Local 134, IBEW

LOCAL 134, IBEW 879 Local No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, Communications Equip- ment & Systems Division . Case 13-CD-209 June 22, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS , FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On February 7, 1972, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief; i the Employer filed an answering brief, cross-exceptions, and a supporting brief; and the Intervenor, Communications Workers of Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO, filed a brief in support of the decision of the Trial Examiner. 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 record2 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, with the modifica- tions set forth below. As more fully set forth in his Decision, the Trial Examiner found that shortly after the ITT employees arrived at the jobsite Respondent's steward, Becker, checked their union cards in the presence of other employee-members of Respondent and immediately announced either "I can't work here" or "We can't work here." However, he did not leave then, but shortly thereafter joined the foreman and other employees of Charles Johnson Electric Company, all of whom are represented by Respondent, for coffee.3 During the conversation, Becker informed the other employees that one of the ITT technicians had a CWA card while the other showed no card. At the end of the coffee break, Steward Becker announced to the assembled employees, "I am leaving because I do not care to work with nonunion men." He thereupon left the jobsite and the other Johnson employees left after him. It is clear from the totality of Steward Becker's conduct that he was not acting as an individual when he announced in advance his action to the assembled Johnson employees. He was acting in his role as steward when he inspected the union cards of the ITT employees and immediately made the statement referred to above. Rather than leaving the jobsite at that point, he joined the assembled Johnson employ- ees for coffee. We can only infer that he did so to be certain that those employees were aware of the presence of the CWA members. It is apparent that his announcements of his findings regarding the union cards of the ITT employees and the action he was taking were a clear signal designed to "induce or encourage" the assembled Johnson employees to leave the jobsite as well. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respon- dent, by the above conduct of its steward, Becker, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act. However, we base our finding on the fact that Steward Becker's conduct was directed at the employees of Johnson, not of, Riley. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we are satisfied that the status of Johnson and Illinois Bell was in issue. The record fully establishes, and we find, that Riley, Johnson, and Illinois Bell, the secondary persons herein, are engaged "in an industry affecting commerce" within the meaning of 8(b)(4).4 Accordingly, we shall modify the recom- mended Order to reflect our findings herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as herein modified, and orders that Respondent, Local No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, AFL-CIO, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) "C. A. Riley Electrical Construction Company" and substitute therefor "Charles Johnson Electric Company." 2. Delete from paragraph 2(b) "C. A. Riley Electric Construction Company" and substitute therefor "Charles Johnson; Electric Company." 3. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Examiner's notice. i Attached to Respondent's brief were copies of the briefs it filed with the Board following the 10(k) hearing and its motion for reconsideration of our Decision and Determination of Dispute issued thereafter (191 NLRB No 122) 2 Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as, in our opinion, the record and the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 3 Contrary to the Trial Examiner's finding that members of Respondent employed by Illinois Bell Telephone Company and C A Riley Electrical Construction Company were also present at this coffee break, the record shows that only Johnson's employees and foreman were present 4 Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No 299, AFL-CIO (S M Kisner and Sons), 131 NLRB 1196, 1199 197 NLRB No. 127 880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encour- age any individual employed by Charles Johnson Electric Company, or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; or threaten, coerce or restrain any other employer or person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force and require ITT-CESD to assign the work described below to employees who are members of or represented by Respondent rather than to employees of ITT-CESD, currently represented by Communication Workers of America. The work involved consists of: Terminating the cable and installing telephone instruments in Cook County, Illinois. LOCAL No. 134, 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 concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Everett McKinley Dirksen Building, Room 881, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7572. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Before THOMAS S. WILSON, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge duly filed on December 3, 1970, by International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, Communications Equipment & Systems Division, herein referred to as ITT-CESD, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein referred to as the General Counsel' and the Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for Region 13, issued its complaint dated September 10, 1971, against Local No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Local 134 or Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D) and 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act. Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on November 4, 1971, before me. All parties, including Communications Workers of America, herein CWA, who were permitted to intervene, appeared at the heanng, were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence materi- al and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument was waived. Briefs were received from General Counsel, Respondent, ITT-CESD and CWA on November 29, 1971. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and accordingly I find: ITT-CESD is engaged in the distribution and installa- tion of electronic telephone equipment and related prod- ucts with facilities in the States of Connecticut, Illinois, Tennessee, New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, and other States. During the past calendar year, ITT- CESD, in the normal course of its operations, has received goods and materials valued in excess of $100,000 which was shipped to its facilities directly across the state lines. ITT-CESD is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and is a person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Local No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the heanng LOCAL 134, IBEW 881 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Wettering if he had any questions regarding the PBXjob in A. The Facts On August 27, 1970, ITT-CESD entered into a contract with the Village of Elk Grove , located in Cook County, Illinois, whereby ITT-CESD agreed to install and main- tain for 1 year one of its PBX telephone systems in the new administration building of the village of Elk Grove. On November 10, 1970, ITT-CESD subcontracted the neces- sary cable pulling work in connection with such contract to C. A. Riley Electric Construction Company whose employ- ees were represented by Local 134. During all times material herein, employees of Charles Johnson Electric Company and Illinois Bell Telephone Company were also working in the new administration building. The employ- ees of both these companies were also represented by Local 134. On November 10, 1970 Lester Fulton , ITT-CESD supervisor of maintenance and installation of PBX systems, met with C. A. Riley, president of C. A. Riley Electric Construction Company, who inquired as to who was going to do the cable termination and hanging of instrument work on the PBX system. Like a good businessman Riley wanted that work . Fulton answered that ITT-CESD would do that work with its own employees known as communic&ions technicians , who, he informed Riley, were represented by CWA. Riley told Fulton that he, Riley, wanted the work and suggested that Fulton had best meet with Burton Van Wettering, a business agent for Local 134. So the next day, November 11, Fulton met Van Wettering in Riley's office where , before excusing himself, Riley informed Van Wettering that ITT-CESD intended to do the terminal work on the PBX system with its own employees who were represented by CWA. Van Wettering then launched into a discussion of various union problems which had arisen and had been solved. He spent some 20 minutes over a problem the labor unions anticipated would arise with a project Leavitt and Son had in Cook County but which never arose due to prior discussions with the unions. Van Wettering told Fulton that the Cook County building trades knew that Leavitt and Son had built Leavittown , Pennsylvania, with nonunion help and so had been prepared to "stop" Leavitt and Son on their project in Cook County if Leavitt and Son had tried to build that project with nonunion help. He told Fulton that at a prebuilding meeting Leavitt and Sons decided to use union help, so the Cook County project proceeded unhampered. Lest the point be dismissed , Van Wettering brought out the fact that Leavitt and Son was also a subsidiary of ITT so that ITT-CESD was in the same category as Leavitt and Son. Van Wettering ended the conversation with a flat statement that CWA was not recognized in Cook County and that CWA would install no telephone equipment in Cook County. On November 30, 1970 Joe Dale Foster , ITT-CESD director of labor relations, met with Van Wettering at the Holiday Inn in Elk Grove Village and asked Van the administration building of the village. Van Wettering stated that Local 134 installed all telephone and PBX equipment in Cook County, Illinois, along with the maintenance work thereon. Foster reminded Van Wetter- ing that ITT-CESD had subcontracted the cable pulling work at the administration building to Riley as they had in New York City and in Los Angeles and asked why he could not accept that. Foster also explained that ITT- CESD had a nationwide contract with CWA covering the installation employees. Van Wettering's answer was that CWA did not do telephone work in Cook County, that to allow that would be to recognize CWA which only had some clerical employees in Cook County. Van Wettering then reiterated his story about the Leavitt and Son's project in Cook County, that the building trades were prepared to "stop the job" if Leavitt and Son had attempted to build the project with nonunion help but that, to their surprise, Leavitt and Son had decided at a prejob conference to do the job with union help. As