Electrical Workers Local No. 481 (Mechel, Inc.)

LOCAL NO. 481, ELECTRICAL WORKERS Local No. 481, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Mechel, Incorporated) and J. A. Construction Management Corporation. Case 25-CC-406 January 18, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY On September 15, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Jerry B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and counsel for the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.1 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Local No. 481, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommend- ed Order. I In finding a violation, Chairman Fanning does not rely on the union agent's statement made in January that there could be trouble at the site if a union contractor were not awarded the project's electncal contract. In the Chairman's view, this statement, in the context in which it was made, is not evidence that any future picketing would have a secondary purpose. See Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFl-CIO (Hylan Electric Company, Inc.), 204 NLRB 193, fn. 2 (1973). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JERRY B. STONE, Administrative Law Judge: This pro- ceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was heard pursuant to due notice on June 3, 1977, at Indianapolis, Indiana. The charge was filed on March 30, 1977.1 The complaint in this matter was issued on April 29, 1977. The issues I There is no 10(b) issue presented in this case. The facts reveal that the charge was signed on March 29, 1977. and delivered to the Board or its agent on or about the date, and docketed as being filed on March 30. 1977. 234 NLRB No. 45 concern whether the Respondent engaged in picketing violative of Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate in the proceeding. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and Respondent and have been considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINos OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The facts herein are based on the pleadings and admis- sions therein. J. A. Construction Management Corporation (herein sometimes called J. A. Construction) is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Indiana, with its principal office and place of business at Indianapo- lis, Indiana, and is engaged in the building and construc- tion business as a building construction manager. National Retail Hardware Association (herein some- times called NRHA) is, and has been at all times since on or about November 1, 1976, engaged in the construction of a new headquarters office building, located at 770 North High School Road, Indianapolis, Indiana, herein called the jobsite, and has contracted with J. A. Construction to supervise and manage on behalf of NRHA the construc- tion of said office building. Mechel, Incorporated (herein sometimes called Mechel), an Indiana corporation with principal office and place of business located at Indianapolis, Indiana, and with con- struction sites located in Indiana, is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the building and con- struction industry as an electrical contractor. During a 12- month representative period, Mechel, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchased, transferred, and caused to be delivered to its place of business and/or its Indiana construction sites electrical supplies and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were transported directly to said place of business and/or Indiana construction sites from, and received from, sources located outside the State of Indiana, and/or which were purchased through other enterprises, including, inter alia, General Electric Supply Company, Kulwin Electric Supply Co., Inc., Economy Electric Supply, Inc., and Graybar Electric Company, Inc., located in the State of Indiana, which other enterprises had ordered and caused to be shipped to Mechel at its place of business and/or Indiana construction sites the said goods and materials directly from sources located outside the State of Indiana. Ben-Hur Construction Co., Inc. (herein sometimes called Ben-Hur), is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the building and construction industry as a structural steel erector. A. B. Cochran and Sons, Inc. (herein called Cochran), is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the building and construction industry as a general contractor. In the course of the construction of its headquarters office building at the jobsite, NRHA has contracted with 297 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mechel, Ben-Hur, Cochran, and others for the perform- ance of certain portions of the construction work. NRHA, J. A. Construction, Ben-Hur, Cochran, and Mechel are now, and have been at all times material herein, each individually and all collectively, employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. As conceded by Respondent and based upon the foregoing, it is concluded and found that the above-named employers, each is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer, and collectively are employers, en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 2 Local No. 481, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Agency Status 3 1. At all times material herein, the following persons occupied the positions set opposite their respective names, and have been and are now agents of Local No. 481, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, acting on its behalf, and are agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Francis Storms-Assistant Business Manager Wesley Taylor-Business Manager 2. In addition to the foregoing facts relating to agency status, the facts reveal that Local No. 481, IBEW, AFL- CIO, has two other assistant business managers in addition to Storms. One such assistant business manager is Michael J. Elder, who was involved in the factual situation involved in this proceeding. I conclude and find that Elder was, at all times material herein, an agent of Local No. 481, IBEW, AFL-CIO, within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. B. The Relevant Facts4 1. J. A. Construction Management Corporation is engaged in the building and construction business as a building construction manager. 2. National Retail Hardware Association is and has been at all times since on or about November 1, 1976, engaged in the construction of a new headquarters office building, located at 770 North High School Road, Indi- anapolis, Indiana, herein sometimes called the NRHA 2 The facts are based on the pleadings and admissions therein. 3 The facts are based on the pleadings and admissions therein. 4 Many of the facts are not disputed. The factual findings herein are based upon a composite of the pleadings as admitted, stipulations, and the credited aspects of the testimony of the witnesses. I Wagner testified to the effect that there were two telephone conversa- tions in January 1977, initiated by a caller who identified himself as Francis Storms of the IBEW. Storms denied that he had such telephone conversa- tion with Wagner. Elder testified to the effect that he was the one who had jobsite, and being the only jobsite involved in this proceed- ing, and during the relevant material time to this proceed- ing had contracted with J. A. Construction to supervise and manage on behalf of NRHA the construction of said NRHA headquarters facility at the NRHAjobsite. 3. Initial work commenced on the NRHA headquarters facility in the fall of 1976. 4. Dodd Electric Company installed the temporary electric service for construction at the NRHA headquarters facility in November and December 1976 and completed such installation of temporary electric service on December 27, 1976. 5. In early January 1977, Storms, assistant business manager of Local 481, telephoned Mike Carr, president of J. A. Construction, and asked for a meeting. A meeting was agreed to and at such meeting Storms informed Carr that Respondent represented employees of a number of good electrical contractors and that his interest was to promote work for such contractors. Carr and Storms discussed the Union's jurisdictional area. Later, after the meeting, Storms sent Carr a letter setting forth the Union's jurisdic- tional area. 6. In January 1977, Assistant Business Manager Elder, of Local 481, had two telephone conversations with J. A. Construction's project manager for the NRHA job, Jack Wagner. On both occasions Elder inquired as to whether the electrical contractor for the NRHA facility had been selected. On both occasions Wagner indicated that con- tracts had not been let, and that it was up to the owner (NRHA) to make the final selection. In the second conversation, occurring toward the end of January 1977, there apparently was discussion of whether the contract would be awarded to a contractor who had a relationship with the Union or to a "non-union" contractor. Elder told Wagner that Wagner knew that if the contract was not awarded to a union contractor that there could be "trouble out there." 5 7. On March 7, 1977, J. A. Construction awarded the contract for electrical work on the NRHA headquarters facility to Mechel. 8. On March 24 or 25, 1977, Assistant Business Manag- er Elder, assigned by Local 481 to the duties relating to the NRHA headquarters facility, believed the NRHA head- quarters facility to be at the stage for commencement of electrical work, and believed that the electrical work would be performed by a "non-union" contractor, Mechel. On March 24 or 25, 1977, Assistant Business Manager Elder visited the NRHA headquarters facility site, drove back on a side drive, and observed an individual (approximately 30 years of age, having long hair, slender frame, and less than telephone conversations with Wagner. I am persuaded from a composite consideration of the testimony of Wagner and Elder and a logical consideration of all of the facts that the conversations testified to by Wagner and Elder refer to the same conversations, that the conversations occurred between Wagner and Elder, and that Wagner either confused the identity of the caller as being Storms because Storms had previously contacted the Company or that Elder indicated he was Storms or calling on Storms' behalf. 298 LOCAL NO. 481, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 6 feet tall). Elder observed such individual at a transform- er.6 Elder did not see such individual actually perform work but assumed that he was working at a disconnect switch. Elder also observed nearby a pickup truck, appar- ently without signs of identification. This pickup truck had some conduit in the body.7 Eider spoke to the individual near the transformer and from the brief exchange of conversation that occurred believed that the individual had told him, in effect, that he worked for Mechel.8 9. On March 28, 1977, the Union commenced picketing the NRHA headquarters job facility. As hereinafter shown, such picketing continued until mid-day on March 30, 1977. 10. The pleadings establish, it is undisputed, and I find that at all times material herein Respondent Union (Local No. 481, IBEW) has had a labor dispute with Mechel. Excluding said labor dispute with Mechel, Respondent Union has not had, at any time material herein, a labor dispute with NRHA, J. A. Construction, Ben-Hur, Coch- ran, or any other employer at the National Retail Hard- ware Association (headquarters facility) jobsite located at 770 North High School Road, Indianapolis, Indiana, the jobsite involved in the dispute herein. 11. On March 28, 29, and 30, 1977, Mechel was not present on the NRHA headquarters facility jobsite, had no employees at said jobsite, and had no equipment or supplies at said jobsite. 12. As indicated, Respondent Union (Local No. 481, IBEW) commenced picketing at the NRHA headquarters facility jobsite on March 28, 1977. Respondent Union had one authorized paid picket. The picket was placed on the job on March 28, 1977, by Assistant Business Manager Elder and was removed at the end of the day, around 3 p.m., by Assistant Business Manager Elder. It appears that Assistant Business Manager Elder did not remain at the picketing site throughout the time of picketing on March 28, 29, or 30, 1977. It appears that someone else, perhaps a stranger or perhaps a person s A temporary transformer had apparently been installed earlier by Dodd Electric Company to provide power for the construction of the project. 7 The facts relating to Elder's visit to the NRHA headquarters facility on March 24 or 25 are based upon the credited aspects of the testimony of Elder. 8 The facts are based upon the credited aspects of the testimony of Elder. The General Counsel presented a number of witnesses who testified with respect to whether they had knowledge of the presence of Mechel or employees of Mechel on the jobsite on March 24 or 25, and as to whether Elder could have driven on the jobsite on March 24, 1977. Thus, Kern, vice president of Mechel, testified to the effect that records revealed that Mechel's trailer was moved on the jobsite on April 20, 1976, and not before, and that he had no knowledge or record of Mechel's employees being on the jobsite in March 1977. Officials of J. A. Construction testified to the effect that they did not see and had no knowledge of Mechel's or Mechel's employees' presence on the jobsite on March 24 or 25, or any time in March 1976. A supervisor of a contractor (Ben-Hur) testified to the effect that he did not see anyone that he recognized as a Mechel employee, or equipment that he recognized as Mechel's on the jobsite in March. Proof of negative facts, that Mechel or an employee of Mechel was not on a jobsite, is difficult. Especially this is so since the facts reveal that Mechel's trailer does not have an identifying name thereon. Thus, witnesses may truthfully testify to their lack of knowledge, but such testimony does not necessarily exclude the possibility of the presence of Mechel or an employee of Mechel at a time that such witnesses were not present or when such witnesses might not have observed an employee or known his identity. The facts reveal that on March interested in employment in the electrical field, was present at times with the picket at the NRHA jobsite. On March 28, 1977, the picket carried a sign which had the following message: NOnTICE To THE PUBLIC MECHEL INC. does not pay its employees the prevailing wages and economic package in this area for the work being performed by it on thisjobsite. This Notice is Addressed Only to the Public, We Do Not Want any Employees of any Employers To Stop Working Nor Do We Want any Company To Stop Doing Business With Any Other Company. IBEW- Local # 481 It rained on March 28, 1977, and no employees worked on the NRHA headquarters job facility on that date. On that day the picket sign used by the picket became wet. This picket sign, around that time or later, was replaced by a sign with the same message.9 13. On March 29, 1977, Respondent Union (Local No. 481, IBEW) continued its picketing at the NRHA head- quarters facility jobsite. Picketing occurred approximately between 7:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. Assistant Manager Elder placed the picket initially and left around 9 a.m. On this date employees of Ben-Hur were due to work. There were seven such employees who showed up for work between 7:30 a.m. and 7:50 a.m. These employees did not go to work because they wanted to talk to their business agent about whether or not they should honor the picket line. Around 9:30 a.m., the iron workers talked to their business agent, and shortly thereafter the ironworkers went to work. 25, 1977, President Roth of Mechel signed an application for an electrical permit, and that the same was marked "paid on March 30, 1977." This suggests an interest in the NRHA project by Mechel and the possibility that a Mechel employee might make some preliminary check at the project on or about March 25, 1977. Such fact might not be known by Vice President Kern. Considering this, and the fact that Elder may have driven on the driveway at a time prior to the work being performed on the driveway, or after grading but prior to paving. and since Elder appeared to be a truthful witness in most respects, I credit Elder's testimony as to his presence at the jobsite on March 24 or 25, 1977. His testimony as to the observance of a Mechel trailer, however, is not credited. In this testimony, Elder did not appear sure of his facts. I am persuaded that Elder's testimony as to observance of a trailer constitutes a rationalization of what hbe believed were the facts. It is possible that Elder has confused what was said in his conversation with the individual at the disconnect switch. It is possible that Elder merely asked the individual to tell him who had the electrical contract, and the individual told him that Mechel had the contract, and that Elder assumed that the individual was working for Mechel. I do not find it of great importance to determine whether a Mechel employee was actually at the jobsite on March 24 or 25, 1977. It is clear that Elder had reason to believe that a Mechel employee was on the jobsite. However, on the facts presented concerning the dating of the electrical permit by President Roth on March 25, 1977, 1 conclude and find that the facts preponderate for a finding that a Mechel employee was on the jobsite on March 24 or 25, 1977. 9 Perhaps there was a brief point of time when the picket was observed without a sign because of the above-referred-to problem. 299 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Around 9:30 or 9:45 a.m. on March 29, 1977, Jack Wagner, project manager for J. A. Construction, was at the NRHA headquarters job facility. He observed the picket- ing and spoke to the picket and a person who was with the picket. What occurred is revealed by the following credited excerpts from Wagner's testimony. A. No, I did. I asked him what he was doing? He said, "You can read the sign." Q. And then what else was said? A. I then asked the other fellow there I said, "What is your name? and he said, "Johnson," I said, "Well Mechel is not on the job and has never been on the job and does not have any supplies or trailer on the job." As indicated previously, picketing continued until ap- proximately 2:30 p.m. on March 29, 1977. 14. On March 29, 1977, Carr, president of J. A. Construction, signed completed unfair labor practice charges, alleging conduct by Respondent Union of a nature violative under Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. Such charge, the charge involved in this case, was thereafter filed with the NLRB on March 30, 1977. 15. On March 30, 1977, the Union, commencing around 7:30 a.m., continued its picketing, with same said picket sign, at the NRHA headquarters job facility. During the morning of March 30, 1977, someone from the National Labor Relations Board Regional Office spoke to Respondent's business manager, Taylor, and indicated to Taylor that unfair labor charges had been filed and that the nature of the charges was that the employer being picketed was not the contractor on the job.°1 During the morning of March 30, 1977, a Dodd Electric Company truck, identified by signs thereon, passed the Union's NRHA headquarters facility picket site, and proceeded into the project to make some corrections required by an OSHA inspection. Following this, Assistant Business Manager Elder report- ed to Business Manager Taylor that a Dodd Electric Company truck had been seen going on the jobsite. Upon this information and in connection with the information of the unfair labor practice charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board, Taylor directed Elder to withdraw the picket from the NRHA headquarters facility project. Elder thereupon proceeded, around noon, to withdraw the Union's picket.1I C. Contentions and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that the facts reveal that Respondent's picketing of the NRHA headquarters facility constituted picketing for an unlawful object, the enmeshing of neutral employees in a labor dispute. The General 10 Considering the fact that the charges were docketed on March 30, 1977, 1 find that the telephone call was made on March 30, 1977. Taylor placed such call as either on March 29 or March 30, 1977. A different finding would not adversely affect the results. It There is some testimony to the effect that picketing continued on March 30 and 31, 1977. 1 note that the examination and cross-examination of witnesses reveal such testimony in general to be unreliable to establish picketing after the mid-day of March 30, 1977. Some of the testimony was based upon company records such as status reports. Such reports refer to pickets and not to signs. It very well may be that interested persons may Counsel contends that the picketing did not conform to the criteria established to delineate primary picketing from secondary picketing in Sailors Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547 (1950), and that evidence as to the object of the picketing reveals the same to be an unlawful object. The Respondent contends that its picketing was not secondary and not for an unlawful object. The Respon- dent's major contention appears to be that it had reason to believe that Mechel was present on the job and that in connection with this belief its picketing comported with the principles of Moore Dry Dock. Considering all of the facts, I am persuaded that the facts preponderate for a finding that Respondent's object in picketing was an unlawful object in that such picketing was intended to enmesh neutral employees in its labor dispute with Mechel. The facts reveal that a responsible agent of the Union indicated to J. A. Construction in January 1977 that there would be trouble on the job if the electrical contract were awarded to a nonunion contractor. As background, this evidence is consistent with the action that the Union took, revealing an intent to enmesh neutral employees in a labor dispute. Elder's discussion with an individual on March 24 or 25, 1977, wherein the individual made statements which warranted Elder's belief that Mechel was on the job at such time, reasonably would warrant a belief that Mechel was about to commence work in significant degree at a date in the near future. Considering the fact that the evidence did not reveal a significant presence of Mechel at such time, the placement of a picket on March 28, 1977, was somewhat careless and suggestive of an intent that the Union did not care whether Mechel would be present or not at the site at such time. Any question of such careless intent is removed when one considers that the Union continued its picketing after Wagner had informed the picket on the early morning of March 29, 1977, that Mechel was not and had not been present on the jobsite. Assuming that Elder, assistant business manager, did not become aware of Wagner's remarks until late on March 29, 1977, or the early morning of March 30, 1977, continuation of picketing from that point on constituted a disregard of the obligation not to picket so as to enmesh neutral employees in the dispute. The sequence of events on March 30, 1977, the presence of Dodd Electric Company's truck, the knowledge of the unfair labor practice charges, and the removal of such pickets, under the circumstances, are not persuasive that the object of the picketing was lawful. Thus, the presence of the Dodd Electric Company truck could be persuasive that the Union's objective had been achieved. Considering this, the existence of unfair labor practice charges, and the have continued to be present but without signs. Witness Burk testified, however, that he saw picket signs on March 31, 1977. Burk was not cross- examined on his testimony. Whether there was confusion because of the signing of the charges on March 29, 1977, and whether someone, without authorization, used the sign that had been rained on and previously removed is not clear. From the totality of the evidence, I am persuaded that authorized picketing ceased on March 30, 1977. In any event, the facts in this case are sufficient to reveal an unlawful object in the picketing on March 28, 29, and 30, 1977. 300 LOCAL NO. 481, ELECTRICAL WORKERS essential ineffectiveness of the picketing since the iron- workers were crossing the picket line, I am persuaded that evidence of lawful object has not been established.' 2 Although the Moore Dry Dock criteria were not complied with by the Union in major respects, such criteria are not to be mechanistically applied. Even where the Moore Dry Dock criteria are conformed to, unlawful object may be determined by all of the facts. Even where the Moore Dry Dock criteria are not conformed to, lawful object may be determined by all of the facts. In this case, a preponder- ance of all the facts reveals circumstances of such a nature that picketing for an unlawful object is determined. Thus, continued picketing under the circumstances described herein reveals that the Union intended an unlawful enmeshing of neutral employees in its conflict with Mechel. As to the ironworker employees, the picketing had its desired effect for 1-1/2 to 2 hours on March 29, 1977. Thus, I conclude and find from all of the facts that: (a) Commencing on or about March 28, 1977, and continuing to and including March 30, 1977, Respondent, by its officers, agents, and representatives, in furtherance of its labor dispute with Mechel, engaged in and, by picket- ing, requests, appeals, orders, instructions, and other means, induced and encouraged individuals employed by NRHA, J. A. Construction, Ben-Hur, and other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce, to engage in strikes or refusals 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 services for their respective employers. (b) As a result of Respondent's aforesaid acts and conduct, on or about March 29, 1977, around 8 a.m., the employees of Ben-Hur ceased working and engaged in a strike and a refusal in the course of their employment to perform any work for their employers, or to use, process, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, and the employees of said employer continued to engage in such conduct until about 10 a.m. on March 29, 1977. (c) By the acts and conduct set forth above, Respondent induced and encouraged individuals employed by NRHA, J. A. Construction, Ben-Hur, and by other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce, to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform services, and threatened, coerced and restrained NRHA, J. A. Construction, Ben- Hur, and other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce. (d) An object of the acts and conduct of Respondent, set forth above, was and is to force or require NRHA and other persons to cease using, selling, handling, transport- ing, or otherwise dealing in the products or services of, and to cease doing business with, Mechel. 12 The picket sign properly conforms to what is required as to signs under Moore Dry Dock. Mechel however, was not present on the jobsite. and thus major aspects of the Moore Dry Dock cnteria, picketing only when the primary employer is present, were not complied with as regards the picketing. (e) By the acts described above for the object described above, Respondent did engage in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(B), and Section 2(6) and (7) 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 Employers' opera- tions described in section I, 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. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. National Retail Hardware Association, J. A. Con- struction Management Corporation, Ben-Hur Construc- tion Co., Inc., A. B. Cochran and Sons, Inc., and Mechel, Incorporated, are now, and have been at all times material herein, each individually and all collectively, employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local No. 481, International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing at the National Retail Hardware Asso- ciation headquarters jobsite facility on March 28, 29, and 30, 1977, when Local No. 481, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, had a dispute with Mechel, Incorporated, and no dispute with any other employer present at such jobsite, and at a time when Mechel, Incorporated, was not at such jobsite with equip- ment, supplies, or employees, and with an object to enmesh employers with whom it had no dispute in its dispute with Mechel, Incorporated, Respondent Local No. 481 engaged in conduct of unlawful inducement and related acts directed to employees of such employers, and toward such employers, with whom it had no dispute, and for an unlawful object within the meaning of Section 8(bX4)i) and (iiXB) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Tie REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.'3 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: 13 See remedy in Local Union No. 369, Internetional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Garst-Receveur Construction Company, Inc.), 229 NLRB 68 (1977). Since the conduct was directed beyond the member- ship of the Union, a notice appropriate for remedy of such conduct is utilized. 301 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER 14 The Respondent, Local No. 481, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in picketing designed to, or by other means, induce and encourage individuals employed by National Retail Hardware Association, J. A. Construction Management Corporation, Ben-Hur Con- struction Co., Inc., or other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce, to engage in strikes or refusals 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 services for their respective employers, or to threaten, coerce, and restrain National Retail Hardware Association, J. A. Construction Management Corporation, Ben-Hur Construction Co., Inc., or other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce, where an object is to force or require National Retail Hardware Association and other persons to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products or services of and to cease doing business with Mechel, Incorporated. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at Respondent's business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by it immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respon- dent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by 14 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, 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. is In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order 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." Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to said Regional Director for posting by the various employers, named and referred to in paragraph l(a) of this Order, if such employers be willing, at all places where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in picketing designed to, or by other means, induce and encourage individuals em- ployed by National Retail Hardware Association, J. A. Construction Management Corporation, Ben-Hur Con- struction Co. Inc., or other persons engaged in com- merce or in industries affecting commerce, to engage in strikes or refusals 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 services for their respective employers, or to threaten, coerce, and restrain National Retail Hardware Association, J. A. Construction Man- agement Corporation, Ben-Hur Construction Co. Inc., or other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce, where an object is to force or require National Retail Hardware Association and other persons to cease using, selling, handling, trans- porting, or otherwise dealing in the products or services of and to cease doing business with Mechel, Incorpo- rated. LOCAL No. 481, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO 302