IBEW Local 1186

254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1186, AFL-CIO and Pacific Electrical Contractors' Association and Its ' Members (A-1 A- Lectrician, Inc.; AA Electric,' LTD.; Able Electrical Service;' American 'Electric Co., Ltd.; Arakaki Electric, Inc.; Aruda Electric Co., Ltd.; Bowman Electric Shop, )LTD.; Jack Endo Electric, Inc.; Grant's Electric,Inc.; John Gushiken Electric, Inc.; Halfhill Electrical Co., Ltd.; T. Hata Electric,,Inc.; Hygrade Electric Co., Ltd.; Jimmy's, Electrical Service;- Kamibayashi Electrical Works, Inc.; Ka- neohe Electric; Kihara Electric, Inc.; Kimura Electric, Inc.; L. A. Electrical Service; Larry's Electric Service; M & I Electric Co., Inc.; Mid-Pac Electric, ' Inc.;-'Robert Y. Miyamasu Electric; G. Morishige Electrical Contractors, Inc.; Nakagawa Electric; Nakai Electrical Service, Inc.; Oahu Electrical Contractors, Ltd.; Geo. Okano Electrical Contracting, Corp.; Oki's Electric, Inc.; Progressive Electric; Reynolds Electrical Co., Inc.; Rite Way Electric Co., Ltd.; Saan Electric; Standard Electric, Inc.; Stan's Electrical Service; K. Takai Electrical Contractor; R. K. Takemoto Electric, Inc.; Ted's Wiring .Service, Ltd.; Fumio Teruya, Ltd.; -Times Electric, Inc.; Toyomura Electric Service ; United Electrical Service,' Ltd.; Universal Electric Co., Ltd.; Veteran's Electric Co., Ltd.;' S. Wasa Electri- cal Service, Inc.; Watanabe Electric) and Alexan- der & Baldwin, Inc.; Amfac, Inc.; E. E. Black, Ltd.; C. Brewer & Co., Ltd.; Castle & Cooke, Inc.; Theo. H. Davies + & Co., Ltd.; James W.' Glover, Ltd.; Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc.; Hawaiian Telephone Co.; Honolulu Gas Co., Ltd. Case 37-CE-2 July 28, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On August 11, 1970, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent Association and Respondent Union filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. The General Counsel filed a letter 1 Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we find in agreement with the Trial Examiner that the disputed contract provision is not exempt from Section 8(e) of the Act by virtue of the construction industry proviso. See the House Conference Report (H. Rept. 1147, 86th Cong., Ist secs., p. 39) which stated, "It should be particularly noted that the proviso relates only and cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. The Charging Parties filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, a brief in support of cross-exceptions and in opposition to exceptions of Respondent Association and Respondent Union, and a request for oral argument. Respondent Union and Respondent Association filed answering briefs. Res- pondent Association also filed an . answer to, the request for oral argument. The Board granted oral argument which was held on January 4,197 1, with the parties participating therein. 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, letter, briefs, request 'for oral argument and answer thereto, the oral argument, and the entire record inn the case, _ and hereby, adopts the findings, conclusions,, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner,l as, modified herein. , , , ORDER" Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National, Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order and Recom- mended Order of the Trial "Examiner-,as, modified herein and hereby orders, that, Pacific Electrical Contractors' Association and its employer-'members in Hawaii, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1186, AFL-CIO, and its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified below: a. Strike the phrase "or any other labor organiza- tion" from the Notice to Employees, Appendix A. b. Strike the phrase "or any other employer" from the Notice to Members, Appendix B. MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting: I am constrained to disagree with my colleagues' holding that the contract clause in issue is violative of Section 8(e) as, in my view, it not only is a valid work protection clause, but, in any event, is within the exception to the proviso to Section 8(e). First, I think it dubious that the wording of Section 8(e) clearly embraces the clause in question in that on its face it relates only to the ownership of property to be worked on and, second on its face, cannot be said and exclusively to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at the site of the construction . The proviso does not exempt from Section 8(e) agreements relating to supplies or other products or materials shipped or otherwise transported to and delivered on the site of the construction." 192 NLRB No. 43 IBEW LOCAL 1186 to have arisen from an objection to the source of the property.2 However, even if Section 8(e) could possibly have some application here, I would construe the clause as having- -at least for purposes of Section 8(e)-a work preservation objective. It cannot be gainsaid that the clause insofar as honored by the employers would in fact perserve, for the electricians covered by it, work they have historically and traditionally performed. There is, of course, as the Trial Examiner's findings show, little evidence showing that the electricians have experi- enced a material loss-of work in the past; but this lack of evidence is significant only in that it establishes that the electricians have in fact historically and traditionally ;performed the work they now seek to perserve. Obviously, a work perservation clause by its very purpose 'is preventive in nature; i.e., designed to avoid encroachments upon employee work areas. Surely, the Union need not wait until the harm is done before being permitted to take those steps deemed necessary to protect employees which it' represents. And this is what'the clause in issue does. My colleagues seemingly do not disagree with the basic 'p'roposition that the clause does in fact have a work perservation -objective, but they nonetheless have deemed the, clause unlawful because of