Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 162

SHEET METAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 162 741 Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 162, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO and Associated Pipe and Fittings Manufacturers and Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Sacramento Valley Chapter, Inc., Party to the Contract Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 162, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO and National Insulation Manufacturers Association and Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Sacramento Valley Chapter, Inc., Party to the Contract. Cases 20-CE-92-1 and 20-CE-92-2 December 6, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On September 10, 1973 Administrative Law Judge Louis S. Penfield issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Parties filed exceptions, the General Counsel filed a brief, and Respondent filed a brief in response to the Charging Parties' exceptions. 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. mento, California, on April 17, 18, and 19, 1973.1 The complaint is based on charges filed respectively by Associated Pipe and Fittings Manufacturers, herein called Associated Pipe, and National Insulation Manufacturers Association, herein called NIMA, on September 11, 1972. Copies of each of the charges were duly served upon the parties. The consolidated complaint issued on October 4, 1972, and alleges that Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 162, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent, engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(e) of the Act. All parties were given full opportunity to participate in the hearing and after the close thereof the General Counsel, the Charging Parties, and Respondent each filed briefs. Upon the entire record in this consolidated proceeding, and upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Sacramento Valley Chapter, Inc., herein called SMACCNA, is a voluntary association of employers engaged in business as contractors in the heating and air conditioning industry in and around Sacramento, Califor- nia. At all material times, SMACCNA has existed for the purpose of representing its member employers in collective bargaining, and participating in the negotiation, execution, and administration of collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of its member employers with various labor organizations including Respondent. The member employ- ers of SMACCNA in the normal course and conduct of their business operations annually purchase and receive goods and merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of California. I find that at all material times'SMACCNA, and its member employers, are employers engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, an assertion of jurisdiction to be appropriate, 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 Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 162, Sheet Metal Workers' Internation- al Association, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Louis S. PENFIELD, Administrative Law Judge: This consolidated proceeding was heard before me in Sacra- II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The conduct alleged as violative of the, Act relates to 1 The record formally opened on January 3, 1973, following an off-the- record prehearing conference. It was agreed at that time that there were many issues which might be stipulated and that this could result in ]muting the issues to be litigated. By mutual consent, the matter was continued until January 16, and subsequently further continued until January 19. On January 19, certain stipulations of fact to which the parties had agreed were made a part of the record. It was represented that the record could be further shortened by the introduction of certain questionnaires if such questionnaires could be circulated among the contractors . It was mutually agreed that no testimony would be taken until this had taken place Thus at these three earlier hearing dates, no evidence came into the record with the exception of the formal papers and a written stipulation. The "party to the contract," although duly served, entered no appearance at any time. 207 NLRB No. 132 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD certain provisions of a collective -bargaining -agreement between Respondent and SMACCNA, also binding on nonmember contractor signatories. It is claimed- that certain clauses in the contract have the unlawful secondary object of disrupting the traditional and customary method by which the contractors had been doing business with their suppliers, and that accordingly such clauses are violative of Section 8(e) of the Act. Respondent asserts that these clauses do not have a secondary object , but have the lawful primary object of protecting, preserving, or reclaim- ing work which had customarily' and traditionally been performed by its members who were , employed by the contractors. To resolve the issues presented, it will be necessary to consider: (1) the general manner in which the heating and air conditioning industry functions ; (2) the specific contract provisions in controversy, and the stipulations reached which limit the issues ; (3) evidence relating to the manufacture or fabrication of the disputed items in the past; and (4) the legal issues , with which we are concerned and their applicability to the facts as developed. A. The General Manner in Which the Industry Functions in the Area The approximately 50 employer members of SMACCNA, and the approximately 40 contracting parties signatory to the' collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent, are each contractors engaged in the heating and air conditioning industry in Sacramento and other areas in Northern California. Most of these contractors operate relatively small businesses. Each contractor has a shop in which he has a variety of sheetmetal fabricating equipment. In most cases this equipment will be manually operated. The employees of these contractors are appren- tice and journeymen sheetmetal workers. Their jobs are to undertake needed fabrication at the shop and to install heating and air conditioning units at construction sites. In some instances the items installed will be stock items obtained from a manufacturer; in others the items will have been fabricated in whole or in part in the contractor's shop. Some contractors are engaged in residential projects exclusively; others in commercial projects exclusively; still others in a combination of both. While each individual contractor has the capability of fabricating virtually any needed sheetmetal item in his shop, the contractors also regularly purchase and stock numerous prefabricated items obtained from manufacturers who have produced them on a mass production basis. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association has affiliated locals characterized as'construction locals and production locals, respectively. Respondent is a typical construction local whose membership is comprised of apprentice and journeymen sheetmetal workers who do shop work for,, and installations on, construction jobs. Production locals, however, have a membership comprised of less skilled employees who work for the manufacturing companies doing production line work on a wide variety of the sheetmetal items which may be purchased by contrac- tors or others for use in heating and air conditioning installations. The average contract wage scale for construc- tion locals is normally two or more times that of production locals. Associated Pipe, a Charging Party, is an -employer association whose membership is comprised of manufac- turers who engage in the mass production of various sheetmetal items. Among others the customers of its members include the contractors who are parties to the SMACCNA contract. Associated Pipe and its members have collective-bargaining relationships with Sheet Metal Workers Local 355, a production local. The pertinent contract provides an average wage of approximately $3.70 an hour, as contrasted