Local 3, IBEW

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 15, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 193 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

LOCAL 3, II3EW Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, AFL-CIO and Hylan Electric Company, Inc. Case 29-CC-330 June 15, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On February 21, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Irving M. Herman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to the Respondent's exceptions. 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 2 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 the Respondent Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Brooklyn, New York, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order. DECISION 193 IRVING M. HERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried before me at Brooklyn, New York, on October 19 and 20, 1972.' The charge was filed by Hylan Electric Com- pany, Inc., on August 22 and served upon Respondent by mail the same day. The complaint issued August 31. The primary issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151 et seq.), herein called the Act, by certain statements and picketing. Also in issue is the applicability of the Board's jurisdictional standards. Upon the entire record,2 including my observation of the witnesses , and after due consideration of the briefs filed on behalf of General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respon- dent, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I CHARGING PARTY'S BUSINESS Charging Party (herein called Hylan) is a New York cor- poration, engaged as an electrical contractor in the New York metropolitan area, with its principal office and place of business at 1417 Hylan Boulevard, Staten Island. Its main suppliers or distributors of material are East Coast Lighting Supply, Carston Electric, and Schecht Electric Supply. The first two are located in Staten Island and the last in Brooklyn. During the past year its purchases from its suppliers exceeded the value of $130,000, 80 to 90 percent of which emanated from factories located outside of New York. Although all of such goods were purchased from local distributors almost half were shipped directly from the man- ufacturers to Hylan either at its warehouse or its various jobsites. In addition, during the past year, Hylan purchased from automobile dealers in Staten Island new automotive vehicles costing approximately $20,000 that had been man- ufactured by Chrysler Corporation and General Motors. I find that Hylan's operations meet the Board's inflow stan- dard (Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85), and that Hylan is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.' 11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ' 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 F2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 Member Fanning , in agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge's con- clusion that the Respondent violated Sec . 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, relies solely on the record evidence that the picketing failed to conform to the standards set forth in Sailors Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547, rather than on the Administrative Law Judge's further finding that the picketing , even if it had conformed to the Moore Dry Dock standards, would have been in violation of the Act in view of its unlawful object which was to force Malone , the general contractor , to remove Hylan from the jobsite as evidenced by Takvor's reply to Koziol's inquiry concerning the reason for the picketing. See dissent in International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No 11, AFL-CIO (L G Electric Contractors, Inc), 154 NLRB 766 A. The Facts Around the middle of May, Hylan, which had a collec- tive-bargaining agreement with the Teamsters expiring No- vember 1973, contracted with Malone-Victoria Corp. (Malone herein), a general contractor, to perform the elec- trical work at a garden apartment project consisting of three ' All dates are in 1972 unless otherwise stated. 2 On January 9, 1973, I issued an order to show cause (which is hereby received in the record as ALJ Exh 1) why the transcript of the hearing should not be corrected in certain respects No good cause to the contrary having been shown , such corrections are hereby ordered made. 31 find no substance to Respondent's contentions that ( 1) Vaccaro, Hylan 's president , who does the purchasing and ordering for that company and on whose testimony the above findings rest, could not know where the supplies originated , or (2) certain other companies shared such supplies 204 NLRB No. 38 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD buildings totaling 42 apartments located at 101, 111, and 121 Lyman Avenue in Staten Island. Hylan did not start work until mid-August. However, pickets appeared at the project on July 6 carrying a sign bearing the following leg- end: TO THE PUBLIC THE ELECTRICIANS EMPLOYED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR RECEIVE WAGES , TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT LESS THAN THOSE RECEIVED BY MEMBERS OF LOCAL NO 3 OF THE I B E W , AFL-CIO When Malone's president, Julius Koziol, first saw the pickets upon his arrival at the project about 8 a.m. he told them he wanted to talk with the union delegate. They so informed the Union , and Business Representative Michael Takvor appeared on the scene between 10 and 11 o'clock. Koziol pointed out that there were no electricians on the job and asked why Respondent was picketing. Takvor replied, according to his own testimony, that he understood the job had been "awarded to DiLeo" 4 and he would "rather see the job given to someone who will also pay the wages and conditions of Local No. 3, IBEW." s Koziol asked whom he could call in that connection, and Takvor gave him several names . Koziol then asked what Takvor was going to do about the picket line. Takvor replied that the issue of pro- tecting Respondent's wage rate still existed . However, in response to Koziol's request for an opportunity to call a contractor on Takvor's list, Takvor agreed to remove the pickets. According to Koziol, Takvor added that if Malone did not use a union contractor Malone would "have trouble on the job." Takvor did not deny this. Shortly thereafter Wil- liam Vaccaro, president of Hylan, received a telephone call from one Stanley Laker, one of the more active members of Respondent, who suggested that Vaccaro get in touch with Takvor to set up a meeting concerning the possibility of Hylan's entering into some arrangement with Respondent. Vaccaro called Takvor who knew that Laker had talked with him, and a meeting was scheduled for around mid-July. Present at the meeting, besides Takvor and Vaccaro, was 4 John DiLeo, a member of a family at odds with the Union, is a part owner of Hylan s Koziol testified that Takvor said that "only a contractor from Local 3 can work on the job " As I view the case it is unnecessary to resolve the conflict 6 Koziol testified to a similar threat by Takvor again on August 18 On direct examination , Takvor did not deny either threat On redirect, however, in answer to questions dealing specifically with the August 18 conversation, Takvor, after stating that he did not "recall using that word [ "trouble"] in any conversation with Mr. Koziol," categorically stated that he had "never used the word 'trouble,"' that "the worst word [he] might have used was `problem,"' i.e., that "if he were to employ people at a wage and benefit structure less than ours, it would create a problem for me. If he could be helpful in that respect, it would be very much appreciated." [ emphasis added] On recross , however, he admitted adding that absent a basis for such appreci- ation, i.e, if Local 3 standards were not met, "then it would leave me no choice but to do what I would have to do." Joseph Chaloupka, Respondent's assistant business manag- er in charge of organizing. Various construction sites involv- ing Hylan were mentioned, including the Lyman Avenue project. While they all agreed that Hylan's existing contract with the Teamsters constituted an obstacle to recognition of Respondent at that time, Chaloupka and Takvor suggested, according to the latter, that the problem "could be sur- mounted if there was enough sincere desire on the part of the employer," Hylan commenced work at the Lyman Avenue site with four or five men on Monday, August 14, and continued until August 16 when it completed the first section of its assignment. It then had to await further progress by the other crafts before continuing on the job. According to Vaccaro, whom I credit, Hylan's men therefore left the site on August 16 and did not return until August 28 when about 2 additional days' work became available. During that inter- vening period Hylan left no equipment at the site.' Howev- er, as already indicated (supra, fn.6), Takvor visited Koziol the afternoon of August 18 and, remarking that Hylan was doing the work, stated, according to Koziol, "You're going to have trouble." Pursuant to instructions that same night from Takvor to picket captain Robert Clark, Respondent's picketing of the site resumed Monday morning, August 21, employing the same signs used in July. Vaccaro learned of this when Ko- ziol called his office. After going to the site and observing the picket line Vaccaro returned to his office and sent a telegram to Respondent stating that no Hylan electricians were at the site and requesting immediate removal of the pickets.' Nevertheless the pickets remained at the site until about 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, August 24. Hylan filed the instant charge on August 22. Takvor testified that he did not "see" the telegram before Wednesday "and possibly it wasn't until Thursday when [he] actually picked it up;" and that he then discussed it with his superior (Chaloupka) and with Respondent's attorney who told him he "was familiar with it and . . . would instruct [him] to , . . take the pickets off." Vaccaro and John DiLeo continued to visit the site a few times each day to observe the picketing and to ascertain when Hylan's services would again be required. Clark testified that throughout the period of the August picketing an "employee" of DiLeo, whom he was unable to identify, was present, sitting in an aluminum chair just in- side the gate, leaving it only to "go to the