Hospital & Institutional Wrks. Local

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 14, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 218 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hospital & Institutional Workers Union Local No. 250, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Independent Acceptance Company) and Kenneth R. Keller Hospital & Institutional Workers Union Local No. 250, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Independent Acceptance Company d/b/a Mc Clure Convalescent Hospital) and Kenneth R. Keller . Cases 20-CC-972 and 20-CP-342 December 14, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On June 26, 1970, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Hospital & Institutional Workers Union Local No . 250, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO , its officers , agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner: This case, with all parties represented, was heard in San Francisco, California, on April 16, 1970, on complaints of the General Counsel and answers of Hospital and Institutional Workers Union Local No. 250, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent or Union. The complaints were issued on January 28 and March 11, 1970, on charges filed on January 8 and February 24, 1970. The complaints alleged that Respondent engaged in picketing of convalescent hospitals owned and operated by Independ- ent Acceptance Company for an objection proscribed by Section 8(b)(7)(C) and by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Briefs have been filed by General Counsel and Respon- dent and these have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Independent Acceptance Company, a California corpo- ration with its principal office at Walnut Creek, California, is engaged , inter alia, in the business of operating private convalescent hospitals at 2910 McClure Street, Oakland, California, under the business name of McClure Convales- cent Hospital and at San Bruno, California, under the business name of San Bruno Convalescent Hospital, which provide skilled nursing health care and convalescent services . During the past 12 months in the course and conduct of its said business , Independent Acceptance Company received gross revenue in excess of $250,000, more than $100,000 of which was received from the State of California , through its intermediary Blue Cross , for services rendered under the Medi-Cal Program, half of which was financed by contributions from the Federal Government. Also, during the past 12 months in the course of its said business, Independent Acceptance Company received goods , materials , and supplies , including drugs and medical supplies , valued at over $ 10,000 from local suppliers, which originated outside the State of California. Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital, Inc., is a California corporation engaged in the operation of a private convalescent home at Walnut Creek, California, under the business name of Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital, which provides patients with skilled nursing care and convalescent services . During the past year in the course and conduct of its said business , Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital received gross revenue in excess of $250 ,000, more than $ 100,000 of which was received from the State of California , through its intermediary Blue Cross, for services rendered under the Medi-Cal Program, half of which was financed by contributions from the Federal Government. Also, during the past year, Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital received goods , materials , and supplies , including drugs and medical supplies , valued at over $ 10,000 which originated outside the State of California. 187 NLR$ No. 28 HOSPITAL & INSTITUTIONAL WRKS. LOCAL Independent Acceptance Company, McClure Convales- cent Hospital, San Bruno Convalescent Hospital, and Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital, Inc., are employers engaged in commerce and in operations affecting com- merce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.I II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Hospital and Institutional Workers Union Local No. 250, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues 1. Whether Respondent picketed McClure Convales- cent Hospital from December 8, 1969, through February 10, 1970, for an object of becoming bargaining representa- tive of its employees under circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. 