with the journeymen wage of approximately $9 an hour found in Respondent's contract with SMACCNA. NIMA, also a Charging Party, is an employer association engaged in the manufacture and distribution of fiberglass flexible and nonflexible duct also used in the heating and air conditioning industry. The contractual provisions, the stipulations, and the use of such materials in the industry will be considered further below. B. The Contract Provisions and the Stipulations Limiting the Issues Respondent and SMACCNA executed the collective- bargaining agreement in controversy on or about June 29, 1972. It is entitled "Standard Form or Union Agreement," and is to be effective from July 1, 1972, to June 30, 1973. Nonmember contractors subsequently became, bound to the agreement by individual signings. In relevant part, this agreement contains the following provisions: ARTICLE I SECTION 1. This agreement covers the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of all'employees of the employer engaged in but not limited to the (a) manufacture, fabrication, assembling, handling, erection, installation, dismantling conditioning, adjust- ment, alteration, repairing and servicing of all ferrous or nonferrous metal work of U.S. No. 10 gauge or its equivalent or lighter gauge and all other materials used in lieu thereof and of all air-veyor systems and air handling systems regardless of materials used including the setting of all equipment and all reinforcements in connection therewith; (b) all lagging over insulation and all duct lining; (c) testing and balancing of all air- handling equipment and duct work; (d) the preparation of all shop and field sketches used in fabrication and erection, including those taken from original architec- tural and engineering drawings or sketches, and (e) all other work included in the jurisdictional claims of Sheet Metal Workers' International Association. ARTICLE II SECTION 2. Subject to other applicable provisions of this Agreement, the Employer agrees that when subcontracting for prefabrication of materials covered herein, such prefabrication shall be subcontracted to fabricators who pay their employees engaged in such fabrication not less than the prevailing wage for SHEET METAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 162 743 comparable sheet metal fabrication, as established under provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII SECTION 2. On all work specified in Article I of this Agreement, fabricated and/or assembled by journey- men sheet metal workers and/or apprentices within the jurisdiction of this Union, or elsewhere, for erection and/or installation within the jurisdiction of any other Local Union affiliated with Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, whose established wage scale is higher than the wage scale specified in this Agreement, the higher wage scale of the job site Union shall be paid- to the journeymen-employed on such work in the home shop or sent to the job site. SECTION 3. The provisions of Section 2 of this Article, Section 2 of Article II and Section 1 of Article III shall not be applicable to the manufacture for sale to the trade or purchase of the following items: - Adjustable elbows shall be excluded on any size commercial or industrial installation. There shall be no restriction on T's, Y's, elbows and round pipe on any installation of three thousand two hundred (3,200) square feet or less. It is expressly understood that all architectural sheet metal items regularly catalogued by manufacturers are excluded from restrictions in this section. (Articles I and II of the Standard Form of Union Agreement shall apply)- A warehouse, not served by a duct system, would not be considered for the criteria for the three thousand two hundred (3,200) square foot restriction; drops from evaporative coolers will not be classified as duct systems. Contractors may call Business Manager and Associ- ation Manager for specific job relief where job conditions dictate use of flex duct to avoid construction members, trusses, etc. Decision must be unanimous to afford relief. Flex duct, not to exceed six (6) feet in length may be used at the end of duct runs. 1. Ventilators 6. Mixing (attenuation) boxes 2. Louvers 7. Plastic skylights 3. Automatic and fire dampers 8. Air diffusers, grilles, registers 4. Radiator and air conditioning unit enclosures 9. Sound attenuators. 5. Fabricated pipe and fittings manufactured at The obvious purpose of these contract provisions is to production wage rates shall be used for residential installations only. Residential heating and cooling shall be defined as applying to work on any: (a) Single family dwelling. (b) Multiple family housing unit where each individ- ual family apartment is individually conditioned by a separate and independent unit or system. (c) Buildings (other than residential) that consist of three thousand two hundred feet (3200) or less shall be considered residential. All rectangular ductwork and fittings. Commercial, Institutional and Industrial work (Local Building and Construction Wage Rate). Definition of Residential Pipe and Fittings: (a) Round pipe and elbows. (b) Boots, round to rectangular transitions and "Y" joints. (c) Register boxes. (d),Wall riser pipe and user ells and angles up to 3 1 /2 x 14". (e) Furnace smoke or vent pipe (no restriction to commercial or industrial work). This category of work does not include: (f) Plenums. (g) Rectangular duct work or its accessories or fittings. This section shall be in effect on all jobs bid after July 1, 1972. All underground non metallic duct shall be excluded from restriction on commercial and industrial jobs. restrict the contractors with respect to their right to purchase or to subcontract for the manufacture of various items to be used in their installations. This object is to be achieved by requiring that certain of the items be fabricated either by the employees of the contractors, or else purchased only from, shop's whose employees are paid a wage scale no less than that called for in the SMACCNA contract. The effect would be to forbid the purchase of certain sheetmetal items for use on commercial projects of more than 3,200 square feet from manufacturers whose employees continued to be paid at the lower production local scale. The somewhat confusing and broad language in the quoted contract provisions was defined and limited by stipulations of the parties. 'Thus it was stipulated that some 17 listed items had "not been customarily or traditionally manufactured by em- ployees in the bargaining unit...." This stipulation means that the contract is not to be interpreted as imposing any restrictions whatsoever upon the purchase of any of such named items from any source. Conversely, it was also stipulated that certain other items, "including rectangular duct and fittings, plenums and spiral duct, had customarily and traditionally been fabricated by employees in the bargaining unit ...: . This amounts to an acknowledgment that fabrication of such items is "unit work" of the employees of the contractors. Thus any restrictions imposed by the contract on the purchase or fabrication of such items would be lawful and appropriate. It was further stipulated that round metallic pipe and fittings and certain other items had "not been customarily and traditionally fabricated by employees in the bargain- ing unit . . . when working on residential projects and all 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD commercial projects which do not exceed 3,200 feet."This is an acknowledgment that when contractors work on residential projects, or on commercial projects of an area less than 3,200 square feet, the contract is not to be interpreted as imposing any restrictions whatsoever on the purchase of round metallic pipe and fittings from any source. The parties finally stipulated "that non-metallic flexible duct had been used on residential and commercial projects (including` commercial projects in excess of 3,200 square feet) without enforced regulations as to the length of the duct." It is conceded that none of the contractors has the capacity to fabricate