Levingston Shipbuilding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 524 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo-
cal Union No. 479, AFLCIO and Levingston Ship-
building Company. Cases 23-CC-731 and 23-CP-
112
November 28, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On August 17, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
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, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 479,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
IThe Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces 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.
DECISION
FRANK H. ITKIN. Administrative Law Judge. The unfair
labor practice charges in the above consolidated cases were
filed by the Company, Levingston Shipbuilding Company,
on April 21, 1978. The complaint issued on May 16, and
the hearing was conducted in Orange, Texas, on June 1,
1978. General Counsel alleges that Respondent Union,
IBEW Local 479, violated Section 8(b)(4)(C) and (7)(A) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by picket-
ing the Company at its Dallas-Beadle building site with an
object of forcing or requiring the Company to recognize or
bargain with Local 479 as the representative of its electri-
cian employees even though Local 479 is not currently cer-
tified as bargaining representative of the employees, the
Company has lawfully recognized another labor organiza-
tion as the representative of the employees, and a question
concerning the representation of the employees may not
appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. Re-
spondent Union denies that it has violated the Act as al-
leged.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs of
counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. INTRODUCTION
Charging Party Company, a Delaware corporation, op-
erates a shipyard in Orange, Texas. During the past 12
months, the Company purchased and received at its ship-
yard goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000,
which were transported directly from outside of Texas. It is
undisputed, and I find and conclude, that the Company is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It is also undisputed, and I
find and conclude, that Respondent Union, IBEW Local
479, and the Orange Metal Trades Council are labor orga-
nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
In addition, General Counsel alleges and Respondent
IBEW Local 479 admits that commencing about April 3,
1978, Local 479 picketed the Company at its Dallas-Beadle
building site;' that Local 479 has not been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as bargaining representa-
tive for any of the Company's employees; that by virtue of
a Board certification, dated July 12, 1946 (Case 16-RC-
1891), the Orange Metal Trades Council was designated as
bargaining agent of the Company's production and main-
tenance employees; that the Company and the Trades
Council are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
entered into on May 2, 1977, and effective until January
31, 1980; that IBEW Local 390 is a member of the Trades
Council and represents the Company's employees in the
electrical classification; and that at no time material to this
case could a question concerning the representation of the
Company's electricians be appropriately raised under Sec-
tion 9(c) of the Act. Further, as counsel for Respondent
IBEW Local 479 acknowledged at the hearing, the issue
here is whether Local 479 was picketing the Company's
Dallas-Beadle building site for a recognitional object, as
alleged. The pertinent evidence is discussed below.
II. THE MEETING OF APRIL 18
Marvin Russell, employee relations manager for the
Company, testified that on or about April 17, 1978, he
Picketing ceased on May 18, 1978. when a temporary injunction order
was entered against Local 479 pursuant to Sec. 10(11 of the Act.
524
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 479
spoke with Dewey Cox, president of the Trades Council, in
an attempt "to find out what we could do to resolve the
problem at the Dallas-Beadle project site." According to
Russell, " I]t was suggested that we bring the unions to-
gether in a mneeting, a joint meeting, and at that time we
could discuss possible solutions and resolutions to the
problem." Accordingly, a meeting was arranged for the fol-
lowing day, April 18, 1978, at the Ramada Inn in Orange,
Texas.
The meeting was conducted as scheduled on April 18.
Russell and John Durkay, an attorney and officer of Lev-
ingston Shipbuilding, attended for the Company. Edward
Wise attended for Respondent IBEW Local 479. Cox, the
president of the Trades Council, was also present. And, as
Russell explained, there were also present representatives
from the Plumbers Union, the Ironworkers Union, and the
Bricklayers Union. Russell related what transpired at this
meeting as follows:
The meeting was opened by Mr. Cox. .... Mr. Cox
stated from the very outset that he felt that . . . to
solve the problem . . . the Company should sign a
project agreement for that particular project, and that
we [the Company] should sign agreements with each
and every union that was present.
Russell recalled that Durkay then spoke:
Mr. Durkay said that we [the Company] did have
some problems with that kind of solution since he did
have signed agreements with unions that would do
that kind of work in our shipyard. We were also
bound by an arbitration case that had recently been
decided that indicated that this building, the Dallas-
Beadle building was inside our plant, which made it
part of our property, and historically we have always
worked on our own property. We have renovated our
own property.
Russell further testified:
Mr. Wise said that it was necessary for the Company
to sign a project agreement with [Local] 479 because
479 was a construction union, and the electricians
union that we [the Company] had signed a contract
with, [Local] 390, was not a construction union, and it
was not their work, and that it was his work, he felt
that he should be doing that work and that we should
sign the agreement to that effect, that he would, in
fact, describe how he would man the job.
He would man the job out of the local hall, he
would supply all the people we needed to complete the
job, and even explained the economics of the matter in
this way. He said that the construction workers that he
would supply to put on that job would, in fact, be
more economical for the Company than us putting our
own employees on the job, because they were on our
payroll constantly and the people that would be put
on there by his local would be there only for a certain
number of hours and we would only be charged for
the hours that they worked, and it would be a much
more economical situation for the Company if we
were to have him to do the work.
Specifically, he made a request that we take the 390
electricians off of that jobsite and that the 390 em-
ployees would be replaced by those that he would sup-
ply from his local hall 479.
During the ensuing discussion, Russell asked Wise "what
kind of an agreement would it be." Wise responded that "it
would be very similar to what he [Wise] termed an AGC
contract."
[Wise,] said to Mr. Durkay, he said, "Just to give
you an idea of what I'm talking about, I have an
agreement with me and I'd like for you to take it and
it will give you some idea of the kind of project agree-
ment that we would need." He further stated that if
this was acceptable to us, and if we had something
cooking, or if we had something going in the way of
getting an agreement, that he would remove the pick-
ets, and he would remove them for a day, two days,
three days, or a week, if we were in a position to sign
an agreement with him.
In addition, Wise reassured both Russell and Durkay "that
there would not be any jurisdictional problem if we [the
Company] were to sign the project agreements with all of
the local unions"--"the local unions would work out the
matters of jurisdiction among themselves." Wise also ex-
plained that a "project agreement was one that would cov-
er each and every project similar to the Dallas-Beadle proj-
ect. It was not as if we were signing a two-year agreement,
or a three-year agreement, or a four-year agreement; that it
would cover projects as they would come up, and for the
duration of the projects only." 2
John Durkay, an attorney and officer of the Company,
recalled that Cox stated at the April 18 meeting, "that he
[Cox] thought a project agreement was the appropriate way
to go." Durkay further recalled that Wise asserted at the
meeting "that it was his [Wise's] picketing; he felt it was
properly construction work"; and "a contract or project
agreeement which would incorporate the Building Trades'
rules in the area was the way in which he was willing to go
to end the picketing." During this meeting, according to
Durkay, Wise also stated that "the appropriate contract to
be signed here would be an AGC building contract"; that
he, Wise, "would want" the Company "to go to the IBEW
hall for [its] people"; and that "all 390 people would have
to come off the project and the project would be manned
by 479 people." Durkay asked Wise if "you're going to
have to give us the same kind of contract everybody else
has." Wise responded: "That's correct, everybody gets the
2 On cross-examination. Russell acknowledged that the Union's picket
signs at the Dallas- Beadle site contained only a "protest" against the (com-
pany paying "substandard wages": that the Company's "hase rates" for the
work done on this project "are lower than the base rates paid by the Build-
ing Trades Council": and that at the April 18 meeting Wise handed Durkay
a cop) of Respondent Exhibit I. a collective-bargaining agreement between
Local 479 and the Costal-Sabine Division of the Southeast Texas Chapter
of the National Electrincal Contractor's Association. Inc. Russell noted:
He [Wisel offered it [R. Exh. II and said " [This is the kind of contract
that should be signed." and he handed it to Mr. Durkay and he said.
"keep iI."
525
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
same contract." Durkay asked, "What would this look
like." Wise then gave Durkay "some names and addresses
of people to talk to, the AGC representative and the Build-
ing Trades business agent." Wise also handed Durkay the
"NECA agreement," Respondent Exhibit 1, and said:
Well, this isn't it, but it's just about the same thing as
this; this is about what it would look like; if you want
to see what some of the terms and conditions would
be, this is about what it will look like.3
Dewey Cox testified that he is the business manager for
the Boilermakers Union and president of the Metal Trades
Council and the Sabine Area Building Trades Council. Cox
spoke with Russell and Durkay on or about April 17. Cox
arranged for the meeting on April 18 between the company
representatives and various members of the Trades Coun-
cil. Cox recalled that "we had discussed earlier with Mr.
Russell that the electricians could possibly work on the
payroll of Levingston if they [the Company] signed some
job compliance or project agreement for the one job," and
"Mr. Wise said that he could work under that, but it would
be more economical for them to subcontract the work to
electrical contractors who would do their work cheaper
and better." Cox acknowledged that Wise asserted at this
meeting that "in his opinion it was Building Trades work"
and "suggested" that the Company "could either contract
out or work under job compliance." Cox acknowledged
that Wise also reassured management that "they had pro-
cedures to settle jurisdictional disputes and he [Wise] felt
that there wouldn't be any strikes or problems that he
couldn't settle." 4
Edward Wise, assistant business manager for Respon-
dent IBEW Local 479, testified that he did not have "any
authority on [his] own prerogative to seek recognition or
seek contracts from any type of employers"; that his Union
picketed the Dallas-Beadle construction site with signs
stating "Local 479 protests substandard wages and work-
ing conditions on this job"; that the "wages . . . on that
job" were in fact "less" than "construction wage rates";
and that the purpose of the picketing was to publicize that
"this was construction work and the wages that were being
paid on that job were undermining our contract in the
area." Wise explained that his reference to "our contract in
the area" was to Respondent Exhibit I and the wage rates
"set forth in that contract." Wise denied asking the Com-
pany to recognize or enter a contract with his Union. He
asserted: "I didn't have authority to do anything like that."
Elsewhere, Wise testified that "the reason we had the pick-
ets, like I said before, was the non-union, or the opposite
3 Dunng this discussion, as Durkay recalled,
Mr. Wise said, "Well, if what you want to do is to be considered a
general contractor, we don't have any problem with that, and you can
do two things. You can just go ahead and sign an AG(' agreement for
a term . . . we'll just consider Levingston a general contractor. Or we
can do it project by project. And after some discussion about that. it
was basically decided . . . we'd just worry about the . . Dallas Bea-
dle building and the signed project agreement."
4On cross-examination. Cox explained that Wise "did make the state-
ment that it would be better if they Ithe Companyl could do it [the work
involved] with an electrical contractor However, they possibly could enter
into some agreement.... I kept saying myself, job compliance T1hat
means that the Company can sign that they would abide b) his agreement.
union, doing .. construction work" and that a "solution
would be to hire a contractor" who "paid wages equivalent
to our present agreement."
In addition, Wise was asked "who did bring up the sub-
ject of a project agreement" at the April 18 meeting. Wise
responded: "I think Mr. Durkay did." Wise claimed: "I
don't lake a project agreement" and "to my knowledge Lo-
cal 479 has never signed one." Wise was asked, "[W]hat
did you say about signing a project agreement in response
to Mr. Durkay's question?" Wise responded: "Well, I
couldn't sign one, so evidently I don't think I said any-
thing, because I'm in no position to sign any kind of agree-
ment. .... I didn't ask for one." Wise further testified:
Q. Do you recognize Respondent [Exhibit] I?
A. Sure do.
Q. Did you have it in your possession when you
were at the meeting?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you take it to that meeting for some particu-
lar purpose?
A. No, I usually keep one for personal references, if
nothing else.
Q. I believe-well, do you always have one with
you?
A. Ninety-nine percent of the time.
Q. And you have one today?
A. I think I left it over on the table.
Q. At any time during the meeting, did anyone ask
you about Respondent Exhibit 1?
A. Yes, Mr. Durkay was discussing wages and so
forth, and I told him, "I have a copy of our agree-
ment," and he said, "May I see it," and I said, "You
can have it." And I also made a point to make note of
this as an expired agreement. I haven't even got a copy
of our new agreement, this one expired August 31st of
'77.
Q. All right. But does the expired agreement set
forth the wage rates that were paid under the old con-
tract?
A. Right.
Q. Now, did he take the copy, Respondent Exhibit
I, from you?
A. Yes. Uh-huh.
Q. What did he do with it?
A. I think he put it in his pocket.
Q. All right. At any time, did you, in any) way, sug-
gest to Mr. Durkay or Mr. Russell that they sign this
contract with you, Respondent l?
A. Definitely not. It would have been kind of a
waste of time.
Further, according to Wise, the "work jurisdiction" of
Local 479, under its charter, is limited to "construction
work"; the charter "would not permit [us] to enter into a
contract with Levingston"; and if Wise did, the IBEW,
under its constitution, "would revoke our charter, and
could possibly put us into another local, or put an Interna-
tional representative running our local union, or some
other penalty." R. T. Noack, a representative of the IBEW
International, similarly claimed that it would not be "per-
missible under the terms of the constitution" of the IBEW
526
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 479
and "under [the IBEW's] general practices and procedures
for Local 479 to enter into a collective bargaining contract
or seek recognition from an industrial firm such as Leving-
ston Shipbuilding Company." And James Sparks, business
manager for Local 479, asserted that he did not "authorize
any request for recognition from Levingston Shipbuilding
Company or any contract of any sort with Levingston
Shipbuilding by Local 479." Sparks claimed that his Union
deals "exclusively" with the National Electrical Contrac-
tors Association, NECA, in such matters. According to
Sparks, Wise would not have "authority to sign" such an
agreement for Local 479.
I credit the testimony of Russell and Durkay as summa-
rized above. Their testimony is in large part mutually cor-
roborative. Their testimony is also substantiated in signifi-
cant part by the testimony of Cox. And, insofar as the
testimony of Wise differs from the testimony of Russell
and Durkay, I am persuaded on this record, and by the
demeanor of the witnesses, that the testimony of Russell
and Durkay is more complete and reliable than the testi-
mony of Wise. Further, I note that Noack and Sparks were
not present at the critical April 18 meeting. Their testimony
pertaining to the asserted limitations of authority on Local
479 and Wise to seek a contract with the Company under
the circumstances present here is discussed below.
Discussion
Section 8(bX7XA) of the Act prohibits picketing by an
uncertified union with an object of forcing or requiring an
employer to recognize or bargain with the labor organiza-
tion as the representative of his employees, or of forcing or
requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select
the union as their representative, where the employer has
lawfully recognized another labor organization and a ques-
tion concerning representation may not appropriately be
raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. Section 8(b)(4Xi) and
(ii)(C) of the Act prohibits strikes by a union, inducement
or encouragement of employees by a union to strike or to
refuse to perform services, or restraint or coercion of an
employer by a union where an object of such conduct is to
require an employer to recognize or bargain with one
union as the representative of his employees although an-
other union has been certified by the Board as the repre-
sentative of such employees. See, generally, Dallas Building
and Construction Trades Council, 164 NLRB 938 (1967),
enfd. 396 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1968); Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, AFL-CIO [Burl Mfg. Co.] v.
N.L.R.B., 293 F.2d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 1961).
However, when a union pickets an employer for the sole
purpose of compelling compliance with prevailing area
wage and benefit standards, the Board regards this so-
called area standards picketing as nonrecognitional and
outside the above proscriptions of the Act. See, e.g., Local
Union No. 741, Plumbers (Keith Riggs Plumbing and Heat-
ing Contractor), 137 NLRB 1125 (1962). A union may at-
tempt to insure that an employer "is required to pay em-
I note that Respondent IBEW Local 479, in its answer to the complaint.
admits that Assistant Business Manager Wise has been at all times material
to this case an agent of Respondent acting on !it behalf within the meaning
of Sec. 2(13) of the Act.
ployee costs equivalent to those paid by the organized em-
ployer." Retail Clerks International Association, Local
Union No. 899, AFL-CIO, et al. (State-Mart, Inc., d/b/a
Giant Food), 166 NLRB 818, 823 (1967), enfd. 404 F.2d 855
(9th Cir. 1968). This principle, however, does not allow a
union to force, under the guise of "area standards" mainte-
nance, its collective bargaining agreement part and parcel
upon employees it does not represent. See e.g., Centralia
Building & Construction Trades Council (Pacific Sign &
Steel Building Co., Inc.), 155 NLRB 803, 806 (1965), enfd.
363 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1966). Moreover, the proscrip-
tions of Sections 8(bX7XA) and 8(bX4Xi) and (ii)C) apply
as long as one of the union's objects is illegal; it is immater-
ial that the union may also have other, legitimate objects.
(See cases cited supra.).
In the instant case, Respondent IBEW Local 479 admits
that commencing about April 3 it picketed the Company at
the Dallas-Beadle building site; that it has not been certi-
fied by the Board as bargaining representative for any of
the Company's employees; that the Orange Metal Trades
Council was designated as representative of the Company's
production and maintenance employees by virtue of a
Board certification dated July 22, 1946; that the Company
and the Trades Council are parties to a current collective-
bargaining agreement effective until January 31, 1980; that
IBEW Local 390 is a member of the Trades Council and
represents the Company's employees in the electrical clas-
sification; and that at no time material to this proceeding
could a question concerning representation of the
Company's electricians be appropriately raised under Sec-
tion 9(c) of the Act. Respondent IBEW Local 479 also
admits that Edward Wise, its assistant business manager,
was at all times material acting on its behalf and as its
agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
Counsel for Respondent IBEW Local 479 argues that
General Counsel has failed to establish that Local 479's
picketing was for a proscribed recognitional or bargaining
object. However, the credible evidence, as detailed supra,
makes it quite clear that Local 479's picketing was for an
unlawful recognitional or bargaining object. Thus, as Com-
pany Representative Russell credibly testified, a meeting
between the Company's representatives and the various lo-
cal unions of the Building Trades Council was conducted
on April 18 in order to "discuss possible solutions and res-
olutions to the problem." Assistant Business Manager Wise
attended for Respondent IBEW Local 479. At that meet-
ing, Wise stated that "it was necessary for the Company to
sign a project agreement with 479"; that Local 479 was a
"construction union" and Local 390 "was not a construc-
tion union and it was not their work"; that "it was his
work"; that he "would man the job out of the local hall"
and "would supply all the people [the Company] needed to
complete the job"; and that "the 390 employees would be
replaced by those that he would supply from his local 479."
Wise furnished the Company's representatives with a copy
of an earlier collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union, "just to give you an idea of what I'm talking
about." Wise added: "if this was acceptable to us [thr
Company], and if we had something cooking, or if we hfi
something going in the way of getting an agreement, that
he would remove the pickets." Further, as Company attor-
527
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ney Durkay credibly recalled, Wise explained at the meet-
ing: "you can just go ahead and sign an AGC agreement
for a term . . . we'll just consider Levingston a general
contractor, or we can do it project by project."
I find and conclude that the above credible evidence of
record establshes that Respondent IBEW Local 479 picket-
ed the Company at its Dallas-Beadle building site with an
object of forcing or requiring the Company to recognize or
bargain with Local 479 as the representative of the
Company's electrician employees and of forcing or requir-
ing the electrician employees to accept or select Local 479
as their bargaining representative even though Local 479 is
not currently certified as the representative of such em-
ployees, the Company has lawfully recognized in accor-
dance with the Act another labor organization, the Orange
Metal Trades Council and its member IBEW Local 390,
and a question concerning representation may not appro-
priately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. Respon-
dent IBEW Local 479 has therefore violated Section
8(bX7XA) of the Act. In addition, I find and conclude that
Respondent IBEW Local 479, by the above conduct, has
also violated Section 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXC) of the Act by
picketing the site with an object of forcing or requiring the
Company to recognize or bargain with Local 479 as the
representative of the Company's electrician employees
even though the Orange Metal Trades Council, of which
IBEW Local 390 is a member, has been certified as the
representative of the employees under Section 9 of the Act.
Counsel for Respondent further argues that Local 479
"is prohibited by terms of the IBEW Constitution to enter
into a contract with an industrial company like Levingston
Shipbuilding"; that "inasmuch as Respondent cannot enter
into a contract with Levingston, then there could not be
any recognitional objective in the picketing"; and that
Wise had no "authority to enter into such an agreement on
behalf of Respondent Union." However, the credible evi-
dence of record makes it clear that Local 479 was in fact
picketing the Company for an unlawful recognitional ob-
ject. That such unlawful conduct may also subject Wise
and his Local 479 to certain sanctions and penalties from
the International Union under its charter and constitutions
does not permit Wise and his Local to violate the statutory
proscriptions of Section 8(bX4XC) and (7XA) of the Act.
