Carpenters Local Union No. 22

688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carpenters Local Union No. 22, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO and Nor-Pac Commercial Com- pany d/b/a Union Street Plaza Laborers International Union of North America, Local No. 261 , AFL-CIO and Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local No. 4, AFL-CIO and Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza. Cases 20-CC-1067, 20-CC-1068, 20-CC-1070, and 20-CC-1071. October 12, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY 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 Respondents, Carpenters Local Union No. 22, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO; Laborers International Union of North America, Local No. 261, AFL-CIO; and Brotherhood of Painters, Deco- rators and Paperhangers of America, Local No. 4, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. i Respondent Elevator Constructors has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner' s resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 2 The Trial Examiner's inadvertent error in Section ( I) of the Section entitled "Issues , Contentions, Conclusions ," to the effect that McPartland was an agent of "Respondent Laborers" is hereby corrected to read "Respondent Carpenters " TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION On June 30 , 1971, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin issued his Decision in the above -entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision . Thereafter, Respondent Carpenters Local Union No. 22 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; Respondent International Union of Ele- vator Constructors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO; and Respondent Laborers International Union of North America, Local No. 261, AFL-CIO; filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief . The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, ' conclusions,2 and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. STATEMENT OF THE CASE IRVING ROGOSIN, Trial Examiner: The consolidated complaint, hereinafter referred to as the complaint, issued January 14, 1971, alleges that, on about October 26 and 27, 1970, Respondent Unions engaged in various unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, on or about said dates, said Respondent Unions threatened, restrained, or coerced named secondary employers, and induced and encouraged employees of said employers to engage in a work stoppage, with an object of forcing or requiring the secondary employers and the subcontractors of said employers to cease doing business with said employers, in order to force or require them to cease doing business with the primary employer, or to force or require the primary employer to recognize or bargain with the Culinary Workers Union as the representative of the primary employer's employees, despite the fact that said labor organization had not been certified as the representative of said employees under Section 9 of the Act.' Respondents' answers admit some, but not all, of the procedural and jurisdictional allegations, but deny general- ly and specifically the commission of any unfair labor practices. Hearing was held on April 12 and 13, 1971, at San i The charge in each of said cases was filed and served against the respective Respondents on October 28 Designations are as follows the General Counsel, unless otherwise stated, his representative at the hearing, Respondent Carpenters Union or Carpenters, Carpenters Local Union No 22, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, 193 NLRB No. 105 CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 22 689 Francisco, California, before the duly designated Trial Examiner All parties, save for the Charging Party, were represented by counsel, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence relevant and material to the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. During the course of the hearing, Respondents objected to the admissibility of certain evidence, including that relating to facts concerning the nature of the primary labor dispute, on the ground of hearsay. The evidence was received subject to a motion to strike. Prior to the close of the hearing, Respondents moved to strike the testimony, as well as to dismiss the complaint as to Respondents Laborers and Elevator Constructors. Ruling on the motions having been reserved, the same are hereby denied. Counsel for these Respondents argued orally on the record. The General Counsel replied briefly, and all parties reserved the right to file written briefs. On request of counsel for Respondent Painters, the time for filing briefs was extended twice, the last time to June 3, 1971. Only the General Counsel, however, has filed a brief. No adverse inference has been drawn from the failure of any of the other parties to do so. No proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been filed. Upon the entire record in the case,2 the resolution or reconciliation of conflicting testimony, the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses, oral argument of counsel for Respondents Carpenters, Elevator Constructors, and Laborers, and the General Counsel's brief, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES The complaint alleges that Nor-Pac Commercial Compa- ny d/b/a Union Street Plaza, herein called Nor-Pac, a California corporation with a place of business located at San Francisco, is the owner and operator of a commercial building, therein called the Union Street Plaza Building, the construction of which began in August, 1968, and which was still in progress at the time of the complaint, costing in excess of $4,000,000. In the construction of the building, Nor-Pac entered into separate contracts with Guy F. Atkinson Company, herein called Atkinson, and Lambert and Wells, herein called Lambert, both general contractors in the construction industry. Atkinson and Lambert subcontracted certain work at the construction site to various companies, including Otis Elevator Company, herein called Otis, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Incorporated, herein called Zelinsky, Superior Tile Compa- ny, herein called Superior, Collins Electric Co. of San Francisco, herein called Collins, Linford Service Co., herein called Linford, Schlegel Mechanical Contractors, herein called Schlegel, Gigli Plumbing Co., herein called Gigli, Partition Engineers, Inc., herein called Partition, Pritchard and Stone, Inc., herein called Pritchard, Cobbledick-Kibbe Glass Co., herein called Cobbledick, and Charles O. Jones, Inc., herein called Jones. The complaint further alleges that, during the preceding year, Nor-Pac, Atkinson, Lambert, and the subcontractors of Atkinson and Lambert enumerated above purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of California for use in the construction of the Union Street Plaza Building. Respondents' answers deny, for lack of sufficient information or belief, or generally, the commerce allega- tions of the complaint, except that Respondents Carpen- ters, Elevator Constructors, and Laborers admit the allegation that the cost of construction of the Union Street Plaza Building is in excess of $4,000,000. Respondents having put the General Counsel to his proof as to the remaining allegations regarding the underlying data required to establish these facts, in order to expedite the hearing, it was stipulated that the General Counsel would procure such data, and submit the same to counsel outside the hearing, in an effort to reach a stipulation which would obviate the necessity of adducing further proof. With the consent of all parties, the General Counsel rested at the conclusion of his case, subject to the introduction of the proposed stipulation. After the close of the hearing, on April 27, 1971, an all- party stipulation was filed reciting, in substance, that, during the past year, Nor-Pac, Atkinson, and Lambert, and their respective subcontractors enumerated above, pur- chased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly or indirectly from outside the State of California for use in the construction of a commercial building known as the Union Street Plaza Building. It is therefore found, on the basis of all the foregoing, and upon the entire record, that at all times material herein, Nor-Pac, Atkinson, Lambert, and the subcontractors enumerated above have constituted an employer engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint, and, as further found, within the jurisdic- tional standards of the Board. iI. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED At all times material herein, Respondents Carpenters, Respondent Elevator Constructors or the Elevator Constructors, International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No 8, AFL-CIO, Respondent Laborers Union or the Laborers, Laborers International Union of North America, Local No 261, AFL-CIO, Respondent Painters Union or the Painters, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local No 4, AFL-CIO, the Culinary Workers, San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Bartenders and Hotel, Motel and Club Service Workers, the Charging Party, Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza , the Act, the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat 136, 73 Stat 519, 29 U S C Sec 151, et seq., the Board, the National Labor Relations Board Unless otherwise stated, all events occurred in October, more particularly October 27 and 28, 1970 2 The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript of the proceedings in stated respects, filed June 3, 1971, is hereby granted The transcript is further corrected , on the Trial Examiner's own motion, at p 107,1 16-17, by substituting the word "cannot" for the word "can," in 1 16, and deleting the word "of" at the end of 1 17, to conform the record to the statement actually made 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Elevator Constructors, Laborers, Painters, and Culinary Workers Unions have each been labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Section 8(b)(4)(:) and (u)(B) Allegations 1. Introduction Union Street Plaza is a six-story, medical-dental office and commercial building, with underground parking, occupying the southwest corner of Union and Buchanan Streets in San Francisco, owned and operated by Nor-Pac, d/b/a Union Street Plaza, a copartnership, of which Dr. Victor Bonfilio is the managing partner.3 The first and second floors are devoted to commercial shops; the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth floors to professional office space. At the time of the hearing, construction of the project had not been completed. Peter R. Wall is the manager of the building, responsible for verifying invoices against the submitted bids, approving invoices for payment and change orders to the basic contract, and in charge of leasing. Theodore W. Coleman is the construction supervisor and building inspector, employed by Nor-Pac, responsible for compliance by the contractors with the plans and specifications for the construction of the building. William A. Drake is the project manager for Atkinson, the general contractor for the construction of the "basic" building consisting of the "shell," and completion of construction of portions of the first and second stories. Robert L. Hart is superintendent in charge of planning scheduling, and general supervision for Lambert, engaged by Nor-Pac to perform the completion work on portions of the second through the sixth floors, and those below ground level. Atkinson and Lambert, the general contractors, have subcontracted the electrical, plumbing, heating and venti- lating, elevator, painting, brick and masonry, roughing, toilet partitioning, hall, metal frame, door, and such cabinet work as is required to the various subcontractors, enumerated above. Sometime prior to September 24, 1970, the Mother Lode Restaurant became a tenant of the Union Street Plaza, operating a restaurant located in the southwest corner of the first and second floors of ta building. On that date, Joe Belardi, executive secretary of the Culinary Workers, called at Wall's office, at 1956-B Union Street, about half a block from the building site, and left his business card. Early the following week, Belardi called on Wall, and stated that he had been trying to reach the management of the restaurant 3 Although the complaint alleges that Nor-Pac is a corporation, the record indicates that Union Street Plaza is a copartnership 4 Belardi did not testify, and these findings are based on Wall's credited testimony 5 The latter statement, which is based on Wall's testimony (neither Belardi nor Brannmg having testified ), is somewhat ambiguous According to the transcript Wall testified , " He [presumably referring to Belardi ] said they had opened up restaurants on Union Street previously without a contract" It is doubtful that Belardi meant the Mother Lode Restaurant when he referred to "they " It is more likely that Belardi was speaking of restaurants in general , as found in the text The evidence of what took place at this meeting was received subject to Respondents' continuing but that they had failed to return his call. Wall suggested that they communicate through his office, and asked Belardi whether his difficulties with the restaurant would have any impact on the construction job. Belardi assured him that there would be no problems whatever in that regard.4 A meeting was arranged and, on Wednesday, September 30, Belardi and some of his associates met with Jack Branning, one of the operators of the restaurant, in Wall's office. According to Wall, Branning asked Belardi "what he had to sell him," observing that he had purchased equipment and undertaken other obligations, and wanted to know what Belardi was "going to do for him." Belardi declared that he was "out to unionize the Mother Lode Restaurant." Branning asked Belardi what effect this would have on the construction project. Belardi stated that he "had nothing against the building or the building project,"-that "[h ]is only beef was with the Mother Lode Restaurant." Belardi continued that he "had his pickets with him," and that "the Mother Lode would not open up without a contract," adding that restaurants had previously opened on Union Street without a contract.5 Wall was primarily concerned with the impact of any picketing by the Culinary Workers on the construction job and, when Belardi stated that he would station pickets in front of the building, Wall mentioned to Belardi that there was a clearly marked construction entrance on Buchanan Street, of which, according to Wall, Belardi was aware. The same day, September 30, Atkinson Project Manager Drake notified Nor-Pac by letter, to Wall's attention, that he ad been advised by Brannan of the possibility that pickets might be stationed at the entrance to the project in connection with the labor dispute between the Culinary Workers and the restaurant. The letter continued that the writer had notified Wall of Brannan's call, and that Wall had inquired whether Atkinson could use the Buchanan Street entrance for its workmen. Drake agreed to instruct the workmen to this effect, but stated that he could not assure Wall that the workmen would enter the building while pickets were posted at "any location around the building." The letter concluded that a "work stoppage at the present stage of construction, would not only be time consuming but costly as well." In addition to signs previously posted at the Buchanan Street entrance to the building showing an arrow pointing to the construction entrance, with the legend "Construction Personnel Entrance," another sign was posted over the Buchanan Street entrance early in the week of October 5, directing employees of the Mother Lode to use the front or Union Street side of the building.6 On October 1, Wall told Branning, in the former's office, objection and subsequent motion to strike, on the ground that the statements imputed to Belardi were not binding on Respondent Since the evidence has been considered solely for the purpose of showing the nature of thrimary dispute between the Culinary Workers and the Mother Lode Restaurant, the continuing objection on this ground has been overruled, and the motion to strike denied. 