fiberglass duct whether rigid or flexible and that by entering into this stipulation Respon- dent was abandoning any claim which this contract might appear to give to restrict the use of nonmetallic round pipe or flexible duct. It was generally agreed that the result of this stipulation was to remove the use of fiberglass duct as an issue to be litigated in this proceeding. The Charging Parties, however, urge that restrictive language remains in the contract which on its face has an unlawful secondary object and that enforcement of such provision should be enjoined. The result of the foregoing stipulations is to narrow the area of controversy before us to the lawful or unlawful nature of the contract restrictions with regard to the following items when used on commercial projects in excess of 3,200 square feet: (1) Round and metallic pipe in excess of 6 inches in diameter but not exceeding 24 inches in diameter, and not heavier than 24 gauge nor lighter than 32 gauge; (2) T's and Y's under 24 inches in diameter; (3) register or defuser boxes; and (4) tapers. The General Counsel and the Charging Party claim that such items had not been customarily or traditionally fabricated by employees in the bargaining unit, but had been purchased by the contractors from manufacturers who produced such items on a mass production basis. Respondent disputes this claim asserting that the record shows such items to have been fabricated in sufficient measure in the past by employees of the contractors to support a claim that such fabrication is fairly claimable unit work. The record shows that collective-bargaining contracts between Respondent and the contractors have been in effect for some period of time. In the 1960 agreement there were similar restrictions upon use of round pipe, but no distinction was made between their use on residential as opposed to commercial projects. The agreements in effect from 1963 to 1969 omitted the restrictions as to residential projects, but imposed them on all commercial projects. The 1972 agreement, with which we are now concerned, is the first one to limit the restrictions solely to commercial projects in excess of 3,200 square feet. C. The Evidence Relating to the Fabrication or Manufacture of Round Metallic Pipe and Fittings Before the law applicable to the controversy can be resolved, we must first consider factual questions relating to past practices in the industry regarding the use of round pipe and fittings. Wellmade Company, one of the eight member manufac- turers of Charging Party Associated Pipe, has for many years been engaged in the mass production of sheetmetal items, including round metal pipe and fittings. Wellmade's operation is apparently typical of that of other members of Associated Pipe who have also been supplying contractors covered by the SMACCNA contract with a variety of sheetmetal items. Wellinade produces a full catalogue of sheetmetal items. It has a capital investment in power equipment which exceeds $100,000. It uses 20,000 square feet of space to carry on the fabrication of sheet metal items, and uses another 50,000 square feet for the storage of raw materials and the warehousing of finished products. Wellmade produces round pipe in diameters of 4 to 24 inches, and produces the same pipe in lengths of 2-1/2 feet, 5 feet, 7-1/2 feet and ' 10 feet. The round pipe is manufactured on a production line. The process commenc- es with a sheet of metal being sheared to correct size. A machine will then stamp a button lock on one side of the pipe and a snap lock on the other side. Another machine will then bend the metal into a round shape and crimp the ends so that pieces of pipe can be joined together. In addition, Wellmade produces various types of fittings to be used in connection with such round pipe. Wellmade's finished products are shipped to various distributors in Northern California. Sheet metal contractors may pur- chase such pipe and fittings from these distributors to meet the needs of their installations. It was testified that round pipe, with a snap-button lock can only be produced by machines. Installation of pipe with such locks is relatively simple as it requires no use of hand-tools at the jobsite. Round pipe produced in a contractor's shop uses a so- called hammer lock. This requires the use of hand-tools by the employee making the installation at the construction site. The most commonly purchased length of round pipe is 5 feet, and the next most common size is 10 feet. Identical round pipe is used for both residential and commercial projects. The employees of Wellmade, and presumably the other manufacturers, do routine, repetitive work and are primarily trained on the job. They are not normally journeymen or apprentice sheet metalworkers. Employees of Wellmade, and presumably the other members of Associated Pipe, are covered by a collective-bargaining agreement with Sheet Metal Workers Local 355, a production local, whose employees are paid at an average wage rate of $3.70 per hour as contrasted with a wage of $9 per hour for a journeyman sheetmetal worker under the SMACCNA contract. Each of the contractors covered by the SMACCNA agreement who engages in some commercial work in excess of 3,200 square feet has at least a limited capacity to produce round pipe and fittings in his shop for use on his construction jobs. In most instances, this will be done on a hand-operated roll which can fabricate round pipe in lengths of usually no more than 3 feet. Only one contractor is shown to have a 10-foot roll. One or two others have 4-or 5-foot rolls. None of the contractors can fabricate round pipe snap-locks. Evidence concerning customary and traditional practices of contractors bound by the SMACCNA contract was supplied primarily from material in questionnaires sent out to such contractors. This was supplemented and explained SHEET METAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 162 745 in some measure by testimony at the hearing. The contractor questionnaire was prepared jointly by the General Counsel, the Charging Parties, and the Respon- dent. It was sent to 85 contractors in the Northern California area. These contractors were asked, in sub- stance, the number of employees each had, whether or not each used any round metallic pipe or fittings on commer- cial projects in excess of 3,200 feet, and the amounts of such materials purchased as contrasted with the amounts fabricated. Such data was asked for individual years from 1968 through 1972, and for the periods 1963 to 1967, 1958 to 1962, and 1953 to 1957. Each contractor was also asked to give the number of feet of such round metallic pipe he had used on such commercial projects during the same years and periods. Some 60 responses were received from the contractors. Of these, only 32 signified that they worked on commercial projects in excess of 3,200 square feet. It is from a consideration of these 30 questionnaires, plus supportive testimony from contractors who may or may not have submitted questionnaires, and from the testimony of a former business agent that evidence relating to the customary and traditional practices in the industry with regard to the use of round pipe and fittings was developed in this record. Twenty-seven questionnaires returned by the contractors were offered in evidence by the General Counsel and received without objection. Five additional questionnaires were placed in evidence by Respondent. Sixteen contrac- tors or their representatives gave supplemental testimony. With some exceptions, to be discussed below, the question- naires and the supportive testimony follow a singularly uniform pattern. In most cases the questionnaires them- selves and the supplemental testimony, if any, shows it to have been the general practice of the overwhelming majority of the contractors to purchase most, if not all, of the round pipe and fittings which they used on commercial installations in excess of 3,200 square feet, from distribu- tors for manufacturers like Wellmade.2 Estimates of purchases from manufacturers run from 85 to 100 percent of all the round metallic pipe and fittings used on the relevant installations. With few exceptions, this is a consistent pattern followed by nearly all the contrac- tors, sometimes for as much as 10 to 20 years. There is consistent testimony that most contractors depended on hand-operated, limited length equipment in their own shops in fabricating round pipe items, and that the use of such equipment operated by employees paid at the higher construction local scale rendered the fabrication of round pipe and fittings less efficient, of a lesser quality, and from 2 to 5 times more costly than it would be to obtain such items by purchase from the manufacturers. It is because of 2 The questionnaires broke down the percent of purchases as contrasted to fabrications with respect to round pipe and fittings separately. The percent of purchases ran slightly higher for round pipe as opposed to fittings, but the differences were so small they cannot be regarded as having significance as to the issues before us. Accordingly, for practical purposes, I shall treat them as being substantially the same. Thus references to purchases or fabrications of round pipe shall be deemed equally applicable to fittings and vice versa. 