IBEW Local No. 25

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 5, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 912 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 25, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Comtech Tele-
phone Contractors Corporation. Case 29-CC-331
April 5, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On January 3, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Samuel M. Singer issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel
filed a statement in support of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision and recommended Order, and
the Charging Party filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Local Union No. 25, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
SAMUEL M SINGER, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding, tried before me in Brooklyn, New York, on
November 8 and 9, pursuant to a charge filed on August 23
and a complaint issued on September 22, 1972,1 concerns
allegations that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(n)(B)
of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in certain
secondary boycott activities. In general, the complaint
alleges that Respondent threatened, coerced, and re-
strained Charging Party (herein Comtech) that electricians
employed by an electrical contractor at a jobsite would
strike if Comtech's employees were permitted to work at
the jobsite. The complaint further alleges that an object of
Respondent's conduct was to force and require secondary
or neutral employers to cease doing business with Com-
tech
I Hereafter, all dates are 1972 unless otherwise indicated
2 Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated December 15
Respondent's objection to the Regional Director's pretrial substitution of
Local Union No 25 for Local Union No 3 was overruled at the hearing It
All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.
Briefs were received from all parties by December 18.
Upon the entire record2 and my observation of the
testimonial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Comtech, a New York corporation with principal office
and place of business in, Queens, New York, sells and
services telephone and related equipment.
Vinyl Masters, Inc. (herein Vinyl), a New York corpora-
tion with principal office and place of business in
Brooklyn, New York, manufactures, sells, and distributes
vinyl sheeting, film, and related products; it annually sells
and delivers to purchasers in other States products valued
in excess of $50,000
Telaction Phone Corporation (herein Telaction), a New
Jersey corporation with principal office and place of
business in Hoboken, New Jersey, sells and installs general
communication systems and related products; it annually
sells and delivers to purchasers in other States products
valued in excess of $50,000.
Sparks Electric Company, Inc. (herein Sparks), a New
York corporation with principal office and place of
business in Farmingdale, New York, provides electrical
contracting and related services; it annually purchases and
receives from sellers in other States goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000.
I find that at all material times Vinyl, Telaction, and
Sparks have each been employers and persons engaged in
commerce and industries affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction here
is proper.
It. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent (herein IBEW Local 25) is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Local 1156, Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO (herein CWA), is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
A. The Facts
1. Deasy, a foreman and Local 25 member,
challenges the right of Telaction nonunion
employees to perform installation work
In March 1972, Vinyl contracted with Sparks to perform
general electrical work at its Deer Park plant, including
"wiring of machinery, lights, [and] transformers." The
approximately 11 electricians working at the jobsite were
members of Respondent IBEW Local 25. Later Vinyl also
contracted with Telaction for the installation of a paging
should be noted that the charge named Local 25, and that Respondent's
answer, signed by Local 25. did not challenge the Regional Director's
action
202 NLRB No. 135
IBEW, LOCAL NO. 25 913
and intercom (internal communication) system; Telac-
tion's employees did not belong to any labor organization.
In July, Telaction sent two of its employees to the Deer
Park plant to install the intercom and paging system. After
about 2 days, Sparks' electrical foreman, Richard Deasy, a
member of Respondent IBEW Local 25,3 told Vinyl's
maintenance foreman or superintendent, Charles Brown,
"Charley . . . I'm going to challenge these men to see if
they're union men." Brown said that this was his
prerogative. After Deasy spoke to the two Telaction men,
the latter picked up their equipment and tools and
informed Brown that they "had to stop work because they
are nonunion." Telaction's dispatcher then reported to
Telaction Vice President Vobis that the two installers "had
been asked to leave the job because they were not members
of a union that were working on that job."
