Ironworkers Local 433 (Robert E. McKee, Inc.)

IRONWORKERS, LOCAL NO. 433 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local No. 433, AFL- CIO (Robert E. McKee, Inc.) and Ruby J. Farley, Walter J. Farley, Jr., and Howard E. Farley, d/b/a R. F. Erection. Case 21-CC-1871 November 4, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On July 12, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Roger B. Holmes issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, both the Respondent and General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the 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 the Respondent, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local No. 433, AFL-CIO, Long Beach, California, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommend- ed Order, except that the attached notice is substitut- ed for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to present evidence, it has been found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, and we have been ordered to post this notice. WE WILL NOT picket the main gate and the office gate at the Arena project in Long Beach, California, so long as those gates are reserved for the use of secondary or neutral employers or 233 NLRB No. 48 persons and their employees, and WE WILL NOT have our business agent and our job steward at the office gate and main gate at the Arena project in Long Beach, California, with an object of forcing or requiring Montgomery Elevator to cease doing business with R. F. Erection and with an object of forcing or requiring Robert E. McKee, Inc., to cease doing business with Montgomery Elevator in order to compel Mont- gomery Elevator to cease doing business with R. F. Erection. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRONWORKERS, LOCAL No. 433, AFL-CIO DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROGER B. HOLMES, Administrative Law Judge: The charge in this case was filed on May 18, 1977, by Ruby J. Farley, Walter J. Farley, Jr., and Howard E. Farley, d/b/a R. F. Erection. The complaint was issued on May 26, 1977, on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for Region 21 of the Board. The General Counsel's complaint alleges that the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Ironworkers, Local No. 433, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXB) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer to the complaint and denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. The hearing was held before me on June 9, 1977, at Los Angeles, California. Both counsel for the General Counsel and the attorney for the Respondent timely filed briefs by the due date of June 30, 1977. The briefs have been read and considered. Upon the entire record in this proceeding and based upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Robert E. McKee, Inc., herein called McKee, has been at all times material herein a corporation engaged in the building and construction industry in southern California. At all times material herein, McKee has been engaged as the general contractor on a construction project located at the Long Beach Arena in Long Beach, California. Montgomery Elevator has been engaged in the manufac- ture and installation of elevators and escalators. It has a place of business located in Gardena, California. 283 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At all times material herein, Montgomery Elevator has been engaged, pursuant to a subcontract with McKee, in the installation of elevators at the construction project located at the Long Beach Arena in Long Beach, California. In connection with Montgomery Elevator's work on that project, Montgomery Elevator has purchased and received materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of California. Upon the foregoing facts, I find that McKee and Montgomery Elevator have been at all times material herein employers engaged in the building and construction industry and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It was admitted in the pleadings that the Respondent has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Accordingly, I find that fact to be so. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Long Beach Arena and the Pacific Terrace Center David Page has been the project superintendent for Robert E. McKee, Inc., for the past year and 2 months at the Pacific Terrace Center which is located in Long Beach, California. McKee is the general contractor for the project. For convenience at the hearing in this proceeding, the project was referred to as the Long Beach Arena or the Arena project. The Pacific Terrace Center actually consists of several buildings which adjoin the Long Beach Arena. A map of the Arena project was introduced in evidence at the hearing. Building A on that diagram is a parking structure which had already been completed at the time of the hearing. The parking structure is located at the north end of the site. Building B is a bridge over a street which is known as Seaside. Building B connects building A and building C. Building C is the main auditorium and lecture hall at the Pacific Terrace Center. Building D is an 80,000- square-foot exhibition hall. At the times material herein, buildings B, C, and D