Int'l Brotherhood Electrical Workers, Local 861

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 5, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 1169 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 861 1169 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861, AFL-CIO and Albert K. Newlin , Inc. Case No. 15-CC-176. August 5, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On May 28 , 1963, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi- ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed limited exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at thehearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report and the entire record in the case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. The General Counsel and the Respondent excepted to the cease and desist order and the companion notice to be posted, as recommended by the Trial Examiner. The former contends that the language used therein is not sufficiently broad. whereas the latter contends that it is too broad. The General Coun- sel argues that because of the nature and extent of the present unfair labor practices and because of the Respondent's demonstrated dis- regard of the Act by its previous like violations against other em- ployers with whom it had disputes,' a broad order against the Re- spondent is necessary to prevent it from continuing with impunity to violate the secondary boycott sections of the Act. We agree that an order against the Respondent to cease and desist from secondary activity against any person where an object is to force such person to cease doing business with Albert K. Newlin, Inc., or with any other person, is necessary because of the extent to which the Respondent 1 The following proceedings disclose such violations of the Act by this Respondent: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc.), 142 NLRB 1106 ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861, AFL-CIO (Cleveland Construotion Corp .), 134 NLRB 586; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 , AFL-CIO ( Elco Electric , Inc ), Case No . 15-CC-134 ( not published in NLRB volumes ), in which no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's finding of a violation. 143 NLRB No. 113. 1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD has demonstrated a proclivity to engage in unlawful secondary activi- ties.' We shall amend the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and notice accordingly.' ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, except that paragraph 1 and the corresponding paragraph in the notice to be posted is hereby amended by adding the phrase, "or any other person" after the phrase, "to cease doing business with Albert K. Newlin, Inc." 2International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers (Insul- Coustio Corp.), 139 NLRB 659; Local Union 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Nichols Electric Company), 138 NLRB 546; Local 825, Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, et at. (United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.), 138 NLRB 279. 'In view of this finding, we deem it unnecessary to consider the General Counsel's ex- ception to the Trial Examiner's failure to include similarly broad language in his conclu- sion of law INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on January 9, 1963, by Albert K. Newlin, Inc., the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for the Fifteenth Region, on Feb- ruary 19, 1963, issued a complaint against International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Respondent, alleging viola- tions of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter called the Act. In its duly filed answer, Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James T. Barker at Lake Charles, Louisiana, on March 21, 1963. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evi- dence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. Counsel for Respondent presented oral argument and thereafter, on April 26, 1963, the General Counsel filed a brief. Upon consideration of the entire record and the brief of the General Counsel, and upon my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS (a) Albert K. Newlin, Inc., hereinafter called Newlin, is, and has been at all times material herein, a Louisiana corporation engaged in business at Lake Charles, Louisiana, as an electrical contractor in the building and construction industry. In the course and conduct of its business operations Newlin annually purchases and receives at its place of business at Lake Charles, Louisiana, goods and material valued in excess of $50,000, which goods and materials are shipped directly to its Lake Charles, Louisiana, place of business from points outside the State of Louisiana. Upon these stipulated facts, I find that Newlin is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. (b) At all times material herein, Melvin Bourgeois, an individual, hereinafter called Bourgeois, was engaged as a general contractor in erecting a residence at Lake Charles, Louisiana. In connection therewith Bourgeois entered into a contract with Newlin to perform electrical work and contracted with other building and construction contractors, including Pesson Plumbing and Heating Company, herein- after called Pesson, to perform construction work. Upon the basis of the foregoing and the evidence of record, I find that at all times material herein, Bourgeois and Pesson were persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce. Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 299, AFL-CIO, (S. M. Kisner and Sons), 131 NLRB 1196. INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 861 1171 IL THE STATUS OF THE RESPONDENT International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861, AFL-CIO, con- cedes that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find. M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Melvin Bourgeois, an individual, who is engaged occupationally as a salesman, in August 1962 commenced to have a home constructed for his own use and occupancy at West College Street in Lake Charles. He served as his own general contractor and engaged subcontractors to perform the brick, tile, roofing, plumb- ing, carpentry, electrical and heating, and air-conditioning work. Pesson Plumbing and Heating performed the plumbing. The carpentry work was done by Oscar Gaudet and Russell Boutte.l Newlin was engaged by Bourgeois in October 1962, to perform the electrical work, and on October 15, 1962, erected a temporary power pole (a task of some 15 minutes duration) but did no other work on the project, because follow- ing incidents which constitute the gravamen of the instant proceeding Bourgeois relieved him of his commitment to perform the electrical work and the work was performed by another contractor. Newlin's commitment to Bourgeois to perform the electrical work on the latter's residential construction job was entered into on October 3, 1962. The electrical work was to commence when the partitions were in and under the roof. On November 15, when the picketing herein commenced, the job was approximately 2 days to a week removed from achieving this posture. In the early part of the week of November 15, Richard J. Arbaugh, business manager of Respondent, learned that Newlin had been awarded the contract to perform the electrical work on the Bourgeois' residence and as a result "checked out . . . the progress of the job." It appeared to Arbaugh that the job "was just about ready . . . for the electricians to get underway." Commencing on November 15, Arbaugh caused pickets to be placed on the job. Newlin's Lake Charles office and place of business was not picketed? The Picketing Sometime just prior to 7:30 a.m., on Thursday, November 15, Respondent com- menced picketing at the West College Street construction job with a sign which the parties stipulated bore the following legend: NO DISPUTE WITH ANY OTHER EMPLOYER. LOCAL 861. DISPUTE AGAINST ACE ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR SUBSTANDARD WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS. NO DISPUTE WITH ANY OTHER EMPLOYER.3 Two pickets participated in the picketing, occupying and at times patrolling the so- called "neutral" area between the public sidewalk and the street in front of the West College Street property which had a frontage of some 86 feet. The actual residential construction was being carried on at a distance of some 26 feet from the sidewalk. The pickets were present when carpenter Oscar Gaudet arrived at the job at approximately 7:30 a.m. on November 15. Gaudet was subsequently joined by carpenter Russell Boutte and, by 2 p.m. they completed the task of bracing the roof-an accomplishment essential at the then-existing status of construction to the prevention of roof sagging. At 2 p.m., they left the job. Gaudet drove past the I In the complaint and in the brief of the General Counsel reference is made to em- ployees of Bourgeois. The context of this reference in the brief suggests that it encom- passed the two carpenters performing work on the project when the picketing herein occurred The General Counsel failed to show that these individuals were in fact em- ployeeis and not independent contractors. As he had the burden of establishing their status, I do not for the.purposes of this proceeding find that they were employees of Bourgeois. 2 The foregoing evidence is undisputed and is predicated upon the credited testimony of Melvin Bourgeois, William Newlin, Albert K Newlin, and Richard Arbaugh, respectively 8 Prior to January 1, 1960, Ace Electric Company was operated as a sole proprietorship by Albert K. Newlin, but on that date all of its assets were acquired by Albert K. Newlin, Inc. The temporary pole permit for the erection of the temporary electrical pole was issued in the name of Ace Electric Company. 717-672-64-vol. 143-75 1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD project the following morning at 7:30 a.m. but did not stop because he observed pickets at the jobsite.4 Roy Pesson, the plumbing subcontractor, arrived at the jobsite at approximately 9 a.m., on November 15. He observed the pickets and found that his two employees on the job were not working. He offered his employees the alternative of working or returning to the shop if they did not desire to work behind the picket line. They chose to return to the shop. The Pesson employees did not work at the project on the second day of the picketing.5 On the morning of November 15 carpenter Boutte informed Mrs. Bourgeois of the picketing. Mrs. Bourgeois called Albert K. Newlin by telephone and told him of the picketing. She then informed her husband who had just returned home and together, at approximately 9 a.m., they visited the West College Street property. There they observed the presence of two pickets in the area between the street and the public sidewalk in front of the property. The Bourgeoises spoke to the pickets inquiring as to their presence . One of the pickets answered that they were picket- ing because of "Newlin . . . he is not Union ." Mrs. Bourgeois