Moreover, Assistant Business Manager Wise attended the
April 18 meeting as a representative of Local 479 in an
attempt to resolve the dispute. His agency status, as noted,
is admitted. Under settled principles of agency law, Re-
spondent cannot now seek to privilege its unlawful conduct
by claiming that Wise's statements at the meeting, indicat-
ing that the Company could resolve the dispute by execut-
ing an agreement with the Union, were unauthorized. Cf.
Carpenters Local Union 1260, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Seizer Construc-
tion Co., Inc.), 210 NLRB 628, 631 (1974), and cases cited.
In sum, Respondent Union, by the foregoing conduct,
has violated Section 8(bX4XC) and (7)(A) as alleged.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Orange Metal Trades Council and Respondent
IBEW Local 479 are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent IBEW, by its picketing of the Company's
Dallas-Beadle building site, as found above, violated Sec-
tion 8(bX7XA) and (4)(i) and (iiX)(C) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices found above affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Respondent Union will be directed to cease and desist
from engaging in the unfair labor practices found above
and from engaging in like or related conduct. Respondent
Union will also be directed to post at its business offices
and meetings halls 'he attached notice.
ORDER 6
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local Union No. 479, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening
to picket or cause to be picketed, Levingston Shipbuilding
Company at the Dallas-Beadle building site, or at any
other facility, at a time when Respondent Union is not
currently certified as the representative of the Company's
electrician employees where an object thereof is to force or
require the Company to recognize or bargain with Respon-
dent Union as the representative of the Company's electri-
cian employees, or to force or require the electrician em-
ployees of the Company to accept or select Respondent
Union as their collective-bargaining representative, even
though the Company has lawfully recognized in accor-
dance with the Act another labor orgnaization, the Orange
Metal Trades Council and its member International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 390, AFL-
CIO, and a question concerning representation may not
appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act.
(b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any indi-
vidual employed by the Company or any other person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his em-
ployment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services; or threatening,
coercing, or restraining the Company or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
where in either case an object thereof is to force or require
the Company to recognize and bargain with Respondent
Union as the representative of its electrician employees
even though another labor organization, the Orange Metal
6 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.
528
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 479
Trades Council, of which IBEW Local 390 is a member,
has been certified as the representative of such employees
under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effecutate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." ' Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 23, shall be duly signed and posted by Respondent
Union immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted, for 60 consecutive days.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail or deliver to said Regional Director signed cop-
ies of said notice for posting by Levingston Shipbuilding
Company, if said employer is willing to do so.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken by Respondent Union to comply herewith.
7In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, or
threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, Levingston
Shipbuilding Company at the Dallas-Beadle building
site, or at any other facility, at a time when we are not
currently certified as the representative of the
Company's electrician employees where an object
thereof is to force or require the Company to recog-
nize or bargain with us as the representative of the
Company's electrician employees, or to force or re-
quire the electrician employees of the Company to ac-
cept or select us as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, even though the Company has lawfully
recognized in accordance with the National Labor Re-
lations Act another labor organization, the Orange
Metal Trades Council and its member International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No.
390, AFL- CIO, and a question concerning representa-
tion may not appropriately be raised under the Act.
WE WILL Nol engage in, or induce or encourage any
individual employed by the Company or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affect-
ing commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the
course of his employment to use, manufacture, pro-
cess, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to per-
form services; or threaten, coerce, or restrain the
Company or any other person engaged in comemrce
or in an industry affecting commerce where in either
case an object thereof is to force or require the Com-
pany to recognize and bargain with us as the represen-
tative of the Company's electrician employees even
though another labor organization, Orange Metal
Trades Council, of which IBEW Local 390 is a mem-
ber, has been certified as the representative of such
employees under the Act.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECMRICAL
WORKERS. LOCAL UNION NO 479, AFL-CIO
529