The foregoing findings as to Deasy's "challenge" of the
two Telaction employees are • based on the credited
testimony of Brown, who, although neither fluent nor
articulate, impressed me as an honest and sincere witness;
and he testified as a disinterested witness with no stake in
the outcome of the proceeding. Deasy, on the other hand,
was a witness at times given to evasion, was openly
devoted 'to promotion of Respondent's interests, and was
personally involved in the case since the propriety of his
conduct was a major litigated issue. Deasy testified that it
was the two Telaction men that raised the question
whether "this was a union job", stated that when he
answered it was the men asked if they could pick up their
tools; and asserted that he in turn told them "you can do
whatever you like" since he "can't stop them from .
doing whatever they want to do " Although denying that
his intention was "to protect" work which he regarded as
falling within the jurisdiction of his Union, he admitted
reporting the Telaction employees' appearance at the
jobsite to two Local 25 business agents. According to
Deasy, he was only "looking to produce the work for my
boss if any electrical work was being done"; yet, he also
admitted that his boss (Eisman of Sparks Electric) never
asked or directed him to install a telephone system on the
premises. Pressed why he reported the incident to the
Union, Deasy said, "Any man, any electrician working in
construction, this is his right to notify the union of any
work that might be going on"; and, indeed, that as member
of the Union it was his "responsibility" to do so.
Immediately after Telaction's two installers left the
jobsite, Vinyl's Foreman Brown reported to his superior,
Vice President and Manager Clementi, "the incident that
had happened," stating that "Mr. Deasy had challenged
i According to General Counsel and Charging Party, Deasy was also
Respondent 's steward on thejob For reasons to be stated (infra, sec B2), it
is unnecessary to decide whether Deasy was a formally designated steward
since , as shown , even if not so designated , he acted for and on behalf of
Respondent and his conduct is attributable to it as agent or representative
4 Based on the credited and mutually corroborative testimony of Brown
and Clementi
5 Based on the credited and composite testimony of Clements and
Brown 1 do not credit Deasy's testimony on direct examination implying
that Clemente had initiated the instruction that "anybody who was coming
to his particular job would have to be cleared through 25 " Asked on cross-
examination "where did Clements come up with this notion ," Deasy
admitted, "Possibly he got it from me, I don't know "
6 Although Telaction accepted Comtech's bid and awarded it the work
on around August 7, it was not confirmed in writing until August 17 The
[the ] two workers," that Deasy "found out they [were] not
union," and that the two men "stopped work" and left
Clementi told Brown "if Sparks Electric said that, don't
start anything, let the men go." 4
Two days later, Clementi spoke with Deasy and
Respondent 's representative (delegate), Fisher . Deasy and
Fisher said that only men who had a "permit from Local
25" could work at thejobsite-Fisher adding "there would
be no problem, all they had to do was get a permit from
Local 25." Clementi then informed Foreman Brown,
Vinyl's representative at the jobsite, that, if the men
returned to install the intercom and paging system, he
should call the office and not `let them start work until
they got cleared by Local 25." 5
2. Deasy challenges the right of Comtech
employees, members of CWA, to perform the
installation work; Local 25 Business
Representative Stafford's threat to "pull the electricians
off the job"
Telaction Vice President Vobis testified credibly that
since he was unable to perform installation of the paging
and intercom system with his nonunion employees, he
subcontracted the work to Comtech which employs
unionmen.6 Comtech employees, however, belong to CWA
Local 1156 with which Comtech had signed a recognition
agreement on June 21. On August 10, Comtech dispatched
two employees (Grzybowski and LaRosa) to Deer Park to
survey the site and perform the installation work. Vinyl's
Foreman Brown told them they "couldn't start work until
they got a clearance through Local 25" in accordance with
"instructions" given him by his superior, Vice President
Clementi. Brown identified Deasy as the "electrical
foreman" at the jobsite from whom they could obtain
"clearance" and proceeded to get Deasy. The Comtech
men and Deasy then inspected one another's union cards.
Deasy told them that they "couldn't do any work there
unless [they] got this permit from Local 25" and gave them
the name and telephone number of Local 25 Delegate
Fisher to talk to. Comtech employee Grzybowski remon-
strated that he did not "understand . . . why [he] should get
a permit from Local 25," stating that he was a CWA
member and had "a legal right" to do the installation.?