answered "(t)he man is not even working." The picket answered, "[w]e want to be here when he gets here." 6 After speaking with Gaudet, the carpenter, the Bourgeoises left the jobsite. There- after, several times during the day and evening Mr. Bourgeois endeavored to reach Arbaugh, Respondent's business manager, at his office and residence but was unable to do so? In the meantime, on the morning of November 15, at approximately 9 a.m., Albert K. Newlin and his son William visited the jobsite and there observed one picket carrying a sign and stationed directly in front of the jobsite, and another sitting in an automobile in front of the project. Mrs. Bourgeois was also at the jobsite, having returned after taking her husband home. The Newlins conversed with Mrs. Bourgeois and later with Roy Pesson. William Newlin who was attired in a work uniform with an air-conditioning insignia affixed to the front and an "Albert K. Newlin" insignia on the back, spoke to one of the pickets, asking the individual, rhetorically, if he was a picket. He answered, "Yeah, I'm a picket, don't cross the picket line." 8 The following morning , Friday, November 16, soon after 8 a.m., Mr. Bourgeois met with Arbaugh at Respondent's offices. As the conversation commenced Bourgeois told Arbaugh that he and his wife were upset and embarrassed over the presence of pickets at the jobsite and Bourgeois asked "about the pickets being on the job." Bourgeois credibly testified further concerning the conversation as follows: Well, when I saw Mr. Arbaugh we were just entering his office and I told him I needed to talk to him and he said "well, come on in," and I told him who I was and I asked him about the pickets being on the job. And he told me that as long as Mr. Newlin had the job they would be out there, so I told him, I said, "Well, I want to do what you want me to do. I will do whatever you would like for me to do." So, I asked him, I said, "Could you give me a list of other contractors that you would approve?" and he said he would. And he called to his secretary through the open door and she gave us a list, there were five names on it. I only remember four of them however, Barras Electric, Kaough & Jones, Lake Charles Electric and Wolk Associates, so I told him then I was going to take the list and call-and have my wife call these people and get bids for the contract-I mean bids for the electrical work, and in turn I asked him-I told him I was also going to call Mr. Newlin and cancel the contract, and I asked him if I would do that would he give me his word to pull the pickets and he said he would. So he left under those- under those conditions .9 A The credited testimony of Oscar Gaudet. The credited testimony of Roy Pesson. The credited testimony of Mrs. Bourgeois as substantiated by that of Mr Bourgeois. Mrs Bourgeois impressed me as having a more accurate recollection of the details of this incident than did her husband. a The credited testimony of Melvin Bourgeois 8 The foregoing is predicated on the credited testimony of Albert K . Newlin and William Newlin. 8I do not credit Arbaugh's version of this conversation . Initially , considering the long- standing dispute between Respondent and Newlin and the total absence of evidence reveal- ing effort on the part of Respondent to minimize the impact of its picketing upon secondary employers , including Bourgeois , I am unimpressed by Arbaugh 's testimony that he offered INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 861 1173 Immediately upon leaving the conference with Arbaugh , Bourgeois contacted his wife by telephone and supplied her with the names which had been given to him by Arbaugh. He asked Mrs. Bourgeois to secure bids from them. Immediately thereafter Bourgeois called Mr. Albert K. Newlin and informed Newlin he "was going to have to give someone else the contract." 10 Later that morning, at approximately 11:45 a.m., according to the credited testi- mony of Mrs. Bourgeois, Mrs. Bourgeois called Arbaugh by telephone and inquired why he had not removed the pickets in accordance with his promise given to her husband that morning. She testified credibly concerning the conversation as follows: And so he said that-he said something about-I said, "why didn't you remove them?" and he said, "As far as he knew Newlin had the job." And I said, "My husband gave you his word that he was going to give these plans out, why didn't you take them off?" And I said, "Will you take them off?" He said, "Yes, he would" and I said, "Well, when?" and he didn't answer me, he just hestitated. And I said, "I want to know when you are going to take them off." And I said, "My carpenter is gone, etc. and I want him to go back to work" and he told me that he was going to go out there and I said, "Well, I will meet you there" I said, "Come on and meet me and tell these men to go home" and he said, "All right." I said, "When are you going to take them off?" He said, "At noon." So I left in my car and went out there. At this point, Mrs. Bourgeois conversed by telephone with her husband who was having lunch at a restaurant known as Sammy's. She informed her husband that the pickets had not been removed. Thereupon Bourgeois approached Arbaugh who was also dining at Sammy's and according to Melvin Bourgeois' credited testi- mony engaged in the following conversation with Arbaugh: I went over and told him he had broken his word with me that he had prom- ised to remove the pickets and he said, "Well, I knew that Mr. Newlin still had the contract." I said, "No, as soon as I left your office, I