IBEW Local No. 25

912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Comtech Tele- phone Contractors Corporation. Case 29-CC-331 April 5, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On January 3, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Samuel M. Singer issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed a statement in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and recommended Order, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief. 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. 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 Local Union No. 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION SAMUEL M SINGER, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding, tried before me in Brooklyn, New York, on November 8 and 9, pursuant to a charge filed on August 23 and a complaint issued on September 22, 1972,1 concerns allegations that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(n)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in certain secondary boycott activities. In general, the complaint alleges that Respondent threatened, coerced, and re- strained Charging Party (herein Comtech) that electricians employed by an electrical contractor at a jobsite would strike if Comtech's employees were permitted to work at the jobsite. The complaint further alleges that an object of Respondent's conduct was to force and require secondary or neutral employers to cease doing business with Com- tech I Hereafter, all dates are 1972 unless otherwise indicated 2 Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated December 15 Respondent's objection to the Regional Director's pretrial substitution of Local Union No 25 for Local Union No 3 was overruled at the hearing It All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Briefs were received from all parties by December 18. Upon the entire record2 and my observation of the testimonial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED Comtech, a New York corporation with principal office and place of business in, Queens, New York, sells and services telephone and related equipment. Vinyl Masters, Inc. (herein Vinyl), a New York corpora- tion with principal office and place of business in Brooklyn, New York, manufactures, sells, and distributes vinyl sheeting, film, and related products; it annually sells and delivers to purchasers in other States products valued in excess of $50,000 Telaction Phone Corporation (herein Telaction), a New Jersey corporation with principal office and place of business in Hoboken, New Jersey, sells and installs general communication systems and related products; it annually sells and delivers to purchasers in other States products valued in excess of $50,000. Sparks Electric Company, Inc. (herein Sparks), a New York corporation with principal office and place of business in Farmingdale, New York, provides electrical contracting and related services; it annually purchases and receives from sellers in other States goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. I find that at all material times Vinyl, Telaction, and Sparks have each been employers and persons engaged in commerce and industries affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction here is proper. It. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondent (herein IBEW Local 25) is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Local 1156, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein CWA), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. A. The Facts 1. Deasy, a foreman and Local 25 member, challenges the right of Telaction nonunion employees to perform installation work In March 1972, Vinyl contracted with Sparks to perform general electrical work at its Deer Park plant, including "wiring of machinery, lights, [and] transformers." The approximately 11 electricians working at the jobsite were members of Respondent IBEW Local 25. Later Vinyl also contracted with Telaction for the installation of a paging should be noted that the charge named Local 25, and that Respondent's answer, signed by Local 25. did not challenge the Regional Director's action 202 NLRB No. 135 IBEW, LOCAL NO. 25 913 and intercom (internal communication) system; Telac- tion's employees did not belong to any labor organization. In July, Telaction sent two of its employees to the Deer Park plant to install the intercom and paging system. After about 2 days, Sparks' electrical foreman, Richard Deasy, a member of Respondent IBEW Local 25,3 told Vinyl's maintenance foreman or superintendent, Charles Brown, "Charley . . . I'm going to challenge these men to see if they're union men." Brown said that this was his prerogative. After Deasy spoke to the two Telaction men, the latter picked up their equipment and tools and informed Brown that they "had to stop work because they are nonunion." Telaction's dispatcher then reported to Telaction Vice President Vobis that the two installers "had been asked to leave the job because they were not members of a union that were working on that job." The foregoing findings as to Deasy's "challenge" of the two Telaction employees are • based on the credited testimony of Brown, who, although neither fluent nor articulate, impressed me as an honest and sincere witness; and he testified as a disinterested witness with no stake in the outcome of the proceeding. Deasy, on the other hand, was a witness at times given to evasion, was openly devoted 'to promotion of Respondent's interests, and was personally involved in the case since the propriety of his conduct was a major litigated issue. Deasy testified that it was the two Telaction men that raised the