Intl. Union of Operating Engineers, Local 4

632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 4, AFL-CIO; International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 37, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1305, AFL-CIO; Labor- ers' International Union of North America, Local 610, AFL-CIO; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, Local 526 and Seaward Construc- tion Company, Inc. Cases 1-CP-172, 1-CP-173, 1-CP-174, 1-CP-178, 1-CP-180, and 1-CP-181 October 8, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On May 10, 1971, Trial Examiner David E. Davis issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that the complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent Engineers each filed exceptions to the Decision, together with supporting briefs, and a joint brief was filed by the Respondent Engineers, Carpenters, and Laborers. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as herein modified. We find merit in the General Counsel's and Charging Party's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to find an independent violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) with regard to the Respondent Operating Engineers. The record supports the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent Operating Engineers picket- ed for a recognitional object on November 24, 25, 26, 29, and December 1, 1969, and again on January 2, 3, 8, and 12, 1970. Admittedly, the Respondent Operat- ing Engineers is not currently certified as the representative of the employees in the unit of I M Monaz Portugese Sausage Factory, 160 NLRB 1465, 1469 2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order employees sought, and a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act was not filed within a reasonable period of time from the commencement of such picketing. Considering all the circumstances of this case, including the constancy of Respondent Operating Engineers' recognitional demand as shown by the intermittent picketing which extended over a period of almost 8 weeks , as well as the fact that no petition was filed within 30 days of the commencement of the picketing, we find that the picketing herein was violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C).1 THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent, International Un- ion of Operating Engineers , Local 4, AFL-CIO, has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action that we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, as set forth below. 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, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 4, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing, or causing to be picketed, the premises of the Employer, Seaward Construction Company, Inc., with an object of forcing or requiring said employer to recognize or bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees or to force or require the employees of said Employer to accept or select the Union as their collective-bargaining representative, said Union not being currently certified as the representative of such employees, and a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act not having been filed within a reasonable period of time from the commencement of such picketing. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in such conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 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 " 193 NLRB No. 87 INTL. UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 4 (b) Forthwith mail to the Regional Director for Region 1, signed copies of said notices for posting by Seaward Construction Company, Inc., if it so chooses, in places where notices to its employees are normally posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. CHAIRMAN MILLER dissenting in part: Although I agree with the majority in other respects, I would reverse the Trial Examiner's failure to find that the five Respondent Unions were engaged in a joint venture in picketing the Seaward project. In my opinion, the record establishes a degree of coopera- tion between the Unions showing a concerted effort to pressure Seaward into abandoning its "open shop" policy. The facts show that all five Unions are members of the Fall River Building Trades Council. On several occasions, representatives of several of the Unions visited the jobsite together, to advance their recogni- tional claims. On these occasions, statements were made to Seaward indicating the Unions' objections to Seaward's declared, overall nonunion policy. Indeed, the record shows that Pineault of the Carpenters told Seaward that not only his Union but other Locals were unhappy and that Seaward "probably should have met with the Fall River Building Trades Council." In addition to the foregoing, the manner in which the picketing was conducted also shows that the grievance centered upon Seaward's overall non- union policy, rather than the latter's failure to recognize any single union with jurisdiction over a particular craft. Thus the picketing was conducted successively, with each Union commencing when its predecessor ceased. The signs were the same, with each Union merely changing the name thereon as it commenced picketing. When picketing by a particular Union ceased, the signs were stored at the Laborers' hall, thereafter to be picked up by the next Union. From the above facts, the Trial Examiner concluded that the successive picketing was the result of an "understanding" to which each of the Unions was a party. Despite this "proven cooperation," as the Trial Examiner termed it, he nonetheless concluded there was insufficient evidence of a joint venture by the Unions to hold each responsible for the others' picketing. I cannot agree. Were we to countenance such "relay" picketing, we would permit unions with a common purpose effectively to evade the strictures of Section 8(b)(7)(C). In this case, for example, five craft Unions Respondent, all of whom were protesting 633 Seaward's nonunion status, would together be permit- ted almost 5 months of picketing, which far exceeds the statutory limit of 30 days. I would find that Section 8(b)(7)(C) has been violated in this case. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket Seaward Construction Company, Inc., for an object of forcing or requiring said Employer to recognize or bargain with our Union as the representative of its employees, or to force or require the employees of said Employer to accept or select our Union as their collective-bargaining representative, as the Union is not certified as the representative of such employees and no petition was filed under Section 9(c) of the Act within a reasonable period of time from the commencement of such picketing. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 4, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 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, Seventh Floor, Bulfinch Building, 15 New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Tele- phone 617-223-3300. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID E. DAVIS, Trial Examiner: These consolidated cases were heard in Fall River, Massachusetts, on May 20, 21, and July 8, 1970, pursuant to a consolidated complaint issued on February 12, 1970.1 The complaint alleged, in substance, that Respondent Unions violated Section The charges were filed in behalf of Seaward Construction Company, Inc , herein called Seaward, against each of the Respondent Unions as follows I-CP-172 and 1-CP-173 against International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 4, AFL-CIO, herein called Engineers, filed on December 1, 1969, and served on December I and 2, 1969, 1-CP-174 against International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental (Continued) 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act in that they jointly and in concert engaged in so-called relay picketing for more than 30 days at certain Seaward construction sites in Somerset, Massa- chusetts, in order to force or require Seaward to recognize and bargain with Respondent Unions jointly or severally, and to hire members of Respondent Unions to displace Seaward's nonunion employees at a time when none of the Unions was certified as a collective-bargaining agent of any of Seaward's employees and no petition for representation was pending. Respondent Unions, while admitting certain allegations of the consolidated complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and raised certain affirmative defenses as discussed hereafter. All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to argue upon the facts and law. Briefs filed by certain of the parties and the General Counsel have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and upon the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. SEAWARD'S BUSINESS Seaward is a New Hampshire corporation with its principal office and place of business in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. In the course and conduct of its business as a building contractor, it annually purchases and receives at its New Hampshire location goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points located outside the State of New Hampshire. It is admitted, and I find, that Seaward is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED It is admitted, and I find, that each of the Respondent Unions is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Preliminary Findings About October 15, 1969,2 Seaward commenced the construction of two pumping stations in Somerset, Massachusetts. On October 10, prior to the commencement of actual work, Ernest Pineault, business representative of Carpenters, visited the construction site and had a conversation with Robert Grenier, Seaward's field supenn- tendent . Pineault inquired where Seaward was going to get his help, and Grenier said he was going to hire "open shop." Pineault also inquired why Seaward was no longer paying Iron Workers, Local 37, AFL-CIO, herein called Ironworkers, filed December 10, 1969, and served on December 12, 1969, I-CP-178 against United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1305, AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters, filed January 19, 1970, and served January 20, 1970, I-CP- 180 against Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 610, AFL-CIO, herein called Laborers, filed January 21 , 1970, and served on January 23, 1970, and I-CP-181 against International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and anything into the Carpenters health and welfare fund, and Grenier replied because they were hiring "open shop and we weren't hiring through the union." Pineault asked to have a meeting with Seaward's president, Dan Seaward, and Grenier said that Pineault would have to talk through him and Jerry London, Seaward's manager for this particular project. Pineault, before departing, told Grenier that 75 percent of Somerset was union and he would see the town officials to get his men on. On October 14, Pineault, accompanied by Manuel Mederios, again went to the Seaward jobsite and met with Grenier with London in attendance. Grenier informed the union representatives that he would hire "open shop." When leaving, Mederios said that he intended to get his share of the work legally. On October 15, when actual work on the project began, employees who had been hired were designated by various classifications but were expected to fill in at whatever job they were qualified and needed at any particular time. According to Grenier, no employee received less money when working in a lower paid