Local 215, IBEW

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 25, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 468 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 215, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Rondout Electric, Inc. Cases 3-CC-719 and 3-CC-725 June 25, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On February 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Morton D. Friedman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions 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 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 brief 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 Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Local 215, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Poughkeepsie, New York, its officers, agents, and rep- resentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to 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, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MORTON D . FRIEDMAN , Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge filed in Case 3-CC-719 on October 16, 1972, by Rondout Electric , Inc., herein called Rondout , and a charge filed in Case 3-CC-725 on October 31 , 1972 by Rondout, the Regional Director for Region 3 of the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board , issued a com- plaint on November 29, 1972, on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board against Local 215, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or Local 215, alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec., 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer the Respondent, while admitting certain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing in this case was held before me at Poughkeepsie, New York, on December 14, 1972. All parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument , and to file briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel, the Charging Party and the Respondent. Upon consideration of the entire record herein and upon my observation of each witness appearing before me, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTIONAL FACTS Rondout, a New York corporation, maintains its princi- pal office and place of business in Poughkeepsie, New York, and is engaged in the construction industry as an electrical contractor. During the year immediately preceding issuance of the complaint herein, a representative period, Rondout purchased, transferred, and delivered to its Poughkeepsie, New York, facility, equipment and materials valued in ex- cess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported to said facility directly from points outside the State of New York. The Grand Union Company (herein called Grand Union), a Delaware corporation with its principal office at East Paterson, New Jersey, is engaged in various States of the United States, including the State of New York, in the retail food business. Healy Corporation, herein called Healy, a Massachusetts corporation with its principal office in Braintree, Massachu- setts , is engaged in the building and construction industry as a general contractor. At the times material to this pro- ceeding, Healy has been engaged as general contractor for Grand Union in the construction of a retail food store at Rhinebeck, New York, herein called the Rhinebeck jobsite. The value of the contract for this construction is approxi- mately $500,000. T. J. Nocket, Inc., herein called Nocket, a New York corporation with its office located at Poughkeepsie, New York, is engaged in the building and construction industry as a plumbing contractor. During the times material to this proceeding Nocket was engaged as a plumbing subcontrac- tor at the Rhinebeck jobsite pursuant to a contract with Healy. Hudson Valley Plastering & Acoustical Co., Inc., herein called Hudson Valley, a New York corporation with its principal office at Poughkeepsie, New York, is engaged in the building and construction industry as an acoustical and ceiling contractor. At the times material herein Hudson Valley was engaged as an acoustical and ceiling contractor. At the times material herein Hudson Valley was engaged as an acoustical and ceiling contractor at the Rhinebeck job- site pursuant to a contract with Healy. 204 NLRB No. 79 LOCAL 215, IBEW 469 Dutchess Quarry & Supply Co., herein called Dutchess, a New York corporation with its principal office at Pleasant Valley, New York, was engaged at all times material to this proceeding at the Rhinebeck jobsite as a supplier of various materials to Healy pursuant to a contract with Healy. The Schultz Company, herein called Schultz, a New York corporation with its principal office in New York City, at all material times has been engaged in the manufacture and installation of freezers and coolers at the Rhinebeck jobsite pursuant to a contract with Grand Union. Craig Industrial Builders, Inc., herein called Craig, a New Jersey corporation with its principal office at South Hack- ensack , New Jersey, is engaged in the building and con- struction industry as a general contractor . At the times material to this proceeding , Craig has been engaged as a general contractor for Grand Union in the construction of a retail food store at Pawling , New York, herein called the Pawlingjobsite . The contract of Craig with Grand Union at the Pawling jobsite is of a value in excess of $500,000. At the times material herein , Rondout has been engaged as an electrical subcontractor at the Rhinebeck jobsite pur- suant to a contract with Healy and at the Pawling jobsite pursuant to a contract with Craig. I find that Rondout , Grand Union, Healy , Nocket, Hud- son Valley, Dutchess Quarry, Schultz , and Craig are em- ployers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and are engaged in commerce or in an industry (i.e., the building and construction industry) affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent, Local 215, is a labor organization with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues 1. Did the Respondent by picketing and other means seek to induce and encourage employees of various employ- ers engaged in the construction at the Rhinebeck jobsite to strike against , or refuse to perform services for their various employers with the object of forcing these employee to cease doing business with Rondout, the electrical contractor on the job? 2. Did the Respondent by threats and other coercive measures seek to induce or persuade Grand Union and Craig and Healy, the prime contractors on the construction of the Pawling and Rhinebeck jobsites respectively , to cease doing business or to refuse to do business with Rondout as the electrical contractor on those jobs? B. Background As heretofore related , Rondout is in the electrical con- tracting business . Its employees are represented by a union the name and location of which are not mentioned in the record . However , it is evident that for some time in the Poughkeepsie , New York , area, which would include most of Dutchess County, New York , and in other areas of the State of New York , Rondout has been quite successful in under bidding contractors whose employees are memberf of various locals of the International Brotherhood of Electr cal Workers, herein IBEW, and especially with the Respondent Local 215, herein. By reason of this situation, the Respon- dent has for some years prior to the events which allegedly constitute the violations alleged in the complaint had some- what of a running dispute or argument with Rondout. Es- sentially, the Respondent has complained to Rondout that Rondout pays its employees less than the rate required by IBEW contractors and that general working conditions of Rondout do not measure up to those enjoyed by Respondent 's members as employees . This, evidently, en- ables Rondout to under bid the contractors who are obliged by bargaining agreements with the Respondent to pay the wages and fringe benefits required by these contracts. As evidence of the foregoing situation , several contrac- tors in the Poughkeepsie , New York, area testified as to their difficulties in this respect. Thus , James A. Klein , who is in the construction business in the Poughkeepsie area, was engaged in 1970 in the con- struction of a project known as the Greenbrier Apartments. Before the electrical subcontract on that project was let, John Varricchio , business agent for the Respondent , visited Klein 's office in the company of Robert Rowe , president of the Poughkeepsie Area Building Trades Council. They asked who was going to do the electrical work on the job if Rondout was one of the bidders. Varricchio said they were not happy that Rondout was a bidder. They further said that if Rondout received the award and did the job that there would be trouble on the job and they would not allow Klein to proceed with it. Because of this, Klein gave the work to another contractor who had a collective -bargaining agreement with the Respondent. Also, in November 1971, Klein was awarded the prime contract for the construction of the Apple Valley Shopping Center in Poughkeepsie . Rondout bid on that job for the electrical work . Varricchio visited Klein and made similar statements to Klein regarding that job as he had with regard to the Greenbrier Apartments job. In sum, he told Klein if Rondout was awarded the electrical work there would be trouble on the job.2 In 1971 and 1972 Herbert Redl , a developer , engaged DeGroodt Brothers as general contractors for the construc- tion of a shopping center known as Pleasant Valley Shop- ping Center in the Poughkeepsie area. Although DeGroodt Brothers were the general contractors, Redl let the electrical installation contract himself . Rondout bid on the job and Redi awarded the contract to Rondout. In July 1971, Var- ricchio spoke to Redl and asked the latter who was going to get the electrical work . When Redl answered that the work had been awarded to Rondout, Varricchio said Rond- out was not recognized by his union and that if Rondout did the work he would probably have to put pickets on the job. Varricchio also stated to Redl that Rondout belonged to a "Mafia Union" in New Jersey. Although Varricchio did not I Michael Palumbo d/b/a American Homes Systems, 200 NLRB No 158 2 From the uncontroverted testimony of Klein which I credit 470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD threaten to close down the job, Redl, because of Varricchio's statement to him, was fearful that the job would be closed down and assumed a picket line would be placed at the job. However, Redl did admit on cross-exami- nation that no picket line was ever established and that Rondout was allowed to peacefully complete the awarded electrical work.3 It should be noted, however, that the work Rondout did for Redl was performed on weekends when other trades were not on the job. In addition to the foregoing, in 1969 the Respondent picketed for 2 months a construction site for the building of a YMCA in Poughkeepsie on which Rondout was the elec- trical contractor. Also, before 1969 the Respondent likewise picketed a project on which Rondout was the electrical contractor which project was known as "Nine Mall" in Poughkeepsie.4 C. The Facts Constituting the Alleged Violations Early in 1972, Healy was engaged as general contractor for the construction of a retail grocery store for Grand Union at Rhinebeck, New York. Around April 25, 1972, Joseph A. LeBlanc was placed on that job by Healy as general superintendent. Subcontractors were Nocket, plumbing; Hudson Valley, acoustical and sheetrock; Dutchess, materials such as concrete, manholes, etc.; Schultz, coolers and