question whether "this was a union job", stated that when he answered it was the men asked if they could pick up their tools; and asserted that he in turn told them "you can do whatever you like" since he "can't stop them from . doing whatever they want to do " Although denying that his intention was "to protect" work which he regarded as falling within the jurisdiction of his Union, he admitted reporting the Telaction employees' appearance at the jobsite to two Local 25 business agents. According to Deasy, he was only "looking to produce the work for my boss if any electrical work was being done"; yet, he also admitted that his boss (Eisman of Sparks Electric) never asked or directed him to install a telephone system on the premises. Pressed why he reported the incident to the Union, Deasy said, "Any man, any electrician working in construction, this is his right to notify the union of any work that might be going on"; and, indeed, that as member of the Union it was his "responsibility" to do so. Immediately after Telaction's two installers left the jobsite, Vinyl's Foreman Brown reported to his superior, Vice President and Manager Clementi, "the incident that had happened," stating that "Mr. Deasy had challenged i According to General Counsel and Charging Party, Deasy was also Respondent's steward on thejob For reasons to be stated (infra, sec B2), it is unnecessary to decide whether Deasy was a formally designated steward since , as shown , even if not so designated, he acted for and on behalf of Respondent and his conduct is attributable to it as agent or representative 4 Based on the credited and mutually corroborative testimony of Brown and Clementi 5 Based on the credited and composite testimony of Clements and Brown 1 do not credit Deasy's testimony on direct examination implying that Clemente had initiated the instruction that "anybody who was coming to his particular job would have to be cleared through 25 " Asked on cross- examination "where did Clements come up with this notion ," Deasy admitted, "Possibly he got it from me, I don't know " 6 Although Telaction accepted Comtech's bid and awarded it the work on around August 7, it was not confirmed in writing until August 17 The [the ] two workers," that Deasy "found out they [were] not union," and that the two men "stopped work" and left Clementi told Brown "if Sparks Electric said that, don't start anything, let the men go." 4 Two days later, Clementi spoke with Deasy and Respondent's representative (delegate), Fisher . Deasy and Fisher said that only men who had a "permit from Local 25" could work at thejobsite-Fisher adding "there would be no problem, all they had to do was get a permit from Local 25." Clementi then informed Foreman Brown, Vinyl's representative at the jobsite, that, if the men returned to install the intercom and paging system, he should call the office and not `let them start work until they got cleared by Local 25." 5 2. Deasy challenges the right of Comtech employees, members of CWA, to perform the installation work; Local 25 Business Representative Stafford's threat to "pull the electricians off the job" Telaction Vice President Vobis testified credibly that since he was unable to perform installation of the paging and intercom system with his nonunion employees, he subcontracted the work to Comtech which employs unionmen.6 Comtech employees, however, belong to CWA Local 1156 with which Comtech had signed a recognition agreement on June 21. On August 10, Comtech dispatched two employees (Grzybowski and LaRosa) to Deer Park to survey the site and perform the installation work. Vinyl's Foreman Brown told them they "couldn't start work until they got a clearance through Local 25" in accordance with "instructions" given him by his superior, Vice President Clementi. Brown identified Deasy as the "electrical foreman" at the jobsite from whom they could obtain "clearance" and proceeded to get Deasy. The Comtech men and Deasy then inspected one another's union cards. Deasy told them that they "couldn't do any work there unless [they] got this permit from Local 25" and gave them the name and telephone number of Local 25 Delegate Fisher to talk to. Comtech employee Grzybowski remon- strated that he did not "understand . . . why [he] should get a permit from Local 25," stating that he was a CWA member and had "a legal right" to do the installation.? Grzybowski testified credibly that he called the tele- phone number Deasy had given him and asked for Fisher; that the person who answered did not identify himself as Fisher but acknowledged that he was speaking to Local 25; and that when he inquired "what's this thing about a cost of the Telaction work was only $702 as compared to the Sparks Electric's contract initially valued at $102,000 ' The findings in the above paragraph are based on the mutually corroborative testimony of Grzybowski and Brown, Deasy's testimony is essentially consistent therewith, although he claimed that he gave the Comtech men the name of Local 25 Business Representative Stafford, as well as that of Fisher According to Deasy when he told the men that "they would have to have a working card out of 25," the men "were dazed by this, completely dazed " In its brief (p 10), Respondent refers to a 10(k) proceeding in which it was "disclosed" that Grzybowski was a 25-percent stockholder of Comtech The record in that proceeding was not made part of this one, nor was official notice thereof requested In any event, that alleged circumstance would not affect the findings and conclusions here 914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD permit," he was told he would have "to come over [to the Local 25 