were under construction. There is a chain-link fence around the construction area. There are three gates or openings in that fence which are pertinent to this case. The main gate is about 20 feet wide and is located on the north side of the construction area. There is a large parking lot near that gate where most of the employees who work on the project park their cars and use that gate. The office gate is also approximately 20 feet wide and is located on the west side of the construction project. There are four or five trailers inside that gate which serve as offices on the project. The third gate is designated on the map as the R. F. Erection gate. That particular gate is about 23 feet wide and is located on the south side of the construction project. Nearby is the existing Long Beach Arena building which had already been constructed at the times material herein. Federal Steel Corporation is one of the subcontractors to McKee on the Arena project. Federal Steel does miscella- neous ironwork at the project, such as stairways. Montgomery Elevator is another subcontractor to McKee at the Arena project. Montgomery Elevator has the subcontract for constructing the vertical lifts and elevators. Montgomery Elevator, in turn, has subcontracted the installation of the elevator fronts to R. F. Erection. The foregoing findings of fact in this section are based upon the testimony given by David Page. His testimony at the hearing impressed me as being truthful and accurate. Accordingly, I have credited Page's testimony throughout this proceeding. B. The Respondent Has a Primary Labor Dispute With R. F. Erection Walter Farley, Sr., said that R. F. Erection was principally engaged in the business of installing elevator fronts, which Farley described as being the doorways for the elevators. R. F. Erection submitted a bid of $3,300 to Montgomery Elevator to install the 33 elevator door fronts at the Arena project. Joe Ward, a business agent of the Respondent, expressed the view at the hearing that R. F. Erection was performing piecework. In addition, Ward was of the opinion that R. F. Erection was not abiding by the collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent. Ward testified: We have a contention that the Farleys are not operating by the agreement established between the collective-bargaining agreement with the Ironworkers and the contractors' association. We don't believe that he's abiding by that agree- ment. Therefore we picketed Mr. Farley or R. F. Erection, as it is known. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Ward acknowledged during cross-examination that he did not know for certain whether the Respondent had a collective-bargaining agreement with R. F. Erection. Walter Farley, Sr., expressed the view that R. F. Erection was bound to a contract with the Respondent. That agreement to which he referred was the contract between the California Ironworkers Employers Council, Inc., and the District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity and various local unions, including the Respondent herein. Farley acknowledged that R. F. Erection had not been paying health and welfare benefit contributions to the trust funds. Farley and his two sons, Walter J. Farley, Jr., and Howard E. Farley, are members of the Respondent. Farley described R. F. Erection as being a partnership consisting of his wife, Ruby J. Farley, and himself, who own one-third of the business and their two sons, Walter J. Farley, Jr., and Howard E. Farley, who are the other partners and one- third owners each in R. F. Erection. Montgomery Elevator is the only supplier to R. F. Erection for the materials used at the Arena project. Farley said that the supplies were stored on the jobsite. Farley said that he had received three drill bits from a supplier 284 IRONWORKERS, LOCAL NO. 433 identified as Tomical. Farley pointed out that the drill bits were for another job rather than the Arena project. The parties entered into a stipulation concerning the following facts: Local No. 433 sought and received from the Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, sanction for its picketing of R. F. Erection at the jobsite known as the Pacific Terrace addition to the Long Beach Arena, located in Long Beach, California, which commenced on or about May 17, 1977. Local No. 433 did not seek, and was not granted, sanction by the Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, to picket any other employ- er or person on the Pacific Terrace addition to the Long Beach Arena, located in Long Beach, California. The foregoing findings of fact in this section are based upon the testimony given by Farley and Ward, documenta- ry evidence which was introduced at the hearing, and a stipulation by the parties. While it is unnecessary to analyze the merits of the dispute between the Respondent and R. F. Erection, I find that the Respondent did have, at all times material herein, a primary labor dispute with R. F. Erection. C. The Events on Monday, May 16, 1977 At 6 a.m. Superintendent Page usually opens the construction project. The workers begin arriving at various times thereafter prior to their usual starting time of 7 a.m. A coffee wagon generally arrives about 6:30 in the morning. At approximately 