freezers; and Rondout as the electrical contractor. On approximately May 10 or 11, 1972, John Varricchio visited the jobsite together with two other individuals, one of whom was Rowe, president of the Building Trades Coun- cil of the Poughkeepsie area. After introducing himself to LeBlanc, Varricchio introduced the others and then asked who had the electrical work. LeBlanc answered "Rondout." Varrichio then told LeBlanc that Rondout "was not accept- able" to the Respondent. He further told LeBlanc that Rondout "wouldn't be doing the job-they wouldn't let him do thejob. He wasn't acceptable." Varricchio further stated that they wouldn't let Rondout do the job "even if they had to get the F.B.I. to get him out of there." On a second visit LeBlanc informed Varricchio, after LeBlanc had checked with Grand Union, that Grand Union wanted Rondout because Rondout had saved Grand Union money before and also that Rondout was a union contrac- tor but was not recognized by the Respondent. To this 3 From the uncontroverted testimony of Redl which I credit ° From the uncontroverted testimony of Wilbur J Whitman, president of Rondout At the hearing herein, Respondent's counsel objected to the foregoing background testimony of Klein, Redl, and Whitman on the basis that the events related occurred more than 6 months before the filing of the charges herein and were therefore barred by the statute of limitations contained in Section 10(b) of the Act However, as hereinafter found, none of these incidents are found to have been violative of the Act and were received as background material to shed light on any possible unlawful object with regard to the events which are alleged in the complaint herein to have been violative of the Act Section 10(b) does not preclude consideration of prior events to shed light on the motivation for conduct occurring within the limitations period. Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machin- ists v N L R B, 362 U.S 411, 416-417 (1960) Carpenters District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO (J E Dunn Construction Co.), 158 NLRB 269, 272. Varricchio made no response and left the jobsite.5 On September 22, 1972, when the Rhinebeck construc- tion site was sufficiently completed for the electrical work to be started, and for Rondout to begin working at the jobsite, a separate reserve gate was set up at the jobsite for Rondout's employees and suppliers. This gate contained a sign reading substantially, "This gate reserved for Rondout Electric, Inc., its employees and suppliers." It also stated no one was to use that gate other than those individuals. This gate was located on Route 9 in Rhinebeck and was on the north side of the project and was designated the north gate. The main gate to the project was on the south side of the project and known as the south gate. At the south was a sign which read, substantially, "This gate reserved for Healy Construction Company and subcontractors other than Rondout Electric." Rondout instructed its employees to use only the reserve gate. As far as the record shows this instruc- tion was followed at all times by Rondout's employees and suppliers. Picketing began by the Respondent at the reserve gate at the Rhinebeck jobsite by utilization of a single picket on either October 9 or 10, 1972. However, before the picketing began, on September 12, 1972, Varricchio, on Respondent's letterhead, sent a letter to Rondout in which, in substance, the Respondent protested the undercutting of union wages and benefits by Rondout. The letter mentioned that the Respondent was informed that Rondout was paying sub- stantially less than union scale prevailing for such work in the Poughkeepsie area and that such substandard benefits adversely affect other employees in the industry in that area. Varricchio specifically stated in the letter that the Respon- dent was not requesting that Rondout employ members of any particular labor organization. Nor did the letter request recognition of the Respondent by Rondout as representa- tive of Rondout's employees. The letter stated "Our sole purpose is to seek to eliminate the threat to union wages and benefits that has arisen as a result of the practices of your firm." The letter further stated that the Respondent would be happy to oblige Rondout and furnish the latter with information regarding the wages and fringe benefits of em- ployees in the electrical industry in the Poughkeepsie area. However, the letter went on to say that so long as Rondout prevailed in paying substandard wages and other benefits, the Respondent would picket any projects upon which Rondout was engaged. To the letter was attached a series of instructions to the pickets. These instructions informed the pickets to conform to picketing as declared by the Board to be lawful for com- mon situs picketing in the case of Moore Dry Dock.6 The instructions further informed the pickets not to talk to any- 5 From the credited testimony of Joseph LeBlanc At the time of the hearing herein LeBlanc had left the project in question to become superinten- dent on another job away from New York State for Healy I was much impressed with LeBlanc and it should be noted that his testimony on cross- examination in no way contradicted his testimony on direct I believe that, in sum, LeBlanc was a more objective witness than was Varricchio who denied any threat to LeBlanc that the Respondent would not permit Rondout to do thejob. Varricchio testified merely that he told LeBlanc that Rondout, to his knowledge , was signed with a "paper local" controlled by the "Mob," but that Varricchto said nothing about Rondout's acceptability except to say that Rondout was not a signed contractor with the Respondent 6 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547 LOCAL 215, IBEW one, but that if anyone asked the picket questions, to