Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 139 Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International Union ^ of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and Hansen's, Incorporated. Case 20-CD-308 July 20, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On January 11, -1971 , Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent has 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 and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. The Charging Party submitted a letter- urging affirmance of the Trial Examiner's Decision and alternatively moving to reopen the record for the receipt of additional evidence,' and Respondent submitted a letter in response to the Charging Party's letter. 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, briefs, and letters, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. - ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as . amended,, the National ,Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. Party), and Collins Electrical Co., Inc., to strike or refuse to perform services with an object of forcing or requiring Hansen's, Incorporated, to assign certain work to employ- ees who are members of, or represented by, Local 3 rather than to employees who are members of, or represented by, either or both of two labor organizations (herein Local, 437 and the District Council).2 The Respondent has filed an answer denying, in material substance, that it has committed the unfair labor practices attributed to it in the complaints , , Pursuant to notice duly served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein the Labor Board) upon all other parties, a hearing on the issues in this proceeding was held before me, as duly designated Trial Examiner, on November 17, 1970; at Stockton, California. Each of the parties appeared through counsel and was afforded a full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and submit oral argument and briefs. Upon the entire record, from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having read and considered the briefs filed with me, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED; JURISDICTION Hansen's, Incorporated (herein Hansen), is a California corporation; maintains a place of business in Modesto, California, where it is engaged in business as a mechanical and electrical contractor in the building and construction industry; and is and has been at all material times an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and a person within the meaning, of Section 2(1) of the Act. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, in the course and conduct of its business operations, Hansen performed construction services valued in excess of $50,000 for nonretail enterprises in California, which annually sell and ship products valued in excess of that sum directly to 1 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. Section 8(bx4) of the Act [29 U.S.C. 158 (B)(4)], to the extent pertinent here, makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization: (i) to engage in. or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (n) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is: - 1 In view of our disposition of the case, the Charging Party's alternative motion to reopen the record is hereby denied. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERMAN MARx, Trial Examiner: The complaint in this proceeding alleges, in substance, that a labor organization, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (herein Local 3 or the Respondent), has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act' (herein the Act) by inducing and encouraging individuals employed by two enterprises, Hansen's, Incorporated (the Charging 192 NLRB No. 28 (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work .... 2 As used herein, the name Local 437 refers to, Plumbing & Pipe Trades Local 437, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefittmg Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; and the name District Council refers to Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. 3 The complaint was issued on September 22, 1970, and is based on a charge filed by Hansen on July 27, 1970. Copies of the charge and complaint have been duly served upon the Respondent. 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD purchasers located outside said State. During said year, also, in the course and. conduct of its business, Hansen purchased products valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to it directly from suppliers located outside California, or from suppliers in said State, who obtained the products directly from sources outside the State. Collins Electrical Co., Inc. (herein Collins), is a California corporation; maintains a place of business in Modesto, California, where it is engaged in business as an electrical contractor in the building and construction industry; and is and has been at all material times an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and a person within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. As the Respondent admits, Hansen and Collins are and have been at all material times engaged in interstate commerce and in operations affecting such commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.4 Accordingly, the Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 3, Local 437, and the District Council are, and have been at all material times, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act .5 III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Prefatory Statement Hansen, as a member of a multiemployer bargaining group, is subject to a