6 The entire legend on the sign read. CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES ONLY MOTHER LODE EMPLOYEES AND SUPPLIERS FORBIDDEN To USE THIS ENTRANCE CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 22 691 that the Mother Lode was to use the Union Street entrance and instructed him not to use the Buchanan Street entrance for supplies or personnel. On October 6, Wall wrote Branning at the restaurant, stating that the owners of the building were "extremely displeased to see pickets in front of their building," and that he had been told by a friend in the Union-Belardi, Wall testified-that Mother Lode employees were using the Buchanan Street construction entrance, contrary to the provisions of the lease.? On the evening of October 2, about 9:30, Wall had a conversation with Belardi in the cocktail lounge of the Mother Lode Restaurant A business agent of the Waitresses' Union, introduced to Wall in that capacity, was also present. Belardi told Wall that he had been negotiating with the Mother Lode representatives all that afternoon or evening, without reaching agreement, and that he felt they had not been negotiating in good faith, despite the fact that he had "offered them everything they wanted." At or about 10:30 that night Belardi, accompanied by others, picketed in front of the building with a picket sign bearing the legend "AFL-CIO." On the afternoon of October 6, Belardi, and some of his associates, called on Wall at his office. Wall asked him about the status of the Mother Lode matter, and again stated that he had seen or received reports that employees of the restaurant were using the Buchanan Street entrance. Wall reminded him that Mother Lode personnel had been instructed not to use that entrance, and gave him a copy of his letter to Branning dated that day. Belardi told him that the pickets were merely informational pickets, and that the Mother Lode could not open without a contract.8 Meanwhile, on September 28, George W. Johns, secretary of the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, had sent a letter on official stationery to the Mother Lode, at its place of business in the Plaza, notifying them that the San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers had requested "strike sanction" against the restaurant, and advising that the matter had been referred to the Executive Committee of the Labor Council. The letter invited the Mother Lode to appear at the next meeting of the Executive Committee to be held Wednesday, October 7, at 10 a.m. at the Labor Council. When Belardi called on him on October 6, Wall informed him that the Mother Lode had sent him the letter which it had received from the Labor Council and told him that he planned to attend the meeting with one of Nor-Pac's managing partners Belardi remarked that Wall would be wasting his time. Again, Wall asked Belardi if the controversy with Mother Lode would present any problems with regard to the construction job. Belardi said the matter was out of his hands. Next morning, October 7, Wall arrived at thejobsite at or about 8 o'clock. According to Wall, the usual starting time for the building trades was 7:30. When he arrived, the employees were not working. Wall observed pickets carrying signs at both the Union and Buchanan Street entrances to the building. According to his recollection, the signs read, "Mother Lode Unfair." At or about 9:40, when Wall left for the meeting of the Labor Council, the building trades employees were still not working at the Jobsite. Wall attended the meeting of the Executive Committee in the company of Dr. Bonfilio, one of the managing partners of the Plaza. Wall testified that "most" of the members of the Executive Board were present, indicating, among those later identified, Messrs. Scanlon, Costello, Catalano, Belardi, Crowley and Johns.9 Dr. Bonfilio asked what needed to be done to get the building trades employees back to work. Crowley, who according to Wall acted as "moderator," answered that Bonfilio should prevail on the Mother Lode Restaurant to sign a contract with the Culinary Workers. Bonfilfo said that he could not do that but that he would certainly get them to meet with the Culinary Workers immediately. Alternatively, Bonfilio suggested closing down the restau- rant. Crowley referred the matter to Costello as the man who would have to make the decision. Costello stated that if the restaurant were closed down, the Building Trades would return to work. Wall thereupon telephoned the Mother Lode Restaurant and told them that they were not to open. When Wall returned to the jobsite at or about I o'clock that afternoon, he observed that the pickets had left the construction entrance. About half an hour later, the building trades employees resumed work. The same day, Bonfilio dispatched a letter on the stationery of Union Street Plaza, addressed to Mother Lode Restaurant at its place of business, notifying them that the restaurant was under no circumstances to be opened for business. Reference was made to the paragraph of their lease, which provided, according to Bonfilfo, that "[i]f the Lessee does not have a contract with any union of restaurant and bar employees, then Lessee agrees to make satisfactory arrangements with any such union." The letter concluded, "You are requested to resolve any conflict with the labor union in a forthright and gentlemanly manner, devoid of emotionalism." 10 Usi THIS ENTRANCI ENTI R ON UNION STRFET 7 The letter referred to par 3 of the lease , purportedly stating that the entrance to the restaurant was on Union Street , and that "[a lny delivery of supplies, entrance of employees or entry of customers through an unfinished area is forbidden," which, Wall wrote, he interpreted to mean "the Buchanan Street construction entrance and the unfinished garage area " s Despite this evidence of the establishment of a reserved entrance, the alleged picketing of this entrance has not been alleged to constitute an unfair labor practice, and no finding is made based thereon 9 Wall did not furnish the given names of these persons The margin of the letterhead of the Labor Council lists Joseph Belardt, Cooks, No 44, as president, Johns, as secretary-treasurer; Robert Costello, Plumbers & Pipe Fitters, No 38, William Catalano, Musicians, No 6; and John Crowley, Mortuary Employees' Union, as members of the Executive Committee. Scanlon's name does not appear among the list of names According to Wall, Crowley had given him a business card , identifying him as assistant secretary of the Council 10 The evidence regarding the events in early October, though not alleged in the complaint, was received over Respondents ' objection, and motion to strike , as background for the subsequent events on October 26 and 27, which are alleged in the complaint to constitute unfair labor practices by Respondents The objection is hereby overruled and the motion denied. 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Subsequent events a. The Carpenters Union On October 27, James McPartland, alleged to be a business agent of Respondent Carpenters, called at the jobsite, and spoke to Project Manager Drake. Superintend- ent Hart and Construction Supervisor Coleman were in the general area but did not participate in the conversation. Wall joined Drake and McPartland, and Drake introduced McPartland as business agent of the "Carpenters Union." McPartland stated that he was pulling his men from the job; that he did not want to do it but that he had no choice, adding that "they had . . . strike sanction." McPartland mentioned that, "although he didn't like to do it, he would expect the Culinary Workers to support their picket line and that was why they were supporting the Culinary Workers picket." According to Drake, McPartland told him that he was removing the carpenters from the project in support of a decision made by his office. Coleman also talked to McPartland, though he could not identify him by name but had seen him at the jobsite on a number of occasions, and understood that he was representing the Carpenters Union. Coleman asked McPartland whether he was "pulling the men." McPartland replied that he was not but was "notifying the men they were working behind a picket line and suggesting they go home." McPartland then went through the building and was later seen by Wall descending the stair wells. Soon afterward, the various craft employees, including the carpenters, collected their tools and left the job. According to Coleman, the carpenters who worked for Atkinson did not return to work after 12:30 Other carpenters, who were installing acoustical tile, and those installing sheetrock, members of the Carpenters Union, (though it is not clear whether they belonged to Local 22), as well as carpenters working for Lambert, left the jobsite between 2 and 2:30 p.m., prior to the regular quitting time. Superintendent Hart also saw McPartland, whom he identified at the hearing as a Carpenters business agent, on the fifth floor of the building the same afternoon. When Hart first noticed him, McPartland was standing and watching two carpenters working employed by Unistrut, a subcontractor engaged in installing ceiling superstructure 11 Although not named as one of the subcontractors in the complaint, the evidence was received, over objection, in view of McPartland's participation in the events presently