the men shook hands at parting, Foster said that he hoped there would be no hard feelings if Van Wetering did not get the PBX work. To this Van Wetering answered: "We'd better get that work or there will be trouble." He asked that Foster contact his superiors and then let Van Wetering know their decision. About 9:15 p.m. on December 2, 1970, Foster tele- phoned Van Wetering and told him that ITT-CESD was going to do the PBX work in the Administration Building with its own employees beginning the next morning. Promptly after the receipt of this telephone call, Van Wetenng telephoned the Local 134 business manager at his home and informed him that CWA men would work on the PBX job the next day. The business manager ordered Van Wetenng to go to the jobsite the next day to see if CWA employees were in fact working there. Van Wetering testified that, as ordered, he was at the jobsite the following morning about 8 o'clock. Before leaving shortly thereafter he testified he spoke to no one except to say "Hello" to Robert Becker, the steward for Local 134 on that job. About 10:15 a.m. that day Fulton arrived at the administration building with Communication Technicians Louis Rodriguez and Dennis Satnano, who are headquar- tered in New York City. As they entered the telephone room in the basement of the building where their work was to begin, there were already two employees of Illinois Bell present and at work. One of these two employees, known in this record only as "Bart," immediately on their entry announced that "if they are working here I am leaving" and began packing up his tools preparatory to departure, as did the other Bell Telephone employee. A minute or two later steward Becker entered the telephone room, showed his Local 134 card to Fulton, and asked to see the cards of Rodriguez and Satriano. Rodriguez showed Becker his CWA card but Satnano had no card to show.2 Becker immediately announced to those present that either "I can't work here" or "we can't work here."3 After this 2 Becker testified that Satnano merely shrugged his shoulders as though to bung his card from New York . If this difference were material , I would he did not understand English while Fulton testified that Satriano explained credit the testimony of Fulton in good English , which according to Fulton, he spoke, that he had forgotten 3 In his oral testimony Fulton testified that Becker used the plural (Continued) 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD comment Becker and the four or five other employees of Johnson Electric drifted away Becker remained on the job for a few minutes until it was time to have a coffeebreak with the rest of the employees from Local 134 and Jack Schutten, superintendent for Johnson Electric on the job. During this coffeebreak, Becker was asked about the two ITT-CESD employees and answered that one of them had a CWA card while the other showed no card. At the end of the coffeebreak Becker told the assembled Local 134 employees that he was going home because he did not want to work with "nonunion men " He thereupon departed for home. The other Local 134 employees also left the jobsite From home Becker telephoned the union office and left word for the business manager that "there were nonunion men on the job." No Local 134 employees worked in the administration building for the rest of the day. That afternoon George Coney, director of finance for the village of Elk Grove, invited Harold George, regional sales manager for ITT-CESD, who happened to be in the telephone room at the time with the communications technicians, to come upstairs. As George entered the room Coney was talking to one Turnberg, superintendent for the general contractor on the construction of the administra- tion building. Coney asked Turnberg if the job would be completed. Turnberg answered that he could not complete the job if CWA was on the job. Thereupon Coney turned to George and asked if it would be possible not to have CWA on the job the following morning. George stated that it would be possible if Coney made a formal request. Coney made the formal request and George agreed that CWA would not be on the job the next morning. Coney thereupon turned to Turnberg and told him that CWA would not be on the job the next day. Turnberg then dialed a number on the telephone and reported to someone that CWA would not be on the job the next morning. Late that afternoon Contractor Johnson of Johnson Electric telephoned Becker and informed him that he "could go back to work there, that these other fellows weren't going to be there." Accordingly Becker returned to work on the morning of December 4. All the other Local 134 employees also returned to work that day The ITT-CESD technicians did not return to work until December 21 and thereafter completed their work on the PBX system. The Johnson Electric and Riley Electric employees had completed their work in the administration building by December 21. On the afternoon of December 3, 1970, ITT-CESD through its attorney filed the charge in this case alleging that Local Union No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring whereas his affidavit puts the phrase in the singular According to Becker, after seeing Rodriguez' CWA card and having Satriano "shrug his shoulders," he merely thanked them and left the room 4 Respondent Union ends the first section of its brief as follows Local 134 urges the Trial Examiner to recommend to the Board that it reconsider the previous decision [Decision and Determination of Dispute, 191 NLRB No 1321 because it was in error to have issued that decision in conflict with the