refer him to Varricchio. According to Varricchio and John A. DiBiase , the lone picket, these instructions were strictly fol- lowed by DiBiase. When the picket first appeared at the reserve gate on October 9 or 10, members of other crafts who were working for the other subcontractors on the job at first refused to enter the jobsite. However this lasted for only an hour or so and after calling their business agents these employees went to work. Nevertheless, despite these instructions, the car- penters on the job worked Monday, Tuesday, and Wednes- day and then remained off the job on Thursday and Friday and all of the next week. According to Stuart Malcolm, who was the business representative of Local 203 of the Carpen- ters Union, he gave the picketing carpenters no instructions whatsoever. However, on one day, probably October 18, a carpenter named Gary Gallente called Malcolm from the job and informed Malcolm that there was a picket on the job. According to Malcolm he told Gallente it was up to the latter to do whatever he wanted to do. Malcolm also admit- ted that he may have told Gallente that he did not want to discuss the matter over the telephone. At first Malcolm denied this but on being confronted with his pretrial affida- vit he admitted that this was so. However, DiBiase admitted that on a day not certain, but after the picketing started, he noticed Gallente at the main project gate and proceded to leave his picketing duties at the reserve gate, approach Gallente who was, DiBiase claimed, a friend, and engage in a personal conversation with Gal- lente. According to DiBiase, the picketing or the purpose of the picketing was not mentioned in that conversation which lasted only a few minutes. However, although DiBiase did not actually block the gate during the conversation, some of the employees gathered around and the group was disband- ed only after LeBlanc, Healy's job superintendent, instruct- ed the employees to do so. However, it was probably after this conversation that Gallente called Carpenters Business Agent Malcolm with regard to instructions as to what to do and whether to proceed to work on the job. Another incident in which DiBiase, as the lone picket at the reserve gate, was involved took place toward the end of the first week of picketing. This incident occurred in the presence of Wilbur Whitman, president of Respondent. The incident occurred at about 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon. At that time a truckdriver from Dutchess Quarry with mate- rial for Healy approached the jobsite. When he saw DiBiase at the reserve gate along Route 9 in Rhinebeck, the driver stopped his truck at the reserve gate, got out, and walked over to talk to DiBiase. With that, Whitman, who observed the occurrence, walked over to the gate. According to Whit- man, the driver asked the picket if the whole job was being picketed. DiBiase answered that "this was a picket sign that he was wearing and the whole job was being picketed." Then DiBiase stated to the truckdriver that "the driver was a member of the Teamsters and that he valued his card." DiBiase further stated to the truckdriver that all of the other trades were honoring the picket line and he did not want to see the truckdriver lose his card, or words to that effect. According to DiBiase, the truckdriver approached him and asked him what was going on. DiBiase answered that 471 he was picketing "this gate ." The driver then told DiBiase that he was wondering whether to cross and DiBiase an- swered "that it was at his own discretion." According to DiBiase he then explained that he could not say one way or the other and that if the driver had any question to call Varricchio. That, according to DiBiase, was the total con- versation. According to LeBlanc, Healy's job superintendent, al- though he saw the truck stop, he did not overhear the con- versation . Nevertheless he needed the material that was on the truck and called the office of Dutchess Quarry. The truckdriver , in the meantime , proceded to a nearby lumber yard where he called the office and possibly his business agent . At any rate , after an hour or so , the material was ultimately delivered to the job through the main gate. Upon my observation of the witnesses , DiBiase and Whitman , I conclude that Whitman 's version is the more accurate and more specific of tle two. Although both of these witnesses had a stake in the ' outcome of this proceed- ing, Whitman as president of the Charging Party, and Di- Biase as a member of the Respondent Union, I conclude that Whitman is the more credible of the two. I therefore accept his version of DiBiase's conversation with the Dutch- ess Quarry truckdriver. At about the same time that all of the foregoing was occurring, Grand Union had let another construction job for one of its supermarkets to be located in Pawling, New York, to Craig Industrial Builders. According to Joseph Craig, president of Craig Industrial, whom I credit, he had a conversation with Varricchio regarding the awarding of the electrical work at the Pawling jobsite. Although Craig could not place the exact date of his first conversation with Varricchio it was either August, September, or October 1972 that the meeting took place at Craig's field office in Pawling. At that time, the award for the electrical work had not been granted to anyone and Varricchio asked Craig who was doing the electrical work. Craig told Varricchio that Rond- out was the low bidder. At this point Varricchio informed Craig that Rondout was not a union contractor, that is not an IBEW contractor, and that Rondout belonged to a "gyp- sy union outfit in New Jersey." This, according to Craig was the full conversation at that time. In late October, according to Craig, Varricchio came to the jobsite and asked Craig to whom the electrical work