related 12 Although Seaver testified that he sent a telegram to both Lambert and Nor-Pac, the telegram offered in evidence was the one addressed only to Nor-Pac 13 Neither McPartland nor O'Sullivan was called to testify, counsel for Respondent Carpenters maintaining , in effect, that the General Counsel had failed to sustain his burden of proving that either of these men was a business agent or representative of Carpenters Local 22, for whose conduct the Union would be responsible Project Manager Drake, who had been in the construction industry since 1946, had served in similar capacities on other substantial projects, and had hired carpenters and dealt with the Carpenters Union, testified that persons representing themselves as union business agents came to his office frequently and that early in 1969, Joe O'Sullivan visited his office, accompanied by McPartland, and introduced him as his assistant in the performance of his duties as Carpenters Union representative, but without mentioning any local union Drake further testified that his office manager or the business manager on the project had been notified, presumably by the Carpenters Union, to call Local 22 when and supports on the fifth floor and radiology wing to support X-ray equipment.11 Soon after McPartland left, Hart talked to the carpenters whom McPartland had been observing. Hart asked them if the business agent had asked or told them to stop work. They responded, "No, he didn't have to tell us." Later that afternoon, McPartland went to Hart's office on the sixth floor. He told Hart that he had "checked on it" and made a statement to the effect that, "We'd better shut it down," without elaborating. Although some of the crafts, Hart testified, continued working after lunch on October 27, he could not recall whether the carpenters left earlier than usual that day. The same afternoon, Dennis Adams, carpenter foreman for Partition, the subcontractor for the installation of partitions at the project, phoned Joseph E. Seaver, treasurer and stockholder of that company, and told him that the Carpenters Local business agent had visited the job and advised the men to stop working. After discussing the matter with his associates, it was decided not to assign carpenters to the job the next day. That day Seaver dispatched a telegram to Lambert and Nor-Pac on behalf of Partition, as follows: CARPENTERS UNION AGAIN ADVISES US NOT TO CROSS PICKET LINE ON UNION STREET MEDICAL BUILDING 12 Seaver called Nor-Pac and asked Wall when Partition would be able to go back to work on the Job. Wall advised him to call a Mr. O'Sullivan of Local 22. When Wall called and spoke to the man who identified himself by that name without apparently indicating his position, Seaver identi- fied himself, his company, and the project, and asked him if he knew when Partition could go back to work on the job. The man replied that he did not know.13 By mid-afternoon, when Drake made a survey of thejob, he found none of the building trades employees at work. b. The Elevator Constructors On the morning of the same day, Lambert's Project Superintendent Hart rang for the elevator on the sixth floor. As he entered, he saw a man subsequently identified as carpenters were needed Drake also testified that he saw McPartland at the jobsite frequently thereafter In view of the foregoing, and in light of McPartland's activities at the project during the critical periods, it is evident and hereby found that at all times material , McPartland was an agent of Respondent Carpenters (Local 22) acting within the scope of his general authority (Sec 2(13) of the Act; see also United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No 2067, AFL-CIO, et at (Associated General Contractors of America, Inc, etc), 166 NLRB 532, 538-539), and that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case of agency, irrespective of McPartland's actual title or position in the Carpenters Union, which Respondent Carpenters has failed to overcome, and that the conduct and activities in which he engaged, previously detailed, are attributable to said Respondent Respondent's contention that there are a number of locals of the Carpenters Union in the San Francisco Bay area, all of whom may supply various contractors with carpenters without regard to the geographical area of the local or the particular job, has not been overlooked These circumstances, however, are insufficient to overcome the more positive evidence adduced on this issue by the General Counsel CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 22 693 Hector Rueda, a business representative of the Elevator Constructors, and Kenneth Mahoney, an operating engi- neer. Rueda left the elevator at the second floor. Mahoney then asked Hart, "What's this I hear about your shutting down by noon?" Hart replied that he had heard nothing to that effect, and asked him who had given him this information. Mahoney responded that it was the man who had just left the elevator. Rueda, the only witness to testify on behalf of any of Respondents, categorically denied that he spoke to Mahoney in the elevator, much less that he had said anything about shutting down thejob. According to Rueda, he was in the field on routine union business when he called his office sometime between 9 : 30 and 10 a.m. for messages, and learned that there was a serious problem at the jobsite which he ought to investigate. Rueda testified that he received no further information, but that he regarded it as a "panic call," and his immediate reaction was that an accident might have occurred involving one of his men. He arrived at the jobsite somewhere in the vicinity of 11 or 11:30, and went looking for his men. According to him, he spoke to no one when he entered the building, but walked up six flights of stairs. He proceeded to the elevator hatch, looked around for tools used by the Elevator Constructors and, finding neither the men nor their tools, pushed the elevator call button and when the elevator, operated by Mahoney, arrived, he boarded. Despite his alleged concern about the possibility of an accident, and the information he had received about a serious problem at thejobsite, Rueda denied any conversation with the operator, testifying that he asked the man no questions and had nothing to say to him. At one stage of his testimony, however, Rueda stated that he had inquired of the operator where the other mechanics were but later denied talking to him. Although not a member of the Labor Council Executive Board, Rueda attends its meetings occasionally, usually by invitation. He is, however, the Elevator Constructors' representative on the San Francisco Building Trades Council, but testified that neither he nor any other representative of his union attended the meeting on October 26. Nevertheless, at one point in his testimony, he stated that he was aware when he arrived at the job that there was a "labor problem," and saw two or three union men there whom he recognized but said nothing to any of them Later, Rueda contradicted himself, denying that he knew there was a labor problem and testifying that, although he recognized the three union men, he did not speak to them. It seems inconceivable, even if he were more concerned with the possible occurrence of an accident to one of his men than with the possible existence of a labor dispute, that he would have made no inquiries of any of the persons at thejobsite. Moreover, since he could hardly have failed to notice the pickets outside the building, the 14 The findings regarding this episode are based on the mutually corroborative testimony of Walker and Hart, fellow-employees, and the testimony of Superintendent Hart and Project Manager Drake Although Yokum was present on the first day of the hearing, and was identified by the two laborers, counsel for Respondent Laborers stated before the close of the hearing that Yokum had undergone surgery the day before, that he was ill at home , but that counsel had decided that "the record was in good enough shape so I need not continue the hearing " Counsel did not request a continuance to enable him to call Yokum as a witness, contenting himself conclusion that he must have been aware of the existence of a labor dispute is inescapable. Yet according to him, he made no attempt to ascertain from the pickets or other union representatives who were there the nature of the dispute. Even more difficult to accept is Rueda's testimony that later on in the day, as will appear, when Hart (not Coleman, as Rueda testified) remarked to Rueda, "The engineer said