11:20 a.m. on Monday, May 16, 1977, Superintendent Page observed picketing at the main gate on the north side of the Arena project. He recalled that the picket signs asserted that R. F. Erection was performing work below the standards established by the Respondent. In smaller print on the picket signs was: "Does not provide pension, health and welfare benefits." The employees of all of the subcontractors on the Arena project continued to work on May 16, 1977, except the employees of Federal Steel, R.P.M. Erectors, and R. L. Grosh. The latter three employers all employed ironwork- ers on the Arena project. Ira Braverman, who has been assistant superintendent for McKee on the Arena project since September 1, 1976, said that he observed picketing on May 16, 1977, at both the main gate and the office gate at the Arena project. His recollection of the wording on the picket signs was substantially the same as that of Superintendent Page. The foregoing findings of fact in this section have been based upon the credited testimony given by Page and Braverman. D. The Events on Tuesday, May 17, 1977 The picketing by the Respondent continued at the main gate and the office gate at the Arena project on Tuesday, May 17, 1977. The same picket signs were carried. As a result of his observing the picketing on that day, Superintendent Page telephoned Bob Ringer, who was with Associated General Contractors. Ringer advised Page that he would call him back. The foregoing findings of fact in this section rest upon the credited testimony given by Page and Braverman. E. The Events on Wednesday, May 18, 1977 Reserved gates were established at the Arena project by Superintendent Page on Wednesday, May 18, 1977, pursuant to instructions he had received that day from Bob Ringer of Associated General Contractors. Page said that signs were placed at three gates on the Arena project sometime in the morning of May 18, 1977. Pickets were already there at that point in time, and no one was working on the Arena project. At the main gate on the Arena project, the sign stated: "This gate for employees of Robert E. McKee, Inc., and subcontractors only. R. F. Erectors [sic] excluded." At the office gate on the Arena project, the sign stated: "This gate for employees of Robert E. McKee, Inc., and subcontractors only. R. F. Erectors [sic I] excluded." At a gate on the south side of the Arena project, which had previously been used by others, the sign stated: "This gate for R. F. Erectors [sic] only." Also that morning, Superintendent Page sent a telegram to the Respondent. Page estimated that he sent the telegram between 9 and 9:30 a.m. In pertinent part, the telegram states: Regarding Pacific Terrace Center, Long Beach, this is to confirm that at 9:15 a.m. May 18, 1977, Robert E. McKee had signs placed at the westside and northside gates marking entrance way for McKee forces and McKee subcontractors, excluding R. F. Erection. Southside entrance gate to the project has a sign indicating that entrance gate to be for R. F. Erection only. Robert E. McKee, Inc., David H. Page, Project Superintendent Western Union advised Page the next day that his message to the Respondent had been delivered at 10:06 a.m. on May 18, 1977. After the reserved gates had been established at the Arena project that morning, both Page and Braverman observed that picketing continued at the main gate and the office gate. The picketing continued at those gates throughout the day. Braverman said that he left the project at 3:30 that afternoon and that picketing was still going on at the office gate through which he left. Page pointed out that the job usually closed down at 3:30 p.m. and that he was at the project until 4:30 p.m. that day. According to Page, there was no picketing that day at the R. F. Erection gate and no employees worked at the Arena project on May 18, 1977. Walter Farley, Sr., arrived about 5 minutes before 7 a.m. at the project. He also observed picketing at the main gate and the office gate, and he did not see anyone on the job except at the construction office. After the reserved gate 285 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was established for R. F. Erection, Farley did not use any other gate to enter the project. Farley said that he did see Assistant Superintendent Braverman lock up the main gate around noon. Business Agent Joe Ward said that he had visited the jobsite early in the morning and that he had not observed any reserved gates at that time. Ward said that he left the Arena project because he had other jobs to take care of in the Long Beach area and the Orange County area. According to Ward, it was not until approximately 2 or 2:30 p.m. on May 18, 1977, that he became aware of the telegram from McKee regarding the reserved gates. At that time he called the union office and was so advised. Ward proceeded to the Arena project, but, by the time he got there, there were no pickets. That evening Ward called the pickets and told them that they could only picket the R. F. Erection gate. The findings of fact in the preceding section are based upon the testimony given by Page, Braverman, Farley, and Ward, as well as documentary evidence and a stipulation by the parties. F. The Events on Thursday, May 19, 1977 Both