3 These contractors include Bos Sheet Metal, Inc., Deal Sheet Metal, Inc., Bill Jones Plumbing, Inc., Park Sheet Metal Works, Clarke & Rush Air Conditioning and Heating Co., Camellia City ' Mechanical, Lawson Mechanical Contractors, Pemn Heating and Air Conditioning, Williams this that the contractors had so uniformly satisfied their round pipe needs by purchases from the manufacturers, and had resorted to fabrication only in those instances where the project specifications called for items not catalogued by manufacturers, or when needed items were not stocked by the distributors so as to be available on short notice. Respondent makes no effort to dispute that the respon- ses follow the foregoing pattern, but it undertakes to diminish their significance by asserting that a significant number of the contractors responding signified that their use of metallic round pipe on commercial projects was insignificant in quantity and thus their past practices should be disregarded in determining any "regular and traditional" pattern. Respondent claims further that a look at the responses from some of the other contractors who are more substantially engaged in commercial work shows them to have engaged in sufficient fabrication of round pipe and fittings in the past to support the claim that this is fairly claimable unit work. On the one hand, Respondent notes some 21 contractors who submitted questionnaires, testified, or both, whose involvement in restricted commer- cial work is viewed as nominal.3. On the other hand, Respondent names 12 contractors whose past practices and involvement in commercial work is viewed as supporting its claim that the fabrication of round pipe and fittings should be regarded as customary and traditional unit work.4 It thus becomes necessary that we give some more detailed consideration to the practices as shown with regard to these contractors. Berkan and Clark Sheet Metal, Inc., is a Sacramento contractor which has been in business for some 20 years. It employs approximately 20 sheet metal workers. This contractor currently purchases 100 percent of its round pipe needs, and has done so since 1967. In the period from 1958 to 1962, however, the questionnaire indicates that the contractor fabricated approximately 40 percent of its round pipe needs, and during the period from 1953 to 1957 approximately 50 percent. It was developed in the testimony of a representative of the contractor, however, that during these periods the contractor was engaged, in substantial measure, in so-called "plan and spec" work which required the use of specialty pipe not available by purchase from a manufacturer. The contractor testified that as a consequence it was required to fabricate round pipe items to meet the specifications, but had such items been available in a manufacturer's catalogue "we would have bought it" Bruce Nickel Heating and Air Conditioning Co. is a Sacramento contractor with four employees. In the years 1968 and 1969, and during the period from 1953 to 1968, Heating and Air Conditioning, Environmental Conditioning, Ace Air Conditioning and Engineering, LeRoy Hall Sheet Metal, J Barth Co., B & B Sheet Metal, Ray O. Cook Mechanical Contractor, West Sacto Sheet Metal, Koller Plumbing Company, Herb Bowles, d/b/a Treichler Sheet Metal and Plumbing, H.P. Curtis, Soracco's, and Even Temp, Inc 4 These include Berkan and Clark Sheet Metal, Inc, Shasta Sheet Metal, Inc., Bruce Nickel Heating and Air Conditioning, Norcal Mechanical and Electrical Company, Don Ring Heating Co., Inc., Wilbur Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., Frank M. Booth, Inc., Atlas Mechanical, Inc., Systemaire, Inc, Mid-Valley Heating and Air Conditioning, Davis and Jull, and Sewell Sheet Metal. 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nickel purchased 100 percent of its round pipe needs on commercial projects from manufacturers. In the year 1970, the owner became disabled and the business did not function. When Nickel resumed operations in 1971, he was pressed by Respondent to abide by restrictions in the existing contract, and as a result of such pressure was compelled to find a substitute for the use of fiberglass round pipe on one of his jobs. This substitution cost Nickel $8,000. Nickel testified that because of this experience, and in an effort to avoid its repetition, he thereafter undertook to fill his round pipe needs by purchases from a shop in Sacramento which has fabricated such round pipe at construction local rates. Wilbur Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., is a Sacramento contractor who has been in business since 1970. The questionnaire that Wilbur submitted states that since 1970, it has fabricated 100 percent of its round pipe needs. Wilbur's testimony, however, discloses this state- ment not to be entirely accurate. Thus Wilbur testified that he commenced fabricating round pipe only after the purchase of certain automatic equipment whereby it became possible to fabricate such pipe in 10-foot lengths. This purchase occurred approximately 1-1/2 years prior to the hearing date, which would place it at some point in the fall of 1971. Wilbur acknowledges that prior to this time his round pipe needs were filled by the purchase of such manufactured items as were obtainable. Wilbur further testified that the 10-foot roll was only half of a package of a sheet metal machinery purchase, and that he deemed the entire package to be a good investment. Wilbur stated that he did not buy the 10-foot roll for the specific purpose of enabling him to fabricate his round pipe needs, but that once having it it became economical for him to engage in such fabrication and to undertake such other work as he might get in order to make use of the equipment. Insofar as the record shows Systemaire and one or two nonunit contractors have so far been the only others to whom Wilbur has sold round pipe. Wilbur concedes, however, that even using this machinery, he finds it necessary to sell his round pipe items at prices which exceed by 15 percent the cost of similar round pipe purchased from the manufacturers. Wilbur is the only contractor in the area possessing a 10-foot roll. Frank M. Booth, Inc., is a sheetmetal contractor with shops located in Redding, Marysville, and Sacramento. His questionnaire shows that since 1963, Booth has purchased approximately 80 percent of its round pipe needs for commercial projects. Prior to this time 50 percent of the round pipe used was fabricated in the period from 1958 to 1962, and 100 percent during the period from 1953 to 1957. Booth testified that his company regarded it as economical to purchase round pipe and fittings up to diameters of 18 inches, but that the company viewed it to be more economical to fabricate round pipe of diameters greater than 18 inches. Booth testified, however, that the needs of his company for round pipe were relatively small since on its commercial projects it used primarily rectangular pipe. Atlas Mechanical, Inc., is