that you were going to shut the job down," Rueda responded, "I did not," and that that was the entire extent of what he said throughout the entire episode from the time he met the engineer on the elevator until his later encounter. Quite aside from this, Rueda's demeanor on the witness stand was evasive, equivocal, and thoroughly unpersuasive. His denial that he told Mahoney, the engineer, that the job would be shut down by noon is not credited. Moreover, the denial is inconsistent with his guarded statement to Coleman, discussed later, that the unions were merely informing the workers that they were working behind a "legal picket line." c. The Laborers Union On the morning of October 27, Lambert Superintendent Hart ordered George Walker and John Hart, both laborers and members of that union, to complete the demolition of the sidewalk in front of the building with a jackhammer. They were performing this job when Ernest Yokum, a Laborers business representative , approached them, asked them what they were doing working behind a picket line, and told them that he was going to have to pull them off and shut the job down. Walker shut off the air compressor, and rolled up the hose , while his partner cleaned up the sidewalk. The two laborers then reported to Superintendent Hart that Yokum had pulled them off the job. Shortly afterward, Superintendent Hart observed Yokum in the building, and asked him what he meant by telling the men to stop work . After first denying that he had done so, Yokum told Hart that he was merely observing a Building Trades Council directive . In a conversation with Project Manager Drake soon afterward, in front of the latter's office, Yokum also told Drake that he was removing the laborers from the project in support of the Labor Council's decision.14 d. The group of union representatives About noon, October 27, a group of business agents was gathered in front of the building site, standing between a car parked at the curb and another car, which was double- parked, apparently Rueda's. Coleman, Nor-Pac's construc- tion supervisor, approached the group and identified himself. Among the group Coleman recognized Bill Parker, Rueda, Davidson, and Yokum.15 After the men identified themselves to him, Coleman, directing his question to the with standing on the record as made The evidence of General Counsel's witnesses as to this episode is, therefore, uncontradicted and has been credited 15 Rueda testified that these men were members of the Building Trades Council, which held regular meetings on Tuesday, and had held a meeting on the morning of October 26, which Rueda did not attend He also testified that, according to a directory which he had, the Carpenters Union is represented on the Council , and that Joe O'Sullivan is one of that 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD group, asked whether they were going to pull their men off the job. Rueda volunteered that they were not "pulling the men off the job, but they were informing them that they were working behind a legal picket line " Superintendent Hart also approached the group, and asked why they were attempting to shut the job down Rueda replied that they were not "shutting the job down, adding that "[i If these men want to pick up and go home of their own volition, that is their business. We are not shutting the job down." Hart said, "Well, after you got off the elevator this morning, the elevator operator told me that `you had told him that you were shutting the job down at noon ' " Rueda told Coleman that he had merely told the men "to pick up," and asked them what they were doing, working inside the picket line." According to Rueda, he at no time asked these business agents what the nature of the labor problem was, and, although he saw the picket line when he arrived at the building, he made no inquiry of anyone as to the identity of the union conducting the picket line, and was interested only in locating members of his union employed on the project. Moreover, Rueda testified, the only remark he uttered during his entire stay at the project, other than muttering to himself in the elevator, "these damn people," after failing to locate his men, was the laconic response, "I did not," when Hart accused him of telling the elevator operator that he was shutting down the job at noon.16 e. The Painters Union D. Zelinsky & Sons, Inc., a San Francisco painting contractor, performed services under subcontracts with Atkinson, as well as Lambert. During the latter part of October, Zelinsky employed between six and eight painters at the project. On the morning of October 26, Duane Hellesto, a Painters business representative, went to the jobsite, where he talked to two painters on the first floor. Project Manager Drake approached them and Hellesto introduced himself, and told him that he was removing the painters from the job. Drake asked him whether he was certain he was "doing the right thing." Hellesto assured him that he was, and the painters ceased working. Drake later notified Wall that the painters had stopped working, and told him that Hellesto, whom he pointed out to Wall, had told them to stop. Wall introduced himself to Hellesto, and asked whether there was a problem they could discuss. Hellesto told him that there was not - that he had nothing to discuss with him. The same afternoon, when Nor-Pac's Building Inspector Coleman returned from lunch, he learned that the painters had been removed from the job. At about 2:30, John union's delegates to the Council Rueda was the only person in this group who testified at the hearing 16 Counsel representing this union took issue with Coleman 's statement contained in a pretrial affidavit to a Board agent, given on October 28, 1970, a day after the events described, to the effect that Rueda had said "they were 'suggesting' that the workers 'go home' " Rueda denied using the word "suggesting" and, in counsel's view , it is inconceivable that he would have used the word, implying that it was not in his vocabulary Rueda's vocabulary, as manifested at the hearing, gave no indication of such a limitation as would preclude the use of the word and, considering the nature of his job as business agent, a position which he had held for nearly 5 years, with a local having a membership of some 670 members Davidson, business representative of the Painters, came to the jobsite and introduced himself as a representative of that union, told Coleman that he had received a call at his home from one of the painters requesting permission to leave the job, and inquiring why the painters had been "pulled off the job when all the other crafts had been permitted to work " Davidson told Coleman that he had not removed the painters, and wanted to "get the facts straight" because a meeting was to be held that night, and he wanted to be conversant with what had occurred. Wall also spoke to Davidson in the former's office the same afternoon. Davidson presented his business card, identifying him as a Painters business representative, and repeated substantially what he had told Coleman. When Wall said that he did not know anything about the matter, Davidson told him that he would look into the matter and get back to him. Earlier that day, Wall had talked to Zelinsky's foreman on the job in the presence of other painters, in a room used by the painters for storing their materials. The foreman, identified only as Eric, mentioned that the painters were going off the job, and that he was somewhat annoyed because other painters working on the elevators, presumably employed by Otis Elevator, had continued working. The foreman told Wall, however, that he could not go back to work until he was advised by a telephone call from "his people." Next day, October 27, all the workers except for the painters employed by Zelinsky were at work. The painters reported to the project but performed no work. Several times that day, the painting foreman used the telephone in Coleman's office. After about the third or fourth call, the foreman reported to Coleman that he had been notified that a union meeting, presumably of the Building Trades Council, was under way; that "they" were thinking of pulling the men off the job; and that the painters would be unable to resume work until notified by the union, without indicating which union he meant. I. Conduct of business agents of other unions17 Shortly before noon, October 27, Construction Supervi- sor Coleman encountered Bill Parker, a business agent of Operating Engineers Local 56, at the corner of Union and Webster Streets, in the