2. Whether Respondent's picketing of McClure and San Bruno hospitals since February 18 and January 12, 1970, respectively, was for an object of forcing Independent Acceptance Company to cease doing business with Ygnacio Hospital, or whether Independent Acceptance Company was an ally or an integrated employer with Ygnacio. B. Section 8(b)(7)(C) Respondent represents the employees at Ygnacio Conva- lescent Hospital and since December 4, 1969, has been engaged in a labor dispute with Ygnacio. In support thereof, Respondent has struck and picketed Ygnacio with picket signs bearing the legend, "On strike, Hospital and Institutional Workers, Union Local 250." The employees of Independent Acceptance Company at its two convalescent hospitals, McClure and San Bruno, are not represented by any labor organization. From December 8, 1969, through February 10, 1970, the Union picketed at McClure Convalescent Hospital with picket placards bearing the legends: (1) ON STRIKE Please DO NOT Patronize Hospital Workers Union Local 250 Service Employees Union AFL--CIO (2) LOCAL 250 ON STRIKE (3) The time to Practice The golden rules is now Hospital Workers UNION LOCAL #250 ' University Nursing Home, Inc, 168 NLRB No. 53. (4) UNFAIR HOSPITAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 250 Service Employees Union AFL--CIO 219 On the first day of picketing at McClure, employees Henrietta Tartt, Gladys Small, Juanita Staples, and Jeanie Thomas were leaving work at the end of the day and were given literature by the Union's picket, Peter Rubicke. He told Tartt that he was not going to bother them but that they were after Mr. Keller. Kenneth R. Keller, the Charging Party, is treasurer and manager of Independent Acceptance Company. Tartt had seen Rubicke in the hospital prior to the picketing at McClure passing out literature, and some items of literature were left by him in the hospital kitchen. The literature distributed by the picket in the hospital and to employees leaving McClure was a packet of three items- a paper entitled "Bulletin," an application for membership in the a paper entitled "BULLETIN," an application for membership in the Union, and a self- addressed and stamped envelope addressed to Respondent. The bulletin dated December 5, 1969, addressed to the employees of McClure and signed by the organizing committee, Hospital Workers' Union Local 250, advised the employees in part as follows: We are on a great crusade to make sure that Ken Keller becomes a fair employer . . . . We ask you to join with us. JOIN LOCAL 250. Follow the lead of the workers at Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital who are fighting for decent wages, decent working conditions and fair play. Mr. Keller, with his millions, should part with some [of ] it. You work hard. You deserve a living wage. Sign the enclosed application card. Join the fight for justice. On the second day of the picketing, picket Rubicke asked Tartt if she had signed the card and sent it in . She replied that she was still thinking about it. He then stated that it was for their own good and that it would help them. She asked if they would lose their jobs and he replied that they would not; that Keller would not even know who sent it in. During the picketing. at McClure, Respondent also distributed another packet of three items containing a bulletin, an application card, and a stamped and self- addressed envelope. In this bulletin, the employees were invited tojoin the Union and were informed that in order to get a Board election the employees must first fill out, sign, and mail the attached membership application card and that, when the Union received application cards from 30 percent of the employees working at this hospital, it would file with the Board a request for an election. Picketing at McClure was discontinued on February 10, 1970, and by letter of that date Respondent informed Kenneth Hargreaves, administrator of McClure, as follows: This will advise you that any picketing that will take place in the future will be lawful picketing only, and we are not interested in organizing your employees, and we do not wish recognition as the bargaining agent for your employees at the McClure establishment. Any picketing in the future will be solely in support of our strike at your Ygnacio Valley Convalescent facility. If you have any questions, please contact our Attorney Victor Van Bourg. 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Section 8(b)(4)(B) Picketing On February 18, 1970, Respondent resumed picketing at McClure Convalescent Hospital, and its placards had the following legend: O N S T R I K E WE Do NOT REQUEST RECOGNITION WE MAKE No CLAIMS To REPRESENT EMPLOYEES OF THIS HOSPITAL. WE ASK YOU NOT TO PATRONIZE THIS HOSPITAL. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PICKET LINE IS SOLELY To SUPPORT THE STRIKE AT IGNACIO VALLEY CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL HOSPITAL WORKERS LOCAL 250 Since the picketing was resumed at McClure on February 18, 1970, Respondent has not distributed any literature to McClure employees nor has it solicited them to accept or select Respondent as their collective -bargaining representa- tive. On January 12, 1970, Respondent commenced picketing the San Bruno Convalescent Hospital with placards bearing the legend: ON STRIKE Hospital and Institutional Workers' Union Local No. 250 Since the picketing began at McClure and at San Bruno, suppliers who had regularly delivered to these hospitals discontinued making deliveries . It has been necessary for a representative of the hospitals to pick up supplies , such as surgical supplies, milk, bread, laundry, etc., at the premises of the suppliers. D. The Relationship Between Ygnacio and Independent Kenneth Keller is one of the three