had been awarded. Craig told Varricchio that Rondout was awarded the contract. Varricchio then told Craig that Rondout was a "bum, that he could not handle the job." Varricchio also told Craig, "it would cause a lot of trouble for me on the job with the other locals and the other busi- ness agents." According to Varricchio he merely told Craig that Varricchio was not "too happy with Rondout because they were signed with an unacceptable organization." Var- ricchio, according to his own testimony, also told Craig that Rondout's union was a "mob-controlled paper local." How- ever, I find that Craig's version of the testimony was more complete and therefore more credible. I also base this find- ing on my observation of these two individuals. There was a third meeting between Varricchio, Craig, and Daniel Casey, supervisor of architecture for the Grand Union Company. The exact date of this conversation is not 472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD certain . However , according to Casey, the conversation took place some time in July 1972. Casey came to the meet- ing at the behest of Varricchio who called him and told him that there were going to be some "problems" on the job. At the meeting, Varricchio stated that the electrical contractor on the job, Rondout, was with a nonunion or a "gypsy" union . Varricchio went on to state that "the guy" was a bum and would never be able to complete the job and that there were good electricians in the area that could do the job. Casey explained to Varricchio that Grand Union had noth- ing to do with the subcontractors and that it was up to the general contractor, Craig, to grant the work to whomever it chose. Then Varricchio, according to Casey, said something to the order of "if Rondout did the job, we would never get the job completed." With that Casey told Varricchio that he had gotten threats all his life in that business and that he would call Craig the general contractor and have Rondout get in touch with Varricchio. Several weeks later, Casey received a quote from an electrical contractor lower, or as low as, Rondout's bid but this was that contractor's second bid. Casey told Varricchio, since the general contractor al- ready had verbally committed thejob to Rondout, the origi- nal low bidder, Casey thought the committment should be honored. Casey did not thereafter hear from Varricchio. Because Casey's version of the conversation conforms to that of Craig, and because from my observation of Casey I conclude that he is a credible witness, I credit his testimo- ny over the denials of Varricchio that any threats were made at the meeting. The picketing at the Rhinebeck jobsite continued for about a month until the date that an electrical contractor, who employed the Respondent's members, was given part of the work on the Rhinebeck job and commenced opera- tions. At that time the picket was taken off the job. Varricchio testified that the reason the picket was re- moved from the Rhinebeck jobsite was not that part of the award for the electrical work was given to a contractor which dealt with the Respondent, but rather that the picket- ing had become too expensive for Respondent to continue. It should be noted that in connection with the picketing there is no contention by any party that the signs carried by the picket were anything but proper, indicating informa- tional picketing. In connection with the picketing, further, it should be noted that Rondout sent to the Respondent, on September 22, 1972, a letter informing the Respondent that there was going to be established a gate reserved for Rondout's em- ployees and suppliers. According to Whitman, whom I cred- it in this respect , he sent this letter because he had been warned by Healy's superintendent that the job might be picketed. Also, of course, Whitman had in mind the fact that the Respondent had picketed Rondout jobs at other times in the past' 7 At the hearing the Charging Party was permitted to introduce into evi- dence a letter similar to the letter sent by Varricchio to Rondout This letter was from another local of the IBEW located in Schenectady , New York The wording of that letter was virtually identical with the wording of the letter sent by Varricchio. This second letter was sent to Rondout by reason of the fact that Rondout had been awarded the electrical contract for the building of a facility at Ballston Spa, New York. The Charging Party sought to introduce other letters of similar identical nature from other various locals D. Discussion and Concluding Findings The Respondent contends that its actions were primary in every instance, that the picketing ahered to the Moore Dry Dock standards, and that the conversations between Varric- chio and the various contractors were merely to inform the contractors that Rondout was a nonunion contractor and that the bids should be awarded to contractors having labor agreements with the Respondent. The Respondent further contends that it did not cause any work stoppages, that its picketing proof of threats, restraints, or coercion with re- gard to any of the persons or companies involved herein. While the case presented by the General Counsel is not overwhelming, I find and conclude that the contentions of the Respondent are, nevertheless, without merit. The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the credible testimony regarding the activities of the Respondent, as exemplified by Varricchio's various conver- sations with various employers and by the picketing at the Rhinebeck jobsite, amply demonstrates that the Respondent's object was ultimately to drive Rondout out of business. However, it is immaterial whether the ultimate purpose of the Respondent's actions with regard to Rond- out was to put Rondout out of business, or to force Rondout to recognize Respondent as the bargaining