allegation and Wilson's agency ' Hereafter called the Union TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Trial Examiner: The complaint' in this case issued on May 5, 1970, alleging that International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 640,2 vi- olated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (Act), by threatening Phoenix electrical contractors with refusal to handle or install materi- als purchased from or through Brown Wholesale Electrical Company' for the purpose of forcing the contractors to cease doing business with Brown (thereby forcing Brown to recog- nize it as the representative of Brown's employees without prior Board certification of its majority status among such employees) and by actual refusals to handle such materials for the purpose stated. All parties conceded jurisdiction;' that the charges were duly filed and served, that the Phoenix Division of the Arizona Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors As- sociation (NECA) at all times pertinent was a multiemployer association representing electrical contractors' in the Phoenix area for the purpose of bargaining collectively' with the Un- ion concerning the wages, hours, and working conditions of the employees of its affiliated contractors represented by the Union (electricians); and that at all times pertinent Glynn Ross was the Union's business manager and Dave Thomas was its business agent and both were its agents acting on its behalf. The Union denied that Ross, Thomas, and Jim Wilson, its alleged shop steward at State, addressed either threats or refusals to handle or install materials ordered by or through Brown to representatives of Sands, State, and the NECA, and denied that Wilson was its agent. The issues are. (1) whether Ross, Thomas, and Wilson uttered such threats and refusals; (2) if so, whether Wilson was the agent of the Union at the time; and (3) if so, whether such threats and refusals violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act A hearing on the issues was held at Phoenix, Arizona, on June 16, 17, and 18, 1970. All parties appeared by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, exam- ine and cross-examine witnesses, argue, and file briefs. Briefs have been received from all parties Based on his review of the entire record, observation of the witnesses, and perusal of the briefs and research, the Trial Examiner enters the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION The jurisdictional facts and the qualification of Brown and Sands as employers engaged in commerce and the Union as a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(2), (5), (6), and (7) of the Act are conceded by the parties and the Trial Examiner so finds 11 THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction At all times pertinent Brown was a major wholesale sup- plier of electrical fixtures, wiring, and equipment to electrical contractors in the Phoenix area . Most of the contractors in the area were affiliated with NECA and the terms of employ- ment of their electricians were governed by the NECA-Union contract. Hereafter called Brown The Union admitted in its answer that the business of Brown and Sands Electric Co (Sands) satisfied the jurisdictional standards of the Board Including Sands, State, and Reynolds Electric Co (Reynolds) NECA and the Union were parties to a contract for a term extending from June 20, 1969, to June 20, 1970, covering the wages, hours, and working conditions of the contractors' employees in the classifications of general foreman, foreman, subforeman, cable splicer, journeyman wireman, journeyman technician, and electric welder The contract recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of those em- ployees and contained an exclusive union hiring hall (job referral) provision 190 NLRB. No. 95 ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 640 B The Union's Picketing of Brown and Effects on the Contractors The Union commenced picketing Brown for recognition' on November 20, 1969. Immediately thereafter the contrac- tors were affected by the picketing, inasmuch as their electri- cians refused to cross the Union's picket lines to pick up materials ordered from Brown. Since the NECA-Union con- tract contained a provision barring the contractors from dis- ciplining their electricians for refusing to cross or work be- hind a picket line, the contractors were without recourse (other than challenging the legality of the provision and/or its applicability to the situation). A similar difficulty was experienced in regard to materials delivered to the contractors by Brown's trucks.' The contrac- tors met these problems by refraining from placing new or- ders with Brown and ordering their materials and supplies elsewhere. Another and more serious' problem arose when materials ordered from Brown prior to November 20, 1969, by the contractors arrived at the jobsites by common carrier delivery direct from the manufacturers (drop shipments). The first such incident detailed in the testimony arose during the week following the start of the picketing (November 23-29, 1969), during which the Thanksgiving holiday was observed. State's electricians started to unload a shipment ordered from Brown prior to November 20, 1969, and delivered by common car- rier directly from the manufacturer but, learning that it had been ordered from Brown, reloaded the materials onto