International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 595 (Hayward Electric Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1982

261 N.L.R.B. 707 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 595
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 595 and Hayward Electric Co. Case 32-
CC-463
May 6, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER
On January 25, 1982, Administrative Law Judge
Russell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' 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 Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 595, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in said recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Hayward's attorney, Paul
Simpson, whom he credited, denied that he told Respondent's attorney,
Peter Nussbaum, that certain material stored at the jobsite belonged to
Gossett, the general contractor. We note that Simpson testified that he
told Nussbaum he did not believe Hayward had anything at the site and
that he asked whether the material in question could belong to Gossett or
another subcontractor. We do not believe, in the circumstances of this
case, even if the stored material had technically belonged to Gossett, that
this would convert Gossett into an ally of Hayward, and we therefore
find that the Nussbaum-Simpson conversation could not serve as a rea-
sonable basis for concluding that Hayward and Gossett were allies.
Chairman Van de Water and Member Hunter agree that this case does
not involve a single-employer or integrated-operations question. They
therefore find it unnecessary to pass upon whether Teamsters; Chauffeurs.
Warehousemen and Helpers; Local Union Na 560 affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters; Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.), 248 NLRB 1212 (1980), cited
by the Administrative Law Judge, was properly decided.
261 NLRB No. 109
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard in Oakland, California, on October 13
and 29, 1981.' The complaint, issued March II11, is based
upon a charge filed on February 26 by Hayward Electric
Company. The complaint alleges that International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 595 (herein
called Respondent or Union) violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record,2 and from my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material herein Hayward, a California cor-
poration with an office and place of business in
Hayward, California, has been engaged in the construc-
tion business as an electrical contractor. Since approxi-
mately January 21, 1981, Hayward has been the electri-
cal subcontractor of Gossett and Son, Inc., the general
contractor at a Bank of America construction jobsite lo-
cated at Hesperian Boulevard and Fairmont Drive in San
Leandro, California. During the past 12 months,
Hayward purchased and received goods and supplies
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers locat-
ed outside the State of California.
I find that Hayward is, and at all times material herein
has been, a person and an employer engaged in comm-
merce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(1), (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
At all times material herein Comstock Heating, Cer-
vone Plumbing, and William B. Andrade & Son have
been engaged as subcontractors by Gossett at the jobsite.
Gossett, Comstock, Cervone, and Andrade each now is,
and at all times material has been, a person engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.3
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
1I. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
i All dates hereinafter are within 1981, unless otherwise stated.
2 Motion to correct transcript, filed December 7 by counsel for the
Charging Party. is not opposed of record and is granted.
3 The jurisdictional facts set forth herein were stipulated by counsel.
707
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background 4
Bank of America has a building being constructed in
San Leandro, California, under a contract with Gossett,
the general contractor, dated October or November 1980
with construction to commence the first part of January
1981. As of the date of the hearing, construction had not
been completed. Several subcontractors have worked on
the project, including Hayward, Comstock, Cervone,
and Andrade. A total of six employees of Gossett
worked at the jobsite during construction, with one or
more on the site each day of construction. Chester Gos-
sett, vice president of Gossett and having approximately
equal authority with his father, Cliff Gossett, who is
president of Gossett, supervised construction at the site,
with complete onsite authority when his father was not
present.
Hayward's president is Derald Gephart, who has a
partner in the business, William Aydelotte. The two have
equal business authority, and they manage Hayward. In
doing work at the Bank of America site, they dealt with
Cliff or Chester Gossett. Hayward was engaged at the
site, doing electrical installation work, from February to
September 1981. Two to three Hayward employees were
on the jobsite during that time period, approximately 65
to 70 percent of the time, under the supervision of Ge-
phart and, at times, David Jepson, whose supervisor was
Gephart. Gephart was on the site approximately three or
four times each week, for periods of approximately 30
minutes to 2 hours. No electrical work was done on the
site, other than by Hayward.
Gossett built and maintained on the jobsite, a shack ap-
proximately 8 feet by II11 feet in size, made of plywood.
