Local Union 3, IBEW

328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (J. Livingston & Co., et al.) and New York Telephone Company. Case 2-CC-1208 June 7, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On March 2, 1972, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel, Re- spondent, and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. 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, Local Union No. 3, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, New York, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Trial Examiner: This case was tried before me in New York, New York, on November 1 and 3 and December 28, 1971, upon an unfair labor practice charge filed on September 21, 1971, by New York Telephone Company, Telco herein, against Local 3, International'Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 1 3 herein, and upon a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on October 13, 1971. The complaint alleges in substance that Local 3 engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 128) by inducement and encouragement of employees of certain employers to stop work and by threats to the employers, all in support of a strike by Telco's employees. The Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of unfair labor practices. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel on January 31, 1972, and by Local 3 on February 2, 1972. On February I, 1972, Telco filed a posthearing memorandum in the nature of a brief. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, I make the following further: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. JURISDICTION New York Telephone Company (Telco), a New York corporation, with its office and principal place of business located at 140 West Street, Borough of Manhattan, city and State of New York, is engaged in providing telephone service in the State of New York. During the past fiscal year, Telephone derived in excess of $1 million gross revenues from its operations and, during the same period, it purchased material and goods in excess of $50,000 directly from firms located outside the State of New York. Telco is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meamng of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. At all times material herein, L. K. Comstock and Co. (herein called Comstock), Lord Electric Co. (herein called Lord), and J. Livingston & Co. (herein called Livingston), have been engaged in business as electrical contractors in the construction industry and, at the times described below, said electrical contractors, pursuant to agreements with Telco, were engaged in installing telephone cables and wires at jobsites located at Park Avenue and 94th Street, 488 Madison Avenue, One Liberty Place, 1409 Broadway, One Lincoln Plaza, 919 Third Avenue, 825 Third Avenue, and 800 Second Avenue, all located in the Borough of Manhattan, city, county, and State of New York. Comstock, Lord, and Livingston are and have been at all times material herein persons engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meamng of Sections 2(I), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. Local 3 is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, Telco has for many years subcontracted to independent companies the placing of telephone wire and cable and the fastening of certain iron work and terminals in buildings under construction or undergoing major alteration, when it appears that all the construction workers on a project are members of AFL-CIO Building Trades Council unions. The employees of these contractors are represented by Local 3. The contractors involved here are Livingston, Comstock, and Lord. On these jobsites the necessary material and apparatus used by the contractors is ordinarily delivered and unloaded by Telco craftsmen, i.e., employees. The contrac- tors' employees, members of Local 3, then remove the equipment from the point where it has been unloaded by Telco, transfer it to the point of use, and subsequently install it. 197 NLRB No. 59 LOCAL UNION 3, IBEW The Telco craftsmen, represented by CWA, have been engaged in an economic strike against Telco since July 14, 1971. During this strike , Telco has had various manage- ment personnel performing many of the essential tasks previously performed by the striking craft employees. Among these functions has been the delivery of materials and apparatus to building sites or buildings undergoing alterations. From the beginning of the strike to on or about August 31, 1971, deliveries were made to the jobsite by manage- ment or nonstriking personnel . For the most part, these deliveries were accepted by the contractors' employees and the material was installed, though there apparently were one or two instances in which the contractors' employees refused to accept or place the materials. After August 31, virtually all deliveries made on behalf of Telco to these jobsites were refused acceptance by the contractors' employees or their supervisors, thereby substantially impeding or completely preventing performance by the contractors of their work for Telco. The reason ascribed for these refusals is that Telco's management personnel or other delivery men were performing the work of strike- breakers, and that