classification than that for which he was hired. B. The Picketing On November 19, Teamsters picketed Seaward's jobsite with signs reading, "Teamsters Local #526 Asks Seaward Constr. Co., Inc. Please Maintain the Best Union Area Standards." On November 24, 25, 26, 29, and December 1, Engineers picketed with signs reading, "Local #4 I.U.O.E. asks Seaward Constr. Co. Inc. Maintain The Best Union Area Standards." Seaward's attorney sent Respondent Engineers a telegram dated November 25, stating that the picketing was illegal and that a lawsuit and charges would be filed unless the pickets were removed.3 Walter J. Ryan, business manager of Engineers, replied on November 25 that the picketing was to inform the public that Seaward was not meeting area standards.4 However, after learning that charges were filed on December 1, the Engineers ceased picketing. Teamsters resumed picketing on Decem- ber 2 and continued picketing on December 3 and 4. Joseph Costa, business agent of Teamsters Local 526, testified that the picketing conducted by the Teamsters was solely on behalf of the Teamsters, and that after the Teamsters pickets were removed on December 4, the Teamsters had nothing to do with any picketing at the jobsite by other unions or with any strike that thereafter may have been conducted against Seaward. As this testimony stands uncontradicted on the record, and Costa's demeanor favorably impressed the undersigned, I credit the above testimony. I find, as Costa testified, that Teamster picketing ceased as a result of a communication received from Seaward's attorney which threatened a lawsuit.5 On the other hand, Costa's testimony that there was no arrange- ment with Carpenters and Laborers in regard to picketing is not credited for the reasons discussed below. Helpers of America, Local 526, herein called Teamsters, filed on February 5, 1970, and served on February 6, 1970. 2 All dates hereafter refer to the year 1969 unless otherwise specified CP Exh 2 CP Exh 3 5 GC Exh 4 General Counsel in his brief agrees Teamsters ceased picketing as a result of this telegram. INTL. UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 4 On December 4, Pineault, Manuel Mederios, business representative of Laborers, Martin Byrne, business repre- sentative of Iron Workers, and a fourth unidentified individual rode together to the Seaward jobsite in an Ironworker automobiles According to Grenier's credited testimony, Byrne asked if any of Grenier's employees were union, and Grenier replied that he did not know. Byrne then asked if any of Seaward'sjobs were union and Greiner again said he did not know. Byrne then got into the automobile with the fourth unidentified individual and said that he was going to get tough from now on. Mederios and Pineault remained, and Mederios asked if Grenier was hiring any laborers. Grenier said "yes," and Mederios said he would send some over.? Grenier testified that Seaward's employees on the jobsite at Somerset were former employees from Seaward's jobs at New Hampshire and New Bedford, as well as applicants at thejobsite and those sent by the State employment service. On Monday, December 8, Iron Workers commenced picketing. Byrne testified that he called the "Laborers Hall"8 and personally picked out picket signs previously used by Teamsters. Byrne changed the signs, however, by placing "Iron Workers Local #37" over the Teamsters name and adding at the bottom of the sign the words "This is not a strike." Iron Workers picketed on December 8, 10, and 12. It rained on December 9 and 11, and as a consequence there was no work at the project site. On December 12, Byrne received a telegram from Seaward's attorney stating that the picketing was in violation of the law and Byrne removed the pickets. Byrne testified that he spoke to one unidentified ironworker on thejobsite prior to the picketing, and that this led him to believe Seaward was not paying prevailing wage rates. However, when Byrne received the telegram which threatened that charges would be preferred, he changed his mind and withdrew the pickets. Byrne returned the picket signs to the labor temple where, on December 15, Respondent Carpenters appropriated them. Pineault placed the words "Carpenters Local 1305" over "Teamsters Local 526" and removed the words, "This is not a strike" from the lower part of the sign . Pineault testified that he visited Seaward's jobsite on December 15 and noticed that there were no pickets. Pineault also testified that prior to picketing he had learned from several members of the Carpenters Union that Seaward was paying the Carpenters wage rate to only one of the men doing carpenter work. Although he received the information concerning the wage rates being paid by Seaward to carpenters 2 weeks to a month prior to December 15, he did not picket until December 15 because, "There was no picket line there [on December 151 so I felt that I should pick the ball up and I put a couple of men there." Asked if he discussed his picketing with officials of other unions, Pineault said that he did it on his own and there was no consultation with the Iron Workers. Pineault conceded that in a telephone conversation with London the day after 6 Pmeault testified that he often rode to the Seaward jobsite in company with other union representatives 7 Asked whether Mederios did send any men, Grenier testified "He could have, they did not identify themselves." 8 Apparently the labor temple where several labor organizations have their offices. 