office] for a permit" in order to work at Deer Park. Grzybowski then called his employer (Comtech President Jacobs) who told him to report the incident to CWA Representative Watkins, which he did-giving Wakins Local 25 delegate Fisher's name and telephone number. On the same day (August 10), CWA Representative Watkins called Local 25 and spoke to Stafford, its business representative . Indicating that he was "familiar with the situation at Vinyl Masters," Stafford said that "this inter- connecting work [at Deer Park] is IBEW work, not CWA, and if [Watkins ] insist[ed] on doing this, we [IBEW] will pull the electricians off thejob." Watkins insisted on doing the work and the conversation abruptly ended.8 3. Deasy's continued insistence on Local 25 "clearance" to work at the jobsite; his threats to Vinyl officials "to pull" his electricians off the job On August 21, Comtech employees Grzybowski and LaRosa returned to the jobsite (Deer Park), accompanied by CWA Representatives Watkins and Clarkin. After the CWA men identified themselves, Brown told all four that "they couldn't start work until they got clearance from Local 25" and referred them to Deasy. Watkins told Brown that Comtech had a contract to put in the intercom system and that the Comtech employees were "union people" and were "here to do the job." Brown then left and returned a few minutes later with Deasy. Deasy and Watkins showed each other their union cards-Deasy identifying himself as "foreman and the steward" on the job.9 Deasy told the men that they "couldn't go to work unless they get a clearance" from Local 25. Watkins and Clarkin answered that they would not do that, insisting they did not need a Local 25 permit to do the work. At this point, Deasy turned to Brown and said that if Brown "permit[s] those men to start work, [Deasy] will have to pull his men [the electricians] off the job." Brown requested Deasy to call his Company (Vinyl) before he did "anything" to "see if we can clear up" the situation.io Deasy and Brown then talked to Vinyl Vice President Clementi by telephone Deasy told Clementi, as he had 8 Based on Watkins' credited testimony to the extent indicated While claiming that he was not "familiar with the problem" at Deer Park because the area fell within Delegate Fisher's jurisdiction , Stafford admitted disputing CWA's right to do the work , claiming that "we also install this type of work " I do not credit Stafford's testimony that he was unfamiliar with the jurisdictional dispute as to the installation of the paging and intercom system at Deer Park , and his further testimony that he did not even discuss it with Fisher who covered the area involved At a later point Stafford only stated that "to my knowledge" he could not "recall" discussing the matter with Fisher, and indicated awareness that "there was some problem on the job " since Watkins' CWA men "apparently weren't allowed to work on this job " Stafford admitted that he did not tell Watkins "at any time" that Fisher was in charge of the Deer Park area 9 Brown recalled one of the CWA representatives stating , "How could [you I be both at the same time " 10 The findings in the above paragraph are based primarily on the credited testimony of Brown whom , as already noted (supra, sec A, 1), on the basis of demeanor as well as lack of self -interest, I found to be a most honest witness Watkins' and Clarkin's testimony on this point is consistent with that of Brown and is also credited I do not credit Deasy's testimony that after asking and not getting the CWA men to clear "through 25," he merely told the men "Go ahead I can' t stop you I can't stop anybody from performing anything" Deasy 's incredible testimony is not only in previously told Brown, that if the CWA men "resume work, he [Deasy] will be forced to take his men out of the shop."li Clementi thereupon told Brown (who took the phone), "Don't let them [the Comtech employees] go to work." He also requested Brown to put one of the CWA representatives on the telephone, which Brown did. Clementi told CWA Representative Watkins that he would not permit the CWA men to work without prior clearance from Local 25. To Watkin's remark that "Local 25 is giving you a snow job," Clementi responded, "Maybe so, but I can't afford to take any chances and have them walk out on me." Clementi repeated his remarks to Watkin 's fellow representative, Clarkin, when asked to do so by Watkins. The CWA men then left.i2 On August 29, after receiving assurance from his attorney that his CWA-affiliated employees could now work "without interference," Comtech President Jacobs sent employees Grzybowski and DelRosa back to Deer Park to complete the installation of the paging and intercom system 13 The job-about 4 days' work-was finally finished on September 7. B. Conclusions 1. The violations a. Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, insofar as here relevant, prohibits a union or its agents "to threaten, coerce, or restrain" secondary or neutral employers, where an object of such conduct is to force or require a secondary employer to cease doing business with a primary or disputing employer. Thus, a violation of this statutory provision requires two elements - (1) an object to bring about a cessation of business between primary and secondary employer; and (2) coercion of secondary employers to achieve the proscribed objective. The primary or disputing employer here was Comtech, an employer employing CWA (as opposed to Respondents) members to install the intercom and paging system at Deer Park; and the secondary or neutral employers were Vinyl (owner of the Deer Park plant, the building under renovation) and Telaction (to whom Vinyl