It was a temporary shack of a kind that commonly is
built and used on construction sites. It contained a desk,
a telephone, and some shelves, and was used as a storage
area for tools, materials, and equipment, as well as for
minor business transactions. During times relevant
herein, subcontractors of Gossett, including Hayward,
commonly stored materials, equipment, and supplies in
the shack on a temporary basis.
At all times material herein Respondent was engaged
in a labor dispute with Hayward, but had no such dis-
pute with Gossett, Comstock, Cervone, or Andrade.
On February 4, 1981, Respondent sent, and Hayward
received, a letter notifying Hayward of Respondent's in-
tention to picket Hayward at the jobsite. On February 5,
at various dates thereafter, continuing until February 25,
Respondent, in furtherance of its dispute with Hayward,
picketed the jobsite, times when Hayward was present at
the jobsite, with picket signs bearing the following
legend:
4 This background summary is based on stipulations of counsel, and on
credited testimony and evidence that is not in dispute.
IBEW LOCAL UNION NO. 595
Protests the Fact Hayward Electric
Does not Pay Prevailing Wages for Electricians
On February 5 there were no barriers or gates restricting
entrance to the jobsite.
On February 5 Hayward sent a mailgram to Respond-
ent notifying it that Hayward would not be present at
the jobsite on February 6, and that Hayward would
return to the jobsite on February 9. Respondent received
that mailgram.
On February 6 Hayward sent a mailgram to Respond-
ent notifying it that a reserve gate system would be es-
tablished at the jobsite effective February 9, 1981. Re-
spondent received that mailgram.
On February 9 Gossett attempted to establish a reserve
gate system at the jobsite. On or about that same date
Respondent picketed solely at the gate reserved for
Hayward.
On February 11 Hayward sent a telegram to Respond-
ent notifying it that a reserve gate system was being es-
tablished at the jobsite. On or about that same date, Gos-
sett attempted to establish a reserve gate system at the
jobsite. Respondent received the mailgram.
On February 12 Hayward and Respondent disagreed
as to whether a reserve gate system was properly estab-
lished, and it picketed the entire jobsite.
On February 13 Hayward filed a charge with the
Board alleging that Respondent was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act. On or about that same date the
Board commenced an investigation into the charge.
On February 17 Hayward sent a mailgram to Re-
spondent notifying Respondent that Hayward would not
be present at the jobsite from 11 a.m. on February 17,
1981, through the remainder of the week and that
Hayward would return to the jobsite on February 23,
1981. Respondent received that mailgram.
On February 20 Hayward sent a mailgram to Re-
spondent notifying it that a reserve gate system would be
established at the jobsite effective February 23, 1981. Re-
spondent received that mailgram.
On February 23 Gossett established a reserve gate
system at the jobsite. On February 23, 24, and 25 Re-
spondent picketed at the jobsite, and observed the estab-
lished reserve gate system by picketing at the gate re-
served for Hayward.
On February 25 Hayward sent a mailgram to Re-
spondent notifying it that Hayward would not be present
at the jobsite on February 26, and that Hayward would
not return to the jobsite until further notice. Respondent
received that mailgram.
On February 25 approximately four or five electrical
switchboxes, with metal pipe conduits attached, were
stored by Hayward in the job shack on the jobsite. The
material was owned by Hayward, and was stored in the
job shack pursuant to arrangements made by Jepson with
Cliff Gossett. 5
5 As credibly testified by Gossett and Jepson, such temporary storage
of materials is customary at construction jobsites and was customary at
the jobsite involved herein.
708
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 595
On or about February 25 Gossett removed the reserve
gate system it previously had established at the jobsite.
On February 26 and 27 and March 3, Respondent
picketed the entire jobsite with picket signs bearing the
following legends:
(i) IBEW LOCAL UNION NO. 595 Protests the
Fact Hayward Electric Does not Pay Prevailing
Wages for Electricians
(ii) Gossett and Son Ally of Hayward Electric
Unfair To Local 595, IBEW
No reserve gate system was in effect, nor was any em-
ployee of Hayward on the jobsite, during those 3 days.