contract between the group, made through its bargaining agent, and Local 3; prescribing terms and conditions of employment of various categories of employees. The agreement (herein the Engineers Contract) has been in - effect at all times material herein and, by its terms,'is to remain in effect at least until June 1, 1971. Hansen is also subject to another agreement (herein the Pipefitters Contract), affecting various classifications of its employees, between another multiemployer bargaining group, made through its bargaining agent, and theDistrict Council. That agreement, which has been in effect at all material times, is to remain in effect, according to its terms, at least through June 30, In March 1970,6 Hansen began work under a contract with an enterprise named, Gallo Winery, Inc. (herein Gallo), providing in the main for the installation by Hansen of steel piping connecting one tank with another in a group of about 80 tanks. At the times material here, Hansen employed about 95 persons at the project. Other contrac- tors had work to perform there at such times. These included the Collins enterprise which employed about 60 electricians at the project. Hansen's work required that the piping be set on supporting racks some 15 to 18 feet above the ground, and 4 The record contains no commerce facts for Collins other than an admission by the Respondent that Collins, like Hansen, is engaged in interstate commerce, and in operations affecting such commerce. In that regard, I note that the parties are erroneously shown in the transcript as stipulating "to omit" commerce allegations pertaining to Collins. The word "omit" should be "admit," and the transcript is accordingly amended at the relevant place to substitute "admit" for "omit". 4 The District Council is an = "agent" of Local 437 for collective- at all times material here it has used forklifts- to transport the ,piping from stock piles on the job site to the point of installation, and to hoist it to the racks; and as "scaffolding" platforms on which the pipe installers stood and worked. For the installation work and the operation of four forklifts used in that work, Hansen has employed pipefitters represented by the District Council, and subject to the Pipefitters Contract. For other work on the project "incidental" to the pipe installation, Hansen has employed other classifications of employees including "operating engineers" represented by Local 3 and subject to the Engineers Contract. The use of pipefitters to operate the forklifts, rather than operating engineers represented by Local 3, is a focal point of this proceeding. Hansen's employment of pipefitters for that work stemmed from its reading of article III, section 3, of the Pipefitters Contract, and from its customary practice. Article III, section 3, in pertinent part, provides: This Agreement shall cover all industrial pipe work, . including specifically the following: (A) The Fifty . . . points of jurisdiction . . . a copy of which . . . is annexed hereto. (B) The loading and unloading anywhere at the jobsite . . . distributing or reloading by any method, whether power equipment is used or not, the, rigging, hoisting, assembling, fabricating, installation and erection of pipework of any kind and description. (C) The loading and unloading- of industrial piping material . . . on and off trucks used to deliver such materials from a ... job stockpile to the approximate point of use or installation. Point 47 of the "points of jurisdiction" annexed to the contract has the effect of including in industrial pipe work "[t]he handling and using of all tools and equipment that may be necessary for the,erection and installation of all work and materials used in the pipe fitting industry." Forklifts used for purposes such as those involved here are regarded as "tools of the trade" in the pipefitting industry. As will appear in greater detail later, Local 3 reads the Engineers Contract as covering the work of operating the forklifts. The contractual terms cited are voluminous, going much beyond a statement of those needed for determina- tion of the issues here, and, in the interests of clarity-at least, it will suffice to note only the pertinent provisions below. "Coverage" provisions of the contract, embodied in section no. l (B)(2) of the instrument, provide in part that "[t]his Agreement shall cover and apply to all activities of the Individual Employer [Hansen in this case] in the area [Northern California] covered by this Agreement falling within the recognized jurisdiction of the Union [Local 3 ], including . . . building construction." The term "employee" as used in the contract is defined, in part, in section l(A)(4), as meaning "any person . . . (a) whose bargaining purposes (G.C. Exh. 3), but the record establishes no material connection of Local 437 with this case. It may be that that organization represents employees of Hansen, but that does not appear. I see no need for further reference to Local 437 and dispense with it, notwithstanding allegations pertaining to it in the complaint. 