stockholders of Ygnacio, owning 37-1/2 percent of the outstanding stock, and is one of the three directors of this corporation. Also, he was registered as the administrator of this hospital until April 15, 1970; however, the hospital has been run by Mrs. Juliet Van Hovel , nurse supervisor and assistant adminis- trator, who is in charge of hiring, firing, purchasing, and administrative and personnel matters . Keller does not participate in the day-to-day operations of this hospital. Keller is also the treasurer and manager of Independent Acceptance Company. Independent has 160 stockholders, owns an insurance agency , and makes financial invest- ments. Kenneth Hargreaves is administrator at McClure; Kenneth Keller is listed as administrator at the San Bruno hospital, but he is there only occasionally. A Mrs. Moore, the director of nurses at San Bruno , is responsible for administrative and personnel matters and the day-to-day operations of this hospital. The general offices of Independent Acceptance Compa- ny are located in an office building in Walnut Creek adjacent to the building used by Ygnacio for its convales- cent hospital. The hospital building and the office building are commonly owned but neither Ygnacio nor Independent own any interest in the real property. The two buildings share a common parking lot. The general offices of Independent are occupied by Keller, a bookkeeper, and a payroll clerk. Independent Acceptance Company does not perform any bookkeeping, payroll, or accounting services for Ygnacio. Ygnacio employs its own bookkeeper who has an office in that hospital. However, prior to February 1966, the partnership that then owned Ygnacio employed Independ- ent Acceptance Company as financial manager for Ygnacio . This arrangement was terminated when the present owners of Ygnacio , Keller, Sawyer , and Payne, formed the company that purchased Ygnacio from the partnership. E. Independent's Assistance to Ygnacio At the beginning of the strike at Ygnacio on December 4, 1969, Hargreaves received a call from Keller asking if any of the employees of McClure would volunteer for work at Ygnacio. Hargreaves asked the nurses if they wished to work at Ygnacio on their own time, and 10 or 11 of them volunteered to do so. Hargreaves transported them from McClure to Ygnacio on December 4, 5, and 6, 1969. On Saturday, December 6, only two of the volunteers worked at Ygnacio and, when picketing started at McClure on December 8, they did not thereafter work at Ygnacio. The nurses were paid by Ygnacio for the time worked there. During the first 2 or 3 weeks of the strike, Hargreaves made deliveries of supplies on approximately 8 or 10 occasions . He made deliveries during December 1969 and January 1970. Hargreaves was on the payroll of McClure on these occasions . On a couple of occasions, he brought laundry to Ygnacio. Hargreaves testified that he did not make special trips to Ygnacio to bring supplies but did so when he was going from McClure to the general offices of Independent to take payroll records or other business matter of McClure. He was asked by Keller on these occasions to bring supplies, out to Ygnacio. He testified that he did not recall bringing anything out to Ygnacio after about February 12, 1970; later upon being asked if he had made any deliveries to Ygnacio in April 1970, the month of the hearing herein, he answered, "I spend so much time running around. I do believe I dropped off some meat." Independent Acceptance Company employs a general repairman, Joseph Peca. He does repair work at any of the four hospitals that Independent manages and also does this at Ygnacio for which Ygnacio pays Independent a fee for his services . Peca keeps a record of his time and materials, and each hospital is billed accordingly. When the strike started at Ygnacio on December 4, 1969, Assistant Administrator Van Hovel arranged with a Mrs. Braithwaite at McClure to have Peca come out that day to HOSPITAL & INSTITUTIONAL WRKS . LOCAL 221 Ygnacio for work; he continued to work there until Ygnacio was able to get replacements for jobs of employees that Peca was performing ; this was about February 20, 1970. During the early part of the strike, Peca was doing everything asked of him and this included housekeeping duties such as mopping floors and operating the washing and drying machines . Housekeeping duties were duties that had been done by striking employees in the bargaining unit. Prior to the strike at Ygnacio, Keller, whose office was in a building across a parking lot from Ygnacio, would take his coffeebreaks at Ygnacio and would spend about 15 or 20 minutes there on these occasions . During the first 10 to 15 days of the strike, however, Keller came to Ygnacio and worked there from 6 to 9 a.m. spending his time helping feed patients and doing anything else that could be done. He drove nurses through the picket line and gave encouragement to employees . When his workday at Independent was completed , he would return to Ygnacio and work until about midnight . He followed this procedure for about 60 days. Also, since Keller had accrued considerable vacation time with Independent , he