Employees of Cervone and Andrade were on the jobsite,
and one Andrade employee refused to enter the jobsite
on February 26 because of Respondent's picketing activi-
ty.
On February 27 the Regional Director for Region 32
of the Board approved Hayward's withdrawal of the
charge against Respondent referred to above.
On March 3 Hayward sent a mailgram to Respondent
notifying it that Hayward would be at the jobsite be-
tween the hours of 4 and 5 p.m. on March 3, for the lim-
ited purpose of removing the materials referred to above
from the jobsite and that Hayward would not return to
the jobsite until further notice. Respondent received that
mailgram.
On March 3 Hayward removed the materials referred
to above from the jobsite. Respondent ceased picketing
at the jobsite when those materials were removed from
the jobsite and has not picketed at the jobsite since that
time.
On March 12 Hayward sent, and Respondent received,
a mailgram notifying it that Hayward would be at the
jobsite on March 14.
On March 14 Hayward returned to the jobsite and in-
stalled the materials referred to above in the building
under construction at the jobsite.
Respondent's contention
Respondent contends that its picketing of the jobsite in
all instances was legal, because (a) Hayward was on the
jobsite at all relevant times, through presence of its mate-
rials, and (b) Gossett was an ally of Hayward.
A. Presence on the Jobsite
The absence of all of Hayward's employees from the
jobsite during picketing on February 26 and 27 and
March 3 is not in dispute.
Respondent argues that, even though the Union's pick-
eting may have had the effect of inducing secondary em-
ployees to respect its picket line,6 there is no showing
that such was an object of the picketing. The object,
rather than the effect, of the picketing is the controlling
issue. ? Respondent contends that all the criteria of Moore
6 This effect is established by the record and is not in dispute.
International Union of Electrical Workers v. N.LR.B., 366 U.S.
667(1961); Ramsey Construction Co., Inc v. Painters Decorators and Paper-
hangers, 472 F.2d 1127 (5 Cir. 1973).
Drydock8 were met by the Union, and that, particularly,
criterion (b) was met; i.e., at the time of the picketing,
Hayward was engaged in its normal business at the situs,
through the presence in Gossett's job shack of Hayward
materials.9
The central question in this case has been addressed by
the Board in a number of cases. In some instances, ab-
sence from the worksite of employees of the primary em-
ployer during picketing has been held not to be determi-
native of an illegal object. 10 In other instances, the
Board has held to the contrary."1 No single fact, or
group of facts, has been held to be controlling; each case
has been decided upon its own merits. The Administra-
tive Law Judge in Linoleum, Carpet Union'2 stated, "In
all these cases [note: wherein a violation was not found]
however, special circumstances were present . . . such
as lack of notice that the primary employer's employees
were not to work at all or lack of notice of the sched-
uled hours they were to work; intermittent work; or ces-
sation of work by the primary employer's employees be-
cause they were influenced by the picketing."
Not only does the instant case fail to show special cir-
cumstances which would make illogical a finding of a
violation of the Act; one kind of special circumstance
enunciated in Linoleum, Carpet Union specifically is ne-
gated. Here, Hayward gave clear notice to Respondent,
in writing, that its employees would not be on the jobsite
February 26, or thereafter until further notice, yet Re-
spondent picketed on that date and thereafter. The
matter of notice was emphasized by the Board in its de-
cision in Brownfield Electric,'3 which case is relied on by
Respondent. In discussing the complaint against a Union,
the Board found, inter alia:
Other than by means of the picket line and the
legend on the picket signs, Respondent and its pick-
ets made no attempts to inform Brownfield or any
of the other contractors of the cause and nature of
its dispute with Brownfield. When French, superin-
s Sailors Union of the Pacific (Moore Drydock Co.), 92 NLRB 547
(1950).
9 These materials consisted, for the most part, of conduit, boxes, and
ducts which had been fabricated by Hayward employees and were ready
to be installed at the proper time. As noted in Respondent's brief, the ma-
terials were very light, weighing only a few pounds, were easily trans-
portable, and could be handled in their entirety, quickly and easily.