Grzybowski testified credibly that he called the tele-
phone number Deasy had given him and asked for Fisher;
that the person who answered did not identify himself as
Fisher but acknowledged that he was speaking to Local 25;
and that when he inquired "what's this thing about a
cost of the Telaction work was only $702 as compared to the Sparks
Electric's contract initially valued at $102,000
' The findings in the above paragraph are based on the mutually
corroborative testimony of Grzybowski and Brown, Deasy's testimony is
essentially consistent therewith, although he claimed that he gave the
Comtech men the name of Local 25 Business Representative Stafford, as
well as that of Fisher According to Deasy when he told the men that "they
would have to have a working card out of 25," the men "were dazed by this,
completely dazed "
In its brief (p 10), Respondent refers to a 10(k) proceeding in which it
was "disclosed" that Grzybowski was a 25-percent stockholder of Comtech
The record in that proceeding was not made part of this one, nor was
official notice thereof requested In any event, that alleged circumstance
would not affect the findings and conclusions here
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
permit," he was told he would have "to come over [to the
Local 25 office] for a permit" in order to work at Deer
Park. Grzybowski then called his employer (Comtech
President Jacobs) who told him to report the incident to
CWA Representative Watkins, which he did-giving
Wakins Local 25 delegate Fisher's name and telephone
number.
On the same day (August 10), CWA Representative
Watkins called Local 25 and spoke to Stafford , its business
representative . Indicating that he was "familiar with the
situation at Vinyl Masters," Stafford said that "this inter-
connecting work [at Deer Park] is IBEW work, not CWA,
and if [Watkins ] insist[ed] on doing this, we [IBEW] will
pull the electricians off thejob." Watkins insisted on doing
the work and the conversation abruptly ended.8
3. Deasy's continued insistence on Local 25
"clearance" to work at the jobsite; his threats to
Vinyl officials "to pull" his electricians off the job
On August 21, Comtech employees Grzybowski and
LaRosa returned to the jobsite (Deer Park), accompanied
by CWA Representatives Watkins and Clarkin. After the
CWA men identified themselves, Brown told all four that
"they couldn't start work until they got clearance from
Local 25" and referred them to Deasy. Watkins told Brown
that Comtech had a contract to put in the intercom system
and that the Comtech employees were "union people" and
were "here to do the job." Brown then left and returned a
few minutes later with Deasy. Deasy and Watkins showed
each other their union cards-Deasy identifying himself as
"foreman and the steward" on the job.9 Deasy told the
men that they "couldn't go to work unless they get a
clearance" from Local 25. Watkins and Clarkin answered
that they would not do that, insisting they did not need a
Local 25 permit to do the work. At this point, Deasy
turned to Brown and said that if Brown "permit[s] those
men to start work, [Deasy] will have to pull his men [the
electricians] off the job." Brown requested Deasy to call
his Company (Vinyl) before he did "anything " to "see if we
can clear up" the situation.io
Deasy and Brown then talked to Vinyl Vice President
Clementi by telephone Deasy told Clementi, as he had
8 Based on Watkins' credited testimony to the extent indicated While
claiming that he was not "familiar with the problem" at Deer Park because
the area fell within Delegate Fisher's jurisdiction , Stafford admitted
disputing CWA's right to do the work , claiming that "we also install this
type of work " I do not credit Stafford 's testimony that he was unfamiliar
with the jurisdictional dispute as to the installation of the paging and
intercom system at Deer Park , and his further testimony that he did not
even discuss it with Fisher who covered the area involved At a later point
Stafford only stated that " to my knowledge" he could not "recall"
discussing the matter with Fisher, and indicated awareness that "there was
some problem on the job " since Watkins ' CWA men "apparently weren't
allowed to work on this job " Stafford admitted that he did not tell Watkins
"at any time" that Fisher was in charge of the Deer Park area
9 Brown recalled one of the CWA representatives stating , "How could
[you I be both at the same time "
10 The findings in the above paragraph are based primarily on the
credited testimony of Brown whom , as already noted (supra, sec A, 1), on
the basis of demeanor as well as lack of self -interest , I found to be a most
honest witness Watkins ' and Clarkin 's testimony on this point is consistent
with that of Brown and is also credited I do not credit Deasy's testimony
that after asking and not getting the CWA men to clear "through 25," he
merely told the men "Go ahead I can ' t stop you I can't stop anybody
from performing anything" Deasy 's incredible testimony is not only in
previously told Brown, that if the CWA men "resume
work, he [Deasy] will be forced to take his men out of the
shop."li Clementi thereupon told Brown (who took the
phone), "Don't let them [the Comtech employees] go to
work." He also requested Brown to put one of the CWA
representatives on the telephone , which Brown did.