vicinity of the building project, and had a conversation with him. Coleman returned to the jobsite after noon, and telephoned Wall that the Operating Engineers had instructed their men to leave the job, and that he understood the other building trades would be leaving shortly. Coleman also mentioned to Wall that he understood from the Operating Engineers that they had obtained "strike sanction" against the project, although, whose jurisdiction included 48 counties in Northern California as well as portions of several counties in Western Nevada, and whose duties require Rueda to rove over the entire northern part of California, the word can scarcely be regarded remarkable It is found that Rueda did use the word in question or one of a similar connotation on this occasion , and the fact that Hart, who was present , did not attribute the use of the word to Rueda is not a sufficient reason for discrediting Coleman's testimony on this point it Although not named as respondents, the evidence of the activities of these unions was received and has been considered only to show the pattern of events culminating in the work stoppage on the project CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 22 according to Wall's testimony, he could not recall whether Coleman had indicated from whom the sanction had been obtained. In a conversation with Ben Cassidy, foreman for Collins, the electrical subcontractor on the project, the same day, Wall asked Cassidy whether the electricians were going to continue to work. Cassidy told him that as far as he was concerned, they were. Although the electricians' normal quitting time was 3:30 in the afternoon, they left the jobsite that day about 2:30. Wall also talked to Fred Johns, foreman of Linford, the heating and air-conditioning contractor. Wall asked him if his men would be working in the afternoon. Johns said that as far as he was concerned, they would be, although he understood the steamfitter had left for the day. Later that afternoon, about 2:30, Wall had another conversation with the foreman. Coleman and Drake were in the general vicinity but probably not close enough to hear the conversation. Johns told Wall that he was going home, that as all the other trades were leaving, he was also doing so, explaining that he would otherwise be subject to a fine. On November 2, within a week of the time picketing began at the building site, Daniel F. Del Carlo, in his capacity as secretary, wrote Nor-Pac, on the letterhead of San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, (the letterhead lists Del Carlo as secretary-treasurer and business representative), as follows: Gentlemen: This is to notify you that the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council will refrain from any work stoppage at the Nor-Pac Commercial Properties Company, DBA Union Street Plaza, as a result of the primary picket line placed upon the restaurant in the Nor-Pac Properties, doing business as Mother Lode. This involves Electricians, Plumbers, Sheetmetal Workers, Carpenters, Painters and Laborers. A notation at the bottom of the letter indicates that a copy was sent to John Crowley, San Francisco Labor Council, as well as to Attorney Stanley Neyhart. That day and the next, the workers employed in the various crafts on the project returned to work. Issues; Contentions; Conclusions The record clearly establishes that members of Respon- dent Unions, as well as of other craft unions in the building trades, ceased work and engaged in a work stoppage at the Union Street Plaza project on October 26 and 27. It is also clear that Respondent Unions were not engaged in any labor dispute with Nor-Pac or any of the subcontractors involved in the project. There was, however, a labor dispute between the Culinary Workers and the Mother Lode Restaurant, a tenant of Nor-Pac, stemming from that union's unsuccessful attempt to obtain recognition and a collective-bargaining agreement. On September 28, the San Francisco Labor Council notified the Mother Lode Restaurant that the Culinary Workers had requested strike sanction against it, and invited it to attend a meeting of the Council's Executive iB Although neither the San Francisco Labor Council nor the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council are named as respondents, they were manifestly acting in the interests of Respondents, 695 Committee on the morning of October 7. Later that day, the Culinary Workers began picketing the jobsite, and a work stoppage followed. At the meeting of the Labor Council, attended by Bonfilio, Nor-Pac's managing partner, Robert Costello, a member of the Executive Committee, an- nounced that if the restaurant closed down, the building trades would go back to work. Bonfilio notified the Mother Lode in wasting the same day that the restaurant was under no circumstances to open for business. The Mother Lode apparently complied, and the building trades employees returned to work. This leaves no doubt that the primary labor dispute was between the Culinary Workers and the Mother Lode Restaurant. There is no evidence or contention that any labor dispute existed then or thereafter, on October 26 and 27, between Respondents and any of the secondary employers. Nor can there be any doubt that the subsequent action of Respondents was sanctioned by the Labor Council, of which Belardi, the Culinary Workers' executive secretary, was president. Although there is no allegation in the complaint that Respondent Unions were acting in concert in engaging in the work stoppage, the evidence fairly establishes that the subsequent work stoppage by members of Respondent Unions, on October 26 and 27, was for all practical purposes a resumption of the stoppage which had taken place on October 7, when the Culinary Workers first began picketing the jobsite. That the Building and Construction Trades Council had sanctioned, if it had not indeed initiated, the work stoppage is apparent from its letter to Nor-Pac, on November 2, a copy of which was sent to the Labor Council, notifying it that the Building Trades Council would refrain from any work stoppage, involving electricians, plumbers, sheetmetal workers, carpenters, painters, and laborers, resulting from the primary dispute between the Culinary Workers and the Mother Lode Restaurant.is The building trades employees thereupon returned to work. Summarizing the evidence as it relates to the several Respondent Unions, the following facts have been established. (1) As to Respondent Carpenters When Business Agent McPartland arrived sometime after noon on October 27 (apparently after the episode involving the business agents outside the building), he told Wall and Drake that, although he was reluctant to do so, he was pulling his men off the job in support of the Culinary Workers picket line. McPartland also remarked that strike sanction had been granted, an obvious reference to action taken by the Building Trades Council that morning. Later, however, in talking to Coleman, McPartland was more guarded, and denied that he was pulling his men off the job, asserting that he had merely notified them that they were working behind a picket line, and suggested that they go home. Later, McPartland went into the building and spoke to carpenters employed by Unistrut. Afterward, when Hart asked them whether McPartland had told them to stop constituent members, and with their consent and approval, as is evidenced by the return to work of the members of the building trades employed on the project 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work, he was told, "No, he didn' t have to tell us." McPartland went to Hart's office on the sixth floor, and told him that he had checked , and "[w ]e'd better shut [the] job down." The Union contends that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that McPartland was in fact a business representative or, inferentially an agent , for whose conduct Respondent Laborers is responsible . The evidence estab- lishes that most of the carpenters on the project were dispatched from Local 22. Respondent has argued, though no probative evidence of the fact was adduced , that there are a number of Carpenters Locals in the San Francisco Bay area; that laborers are dispatched from each of these locals to jobs throughout the area , without regard to the geographical location of the jobsites, and that, in general, witnesses for the General Counsel merely identified McPartland as a Carpenters' business representative, without associating him with any particular local. For reasons previously stated (see In . 