went and called Mr. Newlin and cancelled the contract, and I called these other contractors." In the meantime, Mrs. Bourgeois went to the jobsite and upon arriving asked the pickets "why they were still there." They answered that they had not been notified to cease picketing. Mrs. Bourgeois told them that she expected Arbaugh to arrive at the jobsite shortly. After waiting 30 or 40 minutes for his arrival one of the pickets volunteered to call Arbaugh and left the scene of the picketing. He re- iiturned shortly and stated that "Mr. Arbaugh said they could come on in." The picketing ended at this juncture. to remove the pickets merely because the picketing had caused distress to Mrs . Bourgeois, and, inferentially, that he extracted no promise nor attached no condition relative to the cancellation of the Newlin contract. Nor am I convinced that Bourgeois would have re- quested a list of union-approved contractors unless Arbaugh had verbally communicated his disapproval of Newlin . In sum, I find Bourgeois ' version of the conversation more believable than Arbaugh's and credit it. 10 The credited testimony of Melvin Bourgeois. 111 credit the testimony of Melvin Bourgeois and his wife , Theda, concerning these events. I do not credit the testimony of Arbaugh and Holtz to the extent it is contrary thereto. While on cross-examination, Mrs. Bourgeois demonstrated some confusion as to the precise sequence of events, considering her testimony as a whole and relating it to that of her husband's which was marked by clarity and consistency on the matter, I am con- vinced that the testimony of the Bourgeoises accurately reflects both the sequence of events and the conversations that transpired. Specifically, I do not credit Arbaugh's testimony relating to his conversation with Mrs. Bourgeois because on direct examination he testified that his recall of the conversation was vague. Moreover, he placed Mrs. Bourgeois' telephone call as having occurred at approximately 9 or 9:30 a .m.-or within an hour of the completion of his office conversa- tion with Mr. Bourgeois. It is most unlikely that Mrs. Bourgeois would have contacted him so soon to inquire concerning the removal of the pickets for in the period following the office conversation between Arbaugh and Bourgeois the Bourgeoises were engaged in canceling the Newlin contract and letting substitute bids. Mrs Bourgeois ' evaluation of the time of the conversation is accordingly more reasonable and I credit it Nor do I credit Arbaugh to the effect that the pickets were removed at 11 a.m. Aside from the testimony of Mrs . Bourgeois , which I find is believable , Respondent 's witness Muriel Camalo testified that one of the pickets called Arbaugh at his office between 11:30 and 12 a.m. Considering this testimony together with that of Mrs. Bourgeois concerning her picket site conversation with the pickets relating to the pickets ' telephone contact of 1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Contentions of the Parties The General Counsel contends that by its picketing on or about November 15 and 16, 1962, at the common situs construction project on West College Street, Re- spondent induced and encouraged employees of Bourgeois and of subcontractors at the construction site, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employ- ment to perform services, with an object being to force or require Bourgeois and other persons to cease doing business with Newlin. General Counsel further con- tends that Respondent's picketing constituted a threat to Bourgeois and other persons to compel Bourgeois to cease doing business with Newlin with whom Respondent -had a dispute. The parties agree that the controlling issue is whether the picketing herein con- formed to the standards of Moore Dry Dock Company.12 In this regard the Gen- eral Counsel asserts that at no time during the picketing herein, was Newlin engaged in its normal business at the situs. On the other hand, Respondent contends that all times after entering into the agreement with Bourgeois to perform the electrical work at the project, Newlin was, in legal effect, "doing business" at the situs by Virtue of the existing contractual relationship between Newlin and Bourgeois. Fur- ther, analogizing International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, AFL-CIO (Ingram Barge Company),13 Respondent asserts that because Newlin had a !propensity well known to it to perform work after hours, on weekends and at times Uncertain, its picketing at a juncture when it anticipated and expected Newlin to be commencing work at the project should be construed, consonant with the balancing of rights sought to be achieved through the Moore Dry Dock criteria, as a permis- sible exercise of its statutory right to bring economic pressure to bear in furtherance of its primary dispute with Newlin. Additionally, Respondent asserts that the picketing was informational for the purpose of advising the public and employees of Newlin of substandard conditions allegedly existing on the job. Conclusions Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B), respectively, prohibit a labor organization or its agents from inducing or encouraging employees of a secondary employer to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in products, and from threatening, coercing or restraining secondary employers where in either case an object of such conduct is to force or require a secondary employer to cease doing business with the primary employer. When picketing occurs at a common situs the Board has fashioned the Moore Dry Dock test 14 as an evidentiary guide in de- termining whether the picketing will be considered primary and permissible or secondary and proscribed. Common situs picketing will be considered primary and permissible if (a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises; (b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs; (c) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs; and (d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer. . These standards ... are not to be applied on an indiscriminate `per se' basis, but are to be regarded merely as aids in determining the underlying question of statutory violation." 