Clementi told CWA Representative Watkins that he would
not permit the CWA men to work without prior clearance
from Local 25. To Watkin's remark that "Local 25 is giving
you a snow job," Clementi responded, "Maybe so, but I
can't afford to take any chances and have them walk out
on me." Clementi repeated his remarks to Watkin 's fellow
representative, Clarkin, when asked to do so by Watkins.
The CWA men then left.i2
On August 29, after receiving assurance from his
attorney that his CWA-affiliated employees could now
work "without interference ," Comtech President Jacobs
sent employees Grzybowski and DelRosa back to Deer
Park to complete the installation of the paging and
intercom system 13 The job-about 4 days' work-was
finally finished on September 7.
B. Conclusions
1. The violations
a. Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, insofar as here
relevant , prohibits a union or its agents "to threaten,
coerce, or restrain" secondary or neutral employers, where
an object of such conduct is to force or require a secondary
employer to cease doing business with a primary or
disputing employer. Thus, a violation of this statutory
provision requires two elements - ( 1) an object to bring
about a cessation of business between primary and
secondary employer; and (2) coercion of secondary
employers to achieve the proscribed objective. The primary
or disputing employer here was Comtech, an employer
employing CWA (as opposed to Respondents) members to
install the intercom and paging system at Deer Park; and
the secondary or neutral employers were Vinyl (owner of
the Deer Park plant , the building under renovation) and
Telaction (to whom Vinyl contracted the installation work
and who, in turn, subcontracted it to Comtech).
direct contradiction to that of Brown and three CWA men (Watkins,
Clarkin, and Grzybowski), but is at odds with his whole course of conduct
(including his subsequent discussion with Vinyl Official Clementi, next
described, and his avowed purpose to preserve work for his employer
(Sparks Electric)
On the other hand, I do not credit the testimony of Watkins and Clarkin
to the extent that they sought to convey the impression that they (as well as
Comtech employees Grzybowski and DelRosa ) had reported to thejobsite
with the intent to install the paging and intercom system I find that they
accompanied the two employees only to check upon the requirement that
the men had to obtain Local 25 clearance in order to perform the
installation
11 Brown 's credited testimony, corroborated by Clementi
12 Based on the composite and mutually corroborative testimony of
Clementi , Brown, Watkins , and Clarkin
i3 The unfair labor practice charges herein were filed by Comtech on
August 23 Apparently Local 25's attorney had notified Vinyl Vice
President Clementi prior to August 29 that Local 25 had "promised not to
interfere" with Comtech 's completion of the job
Although the charge alleged violation of Sec 8 (b)(4)(i)(B), as well as of
Sec 8(b)(4)(u)(B), the complaint alleged only an 8(b)(4)(n)(B) violation
Accordingly , contrary to Respondent (br pp 1, 10, and 11), the only issue
posed (and considered ) here is the alleged 8(b)(4)(u)(B ) violation
IBEW , LOCAL NO. 25 915
b. There is no question that Respondent sought to
bring about a cessation of business between primary and
secondary employers. As Respondent's representative
(delegate), Fisher and its agent, Deasy (infra, sec. B, 2), told
Vinyl Vice President Clementi, only employers whose
employees obtained "a permit from Local 25" could work
at the jobsite. Deasy repeatedly attempted to force a
reassignment of the disputed work to Respondent's
members. In July, Deasy "challenge[d]" the right of two
nonunion Telaction employees to do the work; the men
then "had to stop work because they are nonunion." On
August 10, Deasy admonished Comtech's employees
Grzybowski and LaRosa, CWA members sent to perform
the installation work, that they must obtain Local 25
clearance before starting the work. When, on the same day,
CWA Representative Watkins took the matter up with
Respondent Business Representative Stafford, the latter
claimed that the disputed work (installation of a paging
and intercom system) "is IBEW work" and threatened to
"pull the [IBEW ] electricians [employed by Sparks
Electric] off the job" if CWA insisted on doing the work.