a Sacramento contractor employing approximately 25 persons. The questionnaire shows that at all times since 1962 this contractor had fabricated approximately 50 percent of its round pipe needs. During the same period, however, it had purchased some 90 percent of the round pipe fittings used. James Jones, vice president and co-owner, testified that his company fabricated more pipe than some others because of circumstances which enabled it to do so at a cost lower than that of other contractors. Jones states that this came about because it possessed a relatively costly so-called Welty-Way machine. This is an automatic type of machine which cuts flat sheets of metal in a programmed fashion with great speed and efficiency. The Welty-Way machine, however, was neither purchased nor designed for the production of round pipe. Jones testified that the largest portion of his business involves the use of rectangular or square duct installations, and that the primary use of the Welty-Way machine is to aid in the fabrication of this sort of item. The machine, however, is a costly one and the contractor deems it desirable to keep it in operation as much as possible, and thus when the machine is not in use for its primary function, it becomes advantageous to use it in conjunction with a 5-foot roll to meet the contractor's lesser round pipe needs. Two other unit contractors are also shown to possess Welty-Way machines. Systemaire, Inc., is a Sacramento contractor employing sheet metal workers. This contractor commenced business in 1969 and, according to the questionnaire submitted, purchased 100 percent of its round pipe needs in the years 1969, 1970, and 1971. William Kriz, president, testified however, that commencing approximately 8 or 9 months prior to the hearing he began making purchases of the larger diameter round pipe used from Wilbur Sheet Metal Inc. Kriz testified that he had commenced this practice because one of his employees had advised him that the contract with Respondent required it when round pipe was to be used on commercialjobs, and that it was his intention to continue such practice with respect to the larger sizes inasmuch as he felt Wilbur to be reasonably competitive in price on such items. Kriz acknowledged, however, that even with respect to the larger sizes his cost was greater than had he purchased the same items from manufacturers. Kriz concedes, however, that prior to the time that Wilbur got his 10-foot roll 100 percent of his round pipe needs had been filled by purchases from manufacturers. The other six contractors that Respondent cites as being more representative of industry practice have with but one exception submitted questionnaires which show each to have filled his round pipe needs by the purchase of 90 to 100 percent of the items used from manufacturers. The exception is Mid-Valley Heating and Air Conditioning Co. which did not submit a questionnaire. Clarence Tyer, its president, indicates that Mid-Valley fabricates approxi- mately 30 percent of the round metallic pipe it uses. Tyer testified, however, that during the year 1972 he had only one commercial job. Respondent concedes that this contractor's practices show very little with respect to area practices. Donald M. Lahr was called as a principal witness for Respondent to testify concerning industry practices. Lahr testified that he had first worked as an apprentice in the sheetmetal industry within the' jurisdiction of Respondent in 1949, but in 1952 he had become a journeyman, and that commencing in March 1961 he had become a business SHEET METAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 162 agent, and at a later time business manager of Respondent. Lahr had left the latter position in November 1972 to take a place on the staff of Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, a position he was holding at the time of the hearing. Lahr testified that during the time he had worked as a journeyman in the sheetmetal industry during the 1950's it had been the consistent practice of the contractors for whom he had worked to fabricate the round pipe and fittings which they used on both the residential and commercial jobs. He further testified that after becoming a representative of Respondent he had both observed and learned through reports of members that the usual practice among local contractors was to fabricate the round pipe fittings which they were to use on their commercial jobs. This testimony suggests it to be in the industry practice for the contractors to fabricate round pipe in their shops as needed for commercial jobs. However, Lahr subsequently testified that "the contractors have flagrantly been violat- mg the collective-bargaining agreement during the past few years." This would suggest that at least in recent years the contract restrictions were not being observed by the contractors. One of the contractors for whom Lahr had worked was J. H. Mendenhall Sheet Metal, Inc. Lahr testified that while he was working for this contractor "everything was fabricated in the shop" that pertained to commercial jobs. William E. Thompson, a partner for the contractor, directly contradicts Lahr, testifying that for the past 15 years the firm had "been purchasing and using the manufactured round pipe and fittings on commercial jobs" and that "his workers rarely fabricate round pipe fittings which are available from the manufacturers." Al Dunn, executive manager for SMACCNA and a member of the negotiating committee, testified without contradiction that the restrictions on the use of round pipe found in the contract since 1963 had not been strictly enforced. Dunn states, however, that during the course of the negotiations for the current 1972 contract, Lahr had on several occasions represented to the negotiating committee that Respondent "would definitely enforce the restrictions relating to the use of round pipe and fittings on commercial jobs in excess of 3,200 square feet." D. Discussion of the Issues and Conclusions This case involves solely an alleged violation of Section 8(e) of the Act. Section 8(b)(4) of the Act was originally designed to limit the scope of union-employer controver- sies to the parties primarily involved by forbidding attempts to involve other persons as a means of resolving the primary dispute. Section 8(e) was enacted to supple- ment this so-called secondary boycott section by forbid- ding employers and unions to enter into contracts which had a similar secondary thrust. These contract provisions usually required an employer to cease handling the products of, or to cease doing business with, certain other persons. No purpose will be served here by a detailed recitation of the legislative history of the sections, or by describing in detail the Board and court interpretations which define the various types of conduct proscribed. 5 Local Union No 141 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Assn., 174 NLRB 1153 (1969), enfd 425 F.2d 730 (CA. 6, 1970); Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 216, 172 NLRB 35 (1968); Sheet Metal Workers International 747 Suffice it to say that it is now well established that not all contractual provisions which forbid subcontracting, or have the effect of limiting in whole or in part the persons with whom an employer may do business are unlawful within the meaning of the statute. An important limitation is to be found in what may be described as the work preservation doctrine. This doctrine has its most definitive exposition in the Supreme Court decision in National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. N.L.RB., 386 U.S. 664 (1964). In that case the Supreme Court set forth the rationale of the doctrine in the following language: The determination whether the "will not handle" sentence of rule 17 and its enforcement violated Section 8(e) and Section 8(b)(4)(B) cannot be made without an inquiry into whether, under all the sur- rounding circumstances, the Union's objective was preservation of work for Frouge's employees, or whether the agreements and boycott were tactically calculated to satisfy union objectives elsewhere. Were the latter the