15 On the basis of the facts herein found, it is clear that Respondent had a dispute with Newlin, a nonunion electrical contractor, and that it picketed the West School Street project where employees of employers other than Newlin were working, even though Respondent had no dispute with the employers so engaged in work at the Arbaugh for Instructions, I am unable to credit Arbaugh concerning the cessation of the picketing and credit Mrs. Bourgeois Neither do I credit Arbaugh or Holtz concerning the resturant conversation between Arbaugh and Bourgeois Holtz did not Impress me as one possessed of an accurate recol- lection of the details of the conversation. Arbaugh Impressed me as somewhat evasive, and his testimony on other matters In issue I have not found reliable. As ] find Bourgeois to be a credible witness generally and as his testimony concerning this Incident Is both intrinsically and extrinsically reliable, I credit Bourgeois. Is 92 NLRB 547. 13136 NLRB 1175. 14 92 NLRB 547. 15 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc ), 135 NLRB 250, 255. INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 861 1175 project and although Newlin was at no time during the course of the picketing engaged in work there. By picketing at times when Newlin was not engaged in work at the situs, Respondent did not meet the second of the four Moore Dry Dock requirements. The Respondent's picketing, unlike that in Plauche Electric, supra, was commenced at a time before the primary employer (Newlin) had even com- menced work at the project and was carried on for a substantial period when he was not engaged in any manner in work at the situs. Nor do we have a situation similar to that in Local 28, International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, AFL-CIO (Ingram Barge Company), 136 NLRB 1175, which Respondent invokes in defense of its action, where a primary employer having engaged in work at the situs effects a "shadow departure" of its personnel with the expectation that the personnel would return with the removal of the pickets. Further, Respondent has not shown by record evidence that, as it asserts, Newlin had a history and propensity to work unusual hours and on weekends for the purpose of eluding picket Imes. Accordingly, I do not reach the question of whether if the evidence were sufficient to support Respondent's contention, a departure from the Moore Dry Dock standards would have been justified. Rather, I find that in the circum- stances here found to exist Respondent failed to comply with the Moore Dry Dock standards. See also Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local 279 (Wilson Teaming Company), 140 NLRB 164; Local Union #469, United Association of Journeymen, etc. (Hansberger Refrigeration & Electric Co.), 135 NLRB 492; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc.) supra (Intermediate Report). Moreover without merit is Respondent's contention that Newlin was legally engaged in work "at the project" at all times after entering into the agreement with Bourgeois and installing a temporary electrical pole.16 Respondent's failure to comply with the Moore Dry Dock criteria considered to- gether with the pickets' statement to Bourgeois on the morning of November 15, that the picketing was being conducted because Newlin was not "union"; Arbaugh's statements to Bourgeois that as long as "Mr. Newlin had the job they [the pickets] would be out there," Arbaugh's comment to Mrs. Bourgeois later that same morning to the effect that he had not withdrawn the pickets because "[a]s far as he knew Newlin had the job," his subsequent comment to Mr. Bourgeois at Sammy's to the same effect, and the immediate cessation of picketing after Respondent was informed that the electrical work had been withdrawn from Newlin and awarded to a union contractor selected from the list furnished Bourgeois by Arbaugh, reveal conclusively the object, or at least an object, of the picketing to have been a proscribed one, namely, to force Bourgeois to cease doing business with Newlin and replace Newlin with a contractor employing members of Respondent. An additional indicia that Respondent sought to enmesh secondary employers to achieve a proscribed object is seen in Respondent's failure to direct its picketing against Newlin at Newlin's Lake Charles shop and principal place of business.17 In view of the illegal object herein found it cannot be seriously doubted that the picketing which brought about the cessation of work by employees of Pesson con- stituted an inducement and encouragement of employees to cease work.18 Nor, in light of the work stoppage which followed the picketing, is a detailed explica- tion of supporting facts essential to establish that the picketing constituted a threat and restraint to employers Bourgeois and Pesson within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act.19 16 See Local Union 469, United Association, etc. (Hansberger