Local No. 3, IBEW

866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and New York Telephone Company and Communications Work- ers of America, AFL-CIO; and Local 1106, Com- munications Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case 29-CD-107 June 22, 1972 DECISION AND OROER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On March 15, 1972, Trial Examiner Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and 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 Respondent, Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommend- ed Order. i J Sec 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(D) provides (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- . » » « (4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any 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 (u) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft , or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade , craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work The petition averred that there was reasonable cause to believe that TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FRANK H. ITKIN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on January 10, 1972. The principal question presented is whether Respondent Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (herein Local No. 3 or Respondent), violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by engaging in certain acts and conduct recited below.' This is the fourth hearing arising from the acts and conduct alleged in the unfair labor practice complaint filed herein. The first hearing was held on December 17, 30, and 31, 1970, before the United States District Court of New York, on a petition filed pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act alleging, inter alia, that there was reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) and (D) of the Act.2 On January 21, 1971, the District Court granted an injunction pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act. See Kaynardv. Local 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Co), 337 F Supp. 31 (D C NY, 1971). The second hearing was held on April 23, 1971, before Trial Examiner Thomas Ricci in Case 29-CC-268 (referred to herein as the "CC" case). The principal issue there was whether Respondent's conduct, as alleged-the same conduct involved in this proceeding -was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act.3 On June 25, ' 1, Trial Examiner Ricci issued his Decision, finding that Respondent had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n), subparagraph (B), of the Act, as alleged. On October 15, 1971, the Board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Examiner, as modified. See Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 193 NLRB No. 111 (1971).4 The third hearing Respondent's conduct, as alleged, was for an object proscribed by subparagraph (B) as well as (D) Subparagraph (B) forbids (i) and (u) conduct where an object thereof is » « » (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using , selling, handling, transporting , or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer , processor, or manufacturer . or to cease doing business with any other person , or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9 Provided, That nothing contained in this clause ( B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful , any primary strike or primary picketing, The parties stipulated before Trial Examiner Ricci that the record (the transcript and exhibits) in the 10(1) proceeding would be received in evidence in the CC case The parties reserved the right to offer additional evidence and make further argument on the evidence of record The only additional testimony adduced at the CC hearing was that of one William Darcy , a business representative of Local 3 See Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 193 NLRB No Ili (TXD) i The Board's modifications concerned only the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law and Order and did not pertain to his findings insofar as pertinent or material to this proceeding 197 NLRB No. 137 LOCAL NO. 3, IBEW was held on June 1, 2 and 3, 1971, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.5 On October 15, 1971, the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dispute, finding, inter aha, that there was "reasonable cause to believe" that Respon- dent's conduct, as alleged in this proceeding, was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act. See Local No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 193 NLRB No. 116 (1971).6 In the instant case, Respondent admits in its answer that "[s]ince on or about October 15, 1971, Respondent has failed and refused to comply with the Decision and Determination of Dispute described above . . . and has failed and refused to notify the Regional Director for Region 29 that it will refrain from the actions proscnbed by the Board in said Determination, although Respondent was afforded a fair opportunity to do so." Respondent, however, denies having engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u) for an object proscribed by subparagraph (D). Counsel for the General Counsel argues that, under the circumstances present here, I am bound by the Board's findings of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u) conduct in the related CC case absent the production of newly discovered evidence pertaining to such conduct. Counsel for the General Counsel further contends that the evidence of