case, Frouge, the boycotting employer, would be a neutral bystander, and the agreement or boycott would, within' the intent of Congress become secondary. There need. not be an actual dispute i with the boycotted employer, here the door manufacturer, for the activity to fall within this category, so long as the tactical object of the agreement and its maintenance is that employer, or benefits to other than the boycotting employees or other employees of the primary employer thus making the agreement or boycott secondary in its aim. The touchstone is whether the agreement or its maintenance is addressed to the labor relations of the contracting employer vis-a-vis his own employees. [Em- phasis supplied.] We face a work preservation issue in the instant case which is controlled by the application of the foregoing National Woodwork rationale to the facts, before us. The concept is not a new one as applied to the sheet metal industry, but has come before the Board and courts in cases involving similar contractual restrictions 5 The Board in Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 216, supra, was confronted with an almost identical situation regarding the use of round pipe. In finding the contractual provisions violative of Section 8(e) the Board stated: Whether or not [the provisions violate Section 8(e)] is to be determined by the object of the clauses in question. In this instance, as is generally true in cases in which this section of the Act is involved, "the distinction to be drawn as best one can is between an object and a consequence." If the contractual provi- sions in question had as their object the preservation or protection of work traditionally and customarily performed by employees in the bargaining unit, as the Respondent contends, they may be held harmless; but if instead they were designed to accomplish other union objectives as the General Counsel and the Charging Parties assert, they are proscribed by the provisions of Association Local No. 150, 170 NLRB 772 (1968); Local Union No. 26 of Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, et at (Rena Employers Council), 168 NLRB 893 (1967). 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Section 8(e). The evidence shows that the employer members of the contractors normally and regularly purchased from mass production manufacturers, a majority of all but one of the items listed in Article VIII, section 3, except in those situations where an emergency existed and the contractor could not wait for delivery; or where a special shape- or special materials (such as copper, brass or stainless steel) were required and the items were therefore not available from a manufacturer; or in those cases when work in the individual sheet metal shops was slack and the employer wished to keep his employees at work instead of sending them home. We must first resolve the issue of customary and traditional industry practice with regard to the purchase of round pipe items as opposed to their fabrication when used by the contractors on the restricted commercial jobs. If it can be shown that the contractors filled their round pipe needs for such jobs with a fair degree of regularity by having their own employees fabricate the items, it is a fair inference that the object of the restrictive provisions is to preserve work for unit employees. If, however, this has not been the customary and traditional pattern, but the round pipe needs have been more regularly met by purchase from manufacturers, it becomes a fair inference that the object of such clauses is "tactically calculated to satisfy union objectives elsewhere." Such objectives might be either to obtain additional work for unit employees, or to put pressure on the manufacturers to pay the construction local scale if they wished to retain the business of the contractors. Either objective would have the effect of disrupting an existing business relationship with the manufacturers not for the lawful primary purpose of work preservation for unit employees, but for the purpose of attaining general union goals. As set forth above, the evidence in this record which relates to customary and traditional industry practices is to be found principally in the questionnaires, and in certain supplemental testimony adduced from contractors and others. It is shown that of some 35 contractors who appear to engage in any commercial work in excess of 3,200 square feet, the overwhelming majority purchase from 90 to 100 percent of the round pipe and fittings each uses on his construction jobs from mass production manufacturers, and that this has been a continuous practice on the part of most of the contractors for periods ranging up to 20 years. The evidence also shows that this practice was followed by the contractors because, in general, they regarded the products purchased as not only substantially cheaper, but of better quality than it would be possible for most contractors to fabricate in their shops with the limited hand-operated equipment that each possesses. Thus it is clear from this record that with but few exceptions the contractors only undertake to fabricate round pipe and fittings when the special needs of a particular job cannot be filled with items catalogued by manufacturers, or when catalogued items are not readily available on short notice. Respondent makes no effort to dispute the accuracy of the percentage figures submitted, but it undertakes to diminish their significance by excluding the figures with regard to some 21 contractors, for the reason that the involvement of such contractors in commercial work is so minimal that their practices with regard to fabrication or purchase of round pipe should not be considered in making an evaluation of customary and traditional industry practice. Respondent points to 12 other contrac- tors whose involvement on commercial projects it views as more substantial, and whose practices it deems to be more representative of industry custom and tradition. From the practices of these 12, it would have us conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the restrictive contract provisions are aimed at preserving work customarily and traditionally done by employees of the contractors. I see no validity in the claim that the 21 contractors be excluded from consideration in making a determination as to industry practice, and I am further of the opinion that the evidence relating to the remaining 12 does not support the conclusion which Respondent asserts. Although some are larger than others, no one of the contractors engaged in commercial work runs a particular- ly large operation. It is reasonable to exclude from an evaluation of industry practices those contractors who had never engaged in commercial work, since this would suggest that probably they would not embark on such work in the future, and in any event their history could shed little light on customary industry practice or tradition. It is equally reasonable to assume that those contractors who had in the past engaged in commercial work would continue to seek commercial jobs and would hope to expand. We have before us an industry contract with restrictive provisions binding on all contractors in the industry, not just the larger ones. The industry in question is one made up of numerous individual contractors of varying sizes. It is their history insofar as they have worked on commercial projects in the past when considered collectively and, not individually, which becomes the proper measure of industry custom and tradition. Accord- ingly, I reject Respondent's claim that the minimal use of round pipe and fittings for the 21 named contractors justifies their exclusion from consideration, and find that in determining the customary and traditional practices which prevailed in the industry, we must consider what has been done by all contractors covered by the contract who are shown to have engaged in commercial work in excess of 3,200 square feet. However, even if we limit our consideration to the 12 contractors whose operations Respondent deems to be representative, the evidence fails to support the conclusion that the fabrication of round