Refrigeration & Electric Co., supra 17 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc ), supra 18 See N L.R.B. v Dallas General Drivers, etc., Local 745, AFL-CIO (Associated Whole- sale Grocery of Dallas), 264 F. 2d 642, 648 (CA 5), cert. denied 361 U S 814; N.L.RB. v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, Local 459 etc. (Royal Typewriter Co.), 228 F. 2d 553, 560 (C.A. 2) ; N.L R.B v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO (Arnold Bakers, Inc ), 245 F. 2d 542 (CA. 2) ; see also Local 459, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (Friden, Inc ), 134 NLRB 598. " International Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers ' Union of America, Local No 1140, AFL-CIO (Gilmore Construction Company), 127 NLRB 541 ; United Whole- sale and Warehouse Employees, Local 261 ( Perfection Mattress & Spring Company), 129 NLRB 1014; Upholsterers Frame & Bedding Workers Twin City Local No. 61 (Minneapolis House Furnishing Company), 132 NLRB 40 . Respondent's contention that the picketing was informational and permissible is clearly without merit in the circumstances of this case. See, e g., the last two cited cases. 1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the foregoing, I conclude and find that by picketing in the circum- stances herein found and for the object found, Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) of the Act 20 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of Albert K. Newlin, Inc., and other contractors de- scribed 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 thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Albert K. Newlin, Inc., Melvin Bourgeois and Pesson Plumbing and Heating Company are employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Pesson Plumbing and Heating Company to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to per- form services, and by threatening, coercing, or restraining Pesson Plumbing and Heating, Melvin Bourgeois and such other persons, in each case with an object of forcing and requiring Bourgeois to cease doing business with Albert K. Newlin, Inc., Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I hereby recommend that Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Pesson Plumbing and Heating Company, or by any other person other than Albert K. Newlin, Inc., similarily engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to enage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any articles, materials, or com- modities, or to perform any services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining Melvin Bourgeois, Pesson Plumbing and Heating Company, or any other person similarly engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce; where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Melvin Bourgeois, or any other employer or person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Albert K. Newlin, Inc., in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 21 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by 20 Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 279 (William S. Wilson d/b/a Wilson Teaming Company), supra; Glass Workers Local Union 1892, Brotherhood of Painters, Paper Hangers and Decorators of America, AFL-CIO, etc. (Frank J. Rooney, Inc), 141 NLRB 106; International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local No. 1140, AFL-CIO (Gilmore Construction Company), supra; Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Siebler Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc ), 133 NLRB 650 21 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Deci- sion and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY, ETC. 1177 the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region , shall, after being duly signed by Respondent 's authorized representative , be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish said Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by Pesson Plumbing and Heating Company, if willing, at places where it customarily posts notices to its employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region , in writing , within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this report , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.22 Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 22 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, In writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Pesson Plumb- ing and Heating Company, or by any other persons engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture , process , transport, or other- wise handle or work on any goods , articles, materials , or commodities or to perform services , or threaten , restrain , or coerce Melvin Bourgeois , Pesson Plumb- ing and Heating Company or any other employer or person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce , where an object in either case is to force or require any employer or person to cease doing business with Albert K. Newlin, Inc. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 861, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building , 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans , Louisiana , 70113, Telephone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Union Carbide Chemicals Company, Division of Union Carbide Corporation and International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 23-CA-1518 and ?3-CA-1544. August 5, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On May 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in 143 NLRB No. 108.