contracted the installation work and who, in turn, subcontracted it to Comtech). direct contradiction to that of Brown and three CWA men (Watkins, Clarkin, and Grzybowski), but is at odds with his whole course of conduct (including his subsequent discussion with Vinyl Official Clementi, next described, and his avowed purpose to preserve work for his employer (Sparks Electric) On the other hand, I do not credit the testimony of Watkins and Clarkin to the extent that they sought to convey the impression that they (as well as Comtech employees Grzybowski and DelRosa ) had reported to thejobsite with the intent to install the paging and intercom system I find that they accompanied the two employees only to check upon the requirement that the men had to obtain Local 25 clearance in order to perform the installation 11 Brown's credited testimony, corroborated by Clementi 12 Based on the composite and mutually corroborative testimony of Clementi , Brown, Watkins, and Clarkin i3 The unfair labor practice charges herein were filed by Comtech on August 23 Apparently Local 25's attorney had notified Vinyl Vice President Clementi prior to August 29 that Local 25 had "promised not to interfere" with Comtech 's completion of the job Although the charge alleged violation of Sec 8 (b)(4)(i)(B), as well as of Sec 8(b)(4)(u)(B), the complaint alleged only an 8(b)(4)(n)(B) violation Accordingly , contrary to Respondent (br pp 1, 10, and 11), the only issue posed (and considered) here is the alleged 8(b)(4)(u)(B ) violation IBEW, LOCAL NO. 25 915 b. There is no question that Respondent sought to bring about a cessation of business between primary and secondary employers. As Respondent's representative (delegate), Fisher and its agent, Deasy (infra, sec. B, 2), told Vinyl Vice President Clementi, only employers whose employees obtained "a permit from Local 25" could work at the jobsite. Deasy repeatedly attempted to force a reassignment of the disputed work to Respondent's members. In July, Deasy "challenge[d]" the right of two nonunion Telaction employees to do the work; the men then "had to stop work because they are nonunion." On August 10, Deasy admonished Comtech's employees Grzybowski and LaRosa, CWA members sent to perform the installation work, that they must obtain Local 25 clearance before starting the work. When, on the same day, CWA Representative Watkins took the matter up with Respondent Business Representative Stafford, the latter claimed that the disputed work (installation of a paging and intercom system) "is IBEW work" and threatened to "pull the [IBEW ] electricians [employed by Sparks Electric] off the job" if CWA insisted on doing the work. On August 21, Deasy made a like remark to Brown if he permitted Comtech's two CWA employees to perform the installation work. Deasy repeated the threat to Brown's superior, Vinyl Vice President Clementi, after Brown prevailed upon Deasy to "see if we can clear up" the situation without a work stoppage. Respondent readily achieved its objective since Clementi told CWA Represent- atives Watkins and Clarkin that he would not permit any employees to work without prior Local 25 clearance and directed Foreman Brown to enforce this decision. c. Insofar as the inducement of a secondary employer is concerned, Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) only "condemn[s] an attempt to induce . . . [that] would `threaten, coerce, or restrain' " the employer. N.L.R.B. v. Servette, Inc., 377 U.S. 46, 54. While it is permissible for a union by proper means to seek to persuade a secondary employer to cooperate in achieving even a proscribed objective, it is unlawful for it to seek to accomplish this by illegal methods. (Ibid.) The record shows that, in addition to Local 25 threat to a CWA representative, Deasy, acting for and on behalf of Respondent (infra, sec. B, 2), threatened Vinyl, a neutral to the dispute, on at least two occasions. Thus, on August 21, when the two CWA representatives arrived at the jobsite with the two Comtech employees (CWA members) to perform the disputed work, Deasy admonished Vinyl Foreman Brown (Vinyl's overseer at Deer Park) that if Brown "permit[ted] those men to start work, [Deasy] will have to pull his men [the IBEW electricians] off the job." Deasy reiterated this threat to Vinyl Vice President Clementi shortly afterward by telephone when he told Valenti that if the CWA men "resume work, he [Deasy] will be forced to take his men out of the shop." Clearly, these statements constituted restraint and coercion of a secondary employer for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. See 14 See also Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (New York Telephone Company), 162 NLRB 703, enfd 396 F.2d 591 (C A 2), Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (New York Telephone Company), 140 NLRB 729, enfd 325 F.2d 561 (C A 2) 15 As already noted, (supra, In 6), while the disputed work (the paging and intercom system) was valued at only $702, the general electrical work Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (New York Telephone Company), 193 NLRB 758, enfd. 467 F.2d 1158 (C.A. 2).14 The coercive effect of Respondent's conduct is evidenced by Clementi's state- ment to the CWA representatives that he had no alternative but to bow to Respondent's threats since (as he put it), "I can't afford to take any chances and have [the electricians] walk out on me." 15 2. Respondent's responsibility for Deasy's conduct Finally, contrary to Respondent's contention (br. pp. 7-9), Respondent is liable for Deasy's conduct, including his coercive statements , even assuming, as it claims, that he was never designated Respondent 's shop steward. For reasons stated below, I find that, although he was Sparks' electrician foreman on the job , Deasy held himself out as shop steward and, in any event , was expected to and acted for and on behalf of Respondent in protecting its jurisdictional claim to the disputed work. To begin with, Section 2( 13) of the Act provides that "In determining whether any person is acting as an `agent' of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts, the- question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling." As stated in a case involving this very Respondent,16 "Express authorization is not essential to bind a labor organization . The fact of agency may be inferred from all the circumstances." Moreover, a foreman may act "in a dual capacity . . . as a ... management representative whose principal concern was to expedite the work of which he was in charge, while, as a union-member foreman . . . obligated to refuse work ... when non-union men on the project were performing work over which his union claimed jurisdiction." United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc. (Endicott Church Furniture, Inc.), 125 NLRB 853, 865, modified 286 F.2d 533 (C.A.D.C.). The record shows that , although Deasy worked with 11 electricians at the Deer Park plant , Respondent did not formally designate anyone as job steward. Deasy had been a member of IBEW Local 25 for 16 years and previously had been appointed steward at other jobs . Admittedly, even as foreman he is covered by the collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and his employer-which agreement covers his terms and conditions of employment, including wages; and Respondent is Deasy's bargaining representative . Admittedly, also, Respondent has claimed and continues to claim jurisdiction over the work here in dispute (installation of an intercom and paging system). According to Respondent's business representative, Staf- ford, a foreman at a jobsite , as well as a steward and members working at the site, are expected to protect the work jurisdiction of the Union and to report any encroachment thereon by non-IBEW men . Indeed, Staf- ford's testimony indicates that Respondent looks particu- performed by Sparks' IBEW electricians was valued at over $100,000 16 McLeod v Local 25, IBEW (New York Telephone Co), 57 LRRM 2107, 2109 (E D N Y) See also Local Union No 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Co), 193 NLRB 758, 467 F 2d 1158 (CA 2), involving Local 25's sister local 916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD larly to the foreman to protect its jurisdiction, especially in the absence of a formally designated shop steward, since "the strength and ability of the foreman on the job would help determine if a shop steward was necessary." Here there is no question that Deasy sought to preserve for Respondent the work he believed to fall within its jurisdiction; that Respondent knew of his activity and, indeed, that Deasy held himself out and acted as if he were a union steward. Thus, Deasy admitted contacting and reporting to two business agents (Haldan and Fisher) the incident in which he confronted two Telaction employees in July It will be recalled that Deasy took it upon himself to "challenge" the right of these men to perform the disputed work; and that the men then "had to stop work because they [were] non-union " Two days later, Deasy and Business Representative Fisher told Vinyl Vice President Clementi that only men with "a permit from Local 25" could work at the jobsite. On August 10, when Comtech's two employees (CWA members) came to perform the job, Vinyl's foreman, Brown, asked them to see Deasy about Local 25 clearance and Deasy, in turn, told them that they could not do the work without obtaining such clearance. On August 21, when two CWA representatives (Watkins and Clarkin) accompanied the Comtech men, Deasy introduced himself as "the foreman and steward" and reiterated the need for Local 25 clearance. To make sure that he meant what he said, Deasy threatened Brown and then Brown's superior (Vice President Clementi) that if the CWA men were allowed to work, he would "pull his men [the electricians] off the job." It is plain, contrary to Deasy's contention, that Deasy was not acting as foreman, in the interest of providing work for his employer, but as an agent of Respondent seeking (with Respondent's knowledge) to preserve the claimed work jurisdiction of Respondent. To begin with, as Deasy admitted, his employer (Sparks) had never asked or directed him to perform the disputed work and Vinyl had contracted the work not to Sparks but to Telaction. Furthermore, and even more significantly, Deasy had no objection to the performance of the disputed work by employees of other employers so long as such employees obtained a permit or clearance from Respondent. Deasy's threats to Comtech officials were in line with Local 25 Business Representative Stafford's prior threat to CWA Representative Watkins that if CWA insisted on perform- ing the disputed work, Respondent would "pull the [IBEW] electricians off thejob." Under all the circumstances, I find and conclude that Respondent is accountable for the conduct, including the coercive statements, of Deasy. Applicable here is N.L.R.B. v. Local Union No. 