On August 21, Deasy made a like remark to Brown if he
permitted Comtech's two CWA employees to perform the
installation work. Deasy repeated the threat to Brown's
superior, Vinyl Vice President Clementi, after Brown
prevailed upon Deasy to "see if we can clear up" the
situation without a work stoppage. Respondent readily
achieved its objective since Clementi told CWA Represent-
atives Watkins and Clarkin that he would not permit any
employees to work without prior Local 25 clearance and
directed Foreman Brown to enforce this decision.
c. Insofar as the inducement of a secondary employer
is concerned, Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) only "condemn[s] an
attempt to induce . . . [that] would `threaten, coerce, or
restrain' " the employer. N.L.R.B. v. Servette, Inc., 377
U.S. 46, 54. While it is permissible for a union by proper
means to seek to persuade a secondary employer to
cooperate in achieving even a proscribed objective, it is
unlawful for it to seek to accomplish this by illegal
methods. (Ibid.) The record shows that, in addition to
Local 25 threat to a CWA representative, Deasy, acting for
and on behalf of Respondent (infra, sec. B, 2), threatened
Vinyl, a neutral to the dispute, on at least two occasions.
Thus, on August 21, when the two CWA representatives
arrived at the jobsite with the two Comtech employees
(CWA members) to perform the disputed work, Deasy
admonished Vinyl Foreman Brown (Vinyl's overseer at
Deer Park) that if Brown "permit[ted] those men to start
work, [Deasy] will have to pull his men [the IBEW
electricians] off the job." Deasy reiterated this threat to
Vinyl Vice President Clementi shortly afterward by
telephone when he told Valenti that if the CWA men
"resume work, he [Deasy] will be forced to take his men
out of the shop." Clearly, these statements constituted
restraint and coercion of a secondary employer for an
object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. See
14 See also Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (New
York Telephone Company), 162 NLRB 703, enfd 396 F.2d 591 (C A 2),
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (New York
Telephone Company), 140 NLRB 729, enfd 325 F.2d 561 (C A 2)
15 As already noted, (supra, In 6), while the disputed work (the paging
and intercom system) was valued at only $702, the general electrical work
Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (New York Telephone Company), 193 NLRB 758,
enfd. 467 F.2d 1158 (C.A. 2).14 The coercive effect of
Respondent's conduct is evidenced by Clementi's state-
ment to the CWA representatives that he had no
alternative but to bow to Respondent's threats since (as he
put it), "I can't afford to take any chances and have [the
electricians] walk out on me." 15
2. Respondent 's responsibility for Deasy 's conduct
Finally, contrary to Respondent 's contention (br. pp.
7-9), Respondent is liable for Deasy's conduct , including
his coercive statements , even assuming, as it claims , that he
was never designated Respondent 's shop steward. For
reasons stated below , I find that , although he was Sparks'
electrician foreman on the job , Deasy held himself out as
shop steward and, in any event , was expected to and acted
for and on behalf of Respondent in protecting its
jurisdictional claim to the disputed work.
To begin with , Section 2( 13) of the Act provides that "In
determining whether any person is acting as an `agent' of
another person so as to make such other person responsible
for his acts , the- question of whether the specific acts
performed were actually authorized or subsequently
ratified shall not be controlling ." As stated in a case
involving this very Respondent , 16 "Express authorization is
not essential to bind a labor organization . The fact of
agency may be inferred from all the circumstances."
Moreover , a foreman may act "in a dual capacity . . . as a
... management representative whose principal concern
was to expedite the work of which he was in charge , while,
as a union -member foreman . . . obligated to refuse work
... when non-union men on the project were performing
work over which his union claimed jurisdiction ." United
Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc. (Endicott Church Furniture,
Inc.), 125 NLRB 853, 865, modified 286 F.2d 533
(C.A.D.C.).