above-cited authorities ITT-CESD to assign the work in dispute to members of Local 134 rather than to employees of ITT-CESD represented by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. A hearing on this dispute was held in Chicago, Illinois, before Hearing Officer Stephen S. Schulson on March 12, 15, and 17, 1971. On June 30, 1971 the Board, finding that it was satisfied "that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred," proceeded to determine the merits of the dispute and made the following specific determination of the dispute as follows: - 1. Employees of International Telephone & Tele- graph Corporation, Communications Equipment & Systems Division, who are currently represented by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of terminating the cable and installing telephone instruments in Cook County, Illinois. 2. Local Union No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, Communications Equipment & Systems Division, to assign the above work to individuals represented by Local Union No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO.4 On August 30, 1971, Local 134 admittedly informed the Regional Director for Region 13 that Local 134 did not intend to comply with the Board's aforementioned deter- mination of dispute. B. Conclusions The evidence here proves and I, therefore, find that- I On November 11, 1970,5 and again on November 30, 1970, Union Agent Burton Van Wettering threatened, coerced, and restrained two separate agents of ITT-CESD by warning that, unless ITT-CESD assigned the remaining PBX work of terminating cables and hanging instruments for the PBX system which ITT-CESD had contracted to install and maintain in the administration building of the village of Elk Grove to members of Local 134 instead of to members of CWA, the work in the administration building and on that system would be "stopped." In the conversation on November 11 this threat, while not stated in so many words, was made explicitly during Van Wettering's 20-minute harangue about how the Cook County Building Trades Council had decided "to stop" a Leavitt and Son project in Cook County unless Leavitt and Son decided to use union labor in the construction of the project instead of the nonunion labor which Leavitt and Son had used on its Leavittown project in Pennsylvania. This threat was explicit enough during his 20-minute lecture but Van Wettering left nothing to chance when he The short answer to this is, of course, that, as a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, I enjoy no appellate jurisdiction over the actions of that Board but, on the contrary, am bound by the decisions of that Board 5 Despite Respondent's objection voiced for the first time in its brief, I use the events of this date although , as stated in the brief, the date was not alleged in the complaint because, despite that omission in the complaint, the conversation here found was fully litigated at the hearing LOCAL 134, IBEW pointed out that Leavitt and Son was, like ITT-CESD, an affiliate of ITT so that the two organizations were in exactly the "same category." The threat to shut down the Elk Grove administration project was implicit in every- thing Van Wettering had to say on November 11 A man need not be hit over the head to know that he is being threatened and coerced. On November 30 Van Wettering went through this same 20-minute threatening harangue to another agent of ITT-CESD as to what would happen unless ITT-CESD assigned the remaining PBX work in the village adminis- tration building to members of Local 134 instead of to ITT-CESD's own employees who were members of the CWA. On this second occasion, apparently bewildered that his first threats and coercion had proved unsuccessful, Van Wettering made the threat explicit by ending the conversa- tion with the statement that unless ITT-CESD assigned the remaining work on the PBX system to members of Local 134 "there will be trouble." This time Van Wettenng was leaving nothing to chance.6 After Van Wettering's threats and coercion were proved unavailing as indicated by the telephone call of 9.30 p.m. to him on December 2 that ITT-CESD was assigning the work to its own employees, Van Wettering's prophecy was fulfilled on December 3 at the exact time that the ITT-CESD communications technicians began work in the administration building This stoppage by Local 134 hardly appears to have been a mere coincidence. On the anticipated arrival of the ITT employees, the Local 134 steward, Thomas Becker, promptly checked the cards of the two technicians and found one with a CWA card and that the other had forgotten his card in New York City. Becker, knowing full well what the ITT-CESD technicians were on the premises due to his inspection of the work to be done, promptly stated "I am leaving because I do not care to work with nonunion men.' 17 Despite this statement, however, Steward Becker did not immediately depart the premises as promised but carefully waited until after he had had coffee with all the other Local 134 employees on the job, employees of Johnson, Illinois Bell, and Riley At the end of coffee and after explaining that one ITT-CESD technician had a CWA card and the other none, Steward Becker announced to that assembly that he was leaving because he did not care to work with "nonunion men."8 By this statement and by his action, Steward Becker at least sought to, and did, induce and encourage the other Local 134 members employed by Riley Electric "to refuse to perform any service" in the course of their employment. The encouragement was sufficient so that all Local 134 