635 Carpenters commenced picketing, he told London that not only his union, but other locals, were unhappy and that London "probably should have met with the Fall River Building Trades Council."9 Pineault also said that he had men out of work and wanted Seaward to use them on the project. On December 19, after receiving the now standard communication from Seaward's attorney threatening to file charges and a lawsuit, Pineault withdrew the pickets and returned the picket signs to the labor hall. On Monday, December 22, Respondent Laborers began picketing. The same signs were used with the name "Laborers' Union Local 510" substituted. Picketing by Respondent Laborers continued on December 23, 24, and 29. On December 29, this picketing ceased upon the receipt of a threat to file charges forwarded by Seaward's attorney. Thereafter, Respondent Operating Engineers picketed with the original signs on January 2, 3, 8, and 12, 1970. Since January 12, 1970, there has been no picketing. C. Analysis and Conclusions Contrary to the contentions of Respondents, I find that the picketing by each of Respondent Unions had a recognitional objective. I also find that the union officials discussed the Seaward situation among themselves and decided that no two Unions should picket at any one time. Any other conclusion from the evidence would lead to the absurd premise that each Union, without communicating with one another, independently observed the jobsite and decided to picket at that particular time because no other union was picketing, and that the resulting picketing by one Union after another was a happenstance. I am not prepared to be so unrealistic; rather, I believe, that the pattern of successive picketing occurred as a result of an understand- ing to which each of Respondent Unions was a party. It is admitted that the various union officials traveled together to the jobsite on numerous occasions, used the same picket signs and avoided picketing on the same days. It is fair to infer that when they rode together to the jobsite, they discussed their problems with Seaward including picketing. The flimsy evidence upon which the Unions relied to justify their conclusion that Seaward was not paying prevailing wage rates reveals the stated objectives carried by the legends on the picket signs and the purposes announced by the union officials as subterfuges designed to disguise the real objectives of the picketing. It follows as a matter of course that the decision by Seaward to operate on a nonunion basis was a matter of genuine concern to all Respondents. The question, therefore, arises whether the proven cooperation between the Respondent Unions establishes a joint course of action to accomplish a common purpose. 10 The General Counsel argues in his brief that the evidence, when considered in its entirety, shows that the picketing by the various unions from November 19 to January 12, 1970, demonstrates that they were acting in concert. Pursuing this 9 It was stipulated that the Fall River Building Trades Council consists of 15 locals, including Respondent Teamsters ; that no unfair labor practice charges were pending against the Council, and that the Council is not a respondent in the instant case 10 Cf. Seattle District Council of Carpenters, et al (Cisco Construction Company), 114 NLRB 27 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD argument , the General Counsel asserts that if this conclusion is not reached, it would be possible for a union to picket for 29 days, after which another union with a similar recognitional objective could commence picketing without violating the law ; and because of the fragmented representation pattern in the construction industry , picket- ing in this manner could continue for many months without violation. The Charging Party in its brief takes a position similar to the General Counsel , and urges the issuance of an order applicable not only to the named Respondent Unions, but also to the Fall River Building Trades Council and to each of its members. In advancing this request , the Charging Party relies on Pineault's statement to London that the Council was concerned with the situation. The joint brief submitted in behalf of the Engineers, Carpenters , and Laborers cites Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters, Island Coal and Lumber Corp., i i as standing for the proposition that where two unions picket simultaneously at a jobsite , each union is responsible for the conduct of the other unless it specifically disavows the conduct in question . The argument, based on this premise, is then made that it is therefore a prudent course for several unions having a dispute with an employer to avoid picketing together, but to picket at different times. The Respondents charge that the term "relay" picketing applied to the successive picketing by each of the Respondent Unions is a phrase newly coined by the General Counsel. To further refute the contention that the Unions were acting in concert , Respondents' joint brief relies on Building and Construction Trades Council of Tampa 12 The joint brief also argues that Respondents do not execute joint agreements, that each of the Unions had a dispute with Seaward ; and that there is nothing to suggest that any Respondent would have continued its picketing had a satisfactory agreement been reached with it alone. That there was no joint venture is further shown by the absence of the joint use of pickets 13 and by the Board's holding in Local 1140, Hod Carriers, 14 where the Trial Examiner, in an opinion adopted by the Board , said, "In my opinion, the fact that two separate labor organizations, which have found their respective standards being jeopardized by the same employer which had just previously been following their higher standards, direct their activities toward like objectives, namely, the protection of those standards through signed contracts does not constitute a joint venture, at least not in the sense that the representatives of one organization become the agents of the other." In my view, the facts in this case , including the permissible inferences , do not warrant a conclusion