6 Unless otherwise specified, all dates mentioned below occurred in 1970. OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 141 work for an individual, Employer in the area of this Agreement falls within the recognized jurisdiction of the Union or, (b) - who operates, monitors and controls, maintains, repairs, assembles, erects, services . . . power o p e r a t e d e q u i p m e n t of the t y p e o r kind ... used in the performance of work referred to in (a) above." For situations where an employer assigns work subject to the Engineers Contract to an individual in violation of applicable hiring, or `job placement" provisions," section 3(a)(4) of Appendix A of the agreement provides: When an Individual Employer employs or recalls any person on or for work, including the operation of equipment used in the performance of such work falling within the recognizedjurisdiction of the Union, covered by this Agreement, in violation of or not in accordance with the manning provisions of this Agreement and the Job Placement Regulations, or either of them, the Individual Employer shall make whole the Employee or Employees entitled to such employment under Section No. 3 and Appendix A by payment to each such Employee or Employees of all wages, straight time and overtime, that each such Employee would have received except for the employment of such person or persons, and shall pay all Employee benefits for each hour paid each such Employee. Both the Pipefitters and Engineers Contracts contain provisions for the settlement of "jurisdictional disputes." In that connection article XII of the Pipefitters Contract provides, in part: ' In the event of any dispute as to jurisdiction of the work covered by the terms of this Agreement by reason of any such work being claimed by a Union or Unions -other than the United Association [the international labor organization with which the District Council is affiliated], such dispute shall be referred and settled in accordance with any procedure or agreement for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes to which the United Association is a party or by which it is bound, including without limitation the National Joint Plan for Settle- ment-of Jurisdictional Disputes. The decision of the,. United Association, National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, or other agency agreed to, shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. There shall be no slow down or stoppage of work as the result of any, such dispute. The Unions, the Local .Unions, the Employer and the Individual-Employers,,are and shall be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the National Joint Plan for Settlement Jurisdictional Disputes, and the Procedural Rules and Regulations of the National Joint Board. For the resolution of jurisdictional disputes, section 10(D) of the Engineers Contract provides: There shall be no cessation, or interference -any way with any of the work of Employer or of any Individual Employer by reason of jurisdictional disputes between the various unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America with respect to jurisdiction over any of the work covered by this Agreement. Such disputes shall be settled by,the Unions themselves in accordance with the rules of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and the agreement establishing a National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes"in'the Building and Construction Industry, as amended, or in the case of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, between the International Union of Operating Engineers and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. The Union, Employer and Individual Employers covered hereby shall be bound by said agreement establishing said Board and the settlement of the dispute by such Board or Labor Unions as the case may be. B. The Alleged Misconduct On June 17,1970, Local 3 wrote and delivered to Hansen a letter setting forth a claim by the union that Hansen was then "in violation" of the Engineers Contract "by virtue of your not assigning persons to the operation of the four forklifts in accordance with provisions of the agreement, or in other words that Hansen had violated the contract by employing pipefitters to operate the forklifts at the Gallo project instead of individuals furnished by Local 3 through its job referral facilities (called "Job Placement Centers" in the Engineers Contract). Invoking the "make whole" provisions of section 3(a)(4) of Appendix A of - the agreement, the letter stated that Local 3 would submit to Hansen at a later date the names of the men "to be made whole" on the basis of their positions on the union's "out- of-work list." " About a week later, by letter,d'ated June 23, 1970, Local 3 informed- Hansen of the names of such individuals and- the, amounts allegedly due them ' and requested that checks for them for the specified sums be sent to the union.7 As of July 16, Hansen had not paid the requested sums, and on that date, starting before and continuing during the workday, Local 3 picketed the entrance to the Gallo project normally used by employees of Hansen, Collins, and" other contractors with work to perform. There was one picket, and he carried a sign bearing the' legend: "Hansen's, Incorporated Unfair. Operating Engineers Local 3 ' Of some 95 employees of Hansen with work to perform at the project, about a third in various classifications, including operating engineers and pipefitters, did not work that day. At least some of the operating engineers remained, outside the entrance "milling",about in the vicinity of the picket. Of about 60 electricians in Collins' employ with work to perform at the project, approximately 5 worked that way. Some of those who did not work remained outside the entrance in the vicinity of the picket. On the following day, the entrance was similarly picketed, and about 40 percent of Hansen's employees, including operating engineers, and about half of Collins' 7 The letter,, in substance, also requested "make whole" payments for material issues in this case. The complaint was amended at the hearing, "welding machine" work assignments allegedly made in violation of the without objection, with the effect of deleting allegations pertaining to Engineers Contract. I dispense with further reference to this aspect of the "welding machine" work assignments. letter, and the work involved, because they have no connection with the 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD electricians with work to ,perform at the project, did not work there. 