it is contrary to trade union principles for Local 3 members to "aid or abet " strikebreakers. Work has not been impeded on all locations , however. Local 3's principal defense is that the action of the employees of the contractors was individual action for which Local 3 is not responsible . Alternatively, Local 3 states other defenses detailed hereafter. A. The Facts The following individuals are involved in the events: Thomas Van Arsdale, business manager for Local 3; Peter J. McCall, supervisor of contract labor for Telco; Anthony Salerno, telephone superintendent for Comstock; John Fenley, general superintendent of Lord and vice president of Local 3; J. Duffy, superintendent of Livingston; and Sol Werboff and Arthur Smith, general foremen of J. Living- ston & Co. and members of Local 3. B. The August 31, 1971, Meeting On August 31, 1971, a luncheon meeting at a restaurant in Queens was arranged, apparently by Salerno and on his initiative, to which Salerno invited McCall and Van Arsdale. Fenley also attended. The apparent purpose of the meeting was to discuss the extent to which performance of Telco's contract work would be or was being affected by the CWA strike against Telco. Specifically, the problem principally discussed was whether materials delivered to i Thus, according to Supervisor McCall, in the August 31 meeting, Business Manager Van Arsdale stated Local 3's position to be that, Local 3 felt this [acceptance of deliveries from Telco personnel] was aiding and abetting strikebreakers, and that they would discontinue it They would refuse to accept deliveries made by such people or by non- striking craft workers. • The Stewards would be notified not to accept these deliveries Mr Van Arsdale said he was taking what he considered a Trade Union position in this, and he was sorry but that was as far as they could go with it 329 the contract jobs by Telco's management or nonstriking personnel would be accepted and installed by the employ- ees of Telco's contractors. Of the four individuals present at the meeting all but Salerno testified-McCall as a witness for the General Counsel, Van Arsdale and Fenley as witnesses for Local 3. There is disagreement in the testimony of McCall on the one hand, and that of Van Arsdale and Fenley on the other, as to important details of this meeting. McCall's testimony in substance is that Van Arsdale stated that he had been notified by his stewards that management personnel were making deliveries of telephone equipment to the jobsites and that Van Arsdale further said that the stewards would be notified not to accept such deliveries because to accept them would be aiding and abetting strikebreakers. i The testimony of Van Arsdale and Fenley as to this conversation, in substance, is that McCall asked Van Arsdale under what circumstances Local 3 members who were employees of the contractors would accept deliveries of material, that Van Arsdale responded that in his opinion Local 3 members would decline to accept deliveries made by management personnel, but would install arty material which had been delivered to the job prior to the CWA strike, and would also accept deliveries of materials such as iron which prior to the strike had been customarily delivered to the jobsite by independent truckers. Van Arsdale and Fenley denied that Van Arsdale represented such positions or actions to be the position or action of Local 3 itself. I find the dispute unnecessary to resolve for reasons stated later. Following this meeting Telco, apparently in an effort to avoid refusal of material delivered by its management personnel, contracted with independent truckers to make deliveries of the material to the jobsites. Several such deliveries were made. However, on or about September 7, 1971, Telco Supervisor McCall received a telephone call from Lord's superintendent, Fenley. Fenley advised McCall that he (Fenley), Joe Duffy, the superintendent of Livingston, and Comstock Superintendent Salerno had met with Van Arsdale, who had advised them that deliveries would not be accepted from the independent truckers because their employment by Telco was merely a subter- fuge to circumvent the problem of delivery by management personnel. There is a dispute between McCall and Fenley as to the precise language of this conversation. According to McCall, Fenley quoted Van Arsdale as saying that he had instructed Local 3 members not to accept deliveries made by truckers.2 Fenley's testimony, to the contrary, is that he told McCall that Van Arsdale had advised him That he considered it strikebreaking, and that it could not continue 2 That he was going to stop it. Thus McCall's testimony is that Fenley told McCall that, Mr Van Arsdale had told the three people at that meeting whom I have identified that the use of independent Union trucking contractors to make telephone deliveries formerly made by CWA members was a subterfuge, and he went on to say that they were not to accept deliveries made by independent trucking companies that he considered it, if not strike breaking , aiding and abetting strike breaking 330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (Fenley) that if outside truckers delivered the material, Local 3 members would probably decline to accept it. For reasons given