Page and Braverman observed picketing on Thursday, May 19, 1977, at the R. F. Erection gate. The picket signs were the same as before. A few union stewards came to the construction office that day and some employees also were in and out of the office asking Page questions on that day. Page, Braverman, Farley, Ward, and an agent from Region 21 of the Board, Nancy Baxter, visited the construction office at the Arena project on May 19, 1977. Otherwise, Page said no one else entered the job. Superintendent Page had sent for Business Agent Ward and the two of them talked in the construction office that morning. After Ward left Page's office, Page observed Ward at the office gate between 6:30 a.m. and 7 a.m. Ward was carrying on a conversation with various persons, including plumbers, fitters, and ironworkers. Page testified: "I merely looked out the window and saw them talking at the time." Page said that Ward was still standing there when Ms. Baxter arrived at his office between 8:30 and 9 a.m. Page gave an affidavit to Ms. Baxter in his office. Assistant Superintendent Braverman was at the main gate to the Arena project from about 6:15 a.m. until approximately 8:30 a.m. when Ms. Baxter appeared. According to Braverman, no one had entered the gate to go to work. Braverman estimated that there were "close to 100" people standing outside the gate. There was no picketing at the main gate that day. While he was awaiting the arrival of Ms. Baxter, Braverman observed J. T. Larken, a shop steward of the Respondent at the Arena project, outside the main gate. Braverman said that Larken was talking to several persons there, and also he saw Larken around the coffee wagon there. He estimated that he saw Larken about 6:30 or 6:45 a.m. When Ms. Baxter arrived, Braverman told her that it was too muddy to cross that gate, so Braverman walked with Ms. Baxter along the fence to the office gate. Braverman also gave a statement to Ms. Baxter in the construction office. Walter Farley, Sr., entered the Arena project on May 19, 1977, through the R. F. Erection gate. He estimated that he arrived about 15 minutes before 7 a.m. and parked his car just inside the R. F. Erection gate. Farley proceeded directly to the office where he remained for about an hour or so. Farley then went to the Regional Office of Region 21 of the Board which is located at 849 S. Broadway in Los Angeles, California, where he gave his affidavit to Ms. Baxter. Business Agent Ward gave a slightly different account of his activities that morning. He said that he arrived at the project at approximately 6:30 or 7 a.m. and that he went to the main gate. He estimated that there were only about 30 persons at the main gate, and he asked them where his pickets were. He said that he could observe the office gate from the main gate and that there was no picketing at either the main gate or the office gate. Ward said that he then proceeded to the street under the bridge which connects building B to building C. At the hearing, he explained that his reason for doing so was that R. F. Erection had sometimes used that gate. Ward found no pickets there. Ward said that he was advised by some persons at the main gate that there was a southwest gate which he described as an entrance from a service street for maintaining the Arena. Ward said that he then went around there to make sure that the gate was being picketed and that gate was being picketed. Ward claimed that he next went by the main gate and then to the office gate because he had been informed that a Board agent was going to be at the jobsite that morning. Ward said that he wanted to make himself available to the Board agent. He said that he was at the office gate when the Board agent came through the gate. He said that she was riding in a truck with Ira Braverman. Ward said that he remained at the gate for an hour and a half to 2 hours. After the Board agent left through the gate, Ward said that he went to the office and talked with Page. Ward acknowledged that he did not have an appoint- ment with the Board agent that morning, but at the hearing he offered the explanation that he had been under the impression that the Board agent was coming out to the jobsite to get the matter straightened out, so he wanted to make himself available to the Board agent. I have based the findings of fact in the section set forth above on the testimony given by Page, Braverman, and Farley. As I have previously indicated, I found Page to be an impressive witness whose testimony seemed to be accurate and truthful. Accordingly, I have relied upon Page's testimony, and I credit his account of the events that morning rather than the conflicting version given by Ward. I also found Braverman's account to be credible, and I have accepted his version of the events that morning where it conflicts with Ward's account. G. Conclusions After considering the foregoing, I conclude that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXB) of the Act by its picketing on May 16 and 17, 1977, or by its picketing during the early morning hours of May 18, 1977, 286 IRONWORKERS, LOCAL NO. 433 prior to the establishment of reserved gates on the Arena project. It is clear that the Respondent had a primary labor dispute with R. F. Erection, and