The record shows that , although Deasy worked with 11
electricians at the Deer Park plant , Respondent did not
formally designate anyone as job steward. Deasy had been
a member of IBEW Local 25 for 16 years and previously
had been appointed steward at other jobs . Admittedly,
even as foreman he is covered by the collective-bargaining
agreement between Respondent and his employer-which
agreement covers his terms and conditions of employment,
including wages; and Respondent is Deasy's bargaining
representative . Admittedly, also, Respondent has claimed
and continues to claim jurisdiction over the work here in
dispute (installation of an intercom and paging system).
According to Respondent 's business representative, Staf-
ford , a foreman at a jobsite , as well as a steward and
members working at the site, are expected to protect the
work jurisdiction of the Union and to report any
encroachment thereon by non-IBEW men . Indeed, Staf-
ford 's testimony indicates that Respondent looks particu-
performed by Sparks ' IBEW electricians was valued at over $100,000
16 McLeod v Local 25, IBEW (New York Telephone Co), 57 LRRM
2107, 2109 (E D N Y) See also Local Union No 3, IBEW (New York
Telephone Co), 193 NLRB 758, 467 F 2d 1158 (CA 2), involving Local
25's sister local
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
larly to the foreman to protect its jurisdiction, especially in
the absence of a formally designated shop steward, since
"the strength and ability of the foreman on the job would
help determine if a shop steward was necessary."
Here there is no question that Deasy sought to preserve
for Respondent the work he believed to fall within its
jurisdiction; that Respondent knew of his activity and,
indeed, that Deasy held himself out and acted as if he were
a union steward. Thus, Deasy admitted contacting and
reporting to two business agents (Haldan and Fisher) the
incident in which he confronted two Telaction employees
in July It will be recalled that Deasy took it upon himself
to "challenge" the right of these men to perform the
disputed work; and that the men then "had to stop work
because they [were] non-union " Two days later, Deasy
and Business Representative Fisher told Vinyl Vice
President Clementi that only men with "a permit from
Local 25" could work at the jobsite. On August 10, when
Comtech's two employees (CWA members) came to
perform the job, Vinyl's foreman, Brown, asked them to
see Deasy about Local 25 clearance and Deasy, in turn,
told them that they could not do the work without
obtaining such clearance. On August 21, when two CWA
representatives (Watkins and Clarkin) accompanied the
Comtech men, Deasy introduced himself as "the foreman
and steward" and reiterated the need for Local 25
clearance. To make sure that he meant what he said, Deasy
threatened Brown and then Brown's superior (Vice
President Clementi) that if the CWA men were allowed to
work, he would "pull his men [the electricians] off the job."
It is plain, contrary to Deasy's contention, that Deasy was
not acting as foreman, in the interest of providing work for
his employer, but as an agent of Respondent seeking (with
Respondent's knowledge) to preserve the claimed work
jurisdiction of Respondent. To begin with, as Deasy
admitted, his employer (Sparks) had never asked or
directed him to perform the disputed work and Vinyl had
contracted the work not to Sparks but to Telaction.
Furthermore, and even more significantly, Deasy had no
objection to the performance of the disputed work by
employees of other employers so long as such employees
obtained a permit or clearance from Respondent. Deasy's
threats to Comtech officials were in line with Local 25
Business Representative Stafford's prior threat to CWA
Representative Watkins that if CWA insisted on perform-
ing the disputed work, Respondent would "pull the
[IBEW] electricians off thejob."
Under all the circumstances, I find and conclude that
Respondent is accountable for the conduct, including the
coercive statements, of Deasy. Applicable here is N.L.R.B.
v. Local Union No. 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Co ), 467
F.2d 1158, where the Court stated'
The electrical workers union, after sixty years of
doing such work for Telco, considered cable pulling
within its jurisdiction, and has in other cases attempted
to protect its work by actions similar to those here at
17 While, unlike here, the above case (and others involving IBEW
jurisdictional claims), indicate that the local's bylaws provided that no
member (presumably also foreman-members) shall "give away work" or
"allow" other tradesmen to perform work under the local's jurisdiction,
under penalty of possible disciplinary action (193 NLRB 758), 1 do not
consider this factor determinative Although the bylaws governing the
issue. See N. L.R.B v. Local 25, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, 396 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. 1968);
N. L. R. B v Local Union No. 3, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, 339 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1964).