later I find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in testimony. On September 9, 1971, Local 3 held its regular monthly membership meeting, at which the Telco situation was discussed by Business Manager Van Arsdale. Van Arsdale stated to the membership his view that when management personnel or independent truckers delivered to jobsites material which Telco employees had delivered prior to the CWA strike, they were acting as strikebreakers and that it was contrary to trade union principles for Local 3 members to work with strikebreakers. However, Van Arsdale stated that each individual member would have to decide for himself what position to take in the matter. He also expressed similar views in individual discussions with members.3 In his testimony, Mr. Van Arsdale candidly acknowl- edged his personal conviction that the handling of the controversial material by Local 3 members, or their working jointly with Telco employees performing such work, was in the nature of strikebreaking and contrary to trade union principles and that a unionman should not work under such circumstances.4 Those views Mr. Van Arsdale holds very strongly.5 Van Arsdale denied that he ever told or instructed Local 3 members not to handle or install the controversial material or that he threatened them with any punitive action if they handled or installed the material. He further testified that in his discussions with members he sought only to clarify what constituted strikebreaking, in order that each member might decide his course of action for himself. On or about September 10, 1971, another meeting, apparently accidental, took place between Telco Supervi- sor McCall and Business Manager Van Arsdale. On this occasion, McCall told Van Arsdale that the Company was taking a serious view of the situation and that unless the contract jobs could be completed, Telco would have to consider taking other courses of action. Specifically, McCall indicated that among the alternatives were court action or elimination of the contract system on a permanent basis and having the contract work performed by Telco's employees. Van Arsdale's response in substance 3 Mr Van Arsdale's testimony, in part, as to his statements at the membership meeting is as follows I explained to the members under what circumstances there would be strike breakers involved in the progress of a fob I explained to the members that if there were management people delivering material to the jobs which normally would have been delivered by men who are on strike, that under those circumstances those men, those management people would be acting as strike breakers and that if an outside trucking company were employed to make a delivery that normally would have been made by men who were on stoke, that under those circumstances those men would be acting as strike breakers And if the members of Local Union Number 3 undertook to do work that normally would have been done by strikers, that those members of Local Union Number 3 under those circumstances would be acting as strike breakers. I made some reference to trade union principles, yes something to the effect that if we were to be true to the trade union principles , that there would be no basis for men working was that the refusal to accept deliveries was a trade union stand based upon the conviction that the work was in the nature of strikebreaking.6 The IBEW constitution and the bylaws of Local 3 prohibit individual strike action by union members and contain other provisions for discipline of offending members. No action has been taken by Local 3 to discipline any member for refusal to accept delivery of or install materials or to work with Telco management personnel in connection with this controversy. The record does not disclose that there is any contractual provision between Local 3 and any of the contractors against strikes or interruption of work. On October 20, 1971, a temporary restraining order was issued by the United States District Court against Local 3 prohibiting unlawful interruption of work. C. Interruptions of Work In the meantime, a number of interruptions had occurred on Manhattan projects since the August 31 meeting of McCall, Van Arsdale, and the contractors' representatives. Thus, on September 9, 1971, employees of Comstock on a job at 94th and Park Avenue, and employees of Lord on a job on Madison Avenue, refused to install telephone wire and cable, presumably because the delivery of the materials involved "strike breaking" as defined by Business Manager Van Arsdale. On September 10, 1971, Arthur Smith, a foreman for Livingston and a member of Local 3, advised Telco Supervisor McCall that he was unable to do a job at One Liberty Plaza on which cable had been delivered by management personnel. On the same day, employees of Livingston on a job at 1409 Broadway refused to accept delivery of Telco materials from "strikebreakers." On September 17, 1971, Saul Werboff, a Livingston foreman and a member of Local 3, advised McCall that Livingston's electricians on ajob at 919 Third Avenue had refused to install material because it was delivered by Telco personnel. On October 22, 1971, employees of Comstock refused to install material at the 94th and Park Avenue job and on another job located at 450 Park, because they would not work with Telco management personnel on the job. under those circumstances. Something to that effect. 