't'he picketing was discontinued on July 17 following` the issuance of a restraining order by a ,state ,court,, and, as is 11 fairly inferable, the cessation- of the picketing resulted from the order. On the morning of July 1-6,-'following the start of the picketing, a representative of Local 3 named Claude Odom met with "representatives of Hansen, and the material sum of what occurred was that Odom took a position' to the effect that the-workof operating the forklifts was subject to the Engineers 'Contract,", that 'Local 3 did not care who performed; that. work "as' long as the Operating Engineers were paid for 'it"; that he was there "to settle" its money claim;- and ' tliat that claim "wasn't jurisdictional" and "could not be arbitrated." At 'two more meetings, one held later in the day on July 16 and another on July 17, between Odom and representa- tives of Hansen, Odom expressed substantially the same views, and Hansen's attorney took the position that Hansen had assigned the work involved in, accordance with its past practice and its obligations under the Pipefitters Contract and that the position of Local 3 "was a jurisdictional claim" or in other words involved a jurisdictional dispute. C. Discussion o'f the Issues; Concluding Findings The' General Counsel `contends that an object of the picketing was Jo force or require Hansen to assign the operation of the four forklifts to employees represented by Local 3, and _ that the picketing 'vas thus within the proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(D). The Respondent defends`, on two basic grounds; (1) that the picketing was lawful because its object was, to compel payment of'money due employees under section 3(a)(4) of Appendix A of the Engineers Contract, and not to force' or require a 'work assignment; and (2) that the Labor Board is without jurisdiction to proceed "under Section 8(b)(4)(D)because it has not made a determination under Section 10(k) of the Act, which provides: Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in' ' an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of paragraph '4(d) of Section 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such' unfair labor practice shall have arisen, unless, within 10 days after notice that such charge has been filed, the parties to such dispute submit to the Board satisfactory evidenced that they have adjusted or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of, the dispute. Upon compliance by the parties to the dispute 'with the decision of the Board or upon such voluntary adjustment of the -dispute, such charge shall be dismissed. Although' a jurisdictional challenge is normally a threshold' question, I think it useful here to defer disposition ,of that issue until, after a finding is made on the question of whether compulsin of'a work assignment was an object of the picketing. On the latter issue, the mere fact that Local 3's demands 8 E.g. International Union ofOperating Engineers, Local 520 (Beibel Bros. Inc.), 170 NLRB 285; Highways Truckdrivers & Helpers, Local 107 (Safeway Stores, Inc.), 129 NLRB 1. 9 See also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 728, 153 upon' Hansen, whether in its letters of 'June 17 and 23 or at the meetings of July 16 and 17; were couched in-terms ,of monetary "make whole" claims is not' conclusive, nor do I find impressive 'its positions at the meetings to - the effect that it was not seeking work assignments, and that its claims therefore were not subject to the . provisions- of its contract dealing with settlement of jurisdictional disputes over work assignments. There was nothing about 'the picketing itself to indicate any purpose beyond causing a-work stoppage, ; andwto,find the underlying object or objects of the -activity one must look to the' full context of s circumstances in which it occurred.8 Beyond any doubt; Elie 'money' demand-was bottomed 'on Local 3's claim to .the fork lift = work.' This is evident from the fact that the very basis of the "make whole" demand was Local 3's claim that Hansen violated the "coverage" and "job placement" 'provisions of- the Engineers Contract in assigning the work to employees not covered by that agreement. In fact, at the first meeting of July 16, 'which took place soon after the picketing began, and obviously arose out'of it, Odom said as much,'stating that the "money °claim" was "for work", that Local 3 "claimed." Plainly, then, the root of the picketing was Local 3's claim to the work, and, assuming that an object of the picketing was, to compel payment of the alleged debt, the activity would reasonably have'the effect of positing for Hansen an implied requirement that` it' shift the-forklift work from the pipefitters to operating engineers as the condition by which it could avoid the continuing imposi- tion of a liability to pay,wages for -work that was not performed. What is more, that Hansen thus interpreted the monetary demand and the picketing is fairly inferable from its insistence during the meetings' that the,'controversy involved was "a jurisdictional dispute over the ' assignment of the forklift work in accordance with the ` Pipefitters Contract. r ampersuaded, in sum, that an underlying object of the picketing was, ^ enforcement'-of the contractual "coverage and `job placement" provisions, or, in' other words, to force or require Hansen to assignthe forklift work to individuals represented by"Local 3 rather than "to the employers represented by the District Council as the condition for avoiding'a continuing imposition of f-a wage liability for unperformed work. Clearly, picketing for such an object is within the, proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(D). On the challenge to the Board's jurisdiction, I am bound to reject the Respondent's' contention on the basis of Wood, Wire and`-Metal Lathers International- Union (Acoustical Contractors Association), 119 NLRB 1345, where the Board (at p. 1351), for reasons not necessary' to repeat- here, "construe[d] the - Act^ to permit the institution of an 8(bX4)(D) complaint proceeding without the prerequisite of a hearing and determination under Section' l0(k) of `the Act, if it appears that there exists an agreed upon method of voluntary adjustment which has broken down in'settling an underlying jurisdictional dispute." s Section-10(D) of the Engineers Contract spells out an "agreed upon method of voluntary adjustment" of Local 3's NLRB 873, 875; Electrical Workers Local 26, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (McCloskey & Co.), -147 NLRB 1498, '1501-1502, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers (Stearns-Roger Corp.), 184 NLRB No. 30. OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 143 underlying claim to the forklift operation through use of the machinery established -in the AFL-CIO in the form of the "National `Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Dispute in the Building and Construction Industry" (herein the National Joint Board) and binds both Hansen and Local 3 to acceptance of "settlement of the dispute" by that agency. It is-'evident; moreover, -from -article XII of the Pipefitters Contract that the District Council is subject to the same machinery, in the AFL-CIO -for adjustment of jurisdictional disputes as` Local 3 and is bound by a determination by the National Joint Board .10 In other words, both unions that claim the work in question and the employer - are' all contractually committed to' a common plan for the -adjustment of the conflicting claims to the forklift operation, and it is clear that an "agreed upon method"" for the resolution of the conflict' has broken down.11 The breakdown is not only evidenced by Local 3's failure to invoke the adjustment -services of the National Joint Board but by its position during the course of the July 16 and 'I!- meetings with 'Hansen that -its' claim did, not involve- it jurisdictional dispute and` was not subject to arbitration, or in other words to section - 10(D) of its contract: As one may fairly infer, the Regional Director for Region 20, , as 'a predicate for-issuance of the complaint, made an administrative determination that an "agreed upon me- thod'-for resolution of the dispute-had broken down and that -thus -a-Section 10(k) --proceeding was not`a prerequisite to adjudication` of the Section 8(b)(4)(D) allegations'. The record -here amply supports such a determination, and I hold, contrary"to-the Respondent, thatthe Labor Board has jurisdiction -toy determine : whether the Respondent has violated Section- 8(b)(4)(D)- and' to issue an 'appropriate remedial order. Such a determination does not hinge on a resolution of the conflicting claims to the work , for the materialissue here ^ is -not whether one or . the other of the labor organizations is entitled, contractually or otherwise; to the relevant work assignment, but whether the picketing had a proscribed object. On that issue, I hold, in: summary, that by means of the picketing Local 3` induced- and encouraged employees of Hansen - and Collins to engage in a strike at the Gallo project and,' in theourse 'of their employment, to refuse to perform services for their' respective employers; that an object of the'^picketing was to force or require Hansen to assign the work of operating forklifts performed by pipefitters represented by the District Council to individu als represented by -Local 3; that in employing pipefitters for the work, Hansen has not failed to conform to an order or certification of the Board -'determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work; and thatbyinducing' and'encouraging employees to strike and refuse to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring Hansen to make a work assignment as described above, Local 3 has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(D) of the Act and, has coerced and restrained Hansen in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Local 3, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with theoperations of-Hansen and Collins,'-described in 'section I, 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 flow of commerce. - ° - - - V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor. practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist, therefrom and take certain affirmative actions designed to-effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entirt, record in this proceeding, I make the following conclusions of law: 1. Hansen and. Collins have, at all times material here, employed individuals, and respectively are, and have been at all such times persons and employers = engaged in commerce, and in an industry affecting, commerce, within the meaning of the Act. 2. Local 3 and the District Council respectively are and have been at all material times labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Hansen and Collins to engage in a strike, and.