record amply establishes that Respondent' s (i) and (if) conduct was in furtherance of a (D) object 7 Counsel for Respondent in turn denies that I am bound by the Board's (i) and (n) findings in the CC cases In counsel for Respondent's posthearing memorandum, he argues, inter aha, that I am not required by the Board's decisions already issued in connection with this matter to find that Local Union No. 3 committed any acts with a Section 8(b)(4)(D) 5 Sec 10(k) provides Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4)(D) of section 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen, unless , within ten days after notice that such charge has been filed, the parties to such dispute submit to the Board satisfactory evidence that they have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment 6f, the dispute Upon compliance by the parties to the dispute with the decision of the Board or upon such voluntary adjustment of the dispute, such charge shall be dismissed At the 10(k) hearing, the records in the related 10(1) and CC cases, insofar as pertinent here. were received in evidence The CC record was offered by counsel for Respondent Sec 102 92 of the Board's Rules and Regulations states that the "record of the proceeding under section 10(k) and the determination of the Board thereon shall be a part of the record in such unfair labor practice proceeding e The Board's 10(k) determination of the dispute provides A Employees of the New York Telephone Company, currently represented by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 1106, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO are entitled to perform the following work All work involving the pulling of feeder, house, and inside wiring cable into and within buildings, attaching the house and inside wiring cable t ,) walls, the placing of inside wiring , the fastening of terminal boxes to walls and the bolting to floors of frames designed to support telephone equipment where the particular job is new construction or constructi,n involving a major alteration , and on jobs within Queens County, New York, where all employees on the job are members of building trades Unions B Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical 867 object whether or not [I am] legally bound by the Board's finding (193 NLRB No. I11) that (i) and (n) acts were committed for which Respondent was responsible and the Board's further finding (193 NLRB No. 116) that a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) exists herein... . [Respondent] urge[s] that it cannot reasonably be inferred that Local Union No 3 acted-at two out of several dozen locations-with a Section 8(b)(4)(D) object ... . As stated at the hearing, I conclude that I am bound by the Board's findings of (i) and (u) conduct in the related CC case (193 NLRB No. 111). Admittedly, the same parties are involved in both proceedings; the same conduct is in issue insofar as it pertains to Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u), and the parties were afforded full opportunity to litigate the (i) and (ii) conduct before the Board in the related CC case. In fact, counsel for Respondent expressly declined the opportunity in the instant proceeding to adduce additional evidence pertaining to the (i) and (n) issue as well as the (D) issue, including the opportunity to conduct additional cross-examination of witnesses who had testi- fied at the previous hearings. Under principles of collateral estoppel, the Board's earlier findings of (i) and (ii) conduct are controlling here. As the court stated in Hyman v. Regenstein, 258 F 2d 502, 510(C.A 5, 1958): It, of course, is well settled law that a fact decided in an earlier suit is conclusively established between their parties and their privies, provided it was necessary to the result in the first suit The Evergreens v Nunan, 2 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 927, 928, 152 A.L.R. 1187. American Jurisprudence, Judgments, Section 371, states the rule: It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence Workers. AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the New York Telephone Company to assign the above-described work to electricians , who are currently represented by Local Union No 3, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO C Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute. Local Union No 3. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. shall notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring New York Telephone Company to assign the work in dispute to its members , rather than to employees of New York Telephone Company represented by Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 1106, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO r Counsel for the Charging Party, New York Telephone Company (herein Telco), generally concurs with counsel for the General Counsel that I am bound by the Board's (i) and (u) findings in the CC case However, counsel for the Charging Party further contends in his posthearing brief that I am also bound by the so-called "conclusion" in the CC case "that the object of this conduct was to protect Local 3's claimed work jurisdiction the object prescribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act " I note, however, that counsel for Respondent characterized the instant proceeding, in part, as follows this is the fourth in a series of pointless hearings, unproductive hearings which have been a waste of the taxpayer 's money They are the outgrowth of two conversations