4 Thus, he testified in part as follows- My personal view is that under no circumstances should a trade unionist ever accept the philosophy of working with a strike breaker. This, he further testified, would include accepting deliveries made by management personnel during a strike and joint pulls with personnel performing work ordinarily done by strikers I do not believe that a trade unionist under any circumstance should work with a strike breaker. Now if the stoke breaker is at the end of a [pull 1, under those circumstances I think that the man should not work with that strike breaker If it's a situation where a strike breaker is making a delivery, then I think that a trade unionist should not accept that delivery 5 As seen in the transcript- Q. You hold those views strongly, do you not'i A. Very strongly. 6 Thus, McCall's testimony is that at this meeting Van Arsdale said he was sorry but they had taken a Trade Union stand that they could not be in a position of aiding or abetting strike breakers, that he considered such work, such material, deliveries to be strike breaking LOCAL UNION 3, IBEW 331 D. Contentions of the Parties The General Counsel and Telco contend the following, in substance: (1) Local 3 induced and encouraged employees in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act by Business Manager Van Arsdale's statements at the September membership meeting; (2) in accordance with the testimony of Telco Supervisor McCall, Local 3 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by Business Manager Van Arsdale's asserted conduct in (a) telling McCall in substance in their two conversations and (b) in telling the contractor superintendents, Fenley, Duffy, and Salerno, that Local 3 would not handle or use material delivered to Telco jobsites by Telco personnel or independent truckers and; (3) in any event Local 3 ratified and condoned the members' refusals to handle by failing to request or order the discontinuance of the action, failing to disavow and repudiate it, and failing to discipline members for engaging therein. Counsel for the Respondent contends, in substance, that (1) the refusals to handle were not secondary action; (2) that Van Arsdale advised McCall and others, that the members of Local 3, and not Local 3 itself or Van Arsdale, would probably decline to handle the affected material; (3) that Van Arsdale's statements at the September union meeting were an expression of his concept of trade union principles, devoid of threats or promises, and thus (unlike picketing which involves more than speech) protected statements of view under Section 8(c) of the Act and the United States Constitution; (4) that Van Arsdale made no threats, either to members of Local 3 or to any employer; (5) that since Local 3 made no demands on Telco to force a change in Telco's policies and it merely adhered to trade union principles, no violation of Section 8(b)(4) is involved; (6) that the material involved was "struck work"; (7) that if interruptions of work occurred they were sporadic and de minimis in comparison with the quantum of uninterrupted performances; and (8) that in any event the proviso to Section 8(b)(4) authorizes the refusal to handle the deliveries in this case since CWA was a representative of Telco's employees on stnke.7 E. Conclusions I conclude that the evidence establishes the violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) alleged in the complaint. I am of the opinion that Business Manager Van Arsdale's statements to Local 3 members at the September meeting r The proviso reads as follows Provided, That nothing contained in this subsection (b) shall be construed to make unlawful a refusal by any person to enter upon the premises of any employer (other than his own employer), if the employees of such employer are engaged in a strike ratified or approved by a representative of such employees whom such employer is required to recognize under this Act 8 As the United States Supreme Court said in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v N LR B (Samuel Langer), 341 U S. 694 (1951) The words "induce or encourage" are broad enough to include in them every form of influence and persuasion See also Local 349 IBEW (Dade Sound), 149 NLRB 430 at 438, enfd 357 F 2d 579 (CA. 5, 1969) In the Langer case, supra, in finding free speech principles inapplicable, the Supreme Court said e The remedial function of Sec 8(c) is to protect noncoercive speech . in furtherance of a lawful object It serves that purpose of the local constituted inducement and encouragement by Local 3 of employees of Telco's contractors to refuse to handle or install the material in controversy. In the absence of persuasive proof to the contrary (of which I find none), the resulting refusals of Local 3 members to handle or install the involved material, whether viewed as individual or as concerted acts, are to be deemed a consequence of Local 3's inducement and encouragement. To the extent that Business Manager Van Arsdale denied making the statements attributed to him by Telco Supervisor McCall, I do not find it necessary to decide whether the statements