arranged to take his vacation during this period of the strike. F. Conclusions In view of the statements of picket Rubicke to employees at the McClure Convalescent Hospital and in view of the contents of the literature distributed by him to employees at this institution , I find that Respondent 's picketing at this hospital from December 8, 1969, through February 10, 1970, was for an object of forcing or requiring Independent Acceptance Company to recognize or bargain with it as the representative of its employees at this hospital and was for an object of forcing or requiring the employees there to accept or select the Union as their collective -bargaining representative; Respondent is not currently certified as the representative of these employees and no petition has been filed under Section 9(c) of the Act within a reasonable period following the commencement of such picketing. I find that, by this picketing, Respondent has violated Section 8(bX7)(C) of the Act. Respondent's picketing of McClure Hospital since February 18, 1970, and the picketing of San Bruno Hospital following January 12, 1970, has been for a different objective. This picketing has been solely in support of and as an extension of Respondent 's strike against Ygnacio, and has been done on the theory that Independent is an integrated employer with Ygnacio or an ally of Ygnacio and thus subject to picketing as a primary employer. If this contention is not maintained , then the picketing of Independent, a secondary employer with whom Respon- dent has no labor dispute, is for the purpose of forcing Independent to cease dealing with or doing business with Ygnacio. I find that Independent and Ygnacio are not a single integrated employer. Although Keller owns stock in both companies and is manager of Independent and was administrator of Ygnacio until April 15, 1970, the two companies maintain separate offices , records, and payrolls and are operated as separate and distinct businesses. Although Keller, as administrator of one and manager of the other, was in a position to determine or certainly to participate in the formulation of personnel policy, there is no showing of an integrated personnel program or policy. There is no interchange of employees except that Ygnacio employs Independent 's handyman on occasions and reimburses Independent for his time . The Union is the bargaining representative of employees at Ygnacio, but no union represents the employees at Independent . Although at one time Independent was financial manager for Ygnacio , this arrangement has not existed since 1%6.2 A principal issue in this case is whether or not Independent Acceptance Company, by rendering aid and comfort to Ygnacio in its labor dispute with the Respon- dent, has become an "ally" of Ygnacio so as to make picketing of it primary and not secondary. There are four instances or categories of aid rendered by Independent to Ygnacio: (1) that of the nurses during the first 2 or 3 days of the strike at Ygnacio; (2) the housekeeping chores performed by handyman Peca from the beginning of the strike to about February 20, 1970; (3) the deliveries of supplies by McClure's administrator , Hargreaves; (4) the variety of work performed by Keller, who was both Independent 's general manager and McClure 's administra- tor. The Board and the courts have held that an employer who assists a struck primary employer in his labor dispute with a union by performing work of the striking employees is no longer a neutral to the labor dispute , but becomes an ally of the primary employer and may be subjected to the same picketing .3 During the first 3 days of the strike , Independent assisted Ygnacio by soliciting 11 of its nurses to work at Ygnacio during their off-hours. They performed work of the striking employees. From December 4, 1969, to about February 20, 1970, Independent 's handyman and repairman, Joe Peca, was made available to Ygnacio and worked full time, including some housekeeping duties that would have been performed by striking employees. I find that by the performance of struck work by Independent's nurses in December 1969, and by Independ- ent's handyman in December 1969 and January and February 1970, Independent was an ally of Ygnacio in its labor dispute with Respondent . However, since the nurses discontinued their work at Ygnacio on December 6, 1967, and Peca discontinued his work there on February 20, 1970, there has been no work of the striking employees performed by employees of Independent since that time. The cases cited on the ally theory have all dealt with the performance of "struck work" by employees of other employers. This has been on the basis that the subcontract- ing employer is not "doing business" with the primary employer within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4XB) of the Act, but by doing struck work is subplanting and standing in the stead of the primary employer . A leading case on this 2 Poole 's Warehouse, Inc, 158 NLRB 1281; Knight Newspapers, Inc 138 459, IUE [Royal Typewriter Co.,] 228 F 2d 553 (C.A. 2); General Metals NLRB 1346, enfd 322 F.2d 405 (C A.D.C.). Corp., 120 NLRB 1227. 