'o Plumbers Local Union No. 307 (Meyers Plumbing), 146 NLRB 888
(1964); Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
(New Power Wire and Electrical Corp.), 144 NLRB 1089 (1963); Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 861, AFL-CIO (Brownfield
Electric, Inc.), 145 NLRB 1163 (1964); Local 373, International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers AFL-CIO (Marshall
Maintenance Corporation), 146 NLRB 1058 (1964).
" Painters District Council No. 38., etc. (Edgewood Contracting Compa-
ny), 153 NLRB 797 (1965); Plumbers Local Union No. 519, etc. (H. L
Robertson A Associates, Inc.), 171 NLRB 251 (1968); and Local 254. Build-
ing Service Employees International Union. AFL-CIO, et ao (Lechmere
Sales), 173 NLRB 280 (1968).
12 Linoleum, Carpet and Soft Tile Layers Union, 180 NLRB 241 (1969).
The facts of this case are similar to those in the instant case, in that mate-
rial used in the work were left on the jobsite while the primary employer
was absent from the site. As pointed out by the Administrative Law
Judge, whether or not the primary employer owned those materials did
not control the basic issue.
3J International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861, AFL-CIO
(Brownfield Electric, Inc.), supra at 1165.
709
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tendent of the project, and Jenkins, owner of
Brownfield, sought to talk with Coleman, the assist-
ant business manager of Respondent, about the pick-
eting, Coleman declined to talk with them. At no
time did French or Jenkins ever inform Coleman or
the pickets that Brownfield employees were absent
from the project on certain days during the course
of this dispute. [Emphasis supplied.]
Respondent contends that Hayward's employees only
temporarily were absent from the jobsite, but that is a
matter of semantics. Temporary absence from the jobsite
on the part of construction employees is a common oc-
currence, e.g., absences on holidays, weekends, inclement
weather, construction pauses and construction sequence.
Possibly temporary absence during coffee or lunch break
may not preclude picketing, but that is not what is in-
volved herein. Here, Respondent was notified in advance
of proposed absence; only a few pounds of materials
were left on the jobsite; only Hayward was involved in
electrical installation. There is no reasonable basis upon
which to conclude that Hayward was present at the job-
site while Respondent picketed, within the meaning of
the Act, only because a small amount of materials was
stored inside a job shack.
It is found that Respondent picketed the jobsite de-
scribed above, on February 26 and 27 and on March 3,
1981, with the object of inducing employees of neutral
employers to cease to work, or refuse to work, in order
to cause those neutral employers to cease doing business
with Hayward.
B. The Ally Question
Respondent contends that Gossett became an ally of
Hayward because Gossett allowed Hayward temporarily
to store material in its job shack, and therefore, Respond-
ent's picketing was lawful. Respondent contends that the
temporary and gratuitous nature of the storage is imma-
terial. Indicative of ally intent, Respondent contends, is
the fact that a union representative observed Hayward's
foreman, Jepson, at the time of storage, pointing out to
Gossett the proposed installation location of the stored
materials. According to Respondent, that observation
created a suspicion that Gossett, in order to eliminate the
picketing, planned to install the electrical materials with
its own employees. Further, according to Respondent,
Hayward's attorney stated to Respondent's attorney the
following day that the stored materials did not belong to
Hayward, but, rather, belonged to Gossett and would be
installed by Gossett or the cement masons.
It is apparent from the record, and Respondent ac-
knowledges, that the question here is not whether Gos-
sett and Hayward constitute a single employer, since
they do not. Nor are the two of them involved in an in-
tegrated operation. Therefore, Teamsters, Local 560, 4
relied on by Respondent, is not applicable, since the or-
ganizations there involved were integrated, and that fact
was controlling.
14 Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No.
560 (Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.), 248 NLRB 1212 (1980).