members left the premises at or about this time .9 Van Wettering's conversations with the ITT agents made the object of his and Becker's actions so clear that no 6 Respondent relies on the denial by Van Wettering that he ever made the "there will be trouble" statement-which was the only element in either conversation which Van Wettenng denied The threat was there whether or not Van Wettering uttered the disputed words These words merely made explicit what might be said to have been perfectly implicit theretofor I have no doubt that Van Wettenng on the second occasion became explicit That was the purpose of the conversation r It is to be noted here that Becker, despite this statement, knew that Rodriguez, at least, was a union man, albeit a member of CWA 8 This plural is Becker's 883 discussion of that is here required. Local 134 was going to do the ITT-CESD PBX work in Cook County instead of the CWA employees or else the work in the administration building would be "stopped." This is prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Hence we have an agent of a labor organization, Steward Becker, inducing and encouraging employees of a person engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce to refuse in the course of their employment to perform any services for the purposes of forcing or requiring an employer, ITT-CESD, to assign work to members of Local 134 instead of to employees represented by CWA, which is a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(D) of the Act. Then we have an agent of a labor organization, Business Agent Van Wettering, threatening and coercing a person admittedly engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, ITT-CESD, with the object of forcing that employer to assign particular work, the PBX system work in the administration building of the village of Elk Grove, to Local 134 members instead of to employees of ITT-CESD who happen to be members of CWA, which is a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(n)(D) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of ITT-CESD described in section 1 , above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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 The Remedy Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to remedy the unfair labor practices of this nature CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, Communications Equipment & Systems Division, and C. A. Riley Electric Construction Co. are engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 9 1 include only the employees of Riley Electric Company in this for the technical-but unrealistic-reason that neither Johnson Electric nor Illinois Bell were alleged, or proved, to be "persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce" and hence the employees of these two employers do not fit the description of Section 8(b)(4)(i) The employees of Riley, on the other hand, were engaged in work subcontracted from ITT-CESD which was admittedly an employer described in that section of the Act and hence Riley's employees would necessarily fit within Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. 'Local 134 has failed and refused to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute dated June 30, 1971 [191 NLRB No. 1221. 4. Respondent, by threatening ITT-CESD and induc- ing and encouraging employees of an employer engaged in commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to perform any services for the purpose of forcing or requiring ITT-CESD to assign particular work to members of Local 134 rather than to ITT employees represented by CWA, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) 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 foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 10 ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that the Respondent, Local No. 134, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing, or encouraging any individual employed by C. A. Riley Electrical Construction Company, or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport. or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; or threatening, coercing, or restraining ITT-CESD, or any other employer or person 10 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 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 is 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 engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require ITT-CESD to assign the work described below to employees who are members of or represented by Respon- dent rather than to employees of ITT-CESD currently represented by CWA. The work involved consists of: Terminating the cable and installing telephone instruments in Cook County, Illinois. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:' (a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and all other places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by the Respon- dent's authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 13 for posting by ITT-CESD and C. A. Riley Electric Construction Company at all locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted, if they are willing to do so. (c) Inform its members of its obligations set forth in the provisions of the aforesaid notice, by reading such document during regularly scheduled meetings of the membership, and by mailing a copy of same to each of its current membership. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12 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." 12 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 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "