Intl. Brthd. of Electrical Workers, Local 112

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 1002 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union 112, and H. L. Zieman , Its Agent
and Dwinell's Central Neon Co. Case 19-CC-427
January 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On November 5, 1969, Trial Examiner George H.
O'Brien issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision . Thereafter , the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner ' s Decision and a
supporting brief, 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
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision , the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner 's findings , conclusions, and
recommendations.
ORDER
neutral members of Respondent Union to go to
work at the Columbia Center; (2) Zieman
affirmatively told drivers of concrete trucks that
there was no problem and made no effort to stop
craftsmen or trucks or materials coming in to the
Center on the entrance roadway; (3) Zieman
informed the neutral job superintendent that he was
not picketing to shut the job down, but to inform
the public that Dwinell's was substandard; and (4)
Zieman plainly acquiesced in the job
superintendent 's announcement to neutral employees
that Zieman had no objection to their going to
work.
Against this background, the Majority relies on a
single incident to support its finding of a secondary
objective. This consisted of a conversation between
Zieman and one neutral employee, during which, in
response to an inquiry by the employee, the Trial
Examiner found that Zieman implied that he was
trying to shut the job down. There is no evidence,
and it does not appear , that this conversation was
overheard by others. And, 2 minutes later Zieman
denied having made the statement to both the
employee and the job superintendent, while
affirmatively stating he was not trying to shut the
job down.
In these circumstances , I find that this single
isolated conversation was too vague and remote to
affect materially the lawfulness of the picketing or
to itself constitute an illegal secondary inducement.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.
'Sailors ' Union of the Pacific. AFL (Moore Dry Dock Co.), 92 NLRB
547.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent , International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
112, its officers , agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting:
Unlike my colleagues, I do not regard the single
incident relied on by the Trial Examiner in finding
the 8(bX4Xi) and ( iiXB) violation as sufficient to
convert Respondent 's otherwise lawful picketing into
proscribed secondary activity.
I reach this conclusion on the basis of the
following considerations . The record shows that the
picketing was conducted in strict compliance with
the Moore Dry Dock standards ' for legitimate
common situs picketing . That the picketing was
aimed solely at Dwinell 's, the primary employer, is
evidenced by the facts that (1) Zieman,
Respondent 's picket and business manager, told
GEORGE H. O'BRIEN, Trial Examiner: On September
30, 1969, a hearing was held in the above-entitled matter
in Richland, Washington, at which all parties appeared
and participated. The complaint issued August 14, 1969, is
based on a charge filed by Dwinell's Central Neon
Company on July 10, 1969, as amended July 11, 1969,
and July 22, 1969, and alleges violations of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act.
In material substance the complaint alleges that
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 112, herein called Respondent, and its agent,
Business Manager Henry L. Zieman, by picketing on July
10 and July 15, 1969, and by oral statements of Zieman
to a Parker employee on July 10, 1969, restrained and
coerced Charles T. Parker Construction Company and
other employers, and induced and encouraged employees
of said employers to refuse to perform services, with an
object of forcing or requiring Parker Construction
Company to cease doing business with Dwinell's.
Respondent admits picketing but denies the existence of
any prohibited object and denies the allegation of oral
inducement. Upon the entire record' in this case, including
my observation of the witnesses, and after due
General Counsel 's unopposed postheanng motion to correct the
180 NLRB No. 153
INTL. BRTHD . OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 112
consideration of the post-hearing briefs , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Columbia Center is a modern shopping mall being
constructed in Kennewick, Washington. One of the
tenants, J. C. Penney Company engaged Charles T.
Parker Construction Company as general contractor to
erect a main store building and a separate tire, battery
and accessory (T.B.A.) building for a total price of
$2,800,000. Parker has let subcontracts to approximately
30 subcontractors, one of which is Dwinell's Central Neon
Company. Dwinell's is a Washington Corporation engaged
in the manufacture and installation of signs . Its annual
direct inflow of goods and materials and its annual direct
outflow of products each exceeds $50,000 in value. On
August 26, 1968, Dwinell ' s employees , in a Board
conducted election voted against being represented by
Respondent.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act, and Henry L. Zieman is an
agent of a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2( 13) and 8 (b) of the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether remarks of Zieman to an employee of
Parker constituted "inducement" within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act.
2. Whether the remarks and conduct of Zieman on July
10, 1969, evidenced an object prohibited by Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act and negatived the
presumption of legality which arose from the fact that the
picket sign was "informational" in form, and the fact that
the picketing met all the stated requirements of the Moore
Drydock2 principle.
B. Sequence of Events
On July 10, 1969, exterior work on the T.B.A. building
was 90 percent complete and interior work 75 percent to
80 percent complete. At about 7:30 a.m. Dwinell's
employees were doing work preparatory to the installation
of exterior illuminated plastic signs . At the same time
Zieman stationed himself as near as practicable to where
Dwinell ' s employees were working and raised a sign, the
legend on which read: "Dwinell's Central Neon Unfair to
I.B.E.W. Local 112, Substandard Wages and Conditions."
At about the same time, 7:30 a.m. Parker's general
superintendent James H. Loebl, in his pickup on the way
to work, observed the picket sign and a number of
workmen standing nearby. These were both employees of
Parker , and employees of Parker's subcontractors, and
some of these were scheduled to work in the T.B.A.
building. Loebl asked Zieman if he was picketing to shut
down the job. Zieman replied that he was not, that he was
transcript is granted and said motion is incorporated in the record as TX
Exh. 1.
'Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Drydock). 92 NLRB 547.
1003
merely " informing the public that Dwinell was
substandard." Loebl asked if the people could go to work
and Zieman replied, "I see no reason why they shouldn't,
they can go to work." Loebl then called out to the group
of workmen "that they didn't have a problem, that they
could go to work." Zieman, who overheard Loebl's
statement voiced no dissent. After receiving Zieman's
assurance , and making his own announcement Loebl
drove off.
Dennis William Fitzwater has been a member of the
Carpenters' Union for 7 or 8 years and has been
employed by Parker as a carpenter for about a year and a
half. On the morning of July 10 he was scheduled to work
in the main Penney building. Fitzwater testified that at or
about 5 minutes after eight:
A. I was working the Penney's building and I was
going to start - we needed some pins down at the tire
shop. I took off and was going down and I came across
Jim. He was parked in his pickup, Mr. Loebl, and I
asked him what the deal was and he said nothing,
apparently we can go ahead and go to work. I still had
to go and cross the picket, I mean - well, Mr.
Zieman, there. So, I stopped on my own and asked him
if he was picketing to shut the job down and he said
yes, he was. I mean , he said he wouldn't be there if he
wasn 't. So I turned around and came back to Jim
because I wasn't going to cross it to go into that
building and that's when Jim said that he told me that
there was no trouble. So him and I went back and Jim
asked him - well, he denied what he had told me. I
stood there and he told me just the other way and
that's when he asked me if I was a union member. And
he said you're a hell of a one . So, then I walked off
and I went back to Jim. Jim said I could go back to
work at Penney' s until everything got straightened out
back there.
Q. By Penney's, do you mean the main building?
A. Yes.
Loebl testified that upon receiving Fitzwater's report he
returned with Fitzwater to Zieman, who was still carrying
the sign and said: "This man is not picketing." Fitzwater
replied in Zieman's presence: "This isn't what he said to
me." Zieman asked if Fitzwater was a union member and
upon receiving an affirmative reply stated: "You are a hell
of a member."
Zieman testified:
A. As best as I can recall it, I believe Mr. Loebl
came to me and wanted to know if I was picketing to
shut down the job. I told him, at that time, that no, I
was not . He asked me then whether the people could go
to work and I said I see no reason why they shouldn't,
they can go to work.
At that time, I believe he shouted so the people who
were standing there could hear him say that, "This
gentleman said that there was no reason for you people
not to work, go right ahead and go to work."
Q. This was in your presence?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you disagree with that announcement in any
way?
A. No, not at all, and then, I believe he walked
away, approximately, 20 feet, and about that time, Mr.
Fitzwater approached me and asked me if I was trying
to shut the job down.
Q. What was your response to that as you recall it?
A. As best as I can recall , I said , no. That's awful
slangy, but I think that's the word I used . Then he
turned and walked to Mr. Loebl and they both came
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
back to me. Mr. Loebl asked me whether I had made
this statement to Mr. Fitzwater, that I was trying to
shut the job down and, as best I can recall saying, is
no, I didn't say that to him, I don't even know the
man
Q. Had you, in fact, ever met Mr. Fitzwater before?
A. Not prior to this, to my knowledge, at least I
didn't recognize him.
Q. All right. What else, if anything, transpired by
way of conversation between you and Mr. Fitzwater
and Mr. Loebl at that time.
A. I then approached Mr. Fitzwater and asked him
if he belonged to the Union and he said, yes, I do. And
I believe my exact words were, "Boy, you're a good
one" and I kept on walking.
Q. Did you use any profanity?
A. None at all.
Q. Tell me, what was the idea of that kind of
comment? What produced that?
A Well, I felt that union men, whether he belongs to
my organization or our organization or not, and try
and jeopardize another union organization, don't think
too highly of the man.
Q. Were you ever contacted by any employee or
supervisor other than Mr. Fitzwater, I mean, or Mr.
Loebl that morning?
A I believe I had some conversation with a -- I'm
trying to recall - I believe the man that owned
Richland Plumbing, Mr. Logsdon, I believe we had a
conversation, but I can't recall what the conversation
was.
Q. What effort, if any, did you make to persuade or
correct or coerce anybody to leave the job that
morning?
A. None None, at all.
Q. How long, altogether, making the best estimate
that you can, did you engage with conversation with
Denny Fitzwater and Mr. Loebl during this period that
we have been discussing?
A. Well, Mr. Loebl, - I'd say we talked, over all
the entire incident I'd say we talked probably,
maybe ten minutes in different conversations. Mr.
Fitzwater, I believe, was less than a minute.
Q. On both occasions?
A. The entire occasion.
Q. Did you make any effort to seek Mr. Fitzwater
out or any other craftsman employed by Parker that
morning?
A. No.
Q. Did you make any announcements or distribute
any instructions or anything of that kind that morning?
A. No.
On cross examination Fitzwater testified:
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Mr. Fitzwater, I gather that
on July 10th, you haven't missed any work for Parker
Construction?
A. No.
Q. You did not leave the job?
A. No.
Q. I understand you to say that in Mr. Zieman's
presence, Mr. Loebl told you that there wasn't any
effort being made to shut the job down?
A. Yes.
Q. Did I understand you to say further that Mr.
Zeman agreed with that?
A. Yes. He started to agree with it and that's when I
told him that he had said something different to me
that he wouldn't be there if he wasn't.
Q Let's see, did you approach Mr. Zieman in the
first place or did he approach you?
A. I approached him.
Q. Did he make any effort to talk you out of going
to work or anything of that kind?
A No. But he was packing a sign. I had to drive 80
miles just to deliver the sign
Q. That is just a matter of personal choice?
A. I had preferred not to cross the picket
Q. Mr. Zieman made no effort to persuade you one
way or the other?
A. When he had the sign, it was assumed that he was
telling me he was.
Q. That was your reaction to the presence of the sign
rather than anything that Mr. Zieman may have said9
A Yes, it is.
Q. You first saw Mr. Zieman about what time?
A. Oh, I imagine about 8:15 in the morning I saw
him about 8:05 from where I was working.
Q. All right. You came down from the main
Penney's building down to the tire and battery building?
A Yes.
Q. So you first conversed with Mr. Zieman about
8:05?
A. 8:15.
Q. And how long after that was it that you and Mr
Loebl and Mr. Zieman had exchange?
A. Probably about two minutes.
Q Two minutes So any impression that you may
have received from Mr Zieman, in the first place, was
corrected within two minutes, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. When you declined to go into the tire and battery
building after all this conversation, that wasn't because
of anything Mr. Zieman may have said?
A. No. I wouldn't cross the line
*
A. I'm a little mixed up The only thing I was
concerned about was I didn't want to go on to the tire
shop. Does that answer your question?
Q. Yes, sir. I think it is a fair answer. And that was
because there was a banner there? Not because of
anything Mr. Zeman may have said?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Thank you.
There was a third conversation between Loebl and
Zieman on July 10. Loebl testified:
A. After we had contacted Dwinell's people and after
I had spoken to the various foremen and their stewards
on the job, I went down there, and Tom Logsdon, a
local plumber contractor and Ralph Eckar from
Empire Electric went down with me and I asked him if
he would stop picketing if I removed the sign people
and he said yes, he would stop picketing. That, I
remember very clearly. He did say picketing, he would
stop picketing. I went over and told Dwinell's men to
please get off the site. I had called the company and
they had to get off. We couldn't stop the work. They
got off the site. Mr. Zieman left.
During the time that Zieman carried his sign adjacent
to the location where Dwinell's employees were working
no employee of Parker, nor any employee of any
subcontractor entered upon the T.B.A. premises to go to
work. One plumber entered the T.B.A. building, removed
some tools and left immediately. Scheduled work in the
T.B.A. building on July 10 included, carpentry,
INTL. BRTHD . OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 112 1005
mechanical , possibly lathing , and possibly electrical.
Employees scheduled to work in the T.B.A. were
reassigned by their employers to the main Penney store.
On July 10 some 40 or 50 members of Respondent were
working on various other projects throughout the
Columbia Center Mall and several of these stopped to
converse with Zieman . He told each of these that he had
better get to work so he wouldn ' t get docked , and all went
to work . Although Zieman was stationed a considerable
distance from any main roadway into the Columbia
Center, the drivers of two cement trucks, delivering
cement to contractors not associated with the Penney
project, did stop and ask Zieman what the problem was.
Zieman replied , "There is no problem , go ahead , dump."
On July 15, while Dwinell's employees were working on
Penney's main store building, Respondent placed a picket
carrying a sign with the same legend as that of July 10 as
close as practicable to the location of the Dwinell work.
All other workmen in the main Penney building shortly
left the job . There is no evidence that the picket said
anything to any employee . Loeb] testified:
Q. (By Mr. Cronin ) What , if any, work stoppages
were there after July 10'?
A. On the date of the 15th or the 16th. I'd have to
check the daily progress report that our clerk wrote up.
About 9 o'clock in the morning, somebody came into
the main office and said that there is a picket in front
of the main building and everybody just simply walked
off the job , period. All of the subs , our own carpenters,
the carpenters working separately for J . C. Penney
Company, they just walked off the jobs.
Q. Did you see a picket there that day'?
A. Yes.
Q Do you remember who it was that day'?
A. Mr. Zieman.
Q. Did you speak to him that day"
A. Yes. I went out there that day.
Q. What was the conversation between you and Mr
Zieman?
A. I asked him if he would leave if the sign people
left and he said yes, he would . They left. He left.
Everybody was gone.
Zieman denied that he was on the premises on July 15
and stated that he had instructed one of Respondent's
members Howard M . Laffarty to carry the banner only
when Dwinell was in sight, and if they left, he should
leave, and he should not interfere with the .jobs. Laffarty
did not testify.
C. Arguments of Counsel
1. Argument of General Counsel in support of
complaint
The Moore Drvdock standards serve only to raise an
inference of lawful common situs picketing. That inference
has been negated herein by the specific inducement of
Zieman to Fitzwater not to work. Zieman told Fitzwater
that the purpose of his picketing was to shut the job
down. Where a union agent states that the purpose of the
picketing which complies with Moore Drydock standards
is to shut the job down, the picketing itself is violative of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Carpenters Local
944 et a! (Interstate Employers Association), 159 NLRB
563. Zieman's admission to Loebl that picketing would
cease if Dwinell's was removed from the job constitutes
further evidence of unlawful object. I.B.E. W. Local 11 (L.
G Electric Contractors Inc.), 154 NLRB 766. The facts
that Respondent had no contact with any of Dwinell's
employees at its local office, had no knowledge of their
wage scale or of their insurance or medical coverage3
demonstrates the spurious nature of Respondent's
assertion that it was merely advertising Dwinell's
"substandard wages and conditions ." N L.R.B. v.
I.B.E W. Local 480 413 F.2d 1085 (C.A.D.C.). Zieman's
statement to Fitzwater that he was picketing to shut the
job down cannot be regarded as isolated or
inconsequential , since it was made by a responsible official
of Respondent , near the inception of the picketing, in the
presence of neutral employees who could be induced
thereby to withhold services from their respective
employers.
2. Argument of Respondent
The picketing was in strict conformity with the
standards established by Moore Drydock. The sole
objective of the picketing was to make it known to the
public' at large that the wages and working conditions
accorded to its employees by Dwinell, were not in
compliance with area wage standards established by the
electrical workers Union and other employers in the sign
industry. A union's concern for maintenance of the
compensation standards which it has achieved in the
particular locale is wholly legitimate and such concern
may be exercised properly by picketing directed against an
employer who, in the union's judgment, fails to comply
therewith. General Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 467,
171 NLRB No. 90, Sheet Metal Workers International
Association, Local No. 284, 169 NLRB No. 130. Zieman
did not tell Fitzwater that he was picketing to shut the job
down. In any event, the disputed exchange between
Zieman and Fitzwater, initiated deliberately by Fitzwater
was truly isolated and fleeting and did not result in a
work stoppage of any description. Under such
circumstances the complaint should be dismissed. District
65. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, 135
NLRB 1249.
D. Concluding Findings
Respondent's picketing met all the requirements of
Moore Drydock in that it clearly disclosed that the
dispute was only with primary employer, and was
conducted reasonably close to the place where and limited
to the times when the primary employer was conducting
its normal business on the premises of the secondary
employer, but:
Moore Drydock does not establish a formula whereby
picketing with a secondary object can be done lawfully.
Rather it simply establishes as evidentiary aid for the
Board to determine the object of picketing where the
other evidence is equivocal. The Board is not bound by
the inference of lawfulness from compliance with the
Moore Drydock standards.
N L.R.B. v. Northern California District Council of
Hodcarriers , 389 F.2d 721, 725 (C.A 9).
'Zieman testified on cross examination tnat he did not know the exact
wages of Dwinell 's employees , had never tried to find out what they were
and had not tried to find out what sort of insurance or medical coverage
they had, but he was certain that their wages were substandard
'there is no evidence that persons other than contractors and their
employees were in the vicinity of the picketed premises
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This inference of lawfulness is overcome by the
statements and conduct of Zieman which demonstrate that
Respondent's picketing was deliberately designed to
enmesh neutral employers into its dispute with Dwinell's.
At 8:15 on July 10, 1969, when Fitzwater inquired of
Zieman whether he was picketing to shut the job down,
Zieman replied that he "wouldn't be there if he wasn't"
Fitzwater was not part of the group which heard Loebl's
announcement "that they didn't have a problem, that they
could go to work." Fitzwater went directly to work in the
main Penney store building. When he first observed the
picket at 8:05 a.m. he sought out Loebl and inquired
"what the deal was." Loebl's reply, "Nothing, apparently
we can go ahead and go to work" was sufficiently
equivocal to suggest the desirability of securing
confirmation from the picket himself, particularly since
Fitzwater could observe "quite a few people standing
around" the picket. If Zeman had, as he testified, replied
with a simple negative to Fitzwater's inquiry, Fitzwater
might, or might not have elected on his own to enter the
T.B.A. building. A simple negative response would have
confirmed Loebl's statement and there would have been
no occasion for Fitzwater to return to Loebl, and certainly
no reason for Fitzwater to lie to Loebl. When, two
minutes later Loebl asked Zieman if he was picketing to
shut the job down, and Zieman replied that he was not,
and denied having told Fitzwater that he was, Zieman
found it necessary to make the wholly unnecessary
comments, "I don't even know the man" and either, "You
are a hell of a union member" or similarly critical, "Boy,
you're a good one." The sequence of events, and all the
surrounding circumstances convince me that Fitzwater
heard correctly and reported accurately the statements of
Zieman at both brief meetings.
Zieman's "I wouldn't be here if I wasn't" is
"inducement" of an employee. Since it was made to an
employee in the presence of other employees by a
responsible official of Respondent it cannot be regarded as
isolated or innocuous. The prompt disavowal,
accompanied as it was by a public reprimand of the
informer, Fitzwater, did not correct, but on the contrary
did reinforce, in the minds of employee auditors, the
earlier inducement.
Whether or not Zieman's reply, "I wouldn't be here if I
wasn 't" be regarded as isolated, it still constitutes a
clear and unequivocal admission that an object of the
picketing was to cause employees of Parker and his
subcontractors to refuse to perform services for their
respective employers as long as Dwinell's employees were
on the job.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent and its agent set forth
above occurring in connection with the business operations
described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent and its agent have
engaged in unfair labor practices it will be recommended
that they cease and desist therefrom and that Respondent
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union 112 is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Henry L. Zieman is an agent of a labor organization
within the meaning of Sections 2(13) and 8(b) of the Act.
3. Dwinell's Central Neon Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. Charles T. Parker Construction Company and
Dwinell's Central Neon Company are persons in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
5 By inducing and encouraging employees of Charles
T. Parker Construction Company and other employers to
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their
employment to perform services and by restraining and
coercing Charles T. Parker Construction Company with
the object of forcing or requiring Parker to cease doing
business with Dwinell's, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union 112 and its agent Henry
L. Zieman have engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are 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 this case,
I recommend that International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union 112, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or
encouraging individuals employed by Charles T. Parker
Construction Company or any other person 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
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities, or to perform any services and
from coercing or restraining the aforesaid employer or
any other person where in either case an object thereof is
to force or require Charles T. Parker Construction
Company to cease doing business with Dwinell's.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at the business offices and meeting halls of
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 112, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 19, shall, after having
been duly signed by a representative of International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 112, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be
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 Local Union 112 to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
'In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the
INTL. BRTHD . OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 112
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for Region 19 for posting by Charles T. Parker
Construction Company, at all locations where notices to
its employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Recommended Order what steps have been taken in
compliance.'
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
'in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 19, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify you that:
1007
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage
individuals employed by Charles T. Parker
Construction Company, or any other employer to
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities, or to perform any services;
or coerce or restrain the above-named employer or
other persons where an object in either case is to force
or require Charles T. Parker Construction Company to
cease doing business with Dwinell's Central Neon
Company.
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL UNION 112, AND
H. L. ZIEMAN, ITS AGENT
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
Republic Building , 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue,
Seattle, Washington, Telephone 583-7473.