which took place on November 24, 1970, which the Telephone Company in its wisdom chose to make a Labor Board Case , obtained a temporary restraint, a temporary injunction , and in the case of the CC case a permanent injunction which Respondent will not comply with, and the Board has been advised 868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that material facts or questions which were in issue in a former action, and were there admitted or judicially determined, are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, and that such facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies, regard- less of the form the issues' may take in the subsequent action, whether the subsequent action involves the same or a different form of proceed- ing, or whether the second action is upon the same or a different cause of action, subject matter, claim, or demand, as the earlier action. In such cases, it is also immaterial that the two actions are based on different grounds, or tried on different theories, or instituted for different purposes, and seek different relief... . Similarly, Freeman writes: "Regardless of any differences in the cause of action or subject matter, the conclusiveness of a former adjudica- tion extends to every question in issue and determined by the court . . . though not then directly the point in issue.... [A judgment] is conclusive as to all matters within the scope of the pleadings which are material and relevant and were in fact determined." 2 Freeman on Judg- ments, Section 688, p. 1450. [See cases and other authorities cited] And see Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 728 v. N.L.R B, 415 F.2d 986, 988 (C.A. D.C., 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 935 (1970), where the court of appeals comment- ed: There is sound scope for principles of estoppel in administrative adjudications [citation omitted]. There is no reason why an agency any more than a court should be required to squander limited and overtaxed resources of decisional and staff personnel by reconsidering matters already fairly heard and determined. . . . In this case, the application of the principles of estoppel was well within the Board's discretion ... . Cf. Peyton Packing Company, Inc., 129 NLRB 1358 (1961), where the Board, having previously found in another case that the alleged withholding of a bonus was violative of Section 8(a)(1), would not permit counsel for the General Counsel to relitigate this question in a later 8(a)(5) proceeding. Of course, the Board did not have before it the (D) object issue in the related CC proceeding and, consequent- ly, this issue must be resolved on the record before me now. In this respect, I note that both the district court in the 10(1) proceeding and the Board in the 10(k) proceeding were only concerned with the issue of whether there was "reasonable cause to believe" that an 8(b)(4)(D) violation had occurred. Accordingly, upon the entire record in this case, and a consideration of the arguments of counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER; THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find that Telco, the Charging Party, a New York corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business in New York City and maintains various other places of business in the State of New York, where it is and has been engaged continuously in providing telephone communications and related services; that during the past year , which period is representative of Telco's annual operations generally, Telco derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 in the course and conduct of its operations ; that during this same period, Telco purchased and caused to be delivered and transported to its places of business in New York, telephone cable, wire, lumber, and other goods and materials valued at in excess of $50,000, said goods and materials having been transported and delivered to Telco's places of business in interstate ' commerce directly from States of the United States other than New York; and therefore that Telco is and at all times material herein has been engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. The complaint further alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent Local 3, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 1106, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein CWA and Local 1106 respectively), are and at all times material have been labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background As the Board found in the 10(k) proceeding (supra, fn. 6) and in the related CC case, the work in dispute involves the installation of certain telephone equipment on projects located within Queens County which involve new con- struction or major alterations to existing buildings, on which all of the employees are members of building trades unions. For many years prior to November 1970, it was Telco's practice to contract out the disputed work to firms employing electricians represented by Respondent Local 3. During the later part of October 1970, Telco determined to assign the disputed work to its own employees represented by CWA and Local 1106. Thus, on November 24, 1970, Telco assigned crews to two projects in Queens County, Queensborough Community College and Thompson Ave- nue, to pull cable and place terminal boxes. The events described below occurred at the two project sites. B. The (i) and (ii) Conduct Occurring at the Two Projects as Found by the Board in Case 29-CC-268 On November 24, electricians