the truck and refused to handle them thereafter. State com- plained to NECA and NECA in turn complained to its state organization, the Union, and the International Union with which the Union was affiliated, charging violation of the no-strike provision of the NECA-Union contract. A confer- ence was held on the matter about the first of December 1969 attended by Ross for the Union; Raymond Duke for the International Union; Lester Mowry, president of State; and Walter Stephenson, secretary-manager for NECA. Stephen- son and Mowry pointed out that the materials had been ordered prior to November 20, 1969. The dispute was settled with Duke's promise to man the job. The promise was kept through a subsequent Ross order directing State's electricians to handle and install the materials. This settlement became the pattern for resolution of similar disputes which arose thereafter. '° The Union's picket signs at Brown's premises stated that Brown was refusing to bargain with the Union, i e , refusing to accede to the Union's request for recognition Also see TXD-(SF)-115-70, Case 28-CP-8 1, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640 (Brown Wholesale Electrical Co), wherein Trial Examiner Bennett entered findings and con- clusion to the effect the Union picketed for recognition Charles Black, manager of Reynolds, testified without contradiction that, after the Union commenced picketing Brown, Reynolds' electricians refused to unload a truckload of materials delivered to Reynolds' jobsite by one of Brown's truck, and that the materials in question were still in Rey- nolds' warehouse at the time of the hearing More serious in the sense serious financial loss could result from their employees' refusal to unload such material from the common carrier and/or install same, inasmuch as the contractors were obligated to pay for such shipments when they were delivered to the carrier by the manufacturer and such refusal would require storage of the original shipment and order and delivery of a second, identical shipment 10 See discussion of the second (May 1970) State incident and the second (April 2, 1970) Reynolds' incident 457 C. The Alleged December 9, 1969, Threat (Sands) Not long thereafter (on December 9, 1969), Roger Steele, manager of Sands, telephoned Stephenson to advise Stephen- son that he was worried about some drop shipments he was expecting. Stephenson invited Steele to a luncheon meeting he had scheduled previously with the Union for that day at Beefeaters Restaurant in Phoenix. Stephenson, Steele, Ross, and Smith were in attendance. Steele was concerned over a possible union refusal to handle and install two drop ship- ments he was expecting, one from General Electric and a second from Brown. He was worried about the former be- cause the General Electric employees were on strike. Some- time during the luncheon or immediately thereafter, Steele told Ross about the GE shipment and asked Ross if there would be any trouble over it. Ross replied that there would not be any problem. Steele also asked about the shipment ordered through Brown. Ross asked if the order had been placed prior to the time picketing commenced. Steele replied that it had. Ross assured Steele that there would not be any problem, Sands' electricians would handle and install the shipment since it was ordered prior to November 20, the handling and installation bar applied only to direct purchases from Brown after November 20." From the foregoing the Trial Examiner finds and concludes that on December 9, 1969, the Union by its agent Ross threat- ened Sands with refusal to handle or install any materials ordered from or through Brown after November 20, 1969. D. The Legal Maneuvers and Picketing Injunction On December 17, 1969, the Union filed a charge with the Region alleging that Brown was unlawfully refusing to bar- gain with it in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act (Case 28-CA-2007). On January 28, 1970, Brown filed a charge with the Region alleging that the Union was unlawfully picketing it for recog- nition in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act (Case 28-CP-81). On February 17, 1970, the Region dismissed the Union's charge. On February 26, 1970, the Region issued a complaint based on Brown's charge. On March 4, 1970, the General Counsel upheld the Re- gion's dismissal of the Union's charge. On March 11, 1970, the Region secured an order from the U.S. District Court under Section 10(1) of the Act enjoining the Union from continued picketing of Brown. E. The Alleged March 12, 1970, Threat (Sands) On March 12, 1970, Steele called Thomas to inquire if the Union's pickets had been removed at Brown's premises. Thomas replied that they had. Steele then asked if that meant that the Union's dispute had been settled Thomas then read Steele a document prepared by the Union's counsel which had been distributed to the Union's representatives for use in answering inquiries re Brown. The document read as follows: " Steele and Stephenson's testimony to the effect set out in this para- graph is credited and the testimony of union witnesses to the contrary is discredited, inasmuch as the version of the former is consistent with the conduct of the Union's agents and members when handling and installation problems concerning Brown's materials arose at the contractors' lobsites (see details in this Decision) and because the testimony of Steele and Ste- phenson was mutually corroborative for the most part and logically sup- ported by the undisputed conduct of the Union's agents and members in the situations described in this Decision 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The N.L.R.B. has required us to remove our pickets against Brown Wholesale, and we have removed all pick- eting. However, we still have a labor dispute with Brown Wholesale." As earlier noted, Sands (and other contractors) after November 20, 1969, refrained from ordering materials from Brown because of the difficulties they experienced in attempt- ing pickups of materials at Brown or deliveries of materials from Brown's warehouse in Brown's trucks due to the pres- ence of the Union's pickets at Brown's premises in its cam- paign to secure recognition for Brown's employees. Steele clearly was being cautious ; while he knew the Un- ion's pickets at Brown had been removed and its charge against Brown had been finally dismissed , he wanted to ascer- tain whether Sands nevertheless could expect trouble if it renewed ordering its materials and supplies from Brown. Thomas' reply to his inquiry fully justified his caution; the final paragraph of the communication Thomas read to Steele, in the context of Ross' December 9, 1969 , threat, indicated that the Union still was not giving up its campaign against Brown, despite the forced removal of its pickets and dismissal of its charge, but intended to proceed with the major weapon remaining at its disposal-pressure on the contractors to cease doing business with Brown. The Trial Examiner therefore finds and concludes that on March 12, 1970, by its agent Thomas ' statement that the Union still had a labor dispute with Brown , the Union infer- entially continued to threaten Sands with a strike on refusal to handle and install any materials ordered from Brown after November 20, 1969. F. The Alleged March 17, 1970, Threat (NECA and Its Affiliates) About March 16 or 17, 1970, Stephenson had a conversa- tion with Ross at his office. Stephenson was aware of the General Counsel's March 4, 1970, decision upholding the Region's dismissal of the Union's charge against Brown and the court's March 11 , 1970, issuance of an order restraining the Union from any further picketing of Brown. He had received numerous calls from NECA 's contractor affiliates evidencing their desire to resume ordering materials from Brown" and requesting advice as to whether they would experience any difficulty over the pickup or delivery, unload- ing, and installation of such materials . Stephenson therefore asked Ross whether the Union 's dispute against Brown was over. Ross replied that the dispute was not ended. Stephenson asked Ross what he could tell the contractors. Ross replied that he could tell the contractors that, since the dispute was not settled, it was doubtful that the electrician would handle or install any materials ordered from Brown; in other (tele- phone) conversations with Stephenson around the same time, he repeated that it would be difficult , if not impossible, to secure such handling or installation." The Trial Examiner finds and concludes that on or about March 17, 1970, and other dates about that time, the Union, by the statements of its agent Ross set out above , threatened NECA and its affiliated contractors that the Union continued " The rationale for this position , in view of the prior dismissal of the Union's charge against Brown , was that its claim of unlawful refusal to bargain still was in litigation as an affirmative defense to the complaint issued against the Union in Case 28-CP-81 " The contractors had agreed to refrain from placing any orders with Brown only for the duration of the Union 's dispute against Brown '° Stephenson's testimony to the foregoing is credited and Ross' denials of the statements attributed to him are discredited for the reasons set out in fn 11, above to threaten a strike or refusal to handle or install material ordered from or through Brown after November 20, 1969. G. The April 2 Incident (Reynolds) On April 2, 1970, Black, Reynolds' manager (see fn. 8), met with Ross at Guggy's Restaurant in Phoenix . Reynolds had ordered fixtures manufactured by Lithonia.. through Brown for use on a job . The shipment was delivered to the jobsite by common carrier directly from Lithonia. Brown's name appeared on the packing slips. Seeing this, Reynolds' electricians refused to unload the truck. Black related the foregoing to Ross at the restaurant meeting and asked Ross to get the truck unloaded and the fixtures installed. Ross asked Black when Reynolds placed the order with Brown.13 Black stated the fixtures were ordered either in September or October 1969 . Ross assured Black that he would see that the fixtures were unloaded and installed . Ross directed Robert Elsner, an assistant business representative of the Union, to go to the site and order Reynolds' electricians to unload and install the fixtures. Elsner carried out Ross' directive and the fixtures were unloaded and installed. H. The Alleged May 1970 Threat (State) Sometime in the middle of May 1970, Jim Wilson, one of State's electricians," approached Lester Mowry , president of State, at a job State was performing for General Electric Co. near Buck Canyon Freeway in Phoenix . Wilson asked Mowry if he knew some materials purchased from Brown were at the jobsite which the electricians were refusing to install. Mowry said he did not know about the matter, saw nothing wrong with purchasing materials from Brown , and could not under- stand why the electricians were not installing them. Wilson repeated that the electricians would not install them. Mowry suggested that Wilson telephone the Union about the matter. Wilson then telephoned the Union , with Mowry standing by." On completion of the call, Wilson informed Mowry that' the Union still had a complaint against Brown and the electri- cians shouldn't install the materials. Mowry instructed the job foreman to check and see how much material was involved. He was informed that quite a bit of the wire on the job was packed in cartons carrying Brown's label. He went to his office and called Stephenson . He related the problem to Stephenson, stated he had been led to believe the contractors were free to resume purchases from Brown (with the picket removal and charge dismissal), asked why he had not been informed that there were difficulties over using Brown's materials , and asked what he was supposed to do with the materials in question . Stephenson said he would look into the matter and call Mowry back . Stephenson later called and said he hadn't been able to contact anyone about the matter and to call him again if further assistance was needed. " Ross corroborated all of Black's testimony to the conversation except his statement that Ross inquired as to the date of the order , Ross stated that Black volunteered that information Black's testimony is credited, as he appeared a truthful and forthright witness and his testimony is consistent with the conduct of the Union in similar situations and the probabilities 16 Wilson worked at times as a foreman and at other times as a journey- man wireman , depending on the jobs he was working on and the number of men assigned to the particular job (sec 21 (a) of art V of the NECA-Union contract requires the designation of one of the electricians as a foreman on any job employing four or more journeymen ) The question of whether Wilson was acting in the capacity of the Union's shop steward with regard to the events described here shall-be resolved in the subsequent section of the Decision. " Billy Weir, one of the Union 's assistant business representatives, verified that he received Wilson 's call and read him the same document Thomas read to Steele, ibid. ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 640 459 On checking through his invoices at the office, Mowry discovered that the wire in question had been ordered from a wholesaler other than Brown. He called the wholesaler and was informed they did not have the wire in stock at the time, so they bought it from Brown and delivered it to the site. On so informing Wilson, Wilson demanded verification. Mowry brought the invoices to the jobsite and showed them to Wil- son. The materials were then installed by the electricians." The Trial Examiner finds and concludes that in May 1970, by its agent19 Wilson, the Union both threatened to refuse, and refused, to handle or install material purchased by State from Brown. 1. Wilson's Agency Wilson was employed by State in early 1968 as a journey- man wireman and remained continuously in its employ there- after. He was appointed by the Union as its shop steward for State's electricians in March 1969. Mowry received a letter dated March 13, 1969, from Ross formally designating Wil- son as its shop steward. At no time thereafter did Mowry or his two bookkeepers, the only persons who opened State's mail during the period extending from March 13, 1969, to the date of the hearing, receive any communication from the Union removing Wilson or appointing a replacement for Wil- son as its shop steward.20 As noted heretofore, Wilson at times and on some jobs worked as a foreman and at other times and on other jobs worked as a journeyman wireman. He first worked as a fore- man in or about April or May 1968. Since that time he has worked in both classifications. At all times since his initial appointment, Mowry has recognized Wilson as the Union's shop steward and has so dealt with him-accepting electricians' complaints and griev- ances from Wilson, attempting to adjust them with Wilson, etc.21 The Union contends that, since its bylaws bar employees classified as foremen from serving as stewards, Wilson ceased to be its shop steward at State from the first time he was designated a foreman on a job for State in about June 1968, that Mowry was notified in writing of Wilson's replacement by one Roy Wolfe on July 29, 1969, and that, since Wolfe left State's employ (1 day after his alleged appointment), the Union has not been represented by a shop steward at State. The Trial Examiner has credited heretofore the testimony of the only three persons who handled State's mail at the time the alleged appointment of Wolfe as Wilson's replacement as shop steward was made that no such notice was ever received by State; the Trial Examiner further credited Mowry's tes- timony that he never has been advised by the Union of any change in Wilson's status as its shop steward since his initial designation, whether he was working as a foreman or a wire- man, and has at all times dealt with Wilson as the Union's shop steward. It is further noted that Wilson attended the union stewards' meetings in July, August, and October 1969, subsequent to his alleged removal as State's shop steward, " Mowry's testimony to the foregoing is credited and Wilson's denials are discredited, Mowry was a direct, forthright witness while Wilson was evasive, uncertain, and confused " Based on the findings in sec 1, below, that Wilson was the Union's agent '° Art IV, sec 15, of the NECA-Union contract requires that "The Union shall notify the employer in writing of the appointment or change of any steward on the Employer's payroll " " Wilson corroborated Mowry on this, his testimony that he acted as an individual, a volunteer, and not as a steward, in processing grievances and complaints with State, is rejected as self-serving, unconvincing, and without merit that Wilson admittedly approached Mowry in May 1970 with a complaint against State's use of materials carrying Brown's label at the instance of one of State's electricians, and that Mowry and Wilson negotiated a settlement of the complaint with Mowry acting for State and Wilson for State's employees represented by the Union. On the basis of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes that Wilson has been the duly accredited and recognized shop steward representing State's electricians on the Union's behalf at all times since his March 13, 1969, appointment to that office and, specifically, that Wilson was the Union's agent acting on its behalf in the actions and statements he took and made in seeking and securing adjust- ment in May 1970 of the Union's complaint against State's use of materials purchased from Brown, as described in the preceding paragraph of this section. The Trial Examiner al- ternatively finds and concludes that, in any event, the Union, having appointed Wilson its shop steward and notifying State to that effect, not having subsequently notified State to the contrary, and having accepted the fruits of Wilson's con- tinued function in that office at all times subsequent, is es- topped from avoiding responsibility for his May 1970 actions and statements by disavowing his authority as its agent to adjust an employee complaint on its behalf after State in a good-faith reliance on Wilson's apparent authority to act on the Union's behalf adjusted the May 1970 employee com- plaint with Wilson. J. Discussion and Conclusions 1. Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) This section defines as an unfair labor practice threats addressed to any person engaged in commerce by a union or its agents in order to force that person to cease doing business with another person or to force another person to recognize or bargain with the union as the representative of his em- ployees without prior certification as such representative un- der Section 9 of the Act. The Trial Examiner has entered findings that the Union by its agents Ross, Thomas, and Wilson on or about December 9, 1969, March 12, 1970, March 17, 1970 and May 1970, threatened Sands, State, and NECA and its affiliates with refusals to handle and install materials secured from or through Brown (and in addition actually refused to handle and install such materials by its agent Wilson in his May 1970 statements to State); and that the Union was engaged in a primary dispute with Brown at all pertinent times, seeking recognition as the representative of a group of its employees. The Union contends , however, that the contractors volun- tarily agreed among themselves to refrain from doing busi- ness with Brown shortly after the Union commenced picket- ing Brown's premises and therefore the statements of its agents, even if held to constitute threats (the Union denies that they were threats), did not "force" the contractors to cease business with Brown. Assuming (without conceding) that this contention has any merit, it is of limited application . At the time of the December 9, 1969, threat (the Trial Examiner finds that the Ross and others' statements clearly were threats ), the contractors had agreed among themselves to refrain from placing new orders with Brown unwillingly because of the presence of the Un- ion's pickets at Brown, and only for so long as the Union's campaign and picketing had viability and color of legal sanc- tion. On December 9, 1969, the basis for the Union's com- plaint and its standing was undetermined. However, after the Union's charge against Brown was finally disposed of by the General Counsel's rejection of the Union's appeal from its dismissal by the Region and the issuance of an injunction barring any further picketing of Brown, it is clear that only 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the coercive effect of the Union's March 12, March 17, and May 1970 threats kept the contractors from renewing their business dealing with Brown in the reasonable belief that the Union's campaign or complaint against Brown was over. Stephenson, Steele, and Mowry clearly believed the Union's complaint or campaign against Brown ended with the final dismissal of the Union 's charge and the cessation of picketing; otherwise, they had no reason for seeking reassurance of no union retaliation against their resumption of business with Brown The Union's March and May 1970 statements to Steele, Stephenson, and Mowry, however, made it clear that the Union intended to try to accomplish by secondary pressures upon the contractors what it had been unable to accomplish directly against Brown, i.e., to force the contractors to con- tinue to refrain from doing business with Brown to in turn force Brown to recognize the Union as the representative of a group of its employees or possibly be forced out of business. The Union was the major, if not the sole, source of the con- tractors' manpower; most electrical contractors are small businessmen with limited capital and resources who must work under completion deadlines and coordinate their materials, deliveries, and work with many other crafts and processes involved in the construction process; a union failure or refusal to supply manpower in sufficient numbers or requi- site skills or to install at the time and in the manner scheduled can result both in direct losses as well as loss of future busi- ness. The contractors therefore were forced either to become unwilling allies in the Union 's efforts to secure representation as the representative of Brown 's employees or themselves face a serious economic threat. Insofar as the December 9, 1969, threat is concerned, the Trial Examiner rejects the union contention that the contrac- tors voluntarily refrained from doing business with Brown following the commencement of its picketing . Rather it ap- pears that the contractors switched to suppliers other than Brown when the Union began picketing Brown for reasons expressed heretofore . Faced with their electricians ' refusal to cross the Union's picket lines to pick up materials at Brown and refusal to unload materials delivered by Brown , there was little else they could do Their discontinuance was induced by the Union , it was involuntary, and it was forced and coerced by the acts of the Union's members (their refusals to pick up from Brown and unload Brown 's trucks). On the basis of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes that by the statements set out in section II,C, E, F, and H, above, uttered by its agents Ross and Wilson on or about December 9, 1969, March 12, 1970, March 17, 1970, and May 1970, the Union and its agent Ross threatened, coerced, and restrained State, Sands, NECA and its affiliated contractors with refusals to handle and install materials pur- chased from or through Brown, with the object of forcing or requiring the former to cease doing business with Brown, and to force Brown to recognize the Union as the representative of its employees without prior certification under Section 9 of the Act as the majority representative thereof, thereby violat- ing Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act 2. Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) This section defines as an unfair labor practice a strike or refusal to handle or work on materials engaged in by a union in order to force an employer to cease doing business with another employer, and/or to force the latter to recognize the union as the representative of his employees without prior certification under Section 9 of the Act as the majority repre- sentative thereof The section also defines the union induce- ment or encouragement of an employee to strike or refuse to handle or work on materials for the purposes just specified as an unfair labor practice. Findings have been entered that the Union engaged in a strike and picketing at Brown 's premises for the purpose of securing recognition from Brown as the representative of a group of its employees without prior Board certification as their majority representative. The Union contends that those portions of the complaint alleging any union violation of this section should be dis- missed on the ground no evidence that any agent of the Union encouraged or induced the contractor employees who refused to handle or install materials secured from or through Brown to engage in that conduct. The section has a broader compass than prohibition of inducements of employees by unions to engage in the conduct specified; it also prohibits the Union itself by its agents, from engaging in strikes or refusals to handle or work on materials for the purpose of forcing an employer to cease doing business with another employer. Findings have been entered heretofore (in sec. II,H, above) that the Union, by its agent Wilson , in May 1970 engaged in a strike or refusal to handle and install materials on a State job because the materials in question came from Brown. Wil- son spoke on behalf of the Union's members employed by State when he announced their refusal to handle the materials in question . This alone appears sufficient refutation of the union contention . Attention is also directed to the findings in sec. II,C, above, that the Union, by its agent Ross, on Decem- ber 9, 1969, stated that materials purchased from Brown by the contractors after November 20, 1969, would not be han- dled or installed by the Union's members . This again is a direct union refusal , by a union representative speaking on behalf of its members, to handle or install any materials purchased by Sands from Brown. The Trial Examiner concedes that no witness testified to hearing a union agent actually tell a contractor employee represented by the Union not to handle or install materials purchased by his employer from or through Brown. The evidence, however, demonstrates a consistent pattern of refusals by contractor employees represented by the Union to handle or install such materials until and unless their employ- ers contacted a representative of the Union , satisfied such representative that the materials came within a recognized exception to the union bar