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Co ), 467 F.2d 1158, where the Court stated' The electrical workers union, after sixty years of doing such work for Telco, considered cable pulling within its jurisdiction, and has in other cases attempted to protect its work by actions similar to those here at 17 While, unlike here, the above case (and others involving IBEW jurisdictional claims), indicate that the local's bylaws provided that no member (presumably also foreman-members) shall "give away work" or "allow" other tradesmen to perform work under the local's jurisdiction, under penalty of possible disciplinary action (193 NLRB 758), 1 do not consider this factor determinative Although the bylaws governing the issue. See N. L.R.B v. Local 25, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, 396 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. 1968); N. L. R. B v Local Union No. 3, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, 339 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1964). Smith [one of the two foremen involved], claiming the cable work for the electrical workers, barred the Telco workers from the room where the installation was to be done. While not a union steward, Smith was under the same obligation to protect union work, and to notify union supervisors of any non-union trades- man work. Although the union failed to appoint a steward at the Thompson Avenue site as required by its collective- bargaining agreement, foreman Fedor [the second foreman involved], who threatened the Telco workers and the general contractor, carried out the duties of a steward. Vianelli, superintendent of the general con- tractor, in fact believed Fedor to be the appointed steward. The Board, discrediting Fedor's denials, found, and the evidence substantially support, that the foreman identified himself as steward to the Telco workers when he claimed the work for the electrical workers. As foreman Fedor was also responsible for and did notify his union supervisors of the infringe- ment of union jurisdiction. . . . Allen [the designated steward], Fedor and Smith were each obligated to protect the jurisdiction of the union under threat of penalty for failure to do so. Each believed the appearance of Telco workers to be a threat to union jurisdiction, notified his supervisor of the interference and took action to prevent the infringement. .. . Protection of union work claims clearly is a policy of Local 3. Moreover, the union has taken no disciplinary action against the three men.i7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Union is a labor organization engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Vinyl, Telaction , and Sparks are employers engaged in commerce or industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. Respondent has threatened, coerced, and restrained Vinyl with an object of forcing or requiring Vinyl to cease doing business with Comtech and other employers not employing members of Respondent or whose employees do not secure prior clearance or work permits from Respon- dent. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend the customary cease-and- period here involved do not contain comparable provisions, as already noted, the record here establishes that Local 25 members (including foremen) were expected to protect Local 25 work jurisdiction and to report encroachments by non-IBEW tradesmen Deasy himself testified that he considered it his "responsibility" to make such reports IBEW, LOCAL NO. 25 desist order and the usual affirmative relief ordered in cases of this nature, including posting of notices. In view of the fact that the illegal secondary activity directed at Vinyl appears to have been conducted pursuant to a general and broad union policy to force or require employers to employ members of Respondent, or, if not such members, to require employees to secure prior clearance or work permits from Respondent, in order to handle work falling within Respondent's claimed work jurisdiction, there is danger that similar illegal activity may be directed against other secondary employers. Accordingly, I shall recom- mend a broad cease-and-desist order extending the protection of the Act to such secondary employers in addition to Vinyl. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the following: 18 ORDER Local Union No. 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining Vinyl Masters, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where an object thereof is to force or require Vinyl Masters, Inc., or such other person, to cease doing business with Comtech Telephone Contractors Corporation or with any other person. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act- (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 19 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish said Regional Director with signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting if desired by Vinyl Masters, Inc., Comtech Telephone Contractors Corporation, and any or all other employers involved in this proceeding, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for said Region 29, in 917 wasting, within 20 days from the receipt of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. Is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided by 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 19 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence before an Administrative Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board, it has found that we, Local No. 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, have violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice and abide by its terms. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Vinyl Masters, Inc., or any other person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require such other person to cease doing business with Comtech Telephone Con- tractors Corporation, or any other person. LOCAL UNION No. 25, 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, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.