the evidence does not show that R. F. Erection was absent from the common situs jobsite during that time. The sanction which the Respondent successfully obtained was directed only at R. F. Erection and not at any other employer. I recognize that it is not necessary to establish that the sole object of the picketing was to force one employer to cease doing business with another employer. N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 689 (1951). Nevertheless, I conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the Respondent's picket- ing of the Arena project prior to the establishment of the reserved gates was unlawful in these circumstances. The situation changed, however, during the morning of Wednesday, May 18, 1977, when the reserved gates were established. Instead of limiting its picketing to the only person on the Arena project with whom the Respondent had a labor dispute - R. F. Erection - the Respondent continued to picket at gates reserved for the use of other employers and persons. There is no contention that the reserved gate signs were inadequate insofar as the size of the signs, the lettering on the signs being legible and visible, or the location of the signs. The evidence also does not show that the gates were disregarded and not honored. While the reserved gate sign refers to "R. F. Erectors," rather than the correct name, "R. F. Erection," I conclude that this minor difference in spelling did not genuinely confuse anyone as to the identity of the primary employer in this situation. The Respondent points to what it considers to be a defect in the reserved gate sign for R. F. Erection, and that is the failure of the reserved gate sign to mention the suppliers of R. F. Erection. Since the wording on that sign literally restricts the use of that gate to R. F. Erection, the Respondent contends that suppliers must use the other gates at the Arena project and, therefore, the Respondent was not legally precluded from picketing those other gates. However, unlike the situation in International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 450, AFL-CIO (Linbeck Construction Corporation), 219 NLRB 997 (1975), the evidence here did not show that any supplies for R. F. Erection were brought through any of the other gates after the reserved gates were established during the morning of May 18, 1977. Instead, the evidence revealed that Mont- gomery Elevator was the only supplier to R. F. Erection on this project and, significantly, the supplies for R. F. Erection were stored on the project. It was shown that Tomical provided three drill bits to R. F. Erection for use on another job, but it was not shown that this happened after the reserved gates were establish- ed. By 10:06 a.m. on May 18, 1977, the Respondent had been put on notice that reserved gates had been established at the Arena project. The Respondent's pickets could have seen and read the wording on the reserved gate signs shortly prior to that time. However, I conclude that the Respondent had actual notice as of 10:06 a.m. when the telegram was received at the Respondent's business office. I have considered the fact that Ward asserted that he did not personally learn about the telegram until approximate- ly 2 or 2:30 that afternoon. Although Ward may not have personally been informed by the Respondent's office, I conclude that the Respondent nevertheless had notice when the telegram was received at its business office and that Respondent was obliged at that point in time to take prompt action to limit its picketing to the R. F. Erection gate. The fact that employees of secondary or neutral employers had honored the Respondent's picket line prior to that point in time, or the fact that the project gates were subsequently locked around noon time that day by Braverman, would not excuse the Respondent's failure to limit its picketing to the gate reserved for R F. Erection. Its failure promptly to do so upon receipt of notice at 10:06 a.m. on May 18, 1977, suggests that the Respondent's picketing thereafter at the Arena project was not simply primary picketing of R. F. Erection, but instead was directed also at secondary or neutral employers and their employees. Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547 (1950). While the Moore Dry Dock standards are not to be applied on a per se basis, the standards are useful evidentiary aids in determining the true object of the Respondent's picketing. International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, Local Union 861, and Arneth Lord, its agent (Plauche Electric, Inc.), 135 NLRB 250 (1962). I conclude that the continuation of the picketing at the reserved gates for the use of secondary or neutral employers and their employees, as well as the Respondent's actions on the following day, May 19, 1977, indicate a proscribed objective on the part of the Respondent after the time that valid reserved gates were established at the Arena project. On Thursday, May 19, 1977, the Respondent confined its picketing to the R. F. Erection gate, but Business Agent Ward and Job Steward Larken were present that morning at the office gate and main gate, respectively. Significantly, employees of secondary or neutral employers did not go to work on