13) and in view of Rueda's uncontroverted testimony that he understood that McPart- land was Respondent Carpenters' delegate to the Building Trades Council, it is found that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case of agency against the Carpenters . Respondent called no witnesses to overcome the effect of this showing , and it is found that McPartland was, at the times material , an agent of Respondent Laborers, acting within the scope of his general authority, and that his conduct is attnbutable to Respondent. Respondent's further contention , raised on behalf of the Elevator Constructors and Laborers as well , that there is no clear proof that business representatives actually issued specific instructions to their respective member -employees to stop work or leave the job , does not exculpate Respondents from the consequences of the conduct of their business agents. "It is well established that inducement may take many forms . . . and is not limited to such obvious acts as direct orders, threats , or promises of benefit by union officials to the rank and file. An appeal by a union to its members to protect its work jurisdiction is also a form of inducement. [cases cited ]" Local 349, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, etc., 149 NLRB 430, 438; see also Carpenters Local 690, etc., 190 NLRB No. 121. (2) As to Respondent Elevator Constructors On October 27, Business Representative Rueda was present with representatives of the other Respondent Unions outside the building project. In response to a query from Construction Supervisor Coleman as to whether the unions intended to pull the men off the job, Rueda volunteered , "We're not pulling the men off the job; we are informing them they are working behind a legal picket line and suggesting they go home." Responding to a similar question from Superintendent Hart, Rueda denied telling the men to stop work , adding, "We just asked them what they were doing working inside the picket line." As has already been pointed out in regard to Respondent Carpenters, Rueda's remarks constituted a thinly veiled admonition to the employees represented by his union to cease work at the project. In view of the picket line which was then being maintained by the Culinary Workers Union, the action taken that day by the Building Trades Council, of which Respondent Elevator Constructors was a constitu- ent, and the presence at the jobsite of representatives of the other unions who had engaged in similar conduct, it can scarcely be doubted that Rueda had been appealing to members of his union working at the jobsite to cease work in support of the Culinary Workers strike and picket line. By Rueda's conduct, Respondent Elevator Constructors has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) (B), and , by his statements to Coleman and Hart, said Respondent has further engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. (3) As to Respondent Laborers On October 27, Business Representative Yokum asked two laborers employed by Lambert what they were doing "working behind a picket line," and told them that he would have to "pull [the ]m off and shut [the ] job down." Both men stopped working and notified Superintendent Hart that they had been pulled off the job. When Hart later asked Yokum what he meant by telling the men to stop work, he denied that he had done so but then said that he was merely doing what he had been told by the Building Trades Council. It is therefore found that, by remonstrating with the two laborers about working behind a picket line, and telling them that he would have to pull them off the job thereby inducing them to cease work in support of the Culinary Workers labor dispute with the Mother Lode Restaurant, Respondent Laborers has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i )(B) of the Act. It is further found that, by Yokum's statements to Project Superintendent Hart, and by his statement to Project Manager Drake to the effect that he was removing the laborers in compliance with the decision of the Building Trades Council, Respondent Laborers has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. (4) As to Respondent Painters On October 26, Business Agent Hellesto told Project Manager Drake, in the presence of two of Zelinsky's painters, that he was removing the painters from the job. Since the Painters had no labor dispute with Nor-Pac or any of the contractors on the job and in view of the picketing by the Culinary Workers, it is obvious that the painters were being removed because of the Culinary Workers primary dispute with the Mother Lode Restau- rant, and it was unnecessary for Hellesto to inform the painters of the reason for the action. Business Agent Davidson's conversation with Construc- tion Supervisor Coleman later that day, in which he referred to the telephone call from a painter who had been told to leave the job; Davidson's effort to ascertain the facts in preparation for a meeting that night; and his subsequent conversation with Building Manager Wall, which conclud- ed with Davidson's statement that he would investigate the matter, furnish circumstantial corroboration for the finding that Hellesto had, in fact, removed the painters from the job. In any event , the painters did not return to work after CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 22 697 lunch, and remained off the job until November 2, when the work stoppage was terminated. The evidence fairly supports a finding that Hellesto and Davidson were business representatives of the Painters Union; that they were acting within the scope of their general authority; and that their conduct is attributable to Respondent Painters. It is thus found that by removing the painters from the job in support of Culinary Workers labor dispute with the Mother Lode Restaurant, Respondent Painters has en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B), and, by Hellesto's statement to the painters in Drake's presence, and Davidson's statement to Coleman regarding the telephone call from a painter who had been told to leave the job, Respondent Painters has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) (B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Nor- Pac, the general contractors and subcontractors enumerat- ed above, in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent Unions and their respective agents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza, Guy F. Atkinson Company, Lambert and Wells, Otis Elevator Company, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Incorporated, Superior Tile Company, Collins Electric Co., Linford Service Co., Schlegel Mechanical Contractors, Gigli Plumbing Co., Partition Engineers, Inc., Pritchard and Stone, Inc., Cobbledick-Kibbe Glass Co., and Charles O. Jones, Inc., are , and at all times material herein have each been, employers engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the jurisdictional standards of the Board. 2. Carpenters Local Union No. 22, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; Interna- tional Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO; Laborers International Union of North Ameri- iB 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, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in ca, Local No. 261, AFL-CIO; and Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local No. 4, AFL-CIO, are each, and at all times material herein have been, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Guy F. Atkinson Company, Lambert and Wells, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Incorporated, and Partition Engineers, Inc., or any other subcontractors enumerated above, to engage in a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza to cease doing business with the Mother Lode Restaurant, and forcing or requiring said general contractors and subcontractors to cease doing business with Nor-Pac, in order to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with the Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force the Mother Lode Restaurant to recognize or bargain with Culinary Workers as exclusive representative of its employees, although said labor organization has not been certified as the representative of its employees under Section 9 of the Act, each of Respondent Unions, respectively, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining the above- named persons, for the objects described in the preceding paragraph, each of Respondent Unions, respectively, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(n)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following