3 N.LR B v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics, Local 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD point, Douds vs. Metropolitan Architects, 75 F.Supp. 672 (D.C.N.Y.), is quoted in part as follows: In every meaningful sense it [the subcontracting employer] had made itself party to the contest. Manifestly it was not an innocent bystander, nor a neutral. It was firmly allied to Ebasco [the primary employer] and it was its conduct as ally of Ebasco which directly provoked the union's action... . The economic effect upon Ebasco's employees was precisely that which would flow from Ebasco's hiring strikebreakers to work on its own premises. The conduct of the union in inducing Project's [the subcontracting employer] employees to strike is not different in kind from its conduct in inducing Ebasco's employees to strike. If the latter is not amenable to judicial restraint , neither is the former . In encouraging a strike at Project the union was not extending its activity to a front remote from the immediate dispute but to one intimately and indeed inextricably united to it. The following is quoted from the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in the Royal Typewriter Company case, 228 F.2d 553: Where an employer is attempting to avoid the economic impact of a strike by securing the services of others to do this work, the striking union obviously has a great interest , and we think a proper interest , in preventing those services from being rendered . This interest is more fundamental than the interest in bringing pressure on customers of the primary employer. . . . The ally employer may easily extricate himself from the dispute and insulate himself from picketing by refusing to do that work. We have in the instant case assistance of a different type rendered by McClure's administrator, Hargreaves, to Ygnacio. Can it be equated to the performance of struck work? In both situations the services that have been stopped by the strike have been taken over by another person . Legitimate objectives of legal primary picketing are to cause work stoppage by employees of the primary employer and to cause other employers to refuse to make deliveries or to do business with him. When such a strike is effective in these objectives, then will another employer become a partisan to the labor dispute by assisting the primary employer in countering the picketing objectives and effectiveness , and be subjected to the same picketing activities, whether the assistance is the performance of struck work or the delivery of supplies that have been stopped? As pointed out by Judge Rifkind in the Metropolitan Architects case, the intent of Section 8(b)(4XB) of the Act, as gleaned from its legislative history, must be taken into account in interpreting the words "doing business." Congressional purpose indicates that this section was intended to outlaw what was theretofore known as a secondary boycott. A supplier who continues to make deliveries is recognized as one who is "doing business" with the primary employer and is not in the category of ally; also a new supplier who supplants one unwilling to make deliveries during a strike would likewise be so regarded. Would one who is not a supplier but volunteers to make deliveries , as Hargreaves has done , be in the same category-an employer wishing to assist another employer in his labor dispute? I am inclined to think that the words "doing business," which exclude one performing struck work, include all suppliers and all who stand in the stead of suppliers. Thus, Hargreaves' deliveries would not constitute Independent as an ally. Furthermore, after about February 12, 1970, there is evidence of only one delivery by Hargreaves , which I consider a minimal act of assistance. Next, I consider the assistance rendered to Ygnacio by Keller . Keller put in a substantial number of hours of work at Ygnacio during the strike, particularly during the first several weeks . Although he testified that he did no struck work, he testified that he spent each morning from 6 to 9 during the first 10 to 15 days of the strike "mainly helping feed, anything else that could be done" at Ygnacio. Although Keller was manager of Independent, he was also the administrator of Ygnacio and part owner of that corporation . Under these circumstances , I find that whatever work or assistance he performed at Ygnacio during the strike-struck work or not struck work-was done in his capacity as administrator and part owner of that institution and was not work performed by Independent. Thus, in conclusion , I find that since February 20, 1970, when Peca discontinued performing struck work, Inde- pendent ceased to be an ally of Ygnacio. The picketing thereafter was for the purpose of causing Independent to cease doing business with or having dealings with Ygnacio. Except for what deliveries Hargreaves might continue to make , or the repair work (nonstruck work) that Peco might thereafter perform , Independent was not actually doing business with Ygnacio, but would nevertheless be a neutral third party unrelated to the labor dispute that Congress intended to protect by Section 