employed by electrical subcontractor Sheldon Electric Co., Inc., were working at the Thompson Avenue project, and electricians employed by electrical subcontractor A. I. Smith, Inc., were working at the Queensborough College project . Both subcontractors LOCAL NO. 3, IBEW 869 had collective-bargaining agreements with Local 3 cover- ing their respective electrician employees. In the CC case, the Board, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, found, inter aka, as follows: The evidence shows that at the Thompson Avenue job, [Robert] Fedor, calling himself the job steward for Local 3 [and foreman for the electrical subcontractor] told a representative of the general contractor, [Park- will] Construction Co., he would turn the electricity off the job if the CWA men worked. The evidence also shows that at the Queensborough College project, Herbert Smith [of A. I. Smith, Inc.], an electrician foreman and member of Local 3, ordered the Telephone Company men off the project, and that Bill Allen, Local 3 shop steward employed by the Smith Company, ordered Eaton [a Telephone Company foreman] to tell his superiors he had been threatened with physical violence if the Telephone Company men did not leave, and made . . . the general contractor understand that the electricians would strike if the Telephone Company men worked at all. Vianelli, superintendent for the general contractor at the site (Parkwill Construction Co.), told Baynon and Mei to leave because the electricians would turn off the electricity and close down the job if the two Telco employees remained on the site. Baynon called McCarthy and they went to speak with Vianelli. In the presence of Fedor, McCarthy asked Vianelli why his men had to leave; Vianelli responded that trades people must do the work because the electricians would otherwise close down the job. McCarthy asked Fedor if this was true and Fedor agreed that "we'll turn it off...." Fedor also stated: "Isn't this work usually done by Comstock" (an electrical contractor who employs members of Local 3). Fedor, during this conversation, identified himself as shop steward for Local 3. McCarthy, in his testimony, recalled, inter alia, that Vianelli said that if the CWA men work, the electricians would turn the power off and Parkwill would have to close down the job. Fedor apprised Vianelli that "jobs of this type were normally done by Comstock." Fedor informed McCarthy that he would turn off the power in the building if the Telco men worked. Fedor identified himself as a Local 3 steward. Vianelli, in his testimony, related , inter alia, that Fedor informed him that the Telco employees were not trades The cables were not pulled into the two buildings and the terminal box work was not performed until a month later, after the General Counsel had filed a petition for injunction under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Board, in finding and concluding that Respondent by the foregoing and related conduct had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u) for an object proscribed by subparagraph (B), expressly rejected Respondent's contention that it was not responsible for the acts and conduct of both Fedor and Allen. C. The Evidence of Record Pertaining to an 8(b)(4)(D) Object The question remains, whether Respondent's (i) and (ii) conduct was in furtherance of an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D). Upon the entire record, I find and conclude that an object of Respondent's (i) and (ii) conduct was to force or require Telco to assign the disputed work to members of Local 3 rather than to Telco's own employees represented by CWA and Local 1106. 1. The Thompson Avenue job Thus, according to the testimony of Telco employee Baynon, Telco Foreman McCarthy arrived at the Thomp- son Avenue project on the morning of November 24. He was accompanied by Telco employees Baynon and Mei. Baynon started to work on terminal boxes. Fedor, a foreman for the electrical subcontractor on the site (Sheldon Electric Co., Inc.) and a member of Local 3, told Baynon that "the work belonged" "to Local 3." Thereafter, people, that the Telco employees would "interfere with" the operation of the job "since this job was all performed by trade workmen," and therefore the CWA men "would have to leave the site." Vianelli told Baynon and Mei to leave the premises. Later, Vianelli told McCarthy that "the job was run by all trades people, that it was going to cause [Vianelli] an inconvenience on [his] site, on [his] job, if these men were to work there...." I credit the testimony of Baynon, McCarthy, and Vianelli as stated above. Their testimony in material part is mutually corroborative and, upon the entire record before me including the ultimate findings of the Board in the related CC case, appears to be a trustworthy and complete account of what transpired at the Thompson site on January 24, 1970.9 2. The Queensborough Community College job Telco Foreman Eaton arrived at the Queensborough College site on the morning of November 24 with linemen Bickel and Kazmerski for the purpose of pulling telephone cable and installing terminal boxes. According to the testimony of Eaton, some duct work remained to be done, by the electrical subcontractor (A. I. Smith, Inc.). Eaton sought out Herbert Smith, one of the owners, and foreman of A. I. Smith, and a member of Local 3. Eaton then went to see Bill Allen, the Local 3 shop steward for A. I. Smith. Allen told Eaton that "he wasn't going to place any conduit; we weren't going to pull any cable; and he wasn't going to place any conduit for us." Eaton spoke with Thompson, the custodian engineer at the College.i° Allen told Thompson, inter alia, "that this type of work is generally contracted out to [employers ] who employ Local 9 Fedor denied, inter aha, that he was a steward and that he had agreement with the Trial Examiner in the CC case , I would not credit Fedor threatened a work stoppage The Board has determined in the CC case that insofar as his testimony conflicts with that of Baynon , McCarthy, and Fedor did engage in the (i) and (ii) conduct and that Respondent Local 3 is Vianelli as stated above (See 193 NLRB No. I I I (TXD)) responsible for this conduct. Further, on the record before me and in 10 The general contractor at this site was Mars Associates. 