the means by which the objective is accomplished. I am unpersuaded, .for I view it inherently inconsistent to hold a clause to be a work protection one and also to be unlawful. But in any event, and assuming that a secondary meaning-can be read into the clause, I' would find it exempt by reason of the proviso' to Section 8(e). By the terms of the proviso, the exemption applies if the agreement is one with an employer in the construction industry and, insofar as is material here, relates to construction work to be done on the jobsite. These conditions-have been met here.3 The employers are in the construction industry, and the agreement relates `solely ' to- construction site work; i.e., "all electrical construction, erection, installation, han- dling, and moving 'work on the job site...." Concededly, the agreement here contains a novel provision that the jobsite work to be performed will be done on "material, equipment, and apparatus" owned by the employer; but this qualification of ownership does not remove the clause from the proviso's exception, for the clause does not concern itself with either the manufacturer of the goods to be installed or the mode of movement from that source to the jobsite. In sum apart from any consideration of whether the agreement here may be held invalid for other reasons, I must conclude that the General Counsel has not demonstrated. that it is unlawful under Section 8(e). Accordingly, I would dismiss the complaint in its entirety. - - 255 2 Cf. National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. N.L.RB., 386 U.S. 612, 619, wherein the Supreme Court expressed its doubts as to the actual scope of Section 8(e). 3 Not in issue in this case is the qualification that the clause to be exempt must contain no self-help provision. Ets-Hokin Corporation 154 NLRB 839, 842. None is present here. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner: This case, with all parties represented, was heard in Honolulu, Hawaii, on March 24, 1970, on complaint of the General Counsel and answers of Pacific Electrical Contractors' Association, et al., herein referred to as the Association, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1186, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union , and answer of Mid-Pac Electric, Inc., herein referred to as Mid-Pac. The complaint was issued on October 27,4969, upon charges filed July 23, October 9, and October 22, 1969. The complaint alleges that the Union and the Association have entered into, maintained, and enforced a contract proscribed by Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. - Bri efs have been filed by the general Counsel and the Union and the Association and these have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF EMPLOYERS The Pacific Electrical Contractors' Association is a voluntary association of employers, organized for the purpose, among others, of assisting its employer-members and representing them in negotiating and entering into collective-bargaining agreements with , representatives of their employees, including the Union. The employer- members of the Association are engaged in -business as building and construction contractors - in the State of Hawaii. During the past year, the employer-members purchased and received goods, materials, and supplies valued in , excess of $50,000 directly from places located outside the State of Hawaii. The employer-members of the Association are employers engaged in commerce and in operations affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1186, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issue The Union and the Association have contracted that employees will be assigned to work only on material, 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD equipment, and apparatus owned by their employers. The issue is whether these contract terms require the electrical contractors to cease doing business with any other person in violation of Section 8(e),of the Act or whether they are work-preservation provisions and therefore outside the proscriptions of Section 8(e). If the contract is found to fall within Section 8(e), then is it exempt therefrom by the construction industry proviso? B. Statement of Fact In the early part of 1969, the Union and the Association commenced meetings to renegotiate their collective-bar- gaining agreement., In March, the Union proposed article VII, Section 1(e), as follows: Employees, covered by this agreement, shall do all -electrical construction, erection, installation, handling, and moving work on the job site and in the shop, and all electrical maintenance thereon, including and subject to the following:.. . (e) all work, other than maintenance work, will be done on material, equipment, and 'apparatus own by the Employer. By memorandum dated April 25, 1969, Walter Oda, executive secretary for the Association„ notified all members, among other , things, the following 'in regard to article VII, Section 1(e): Employees covered by the agreement shall do all electrical construction,_ erection, installation, handling and moving work on the job site and in the shop, and all electrical maintenance thereon. All work, other than maintenance work, will be done on material, equip- ment, and apparatus owned by the employer. It is to be noted that this was a proposal of management that the - employees would not handle any fixture, equipment, and/or apparatus that is not furnished by the electrical contractor. On all new projects contracted for after August 15, 1969 the electrical contractors would- not be able to bid on job where the fixtures, equipment` and/or apparatus are to be furnished by others. In- this matter, it is expected that if the owner intends to have any electrical work done, then he would have to concede to our demands. On May 1, 1969, the Association held. a meeting of members at which the contract was ratified. Although the prior collective-bargaining agreement .did not expire until August 14, 1969, the