8(b)(4XB) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Those activities of Respondent , set forth in section III, above , found to constitute unfair labor practices , occurring in connection with the businesses of the employers as set forth in section I, 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 foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Independent Acceptance Company, McClure Con- valescent Hospital , San Bruno Convalescent Hospital and Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital , Inc., are employers engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. Hospital and Institutional Workers Union Local No. 250, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing the McClure Convalescent Hospital from December 8, 1969, through February 10, 1970, for an object of forcing or requiring Independent Acceptance HOSPITAL & INSTITUTIONAL WRKS . LOCAL 223 Company to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the bargaining representative of its employees at McClure and for an object of forcing or requiring the employees at McClure to accept or select Respondent as their bargaining representative, Respondent not being currently certified as representatives of these employees, and a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act not having been filed within a reasonable period of time from the commencement of such picketing, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. 4. By picketing at McClure since February 18, 1970, and at San Bruno since January 12, 1970, Respondent has induced and encouraged individuals employed by Inde- pendent Acceptance Company to strike or refuse in the course of their employment to use, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services for Independent Acceptance Company, and has threatened, coerced, or restrained Independent Acceptance Company with an object of forcing or requiring Independent Acceptance Company to cease doing business with Ygnacio Convales- cent Hospital, and by this conduct Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) and Section 8(b) (4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. meeting hall, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Deliver or mail signed copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 20, for posting by Independ- ent Acceptance Company at McClure Convalescent Hospital and San Bruno Convalescent Hospital, if willing, at locations where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt by Respondent of a copy of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.5 4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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 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" 5 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith APPENDIX RECOMMENDED ORDER Hospital and Institutional Workers Union Local No. 250, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing Independent Acceptance Company where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to recognize or bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees or to force or require the employees of said employer to accept or select the Union as their collective- bargaining representative, in the absence of certification of the Union as their bargaining representative. (b) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Independent Acceptance Company to strike or refuse in the course of their employment to use, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any service for Independent Acceptance Company, and threatening, coercing, or restraining Independent Acceptance Company for an object of forcing or requiring said Employer to cease doing business with Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its business office and NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Independent Acceptance Company, or by McClure Convalescent Hospital or by San Bruno Convalescent Hospital to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles , materials , or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require said employers to cease doing business with Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Independ- ent Acceptance Company, McClure Convalescent Hospital, or San Bruno Convalescent Hospital where an object thereof is to force or to require said employers to cease doing business with Ygnacio Convalescent Hospital. WE WILL NOT picket Independent Acceptance Company where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to recognize or bargain with our Union as the representative of its employees or to force or 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD require the employees of said employer to accept or select our Union as their collective-bargaining repre- sentative, in the absence of certification of this Union as their bargaining representative. HOSPITAL & INSTITUTIONAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL No. 250, BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO (LABOR ORGANIZATION) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board 's Office, 13050 Federal Building , 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-3197.