870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3 members," and the cable pulling had to be done by Local 3 men. Thompson agreed. Eaton next spoke on the telephone to De Blaze, a representative of the College. Thompson said to De Blaze, in the presence of Allen, that the "electricians are going to walk off the job and their union is going to claim that they had not sanctioned the walkoff." Allen agreed, stating: "That's right. We will walk off if the Telephone Company pulls the cable." Allen then told Eaton, "Why don't you go back and tell your boss that you were threatened with physical violence?" Telco employee Kazmerski testified, inter aka, that he had started to mount a terminal box at the site. Herbert Smith asked the employee what he was doing; Kazmerski said that he was pulling a telephone cable; Smith replied, "No, we weren't. He had the key to the room [and] he wasn't letting us in here-to get out." Smith, in his testimony, asserted, inter aka, that the reason he ordered the Telco employees out of the particular room was to protect his company's equipment and to prevent any one from being injured by the live electrical connections. Allen, in his testimony, generally denied any threats toward Eaton or anyone else. I credit the testimony of Eaton and Kazmerski as stated above. Their testimony is in material part mutually corroborative and, upon the entire record before me, including the ultimate findings of the Board in the related CC case, appears to be a reasonable, trustworthy, and complete account of what transpired at the Queensborough College site on November 24.11 Allen and Fedor telephoned Local 3 Business Represent- ative Darcy on the morning of November 24 to report what had happened at their locations. According to Darcy, he told Allen and Fedor, in effect, to ignore the Telco employees at the two sites and to do nothing. However, I do not credit Darcy's testimony in this respect: As the Trial Examiner noted in the related CC case (193 NLRB No. 111), Darcy "shifted his position on one question after another, evaded simple inquiries again and again, even refused to answer coherently ...... Moreover, as stated, it had been Telco's practice for a number of years to contract out the disputed work to firms employing electricians represented by Local 3. And, article XIV of Respondent's bylaws provides: No member is to give away work coming under the jurisdiction of this Local, or to allow any other tradesmen to do work coming under this Local's jurisdiction, without being subject to such penalty as decided upon by the Executive Board. The record shows and I find that the work in question was considered for many years by Local 3 as within its "jurisdiction." In sum, on the record before me, I find and conclude that Respondent's conduct, as stated above, was for an object of forcing and requiring Telco to assign the disputed 11 The Board has determined in the related CC case that Allen did engage in the (i) and (u) conduct and that Respondent Union is responsible for his conduct Further , on the record before me, I would not credit Allen or Smith where their testimony conflicts with that of Eaton and Kazmerski as stated above Allen and Smith , as the Trial Examiner noted in the related CC case ( 193 NLRB No I I l)-"changed their stones as they went along, both were evasive and oblique in their stories as they went along, both were evasive and oblique in their testimony at many points, and both sought to work to members of Respondent rather than to Telco's employees represented by CWA and Local 1106.12 III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with the interstate operations of the companies involved, 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 its free flow. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Telco is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Local 3, CWA, and Local 1106 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent Local 3 has failed and refused to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute, dated October 15, 1971, and reported in 193 NLRB No. 116. 4. Respondent Local 3 has engaged in and continues to engage in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D), of the Act by engaging in, inducing, and encouraging employees of A. I. Smith, Inc. to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, and by threatening, coercing, and restraining A. I. Smith, Inc., Queensborough Community College, Sheldon Electric Co., Inc., Parkwill Construction Co., and Mars Associates, an object thereof being to force or require Telco to assign the work described below to members of Respondent Local 3 rather than to Telco's own employees represented by CWA and Local 1106. The work involved consists of: All work involving the pulling of feeder, house, and inside wiring cable into and within buildings, attaching the house and inside wiring cable to walls, the placing of inside wiring, the fastening of terminal boxes to walls, and the bolting to floors of frames designed to support telephone equipment where the particular job is new construction or construction involving a major alteration, and on jobs within Queens County, New York, where all employees on the job are members of building trades unions. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent Local 3 has engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and avoid admitting facts that were obvious from the record as a whole" i2 Counsel for Respondent moved to strike CWA as a party The Board, in its 10(k) determination (193 NLRB No 116, In 1), noted that "Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene in the proceedings herein on the basis of a collective-bargaining agreement with New York Telephone Company The contract is adminis- tered by Local 1106." Under the circumstances, CWA is properly a party here and Respondent 's motion is denied. LOCAL NO. 3, IBEW 871 (it)(D) of the Act, my recommended Order will require it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to remedy unfair labor practices of this nature and to effectuate the policies of the Act. Moreover, on the entire record before me and in view of Respondent's secondary boycott pressures implicating innocent parties, as found by the Board in the related CC case, arising from the same dispute involved herein, I find it appropriate to recommend that Respondent be enjoined from engaging in similar conduct involving employees of and/or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce. RECOMMENDED ORDER consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notices to the Regional Director for Region 29 for posting by New York Telephone Company, A. I. Smith, Inc., Sheldon Electric Company, Inc., Queensborough Community College, Parkwill Construction Co., and Mars Associates, at all locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted, if they are willing to do so. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.14 Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Respon- dent herein, its officers, agents, and representatives , shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, inducing, or encouraging any individual employed by A. I. Smith, Inc., 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 their employment to use, manufac- ture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services ; or threatening, coercing, or restrain- ing A. I. Smith, Inc., Sheldon Electric Company, Inc., Queensborough Community College, Parkwill Construc- tion Co., and Mars Associates , or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require New York Telephone Company to assign the work described below to members of Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Respondent herein, rather than to New York Telephone Company's own employees represented by Communica- tions Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Local 1106, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. The work involved consists of: All work involving the pulling of feeder , house, and inside wiring cable into and within buildings , attaching the house and inside wiring cable to walls, the placing of inside wiring, the fastening of terminal boxes to walls, and the bolting to floors of frames designed to support telephone equipment where the particular job is new construction or construction involving a major alteration, and on jobs within Queens Ccunty, New York, where all employees on the job are members of building trades unions. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in 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 14 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government To all members of Local Union No. 3. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and to all employees, We hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in, induce , or encourage employees employed by A. I. Smith, Inc., or by any other person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their 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 A. I. Smith , Inc., Sheldon Electric Company, Inc., Queens- borough Community College, Parkwill Construction Co., and Mars Associates , or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require New York Telephone Company to assign the work described below to members of Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Respondent herein , rather than to New York Telephone Company's own employees represent- ed by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Local 1106 , Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. The work involved consists of: All work involving the pulling of feeder, house, and inside wiring cable into and within buildings, attaching the house and inside wiring cable to walls, the placing of inside wiring, the fastening of 872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD terminal boxes to walls, and the bolting to floors of frames designed to support telephone equip- ment where the particular job is new construction or construction involving a major alteration, and on jobs within Queens County, New York, where all employees on the job are members of building trades unions. 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 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3750.