* the course of their employment to refuse to perform services-for their respective employers,. for an object proscribed, by Section 8(b)(4)(D), as -found above, Local 3 has engaged in unfair, labor practices within the- meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(D) of the Act. - - 4. By restraining and coercing- Hansen and Collins for such an object, as found above, Local 3 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.- 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis 'of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act„I hereby issue the following recommended:12 , - 10, I infer, that the ``National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes,, mentioned in article XII of the Pipefitters Contract, is the same AFL--CIO ` adjustment' agency as the, 'National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes-in'the Building and Construction ' Industry," named in section 10(D) of the Engineers Contract . Labor Board cases involving jurisdictional dispute issues in the pipefittmg and plumbing trades reflect the use of both names to identify the National Joint Board. See Local 690, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipef thing Industry (Pipe Linings, Ind.), 150 NLRB`- 496; Local 60, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices 'of the Pluh:'bing and Pipefitting Industry (Bellezza Co., Inc.), 149 NLRB 599. - 11 See International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 75 (Stearns-Roger Corp.), 184 NLRB No. 90. 12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of (Continued) 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Hansen's, Incorporated, or Collins Electrical Co., Inc., or,-by any other person engaged in interstate commerce, or in an industry affecting such commerce,- to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of such individual's employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or, otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Hansen's, Incorporated, to assign the work of operating forklifts to employees who are represented by Local 3, rather than to employees • who are represented by - Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 of the United Association of Journeymen _ and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. (b) Threatening, coercing or restraining Hansen's, Incorporated, Collins Electrical Co., Inc., or any other person engaged in interstate commerce, or in an industry affectingsuch,commerce, for such an object. 2. 'Take the following affirmative actions which, I find, will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a)`Post in conspicuous places at its principal office and usual "membership meeting place, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms provided'by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board, shall, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of Local 3, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and bemaintainedby it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to ' its 'members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 3 to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Forthwith mail copies of notice to Regional Director for Region 2% after such notice has been signed as provided above for posting by Hansen's, Incorporated, and Collins Electrical Co., Inc:, if they so agree, in places where they customarily post notices to their employees.13' ' (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.14 the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of,the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the National Labor Relations Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto'shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 13 In the event that the National Labor Relations Board's order is enforced by a judgment of the 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," , 14 In the event that this recommended order is adopted by the National Labor Relations Board, after exceptions have been tiled, Paragraph2(c) thereof shall be modified to read: "Notify- said Regional Director in writing, within 20 days from . the date of this order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith." APPENDIX' NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER, OF THE - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency _of - the United States Government TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF: HANSEN'S, INCORPO- RATED, AND COLLINS ELECTRICAL CO., INC.,_ AND TO ALL MEMBERS OF: OPER- ATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, We hereby notify our members that: WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage any individual employed by HANSEN'S, INCORPORAT- ED, or COLLINS ELECTRICAL CO., INC., or by any other person engaged in ,interstate commerce, or in an industry affecting such commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of such individual's employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where, an object thereof is forcing or requiring HANSEN'S, INCORPORATED, to, assign the work of operating forklifts to employees who are represented by us rather than to employees, who are represented by PIPE TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL NO.,16 OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE- FITTING INDUSTRY OF, THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain HANSEN'S, INCORPORATED, COLLINS ELECTRICAL CO., INC., or any other person for such an object. OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION No. 3, INTERNATIONAL UNION, OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an offical notice and must not be defaced by anyone 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, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556- 3197:,