were made. I accept Business Manager Van Arsdale's denial that he instructed Local 3 members not to handle or install the disputed material; I credit his assertion that he did not threaten them with punitive action if they handled or installed the material; I find credible his statement that in his discussions of the problem with Local 3 members, at the membership meeting or otherwise, he sought only to clarify for the benefit of the members what action in connection with handling the material would constitute strikebreaking under trade union principles. Finally, I accept his testimony that he advised the members that each must decide for himself what action to take and that, as he put it in his evidence, Local 3 had "no instructions per se regarding the matter." Nevertheless, I find that, regardless of his actual intent, Van Arsdale's statements to the Local 3 members at the membership meeting must be interpreted as inducement and encouragement of them by Local 3 to decline to handle or install the material in controversy. Threats or force are not required to establish a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. It is enought that the union's conduct induces, encourages, or persuades. Since the object of the conduct is unlawful, it is not protected speech within the meaning of the proviso of the Act (Sec. 8(c)), or the United States Constitution.8 In the context of the discussion at the membership meeting concerning the problem, and the circumstances under which Business Manager Van Arsdale's statements there were made, his utterances constituted more than an isolated declaration of individual view. They were an expression of an informed position on a question of basic trade union principle, delivered at an official meeting of trade unionists by one of their titular leaders, for the purpose of advising the constituency that proper principle called for the invocation of a boycott by individual adequately without extending its protection to speech or picketing in furtherance of unfair labor practices such as are defined in Sec 8(b)(4) The general terms of Sec. 8(c) appropriately give way to the specific provisions of Sec . 8(bX4) 5. The prohibition of inducement or encouragement of secondary pressure by Sec 8(b)(4XA) carries no unconstitutional abridgment of free speech The inducement or encouragement in the instant case took the form of picketing followed by a telephone call emphasizing its purposes . The substantive evil condemned by Congress in Sec 8(b)(4) is the secondary boycott and we recently have recognized the constitutional right of states to proscribe picketing in furtherance of comparably unlawful objectives There is no reason why Congress may not do likewise It will be noted that the principle stated by the Court is applicable to either "speech or picketing." (Emphasis supplied ) 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD members of the Union. In such a context, the expression of Mr. Van Arsdale's strongly held views, personal though they were, are translatable only into an encouragement of the members to support those views by appropriate action. And they were so supported. I do not find it possible, in that setting, to appraise utterances from a union executive declared by the Union's bylaws to be "solely responsible for results in the field,"9 as something severable from his official personality-a philosophical formulation of de- tached private view, flowing from the disembodied spirit of another and more remote Van Arsdale unrelated to the officer of Local 3 who was uttering the words Without doubt, Mr. Van Arsdale has a constitutional right to the free expression of a personal view, as distinguished from a view as the business manager of Local 3. When, however, in his role of business manager he chose the podium of Local 3 and one of its official meetings, and in the course of an official report on official matters, to espouse boycotting for the guidance of union members on a vital question of trade union philosophy affecting the performance of theirjobs, those views cannot be construed other than as an authoritative union interpretation as to the course union members should follow. That interpreta- tion I deem, in the words of the Supreme Court in the Langer case (341 U.S. 694, 702), to be a "form of influence and persuasion." That, as Mr. Van Arsdale told the members, Local 3 had "no instructions per se regarding the matter," is of no controlling relevance. I therefore conclude that, by the statements of Business Manager Van Arsdale at the September membership meeting, Local 3 induced and encouraged employees of Telco's contractors to refuse to handle or install materials delivered to jobsites of the contractors by Telco personnel or independent truckers, or to work with such personnel, in situations in which such deliveries or work had previously been done by striking employees of Telco. The inducement and encouragement having resulted in an interruption of business between Telco and its contrac- tors, the conduct of Local 3 also operated as a restraint upon secondary and neutral employers. It therefore constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act.i° The violation of both parts (i) and (ii) of Section 8(b)(4) is thus established regardless of what Business Manager Van Arsdale told Telco Supervisor McCall, or told representatives of Telco's contractors, concerning the handling of the disputed material. It is therefore not necessary to decide that conflict in testimony. In this context, the failure of Local 3 to request or order discontinuance of the work interruptions, or to disavow or repudiate them, or to discipline union members for the interruptions, is academic. Manifestly, such forebearance by Local 3 is an expectable concomitant of the violation found. To the extent necessary for decision, the foregoing findings and conclusions dispose of all contentions of the parties, either expressly or implicitly. Any contentions not expressly disposed of have been considered and rejected. 