pipe and fittings is customary and traditional unit work. Six of these 12 report purchase practices which follow the majority pattern of obtaining from 90 to 100 percent of their round pipe needs from the manufacturers. As to the remaining six, while they show deviations from such a pattern, neither individually nor collectively do they establish an industry fabrication pattern. Berkan and Clark now purchase the round pipe needed from manufacturers, and it has departed from this practice in the past in substantial measure only when specialty work demanded it. Bruce Nickel followed the more general pattern and its recent departure therefrom was occasioned SHEET METAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 162 apparently because of union pressure . When Wilbur first went into business, he purchased all of his round pipe needs from manufacturers . Wilbur's recent turn to fabrica- tion comes about solely because of the happenstance of a package purchase, not made purposely for the purpose of meeting round pipe needs, but which brought to this contractor certain machinery which made it economical to fabricate for his own use. Systemaire is the only unit contractor purchasing some round pipe from Wilbur and this started less than a year ago. Systemaire is apparently motivated by a desire to avoid difficulties with Respon- dent, and concedes that such purchases are more costly than they would be if purchased from the manufacturers. Atlas Mechanical fabricates about 50 percent of its needs because as one of the larger contractors, it possesses machinery not purchased or designed to fabricate round pipe, but which assists in the process, and enables the contractor to do the fabrication more economically than others. Frank Booth, also one of the larger contractors, still purchases 80 percent of his round pipe needs but does fabricate the larger sizes. Thus even among these 12 contractors there is not shown a consistent or standardized pattern which signals a real departure from the more general contractor practice of purchasing round pipe from the manufacturers. The departures all came about because of special circumstances peculiar to each individual contractor. Each has, in the past followed, or to some extent, still follows the more usual industry purchase practices. Neither in number nor character do the deviations shown suffice to establish a customary fabrication practice in the industry as a whole, and I so find. Nor is the testimony of Respondent's witness, Donald M. Lahr, convincing as establishing any different industry practice . Lahr testified only in general terms as to a few contractors of whose practices he had personal knowledge either from work experience or as a business representative of Respondent. Such general uncorroborated testimony is scarcely convincing in the face of the far more specific documentary and testimonial evidence provided by a substantial number of the contractors themselves . Moreo- ver, not only are there inconsistencies in Lahr.' testimony as a whole, but in one instance he is specifically contradicted as to past fabrication practices by the testimony of a contractor for whom he had worked. Under the circumstances I find the testimony of Lahr insufficient to support a claim that there had been any long standing or general industry custom or tradition with regard to fabrication of round pipe items for certain jobs. Considering the industry as a whole, and the reported practices of the contractors regarding their use of round pipe and fittings on commercial projects as set forth above, the conclusion is inescapable that the fabrication of these items by unit employees has not been customary or traditional at any time. Thus, while it has been shown that contractors can, and in some instances do, fabricate round pipe and fittings, this comes about only in exceptional situations and to meet special needs. If we are to establish a practice of custom and tradition in an industry, it must be shown that at least a majority of the commercial round pipe needs have been met by having the contractors 749 regularly assign the fabrication to their own employees, or regularly purchase the disputed items from employers paying the construction local scale . The record here establishes the exact reverse. The regular pattern , with but few deviations, has been to have the round pipe needs on the commercial jobs met by purchase from mass pro- duction manufacturers whenever such items were available and I so find. Accordingly, I am satisfied and find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the unit employees have ever engaged in the fabrication of round pipe items for use on jobs in excess of 3,200 square feet, with sufficient regularity or in the sufficiently recent past to support the assertion that such work is fairly claimable as unit work or entitled to be recaptured as unit work. In addition to its contentions regarding past industry practices, Respondent asserts the fabrication of round pipe items to be claimable as unit work for practical reasons. Respondent notes that in Sheet Metal Workers Local 216, supra, where the Board found that the fabrication of round pipe items was not customary and traditional work, it is set forth that there was no available source other than the manufacturers which could supply round pipe , and that its fabrication by individual contractors was shown to be prohibitively costly. Respondent claims that these factors led the Board to conclude that the restrictions were calculated to satisfy other than unit preservation objectives and thus that they had a secondary thrust. Respondent asserts the instant case to be "clearly distinguishable" because here it is shown that Wilbur Sheet Metal already owns costly round pipe fabricating equipment with which it could supply not only its own round pipe needs but presumably those of other unit contractors . Although at the present time the cost of purchase from Wilbur would be at least 15 percent greater than purchase from the manufacturers, Respondent argues that this cost would undoubtedly drop as Wilbur's production was increased. Respondent appears to be saying that in contrast to the situation in the Local 216 case, the availability of these facilities in the instant case renders it reasonable and practical to claim round pipe fabrication as fairly claima- ble unit work. It is not necessary to treat with the adequacy of Wilbur's or any other facilities available to meet the contractors' round pipe needs to find Respondent's contention to be without merit. Respondent's argument does not address itself to the criteria established by National Woodwork, or set forth in the sheetmetal industry cases cited above. The issue before us is not whether contractors are capable of fabricating round pipe or fittings, or whether facilities exist whereby this can be done on a reasonably efficient basis with adequate machinery and at a relatively small increase in cost. The legality of the contract restrictions turns not on the capacities of the unit employers or employees to do the work, but on whether or not in fact work of this nature has customarily and traditionally been done by such unit employees. These cases establish that only where it is shown that the unit employees have done such fabrication with sufficient regularity to support a conclusion that such fabrication is industry custom and tradition, can it be found that a union is entitled to claim or recapture such work by use of contract restrictions . Here I have found that 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with only a few exceptions, and these of a limited nature, the overwhelming majority of contractors have for a long period of time been purchasing their round pipe items from manufacturers, and not assigning the work of fabricating such items to unit employees. This is what controls, and not whether it would be possible or practical for sheet metal contractors to fabricate round pipe themselves, or purchase round pipe items from other employers paying the construction local wage scale. The rationale of National Woodwork and the cited sheet metal cases