that Respondent Unions engaged in anoint venture which made the agent of one union the agent of the other unions or that the unions engaged in concerted activity to achieve a common purpose I have found above that each of the Respondent Unions did picket with an object of obtaining recognition and an agreement covering those employees of Seaward who fell 11 387 F 2d 170, enforcing 159 NLRB 895 12 132 NLRB 1564, 1584 13 Suffolk District Council of Carpenters, supra, may be distinguished on this ground 14 134 NLRB 722, 732, 733 within their respective jurisdictions. The General Counsel's reliance on the evidence hitherto discussed to establish a theory of joint venture is misplaced as it falls far short of the necessary proof. While the evidence before me shows that there was an understanding between the Unions for the successive picketing of the Seaward projects, the coordina- tion thereafter between the Unions was minimal consisting of travel to the project by union officials in one automobile. Although the same picket signs were used , each union carefully identified itself on the picket sign. The Ninth Circuit Court in Colson and Stevens 15 said: "The test of joint action in this respect is not whether common objectives are sought, but whether the picketing itself wasjoint, and the result of a joint campaign." Pineault's statement that all Fall River Labor Council members were concerned merely articulates a well-estab- lished fact of the construction industry to the effect that all building trades unions are sensitive to nonunion contrac- tors. It is too far fetched to conclude from this chance remark that Pineault was speaking for or that he had authority to speak for any other member of the Council or the Council itself. Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman, in his decision in Westra Construction Inc., 16 envisioned a situation where, as here, unions would enter into an arrangement for successive picketing and stated: However, even if true, such cooperation between the two unions to achieve their similar but separate objectives do not constitute them joint adventurers or agents of each other. As I am in complete agreement, my findings that the Unions did enter into an arrangement for successive picketing does not thereby constitute the Unions as joint adventurers or agents of one another . Illustrative of the separate purposes of the picketing are the occurrences of December 4 when Byrne drove three other business representatives to the construction site and conferred with Grenier. Byrne departed in his automobile after having some words with Grenier saying that he was going to get tough from now on. Medenos and Pineault on the other hand remained and continued to talk to Gremer seeking employment of their members. In my opinion, this incident demonstrates the fact that the Unions were each acting in their separate interests rather than for the combined interests of all. Respondent Unions, particularly the Engineers and Ironworkers, have pleaded as an additional affirmative defense prior recognition by Seaward , arguing that the factor would make the picketing in the instant case permissible under the Act because it would not be picketing for initial recognition . To support this contention, Respon- dents place principal reliance on Sullivan Electric Company,17 where the Board held that Section 8(b)(7)(C) was not to be literally applied so as to reach picketing by a recognized union to secure compliance with an existing contract, since the Section was "intended to proscribe picketing having as its target forcing or requiring an 15 Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers Union Local 383, (Colson and Stevens), 137 NLRB 1650, affd 323 F 2d 422 (C.A 9) 16 175 NLRB No 147 17 Building and Construction Trades Council of Santa Barbara County, AFL-CIO, et at (Sullivan Electric Company), 146 NLRB 1086. INTL. UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 4 637 employer's initial acceptance of the Union as the bargain- ing representative of his employees." The evidence shows that the Ironworkers' prior agreement with Seaward and the Engineers' pnor agreement with Seaward expired approximately 16 months before the picketing began at Somerset. Whether or not under these circumstances Respondents have a valid defense on this ground seems dubious since the holding in Sullivan Electric Company would seem to indicate that a current agreement would be the minimum requirement. With regard to the affirmative defense pleaded by some of the Respondent Unions with regard to hiring local residents in violation of Massachusetts' law, the evidence on that question was sketchy and unpersuasive. According- ly, I find insufficient evidence in support of this defense. For the reasons stated above, the picketing in issue here has not violated Section 8(b)(7)(C), and I shall, therefore, recommend dismissal of the complaint. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Seaward Construction Company, Inc., is and has been at all material times herein an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 4, AFL-CIO; International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 37, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amenca, Local 1305, AFL-CIO; Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 610, AFL-CIO and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 526, respectively are, and have been at all times matenal herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing the construction project of Seaward Construction Company, Inc., as found above, the Respon- dent Unions have not violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law , and the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that the National Labor Relations Board enter an order dismissing the consolidated complaint.