representative of Rondout's employees, or any other purpose, so long as the General Counsel has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an object of the Respondent's activities was that which is proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Respondent argues that this object has not been proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence as witnessed by the fact that its picketing at the Rhinebeck jobsite was in conformity with the standards set forth in the Moore Dry Dock case.8 However, the Board and the courts have long held that the Moore Dry Dock standards, as related to com- mon situs picketing, are not the single guide for determining the legality of such common situs picketing. The Board has held, as have the courts, that these standards and guides are merely evidentiary in nature and that they are to be em- ployed in the absence of more direct evidence of the intent and purposes of the labor organization conducting such picketing.' "Thus mere compliance with the four requirements of the Moore Dry Dock case does not immunize a union's picketing and other conduct, for a union may, by its other conduct reveal that its objective is secondary."10 The Supreme Court has recognized that compliance with the Moore Dry Dock standards is not the sole determining factor in common situs picketing but that other evidence may and must be looked of the IBEW to Rondout in other instances where Rondout had been award- ed jobs for the electrical subcontracting However, in view of my decision herein, it is unnecessary to discuss these letters 9 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547 9 N L R B v international Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local No 1140, AFL-CID, 285 F 2d 397, 401 (C.A 8, (1960), cert. denied, 366 U S 903 (1961), General Teamster, Warehouse and Dairy Employees Union Local No. 126, etc (Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc), 200 NLRB No 41 10 Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc., supra, New York Mailers Union No 6 IN Y Herald Tribune, Inc & New-Gravure Printing Co 1 v. N.L.R B, 316 F.2d 371, 372 (C.A.D.C, 1963). LOCAL 215, IBEW 473 to in order to determine whether the impact of the picketing on neutral employees was merely an incident of activity directed at the primary employer or whether a deliberate attempt was made to induce employees of secondary em- ployers to engage in concerted conduct against their em- ployer in order to force their employer to refuse to deal with the struck employer.' It is therefore necessary, in order to determine whether the picketing and the other activity of the Respondent in the case at bar was lawful or unlawful, to consider all of the evidence presented in order to determine whether there ex- isted an unlawful object within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. As hereinabove set forth, the picketing at the Rhinebeck jobsite continued for about a month beginning around Oc- tober 10, 1972. At first the carpenters and plumbers em- ployed by other subcontractors and by Healy at the jobsite refused to work when the picket appeared at the reserved gate. Then, there was a time, shortly thereafter, that the carpenters refused to work for Healy and Healy's subcon- tractors for a period of approximately a week and a half. That these were not merely incidental results of primary picketing but rather were the outcome of a deliberate at- tempt to induce employees not to work for their respective employers with the unlawful object of forcing the employers to cease doing business with Rondout is evidenced by other factors as set forth above. Thus, there was the incident involving the truckdriver of Dutchess Quarry in which the picket told the driver that the entire job was on strike and inferred that if the truckdriver valued his union card he had better honor the picket line and refuse to make the delivery to Healy. Nor can this incident be regarded as beyond the instructions given to the picket by the Respondent's busi- ness representative. Nor can it be viewed as isolated inas- much as the very same picket left his post at the reserved gate and walked to the main gate of the project, used by Healy and subcontractors other than Rondout, and spoke to a "friend" who was a member of the Carpenters Local. Although the picket, DiBiase, testified that this was merely an innocent conversation which lasted for only a few min- utes, LeBlanc, superintendent for Healy on the jobsite, stat- ed that the conversation was broken up only upon his ordering the men to do so. Moreover, the very individual to whom the picket spoke later called up the Carpenter busi- ness agent on the telephone asking for advice and was not directed to go to work but merely that the business agent did not want to discuss the matter on the telephone. All of these incidents must be considered together as bits and pieces of the whole activity of the Respondent. Other items of evidence, including the background must be considered. At least from 1969 to the date of the events alleged in the complaint the Respondent was having a run- ning battle with Rondout during which it threatened Klein with trouble on Klein's jobsites if Rondout was awarded the electrical work, in which the Respondent by Varricchio threatened Herbert Redl of trouble on his jobsite in July 1971 and of the threats of trouble made by Varricchio to LeBlanc of Healy Construction, Craig of Craig Industrial 11 Local 761 , International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO v N LRB , 366 U S. 667, 673-674 (1961) Builders and Casey representing the Grand Union. As stat- ed above, although Varricchio testified that he never men- tioned the word "trouble," I have not credited such denial inasmuch as all of these individuals who testified uniformly stated Varricchio threatened