It is equally apparent that neither Gossett nor any
other person or organization contemplated or did any
struck work for Hayward. Only Hayward contracted to
do, and did, all electrical installation and work relative
thereto. Therefore, any reliance by Respondent upon a
struck work theory as it applies to the ally doctrine is
misplaced. Respondent cites a footnote from Teamsters,
Local 74315 for the proposition that warehousing of ma-
terials for the primary employer creates an ally situation,
but that case does not stand for such a proposition. In
the text of Teamsters, Local 743, the Administrative Law
Judge states, inter alia, "The struck work in issue is the
loading, unloading, and warehousing of materials ... ."
"The record discloses that 70 percent of the materials re-
ceived by Macmillan were reshipped without modifica-
tion except for some repacking. This work was basic to
Macmillan's entire operation. That factual situation is dif-
ferent from the factual situation involved in this case.
Clearly, Hayward was not in "cahoots"' 6 with Gossett
in order to have struck work continued behind, or in de-
fiance of, the picket line. ' 7
Finally, Respondent contends that the statement of
Hayward's attorney to Respondent's attorney relative to
ownership of the materials, which is referred to above,
misled the Union into believing that Gossett had become
an ally of Hayward by agreeing to perform struck work.
That argument is without merit. Paul Simpson,
Hayward's attorney, is credited in his denial that he told
Nussbaum the materials belonged to Gossett, or that the
cement mason would install the materials. In any event,
regardless of the conversation between Nussbaum and
Simpson, Nussbaum testified that, on a date he cannot re-
member but that apparently was on February 26, he was
told by an NLRB representative that the representative
understood the materials belonged to Hayward. Such a
tenuous set of circumstances provides no basis for legal-
izing the picketing of Respondent.
It is found that Hayward and Gossett were not allies
within the meaning of the Act and the law relating
thereto at anytime relevant herein.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By inducing and encouraging employees of subcon-
tractors of a building project to refuse to work or to per-
form services in the course of their employment and
thereby also coercing the general contractor, in each in-
stance with an object of forcing the general contractor
to cease doing business with Hayward, an employer, Re-
spondent Union has engaged in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (iiXB) of the
Act.
2. The foregoing unfair labor practice affects com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
tI Warehouse, Mail Order, Office. Technical and Professional Employees
Union. Local 743 (Macmillan Science Ca. Inc.), 231 NLRB 1332 (1977).
16 95 Cong. Rec. 8709 (1949), cited and quoted in Respondent's brief
17 The fact that Hayward's attorney talked with Gossett about the
picketing has been carefully considered and is given no weight.
710
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 595
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend an
order requiring it to cease and desist therefrom, and to
post requisite notices at its meeting halls, and to supply
notices for posting by Gossett and Hayward, if they are
willing to do so.
In the Charging Party's brief there is a motion for the
award of attorney's fees, based upon what is alleged to
be frivolous litigation herein. The motion has been care-
fully considered and is denied.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER"8
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local 595, Hayward, California, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing any individuals em-
ployed by subcontractors or any other employers on the
Bank of America building at Hesperian Boulevard and
Fairmont Drive in San Leandro, California, on which
Hayward Electric Co. is the subcontractor, to refuse to
work or render services in the course of their employ-
ment, and from coercing or restraining Gossett and Son,
Inc., on said building site where, in either case, an object
thereof is to force or require such general contractor or
any other person engaged in commerce to cease doing
business with Hayward Electric Co.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its meeting halls, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."' 9 Copies of said notice, on
18 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.
II In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 32,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Furnish said Regional Director signed copies of the
aforesaid notice for posting by Hayward and Gossett, if
they are willing, at places where they customarily post
notices to their employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 32, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individ-
uals employed by subcontractors or any other em-
ployers on the Bank of America building, Hesperian
Boulevard and Fairmont Drive in San Leandro,
California, on which Hayward Electric Co. is the
electrical subcontractor to refuse to work or render
service in the course of their employment.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Gossett and
Son, Inc., the general contractor on said building
project, where, in either case, an object is to force
or require such general contractor or any other
person to cease doing business with Hayward Elec-
tric Co.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 595
711