recommended: 19 ORDER Respondent Unions, Carpenters Local Union No. 22, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, Laborers International Union of North America, Local 261, AFL-CIO, and Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local No. 4, AFL-CIO, their respective officers, agents, and representatives, shall: (a) Cease and desist from: (1) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Guy F. Atkinson Company, Lambert and Wells, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Incorporated, and Partition Engineers, Inc., or any other subcontractors, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with whom they have no pnmary dispute, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza to cease doing business with the Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force or require said general contractors Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and subcontractors to cease doing business with Nor-Pac, in order to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with the Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force the Mother Lode Restaurant to recognize or bargain with Culinary Workers as exclusive representative of its employees although said labor organization has not been certified as the representative of its employees under Section 9 of the Act, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. (2) Threatening, coercing, and restraining the above- named persons, or any other persons engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom they have no primary labor dispute, for any of the objects described in the preceding paragraph, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act (b) Take the following affirmative action which it is found is designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (1) Post at their respective business offices and meeting halls in San Francisco, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."20 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by the respective Respondent Unions' representative, shall be posted by them immediate- ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by each of said Unions to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (2) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 20 sufficient copies of said notices, on forms provided by him, for posting by Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza, and any of its general contractors or subcontractors, if they are agreeable. (3) Notify said Regional Director in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this decision and recommended Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.2i It is further recommended that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt of this decision, Respondents notify said Regional Director in writing that they will comply with the Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board shall issue an order requiring said Respondents to take the aforesaid action. 20 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" 21 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Guy F. Atkinson Company, Lambert and Wells, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Incorporated, Partition Engineers, Inc., or any other subcontractor, of Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom we have no primary dispute, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with the Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force or require said general contractors and subcontractors to cease doing business with Nor-Pac, in order to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force the Mother Lode Restaurant to recognize or bargain with San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Bartenders and Hotel, Motel and Club Service Workers, or any other labor organization, as exclusive representative of its employees, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the above- named persons, or any other persons engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom we have no primary labor dispute, for any of the objects described in the preceding paragraph, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION No. 22, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, 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, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-0335. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 22 APPENDIX B NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Guy F. Atkinson Company, Lambert and Wells, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Incorporated, Partition Engineers , Inc., or any other subcontractor, of Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom we have no primary dispute, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services , where an object thereof is to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with the Mother Lode Restaurant , or to force or require said general contractors and subcontractors to cease doing business with Nor-Pac, in order to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force the Mother Lode Restaurant to recognize or bargain with San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Bartenders and Hotel , Motel and Club Service Workers, or any other labor organization, as exclusive representative of its employees , under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the above- named persons , or any other persons engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom we have no primary labor dispute, for any of the objects described in the preceding paragraph, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS, LOCAL No. 8, 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, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco , California 94102 , Telephone 415-556-0335. APPENDIX C NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 699 WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Guy F. Atkinson Company, Lambert and Wells, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Incorporated, Partition Engineers, Inc., or any other subcontractor, of Nor-Pac Commercial Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom we have no primary dispute, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with the Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force or require said general contractors and subcontractors to cease doing business with Nor-Pac, in order to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force the Mother Lode Restaurant to recognize or bargain with San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Bartenders and Hotel, Motel and Club Service Workers, or any other labor organization, as exclusive representative of its employees, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the above- named persons, or any other persons engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom we have no primary labor dispute, for any of the objects described in the preceding paragraph, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL No. 261, 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, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-0335. 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX D NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Guy F. Atkinson Company, Lambert and Wells, D. Zehnsky & Sons, Incorporated, Partition Engineers, Inc., or any other subcontractor, of Nor-Pac Commerical Company d/b/a Union Street Plaza, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom we have no primary dispute, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with the Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force or require said general contractors and subcontractors to cease doing business with Nor-Pac, in order to force or require Nor-Pac to cease doing business with Mother Lode Restaurant, or to force the Mother Lode Restaurant to recognize or bargain with San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Bartenders and Hotel, Motel and Club Service Workers, or any other labor organization, as exclusive representative of its employees, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce, or restrain the above- named persons , or any other persons engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom we have no pnmary labor dispute, for any of the objects described in the preceding paragraph, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. Dated By BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 4, 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 415-556-0335.