9 Art VI, sec 1, Bylaws of Local 3 10 Local 370, United Association of Journeymen (Baughan Plumbing, Inc), 157 NLRB 20, Local Union No 3, IBEW (Bisantz Electirc Co, Inc), 192 NLRB No 63 11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the REMEDY The General Counsel and Telco request a broad order, based upon prior violations by Local 3 and reasonable expectancy that Local 3's unlawful conduct will recur. I find the requests in order. In several prior cases involving somewhat similar situations, the Board has found that Local 3 interfered with business relations between Telco and contractors by conduct violative of the Act. See Local 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Co.), 140 NLRB 729, enfd. 325 F.2d 561 (C.A. 2, 1963); Local 3, IBEW (Western Electric Corp.), 141 NLRB 888; Local 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Co.), 193 NLRB No. 111. It is seen that all of these decisions are within the past 8 years, and one very recent. In these circumstances, it would appear that further conduct of the same or similar nature may be anticipated and an order broad enough to cover such recurrence is appropriate. Such an order will therefore be recommended. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New York Telephone Company, J. Livingston '& Co., L. K. Comstock and Co., and Lord Electric Co., are each employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging its members employed by Comstock, Lord, and Livingston to refuse to handle or install material delivered to jobsites by Telco personnel or persons other than striking personnel of Telco, or to refuse to work with such persons, where deliveries or work had formerly been done by the strikers, and coercing and restraining Comstock, Lord, and Livingston to cease handling such material with an object of compelling Comstock, Lord, and Livingston to cease doing business with Telco, Local 3 engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: [[ ORDER Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by J. Livingston & Co., L. K. Comstock and Co., Lord Electric Co., or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in strikes or Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes LOCAL UNION 3, IBEW 333 refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, accept, transport, install, or other- wise handle or work on any goods, materials, or commodi- ties, or to perform any services. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Comstock, Lord, Livingston, or any other person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case, an object of Local 3 is to force or require Comstock, Lord, Livingston, or any other employer or person to cease doing business with New York Telephone Company, or with any other employer or person. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by Local 3's representatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members are customarily displayed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 3 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail copies of said notices to the Regional Director for posting by Livingston, Comstock, Lord, and Telco, if they are willing, at locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Local 3 has taken to comply herewith.13 12 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 read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 13 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 2, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Local 3 has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and employees of J. Livingston & Co., L. K. Comstock Co., Lord Electric Co., and New York Telephone Co. Pursuant to the recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Livingston, Comstock, Lord, or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, accept, transport, install, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Comstock, Lord, Livingston, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case, an object of Local 3 is to force or require Comstock, Lord, Livingston, or any other employer or person to cease doing business with New York Telephone Company, or with any other employer or person. LOCAL UNION No. 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, 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 concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Telephone 212-264-0300. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government To all members of Local No. 3, International Brotherhood