against such handling and installa- tion, and received orders from a union representative to go ahead and handle and install the materials in question. The Trial Examiner believes the discipline apparent from this behavior warrants the inference that it stemmed from union encouragement and inducement, and so finds and concludes. Based on the foregoing, the Trial Examiner finds and con- cludes that the Union engaged in , and induced or encouraged its members employes by contractors affiliated with NECA to engage in, strikes, or refusals to use, handle, or work on materials, and that an object of such conduct was to force or require such contractors to cease doing business with Brown, and to force Brown to recognize the Union as the representa- tive of a group of its employees without prior Board certifica- tion, thereby violating Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 At all pertinent times Brown, Sands, and State were employers engaged in commerce and the Union was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(2), (5), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, by its agents Ross, Thomas, and Wilson, on or about December 9, 1969, March 12, 1970, March 17, 1970, and May 1970, threatened, coerced, and restrained Sands, State, the NECA and its affiliates with refusals to handle and ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 640 461 install materials purchased from or through Brown with an object of forcing or requiring Sands, State, and the other contractors affiliated with NECA to cease to do business with Brown and to force Brown to recognize the Union as the representative of its employees without prior certification un- der Section 9 of the Act as their representative, thereby violat- ing Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. The Union, by its agents Ross and Wilson, on or about December 9, 1969, and May 1970, and by those and other agents after November 20, 1969, engaged in strikes or refus- als, and induced or encouraged its members employed by contractors affiliated with the NECA including Sands and State, to engage in strikes or refusals, to use, handle, or work on materials ordered by such contractors from or through Brown, with an object of forcing or requiring such contrac- tors to cease doing business with Brown, and to force or require Brown to recognize the Union as the representative of its employees without prior certification under Section 9 of the Act as their representative, thereby violating Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Union committed unfair labor prac- tices, the Trial Examiner shall recommend that the Union be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take the affirma- tive action specified hereafter. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner issues the following recom- mended:22 ORDER Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 640 and its agent, Glynn Ross, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1 Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restrain- ing contractors whose employees it represents to force or require the contractors to cease doing business with Brown Wholesale Electrical Company and cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging its members and any other persons employed by the contractors to engage in, strikes or refusals to handle or install materials ordered by the contractors from or through Brown Wholesale Electrical Company. [2. Take the following affirmative action:] (a) Post in conspicuous places at its office and meeting halls and on bulletin boards at their worksites where the contrac- tors post notices for the attention of their employees copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."23 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes " In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " gion 28, after being signed by an official representative of the Respondent Union, shall be posted by it immediately after their receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days there- after. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith." " In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated Federal law by threatening electrical contractors whose employees we represent with trouble for ordering any materials or supplies by or through Brown Wholesale Electrical Company and by engaging in and en- couraging those employees to engage in strikes or refusals to handle or install such materials or supplies for the contrac- tors, WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any of the contractors to force them to refrain from ordering materials or supplies from Brown Wholesale Electrical Company. WE WILL NOT engage in a strike or refusal, or encour- age our members or any other persons employed by the contractors to engage in a strike or refusal, to handle any materials or supplies ordered by the contractors from or through Brown Wholesale Electrical Company. WE request our members and other persons employed by the contractors to handle and install any materials and equipment purchased by the contractors from or through Brown Wholesale Electrical Company. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 640 AND ITS AGENT, GLYNN ROSS (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 500 Gold Avenue, Room 7011, P.O. Box 2146, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103, Telephone 843-2555.