makes it clear that where it has been found that fabrication of the disputed items has not been the customary and traditional practice of unit employees, restrictive clauses similar to those found in the instant case are deemed to have an unlawful secondary object. To comply with the restrictive clauses in the instant case, the contractors must either (1) fabricate the needed round pipe items in their own shops using their own employees; or (2) purchase round pipe items only from other employees paying their employees the construction local scale; or (3) cease purchasing round pipe items from the mass prod- uction manufacturers unless and until such manufacturers pay their employees at the higher construction local scale. Having found fabrication of round pipe items not to have been customary and traditional work of unit employees, no one of these ends can be viewed as preserving unit work, but each must be regarded as an effort to acquire work for unit employees, or as an effort to disturb an existing business relationship unless and until certain wage stand- ards are met. Either must be viewed as an unlawful secondary object "tactically calculated to satisfy union objectives elsewhere," and not "addressed to the labor relations of the contracting employer vis-a-vis his own employees." Accordingly, I find that Respondent by entering into and maintaining contract provisions that require contractors either to fabricate in their own shops metallic round pipe items for use on commercial projects in excess of 3,200 square feet or to purchase such items from shops paying their employees at the construction local scale, is unlawfully restricting the contractor's continuing right to purchase such items from manufacturers paying the lower production scale, and that Respondent is thereby engaging in conduct violative of Section 8(e) of the Act. As noted above, in addition to the allegations relating to contractual restrictions on the use of metallic round pipe items on construction jobs, the General Counsel also alleges that the contract contains restrictions on the use of nonmetallic round pipe and flexible ducts. We find specific contract language limiting the use of flexible ducts, and the general round pipe contract restrictions would appear to apply to the use of nonmetallic round pipe as well as to metallic round pipe. As noted above, the parties stipulated that nonmetallic flexible duct had been used on both residential and commercial projects without enforced regulations as to its length. It is conceded that the contractors do not and cannot fabricate fiberglass round pipe items. The contract language, however, may be construed as limiting the purchase of such round pipe items, and the Charging Party and the General Counsel urge that under the circumstances the restrictions have a secondary object. Since the fabrication of fiberglass round pipe items could not possibly be found to be customary or traditional unit work, it follows that for the same reasons outlined with regard to metallic round pipe items any restrictions on their purchase would have a similar unlawful secondary object. Accordingly, I find that all restrictions in the SMACCNA contract with Respondent limiting the use by contractors of fiberglass items on their commercial construction jobs in excess of 3,200 square feet have an unlawful secondary object and are violative of Section 8(e) of the Act. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, as set forth above, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the entire record I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the issues in these proceedings, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. SMACCNA and its employer members, as well as the employers who are parties signatory to the contract between Respondent and SMACCNA, are each employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By maintaining and giving effect to the provisions in the "Standard Form of Union Agreement" entered into on June 29, 1972, which restrict use by the contractors of metallic round pipe and fittings and nonmetallic round pipe and flexible duct on commercial projects in excess of 3,200 square feet, Respondent has entered into an agreement in violation of Section 8(e) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the entire record, the findings of fact, and the conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS Respondent, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Maintaining or giving effect to the provisions of the "Standard Form of Union Agreement" executed by Respondent and SMACCNA on or about June 29, 1972, and by individual contractor signatories later, or to any further or similar agreement thereafter entered into , insofar as such provisions restrict the use of metallic round pipe 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in be deemed waived for all purposes. SHEET METAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 162 and fittings and nonmetallic round pipe and flexible duct on construction jobs of the contractors by requiring that such contractors either (1) fabricate such items themselves in their own shops; or (2) purchase them from other employers who pay the same construction local pay scale found in the SMACCNA contract; or (3) not purchase round pipe items from members of Associated Pipe or NIMA. (b) Executing, maintaining or giving effect to any other contractor agreement, express or implied, whereby SMACCNA or its employer members or the individual parties signatory to such contract cease or refrain or agree to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, or transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of the employer members of Associated Pipe and NIMA. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at Respondent's business offices, meeting halls and all other places where notices to members are customarily posted copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after having been duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representatives, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by 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 the aforesaid Regional Director for forwarding to SMACCNA and its employer members and to parties signatory to the agreement for posting by them, if they are willing, in all locations where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20 in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 7 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 To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT execute, maintain or give effect to any 751 contract or agreement express or implied with Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Sacramento Valley Chapter, Inc., or its employer members, or the individual parties signatory to such contract, whereby such employers cease or refrain, or agree to cease or refrain, from doing business with members of Associated Pipe and Fitting Manufacturers or members of National Insulation Manufacturers Association, or any other employer or person, in violation of Section 8(e) of the Act. WE WILL NOT maintain or give effect to those provisions of the "Standard Form of the Union Agreement" executed with Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association on or about June 29, 1972, and with individual contractor signatories later, insofar as such provisions restrict the use of metallic round pipe and fittings or forbid, or restrict the use of nonmetallic round pipe or flexible duct by contractors by requiring such contractors either (1) to fabricate such items themselves; or (2) to purchase them from other employers who pay the construction local wage scale; or (3) not to purchase such items from members of Associated Pipe and Fittings Manufacturers or members of National Insula- tion Manufacturers Association. Dated By SHEET METAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 162, SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (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, 13018 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, Califor- nia 94102, Telephone 415-556-0335.