the Arena project that day although the Respon- dent's picketing was obstensibly limited to the R. F. Erection gate. Counsel for the General Counsel persuasive- ly argues that both Ward and Larken served as a "signal" to employees of secondary or neutral employers. District 65, Distributive Workers of America (S.N.S. Distributing Service), 211 NLRB 469 (1974). As indicated above in the findings of fact, I have credited Page's testimony regarding the fact that his conversation with Ward took place before Ms. Baxter, the agent from Region 21 of the Board, arrived at the Arena project. In view of those findings, I am not persuaded that Ward was present at the office gate merely to be available to Ms. Baxter. Also considered in this connection is the fact that Ward did not have any appointment or prior arrangement to meet with Ms. Baxter and, in fact, he did not have any contact with Ms. Baxter or speak with her while she was entering or leaving the Arena jobsite. Since there were no pickets at the office gate or the main gate on May 19, 1977, it cannot be fairly said that Ward or Larken were policing the actions of the Respondent's pickets who by that time were at the R. F. Erection gate. As 287 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a result of Ward's being at the office gate and Larken being at the main gate, the Respondent, in effect, had persons at all three gates to the project on May 19, 1977. In the pleadings it was admitted that Larken had been at all times material herein an employee of an employer on the Arena project and a job steward for the Respondent acting on the Respondent's behalf. Respondent contended, however, that Larken was not an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. I conclude that Larken was acting as an agent on the Respondent's behalf on May 19, 1977, in stationing himself outside the main gate and, considering all the circumstances, including the similar action by Business Agent Ward at the office gate, I conclude that the Respondent was responsible for Larken's action that day. After considering all of the foregoing, I conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does establish that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act on May 18 and 19, 1977. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section 11, above, occurring in connection with the operations de- scribed in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Upon the basis of the findings of fact and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Robert E. McKee, Inc., and Montgomery Elevator are employers engaged in the building and construction industry and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Robert E. McKee, Inc., Montgomery Elevator, Federal Steel Corporation, and R. F. Erection are persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. By picketing at the main gate and the office gate at the Arena project in Long Beach, California, on May 18, 1977, after those gates were reserved for the use of secondary or neutral employers or persons and their employees, and by having its business agent and its job steward at the office gate and main gate, respectively, at the Arena project in Long Beach, California, on May 19, 1977, with an object of forcing or requiring Montgomery Elevator to cease doing business with R. F. Erection, and with an object of forcing or requiring Robert E. McKee, In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Inc., to cease doing business with Montgomery Elevator in order to compel Montgomery Elevator to cease doing business with R. F. Erection, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed- ing, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER' The Respondent, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local No. 433, AFL-CIO, Long Beach, California, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: I. Cease and desist from picketing the main gate and the office gate at the Arena project in Long Beach, California, so long as those gates are reserved for the exclusive use of secondary or neutral employers or persons and their employees, and having its business agent and its job steward at the office gate and main gate at the Arena project in Long Beach, California, with an object of forcing or requiring Montgomery Elevator to cease doing business with R. F. Erection, or with an object of forcing or requiring Robert E. McKee, Inc., to cease doing business with Montgomery Elevator in order to compel Montgom- ery Elevator to cease doing business with R. F. Erection. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its Long Beach, California, offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where the Respon- dent customarily posts notices to its members. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish signed copies of the aforementioned notice to the Regional Director for Region 21, for posting by Robert E. McKee, Inc., Montgomery Elevator, Federal Steel Corporation, and R. F. Erection, if those persons are 2 In the event that 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." 288 IRONWORKERS, LOCAL NO. 433 willing to do so, at all of the locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon- dent has taken to comply herewith. 289