Smith [one of the two foremen involved], claiming
the cable work for the electrical workers, barred the
Telco workers from the room where the installation was
to be done. While not a union steward, Smith was
under the same obligation to protect union work, and
to notify union supervisors of any non-union trades-
man work.
Although the union failed to appoint a steward at
the Thompson Avenue site as required by its collective-
bargaining agreement, foreman Fedor [the second
foreman involved], who threatened the Telco workers
and the general contractor, carried out the duties of a
steward. Vianelli, superintendent of the general con-
tractor, in fact believed Fedor to be the appointed
steward. The Board, discrediting Fedor's denials,
found, and the evidence substantially support, that the
foreman identified himself as steward to the Telco
workers when he claimed the work for the electrical
workers. As foreman Fedor was also responsible for
and did notify his union supervisors of the infringe-
ment of union jurisdiction. . . . Allen [the designated
steward], Fedor and Smith were each obligated to
protect the jurisdiction of the union under threat of
penalty for failure to do so. Each believed the
appearance of Telco workers to be a threat to union
jurisdiction, notified his supervisor of the interference
and took action to prevent the infringement. .. .
Protection of union work claims clearly is a policy of
Local 3. Moreover, the union has taken no disciplinary
action against the three men.i7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Union is a labor organization engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Vinyl, Telaction , and Sparks are employers engaged
in commerce or industries affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the
Act.
3. Respondent has threatened , coerced , and restrained
Vinyl with an object of forcing or requiring Vinyl to cease
doing business with Comtech and other employers not
employing members of Respondent or whose employees do
not secure prior clearance or work permits from Respon-
dent.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
of the Act, I shall recommend the customary cease-and-
period here involved do not contain comparable provisions, as already
noted, the record here establishes that Local 25 members (including
foremen) were expected to protect Local 25 work jurisdiction and to report
encroachments by non-IBEW tradesmen Deasy himself testified that he
considered it his "responsibility" to make such reports
IBEW , LOCAL NO. 25
desist order and the usual affirmative relief ordered in
cases of this nature, including posting of notices. In view of
the fact that the illegal secondary activity directed at Vinyl
appears to have been conducted pursuant to a general and
broad union policy to force or require employers to employ
members of Respondent, or, if not such members, to
require employees to secure prior clearance or work
permits from Respondent, in order to handle work falling
within Respondent's claimed work jurisdiction, there is
danger that similar illegal activity may be directed against
other secondary employers. Accordingly, I shall recom-
mend a broad cease-and-desist order extending the
protection of the Act to such secondary employers in
addition to Vinyl.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the
following: 18
ORDER
Local Union No. 25, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives,
and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or
restraining Vinyl Masters, Inc., or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where an object thereof is to force or require Vinyl
Masters, Inc., or such other person, to cease doing business
with Comtech Telephone Contractors Corporation or with
any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act-
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 19 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish said Regional Director with signed copies of
the aforesaid notice for posting if desired by Vinyl Masters,
Inc., Comtech Telephone Contractors Corporation, and
any or all other employers involved in this proceeding, at
places where they customarily post notices to their
employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for said Region 29, in
917
wasting, within 20 days from the receipt of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
Is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided by Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
19 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence before an Administrative Law Judge
of the National Labor Relations Board , it has found that
we, Local No. 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, have violated the law and we have
been ordered to post this notice and abide by its terms.
WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce , or restrain Vinyl
Masters, Inc., or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an
object thereof is to force or require such other person to
cease doing business with Comtech Telephone Con-
tractors Corporation, or any other person.
LOCAL UNION No. 25,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, 4th Floor,
Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.