membership of the Association voted in favor of 'a recommendation from the negotiating committee that all of the noncost items of the revised contract were to take effect immediately. It is noted that Oda, in his memorandum to the members of the Association, claimed section 1(e)" of article VII as a proposal of management, and it obviously has advantages to management due to the markup that electrical contrac- tors receive on fixtures and equipment. Oda testified, however, that he made this claim to the Association members to demonstrate that the contract did not contain only concessions made bythe association. In the early part of 1969, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. began the remodeling of an office building. Nordic Construction Company was selected as the general contractor and work commenced on or about June 1, 1969. Alexander & Baldwin, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Hawaiian. Lighting and Supply Corporation, owned all of the materials, supplies, and electrical ,fixtures that were to be used on this ,project. After one electrical contractor was considered but not employed, Halfhill Electric Company was asked to submit a bid- for the electrical work on this project. Halfhill advised Nordic by letter dated May 13, 1969, as follows: We are sorry to inform youthat we will be unable to accomplish the electrical work on subject job, as the owner will supply the lighting fixtures on this job. It is the negotiated intent as we understand & the electrical association's interpretation of -our, new union contract,, that the electricians in Hawaii will not install ,materials supplied by others than the electrical contractors. We also do not intend to use the electricians on our payroll on a labor only job as we are importing electricians from Wyoming' to accomplish work presently on our books. We enclose 'copies of our new contract which actually went into effect May 1, 19691. Halfhill, as well as the prior electrical- contractor , called Hawaiian Lighting Company for quotation of prices -on fixtures. Prices were not quoted, Donald Avery, vice, president and general manager of Hawaiian Lighting and Supply Corporation, testified that he had been informed that the lighting fixtures were to be supplied directly to the owner of the building, Alexander & Baldwin that it would furnish the fixture to the electrical subcontractor for installation on this project. - A third electrical subcontractor, Wasa Electrical Service, was asked to bid on the project. ,A bid was submitted on May 15, 1969, for the "electrical work with fixtures"; it was accepted, and Wasa purchased the fixtures from Hawaiian Lighting and Supply Company and performed the electrical work. The original charge herein was filed on July 23, 1969, and on or about July 25, 1969, article VII,' section 1 of the contract was amended to delete the words "and in die' shop," thus limiting the work claimed by the Union to that to be performed "on the job site."" The Union and the Association expressed recognition,of the fact that some exceptions would have to be made to the application of article VII, section 1(e) since governmental contracting agencies and utility companies provide some of their own equipment. Also it was 'their understanding that the section did not apply to certain large equipment such- as, big generators, transformers and switch gears used in power plants. C. Contentions of the Parties The General Counsel contends that by this contract provision the electrical contractors are agreeing to cease'. doing business with contractors and building owners who own and retain ownership of electrical fixtures and supplies that they want installed, and that therefore the Union and the Association are engaging in an unfair labor practice in ' violation of Section 8(e) of the Act. The Respondents Contend that the contract provision has, as its objective the preservation of,work for the employees of the electrical contractors and therefore does not fall IBEW LOCAL 1186 within Section 8(e) of the Act ; and that in situations where the electrical contractor owns the fixtures and equipment, he controls the assignment of the installation work and this would lessen the likelihood of this work being assigned to another craft or class. Furthermore , Respondents contend that article VII relates to work to be done at the jobsite. The contract provision in question , in requiring the electrical contractor to be the owner of all fixtures and electrical supplies installed by his employees, means that he cannot do business with a building owner or general contractor who owns the electrical fixtures and supplies that he wants used and installed-unless the owner sells these fixtures and supplies to the electrical contractor, who would, in turn, sell them back to the owner. Thus, by this contract provision a condition is imposed on an electrical contractor's ability to-do business with other persons. If the condition is not met, he is contractually obligated not to do business with that person. Is this proscribed by Section 8(e) of the Act, or is it an unavoidable side effect of a primary work-preservation-clause? Aside from the general assertion that the intent of the contract provision in question is "to preserve historically and traditionally the work-performed by members of our Union," A. Fujikawa, business manager and financial secretary for the Respondent Union, testified that the contract provision in question was included in the contract to solve the following problems: (1) to correct the practice and prevent owners and general contractors from assigning installation and other electrical work to other trades; (2) to avoid jurisdictional disputes as to work assignments claimed by Respondent; (3) to give the electrical contractor control over, the -electrical fixtures and supplies to facilitate proper job scheduling and to prevent Loss of time occasioned by delay in receipt of materials and from any need to change improper materials, and (4) to facilitate the fixing of warranties on materials and equipment. Fujikawa then cited incidents where some general contractors of building owners have in the past assigned the installation of electrical fixtures that they owned to-crafts and employees other than members of Respondent Union. In early 1969, carpenters installed ' bathroom fixtures above medicine cabinets for a general contractor on a Moanalua Terrace job. In about May or.June 1969, a general contractor on a golf course job called the Union to inquire if a sprinkler contractor could install the control wiring. Fujikawa replied that he could not do so, and members of the Union installed the wiring and did the hookup work on the sprinkler system. About 1967, at a Waialae Shopping Center job, a contractor other than an electrical contractor installed the "ends" and the ballast for certain fixtures, but this was- subsequently-corrected and members of Union did the installation work on this job . Fujikawa also mentioned that -about 12 or 13 years ago, carpenters installed about 500 electrical fixtures on a Wigwam Building project. On this job, carpenters put the fixtures in place and electricians wired them. Fujikawa testified that there have been many other small jobs that members of his union did not get to perform because owners utilized other crafts for installation of fixtures. D. Conclusions 257 Most of those who seek the services of an electrical contractor will look to him (1) to furnish the fixtures and equipment, (2) to install them, and (3) to make the electrical connections or hookups. Some building owners may purchase fixtures directly from a supplier and ask the electrical' contractor to install them and connect them; here the union members retain the work assignments sought. Among building owners who own their own fixtures, there may be some who wish to assign the installation work to their own employees or others than members of the Union. This is what the Union is seeking to avoid. If the Union were to picket a jobsite where that has occurred, it would subject itself to involvement in a jurisdictional dispute.' This it also wants to avoid. - If -an electrical contractor owns the fixtures and equipment to be installed, he has control over the assignment of their installation. Section VII 1(e) seeks to place the ownership and control over the work assignments with the electrical contractors. So, in this respect, subsection (e) has a work preservation objective, but it seeks to accomplish it by a circuitous means. It is not the ownership of the fixtures in and of itself that concerns the Union but an anticipated consequence or effect thereof-that being the assignment of the installation work to its members. But, are not the means sought to be used too sweeping in effect? Is the validity of the contract to be judged by one of its effects or by its total effect and consequences? ,There is no estimate as to what percentage of electrical jobs there are where fixtures and equipment are provided by the owner rather than by the electrical contractor, nor in what percentage of these the electrical contractor is not called upon for both the installation of the fixtures and the hookups. The Union's business manager, Fujikawa, named only two large jobs where the installation work was not done by union members. However, to avoid the possibility of losing any installation work, the Union, is causing all building owners and general contractors who- own their own fixtures to make a choice--either (1) sell their fixtures and equipment to the electrical contractor, or (2) find some other means of having their fixtures installed and hooked up. As to article VII, section 1(e), the Union has an immediate or first objective and then a second or sequential objective that it expects will flow from an accomplishment of the first objective. The immediate objective is to give to the electrical contractors control over the assignment of installations and hookups; the sequential objective is the employers' utilization of this control -to make the assign- ments of this work to members of the Union. In work preservation situations, a cessation of-business with a subcontractor is at the very heart of the work preservation objective; the effect is the objective. A preservation of the' work requires a cessation of business with a subcontractor. There is no sequence of objectives. In the instant case, the effect and consequence of the Union's first objective are much broader in scope than its sequential objective. It requires a cessation of business or a divestation I Plumbers & Fitters Local 761, 54 LRRM 1020, 144 NLRB 133. 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of ownership of fixtures by building owners even where there would be no loss of installation work to union members. Another consequence of ownership but one not expressed as an objective is control over source of fixtures and supplies. But I ' find no direct evidence that the Union herein is seeking to affect or control the labor relations of any manufacturer of electrical equipment. Although such is usually an objective and consequence of contracts that violate Section 8(e) of the Act, that section outlaws any agreement to cease doing business with another employer who is not involved in and is secondary to a union's labor dispute, and it seeks to prevent injury to or the regulation of the practices of such other employer by said union. The Union's dispute or grievance on work assignment herein is actually - with those who assign installation work to employees who are not electricians and members of the Union. To prevent them from being in a position to do this, the Union is seeking to require all general contractors and building owners to cease buying their fixtures from any source other than electrical contractors. Thus, included therein are employers neutral and secondary to the Union's dispute with those who would assign installation work to others. I find that subsection (e) of article