there would be trouble on any job that they undertook on which the electrical contracting was to be awarded to at the reserved gate stopped immedi- ately upon the award to a contractor who possessed a bar- gaining relationship with the Respondent for some of the electrical work on the Rhinebeck job. All of the foregoing events and activity point not to an innocent connotation of primary object but rather to a sec- ondary objective of forcing the various employers, above mentioned, to cease doing business with Rondout. Thus, all of the conduct and all of the events considered as a whole, and as interrelated with each other, lead to the conclusion that the picketing and the other conduct of the Respondent constituted inducement of employees of Healy, Dutchess Quarry, T. J. Nocket, Hudson Valley Plastering to cease doing business with Rondout, an employer unac- ceptable, by Varricchio's own statements, to the Respon- dent. Thus, I find and conclude that the Respondent by all of its activities has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. IV THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth 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 the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend an Order for it to cease and desist therefrom and to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 215, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Rondout, Grand Union, Healy, Nocket, Hudson Val- ley, Dutchess Quarry, Schultz, Craig Industrial, are employ- ers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and are engaged in commerce or industry affecting commerce with- in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By picketing at the Rhinebeck, New York, jobsite of Grand Union, with an object of (a) forcing or requiring Grand Union and or Healy to cease doing business with Rondout and (b) forcing or requiring Nocket, Hudson Val- ley, Dutchess Quarry, and Schultz, to cease doing business with Healy to force or coerce Healy to cease doing business with Rondout, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. By threatening Craig and Grand Union with picketing at the Pawling, New York, jobsite with an object of forcing or requiring Craig and Grand Union to cease doing business with Rondout and by threatening Healy at the Rhinebeck jobsite with picketing with an object of forcing or requiring Healy to cease doing business with Rondout , Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice proscribed by Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions of law , and the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: been taken to comply herewith. 12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , 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 13 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the works 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." APPENDIX ORDER12 Respondent , Local 215, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, its officers , agents and rep- resentatives , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging , by picketing or any other means, individuals employed by Healy, Nocket, Hudson Valley, Dutchess Quarry, or Schultz, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employ- ment to perform services for their respective employers, where an object thereof is to force any person to cease doing business with Rondout or to force or require Grand Union, Healy, Nocket, Hudson Valley, Dutchess, Schultz, or any person engaged in commerce to cease doing business with Rondout. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Grand Union, Healy, or Craig, or any other employer engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require Grand Union, Healy, and Craig , or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Rondout. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at the Respondent 's business office, meeting hall, and all other places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of the Respondent , shall be post- ed by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days therafter in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices posted by it are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 3 for posting by the employers named in this Order, they be willing, at all places where notices to their respective employees are customarily post- ed. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage, by picketing or any other means, individuals employed by Healy Cor- poration, T. J. Nocket, Inc., Hudson Valley Plastering & Accoustical Co., Inc., Dutchess Quarry & Supply Co., Inc., or Schultz Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce , to engage in strikes or refusals to perform serv- ices for their respective employers, where an object thereof is to force or require any person to cease doing business with Rondout Electric, Inc., or to force or require Grand Union, Healy, Nocket, Hudson Valley, Dutchess Quarry, or Schultz Company, or any person engaged in commerce , or in an industry affecting com- merce to cease doing business with Rondout Electric, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Grand Union Company, Healy Corporation, or Craig Indus- trial Builders , Inc., or any other employer engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require Grand Union, Healy, or Craig, or any other person engaged in com- merce or an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Rondout Electric, Inc. Dated By LOCAL 215, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , AFL-CIO (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days LOCAL 215, IBEW 475 from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 9th or covered by any other material. Floor, Federal Building, 111 West Huron Street, Buffalo, Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100.