VII, section 1 of the collective-bargaining agreement falls within the proscrip- tions of Section 8(e) of the Act. I also find that the contract is not exempt from the coverage of Section 8(e) by the construction industry proviso thereto. The Union's immedi- ate objective relates to the ownership of the equipment and apparatus'-and not to work to be done at the jobsite. The second objective is related to the jobssite work, but, is once removed front the action required by the contract terms. It is an anticipated consequence of the accomplishment of the first objective. I find that the application 'of the construc- tion industry, proviso must be determined on the basis of the action called for by the contract terms in question. The fixing of ownership of the material, equipment, and apparatus is not related to the contracting or subcontract- ing of work to be done at the site of construction. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Those activities of the Respondents, set forth in section III, above, found to constitute an unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the businesses of the employers as set forth 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. 2 In October, 1969, the Respondents notified the Board that they waived their rights under, and therefore would not give effect to, article VII, section 1(e) of their collective-bargaining agreement, pending final action on this case by the Board. 3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I.,- The employer-members of -the Pacific Electrical Contractors' Association are employers engaged,^in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. - 2, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1186, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By entering into and maintaining subsection (e) of article VII, section l of a collective-bargaining agreement whereby the Electrical Contractors have agreed to cease doing business with other persons, Respondents have engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(e) of the Act.2 4. Such unfair labor practice affects' commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7),of'=the Act: THE REMEDY - Having found that the Respondents have engaged in an unfair labor practice, it shall be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, I recommend that, pursuant to Section 110(c) .of the Act, the Board issue the following: ORDER 1. The Pacific Electrical Contractors', Association and its, employer-members, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: a. Cease and desist from, entering into and maintaining subsection (e) of article VII, section. 1 of its current collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. • , b. The, Association and each of its employer members shall post, at their places of, business, copies of the notice attached hereto as.-Appendix A.3 Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, ,after being duly signed _ by - an authorized representative, of the Association, be posted^ by each Respondent employer-member- and by the,AAssociation immediately upon receipt thereof and ;be maintained by each for 60 consecutive days ' -in- conspicuous places including all places where notices , to employees are customarily, posted. reasonable steps, shall >be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or. covered by other material. c. Notify the Regional Director 'for, Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the-date-of receipt of,this Decision,-what steps have been taken to comply herewith:4 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical,, Workers, all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. In the event that the Board's' Order is enforced by a judgment df'a United States Count 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." 4 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the' Board, this provision shall be modified to read :,`.`Notify the regional-Nrector'for Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what IBEW LOCAL 1186 259 Local 1186, AFL-CIO; its officers, agents, and representa- tives shall: a. Cease and desist from entering into and maintaining subsection (e) of .Article VII;, Section I of its collective- bargaining agreement with the Pacific electrical Contrac- tors' Association. b. Post at its business offices and meeting halls, and all places where notices to, :members , are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."5 Copies of said notice, on fomrs to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall , after having been duly signed by an authorized representative of the Union, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by other materials. c. Notify-- the' Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date , of receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith .6 Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith." 5 See fn. 3. 6 See fn. 4. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, or give effect to an agreement with' Local` Union 1186, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers or any other" labor organization to the, effect that employees covered by such agreement shall work only oninaterial, equipment, and apparatus owned by their employer. PACIFIC ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION (Employer) - Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official 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 415-556-3197. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, or give effect to an agreement with the' Pacific ' Electrical Contractors' Association or any of 'its' members or any other employer that employees covered by such agreement shall perform work only on material , .,equipment; and apparatus owned by their employer. Dated By INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1)86, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This is an official 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 415-556-3197.