bathroom;" that DiLeo came there at least once a day and asked this individ- ual "how things were going;" and that on one occasion (on the 22) DiLeo "paid him," and as Clark walked'past, the man said to Clark, "you can stay as long as you want. This is the easiest job I ever had." Clark never saw the man do T Hylan always maintains a truck or trucks at a jobsite where it is actually performing work $ The entire telegram read as follows 610A CDT AUG 22 72 MA006 M MMB380( I/59) (1407079A234 )PD 01/21 /72 0930 ICS IPMTIXHMTWN ZCZC 01672 A 2129/72636 PD TDMT NEW YORK NY 211015A EDT PMS INTERNATL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS DLR REPORT DLY LOCAL NOR 3 15611 JEWEL AVE FLUSHING NY NO ELECTRICIANS EMPLOYED BY HYLAN ELECTRIC CO INC ARE AT 101, 111, 121, LYMOND AVE IMMEDI- ATELY REMOVE PICKETS HYLAN ELECTRIC CO INC 101111121 LOCAL 3, IBEW 195 any work, nor did he see any electricians working although he did see work being performed by plumbers, carpenters, sheetrock workers, and laborers. Clark's manner was eva- sive in responding to questions designed to elicit his admis- sion that he had seen no electricians at work. On August 21 telephone employees and employees of the plumbing subcontractor arrived for work but left the site after seeing the picket line.' Koziol testified, and Clark de- nied, that it was after the pickets had talked to them. I resolve this conflict in favor of Koziol." Koziol also testi- fied credibly that the pickets massed in front of the excava- tion company's bulldozer attempting to enter the premises until the continued advance of the bulldozer forced them to separate. Clark denied that the pickets "blocked" the bulldozer's entrance but did not deny an attempt to block it. B. Analysis 1. Conduct Takvor's conversations with Koziol both on July 6 and August 18 included threats by Takvor to take certain action. According to Koziol, Takvor threatened on both occasions that Koziol would "have trouble." As observed above, I find no denial whatever by Takvor of the July threat, but even reading his testimony about the August conversation as relating also to'July does not aid Respondent. In the first place, I credit Koziol as the more reliable witness on the basis of demeanor and the inherent probabilities of their statements, both particular and general.) t Takvor's manner generally was evasive and he displayed a hesitancy at cer- tain questions suggesting a weighing of the consequences of his answers. Moreover, Koziol's account of these conversa- tions is more consistent with the other evidence. Thus, Ko- ziol was already encountering trouble in the form of picketing at the time of the first conversation. Indeed, it was this very "trouble" that led to his arranging the meeting with Takvor. Similarly the August 18 meeting, at which Takvor admittedly stated he would have "no choice but to do what [he] would have to do," immediately preceded the resump- tion of the picketing. But even accepting Takvor's testimony that "the worst word [he] might have used was 'problem,' " and that he only meant that he might have a problem, the result is the same because his further admitted statement about the lack of a choice but to do what he would have to do indicated-particularly in light of the picketing ordered by Takvor immediately thereafter-that the solution to his problem entailed shifting it to Koziol. 9 The telephone employees left their equipment at the site The plumbing employees returned to work on August 23 1 Not only did Koziol cling to his account in the face of vigorous cross- examination , but Clark did not impress me as straightforward , and in any event I am not satisfied that Clark was in a position to observe each of the 5-10 pickets at every moment that such talking may have occurred Indeed, on cross-examination Clark qualified his earlier denial with the phrase, "to the best of my knowledge." 11 For similar reasons, I would credit Vaccaro over Takvor as to any inconsistency between them. 2. Object Nor is the object of the above conduct difficult to per- ceive. It was all but conceded by Takvor in his testimony that in reference to Koziol's inquiry on July 6 as to the reason for the picketing he (Takvor) stated that he under- stood the job had been "awarded to DiLeo" and that he would "rather see the job given to someone who will also pay the wages and conditions of Local No. 3, IBEW;" and that he agreed to remove the pickets to "give [Koziol] an opportunity to reach out and call" a contractor from a list of names he had given Koziol. As we have seen, Koziol testified that Takvor's specified condition for peace was the hiring of a Local 3 contractor, while Takvor's testimony was that the contractor could have been anyone who satisfied Local 3's working conditions. Although for the reasons already indicated I would credit Koziol, I do not deem it necessary to resolve the conflict because whatever the goal it was not legally achievable by secondary conduct.12 And Respondent's position is no bet- ter even if it were true, as urged, that (1) Hylan is merely an alter ego of DiLeo, and (2) Respondent has a just griev- ance against DiLeo. Respondent is still "not privileged to enmesh an innocent secondary employer whatever the mer- its of its dispute with another employer." United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, Local No. 32 (A & B Plumbing, Inc.), 171 NLRB 498; see also Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Polly Electric Co.), 175 NLRB 507. Under controlling Board decisions, Respondent here has "enmesh[ed] an innocent secondary employer." Even if the picketing had fully complied with all of the Moore Dry Dock 13 standards for common situs picketing it would nev- ertheless have violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) because its object was to force Malone to remove Hylan from the job and replace Hylan with "someone who will also pay the wages and conditions of Local No. 3, IBEW." Cf. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 11 (L. G. Elec- tric Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766; see also General Teamsters, Warehouse and Dairy Employees Union Local No. 126 (Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc.), 200 NLRB No. 41. Nor would the violation be avoided by construing the "some- one" meeting Respondent's working conditions as includ- ing Hylan itself,14 for even if it be assumed that Respondent would have preferred Hylan to capitulate to its demands Respondent could not lawfully "try to obtain this capitula- tion by forcing neutrals to compel [it]." N.L.R.B. v. Local 12 Despite Respondent's effort to inject Case 29-CA-136 into this proceed- ing, that case is not involved. Notwithstanding the allegations in paragraph 14 of the complaint (and any supporting evidence in the record) that the threats were conditioned on Malone's failure to reassign the work "to an electrical contractor who was party to a collective bargaining agreement with Respondent or whose employees were members of, or were represented by, Respondent," the complaint alleged only violations of Section 8(b)(4)(B) based on allegations that all of the conduct charged had the object of forcing a cessation of business ; and the General Counsel's brief argued accordingly. 13 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, A FL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547. 14 A strained construction in view of Hylan's contractual obligation to the Teamsters, of which Respondent was well aware by the time Chaloupka and Takvor had concluded their meeting with Vaccaro It rather appears that certainly by mid-August Respondent's officials were convinced that Vaccaro lacked that "sincere desire" they had urged upon him at their meeting. 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 825, International Union of Operating Engineers [Burns and Roe, Inc.], 400 U.S. 297, 304-305 (1971). The fact is, moreover, that the picketing did depart from the Moore Dry Dock criteria in several essential respects, thus further demonstrating a purpose to enmesh neutrals in Respondent's disputes with Hylan. a. The time of the picketing Moore Dry Dock requires, inter alia , that the picketing be limited not only to such times when the situs of the dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises but also when the primary employer is engaged in its normal busi- ness at the situs. That these requirements were not met in respect to the July picketing, which occurred before Hylan ever appeared at the situs, can scarcely be doubted. The situation was not materially different insofar as the August picketing was concerned. Although Hylan had already com- menced work, it had completed the first phase of its work and removed all its men and equipment 2 days before Takvor's August 18 visit to the site and his order to Clark to resume picketing. Cf. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 3 (Siebler Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.), 133 NLRB 650, 656. This timing, moreover, obviously destroys Respondent's reliance on the presence at the site the following week of Hylan officials and the unknown man in the aluminum chair.15 Cf. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 807 (Sterling Beverages, Inc.), 90 NLRB 401, 403. Similarly misplaced is Respondent's reliance on New Power Wire and Electric Corp., 144 NLRB 1089, for although one of the many factors there relied on by the Board was the constant presence of the primary's supervisors at the sites, other fac- tors there stressed by the Board are absent here, notably, "company employees were working at the sites when the picketing started; . . . the Company's efforts to recruit new employees for work at the sites; . . . the picketing was not conducted at a construction site where substantial comple- ments of other employers' employees were working." Id. at 1094. Finally, in view of the departure of Hylan's employees 2 days prior to Takvor's threat and order to picket, it can hardly be inferred that their absence was attributable to the presence of the pickets , a "significant" if not crucial factor in New Power (144 NLRB at 1093, 1094).16 Respondent's final contention on this phase of the case is that "In any event , picketing ceased as soon as the union is No reason has been suggested for this man's presence. Since he did no work , and evidently was not expected to, the only purpose of Hylan's he could serve would apparently have been to keep Hylan abreast of develop- ments surrounding the picketing , but it does not appear why Malone could not have been depended on for that information, thus obviating any alleged ex4ense by way of payment to the man. 6 Respondent advances the strange contention that the relationship be- tween the absence of Hylan employees and the picketing is manifested by the fact that those employees resumed work on August 28, "the very day the Regional Director received [Respondent 's counsel 's] letter" of August 25 announcing that the picketing had ceased (Br, p.4). Just how such receipt could have accounted for the resumption of work earlier that day is nowhere explained . Respondent had urged the same point at the hearing only to retreat , when its fallacy was demonstrated, to the argument that "whether the Charging Party knew about this letter , the Charging Party did know that the picketing had stopped " received notice 17 that the electricians were not on the job" (Br., p.5). The short answer to this argument-which in no event amounts to a plea in bar-is that the pickets were not re- moved until 2:30 p.m. on August 24 despite Takvor's admis- sion that he may have seen the telegram on Wednesday, the previous day, and his further admission that when he tele- phoned Respondent's counsel to report its receipt the latter said he was "familiar with it." 18 Actually, the telegram could well have been received as early as Monday, August 21, the day Vaccaro credibly testified it had been dis- patched. The face of the telegram reveals three dates and hours, respectively: "610A CDT AUG 22 72;" "08/21/72 0930"; and "21 1015A EDT." The latter two, if they stood alone, would indicate consistently that the telegram had been sent at 9:30 a.m. on August 21 and received at 10:15 a.m. the same day. Moreover, since this would also be con- sistent with Vaccaro's testimony as to the approximate time it was sent, and since the first date and time (particularly the "CDT," obviously meaning Central Daylight Time) are quite incongrous in the context, it would seem that this date and time are wholly unrelated to the particular message and that their appearance thereon was inadvertent. Even if we were to assume, however, that the message was relayed via some midwestern office at 6:10 a.m. on August 22, I would find that delivery was effected no later than that day. In any event, I find that Respondent was aware of the telegram well before it called off the pickets. b. The picket signs Another Moore Dry Dock criterion not satisfied by Respondent's picketing is that the picket signs identify the primary employer. See United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 575 (Boulder Master Plumbers Association), 132 NLRB 1355. Respondent attempts to justify its failure in this respect on the ground that it did not know the identity of such employer. The record overwhelmingly refutes the conten- tion . The evidence clearly establishes that Takvor knew Vaccaro and knew that he was at least a principal official of Hylan with authority to speak for Hylan.19 There is an utter absence of evidence that Respondent knew Vaccaro in any other connection 20 Moreover, Respondent relied in 17 Le , the telegram quoted in full in In. 8, supra. 18 Some insight into the character of the defense may be gleaned from Respondent 's counsel 's reference (in asking Takvor when he first saw the telegram received by Respondent ) to "this telegram or at least this document marked 'telegram."' Indeed counsel had earlier objected to admission of Charging Party 's copy on the basis of a New York Times editorial criticizing the telegraph system as undependable 19 E.g, Takvor testified on cross-examination (tr. 207-208). Q But you knew the firm that Mr . Vaccaro represented , didn't you? A Yes Q. What was the name of that firm? A Mr. Vaccaro, to my knowledge , is connected with Hylan Electric Q And isn't it a fact that you had a meeting with Mr. Vaccaro at Local 3, and the topic of conversation was Hylan Electric , is that cor- rect? A That's correct See also tr. 191, 201 20 The statement in Resp br ., p. 5, that Vaccaro is also "apparently" an owner of "Hylan [Electric ] Maintenance" is entirely without record founda- tion LOCAL 3, IBEW part on Vaccaro's presence at the site to justify its picketing at times when no Hylan employees were present. It never- theless attempts to avoid the consequences by urging that DiLeo was also there. Quite apart, however, from the fact that he knew Vaccaro only as Hylan, Takvor also testified that he did not know DiLeo as having relations with "any union," but his instructions to Clark to resume the picketing included the caution to confine picketing to when "the Teamster electricians" were on the job. Takvor's sole knowledge of "Teamster electricians" in relation to Vaccaro (or anyone else insofar as this record is concerned) had to derive from their meeting with Chaloupka at which, as shown above, he knew Vaccaro to be representing Hylan2I These circumstances render the instant case wholly dis- tinguishable from Local 3, International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL-CIO (Surf Hunter Electric Co.), 172 NLRB No. 1101, relied upon by Respondent. The signs there, borne for a few hours, inadvertently bore the name of the wrong employer, and the error was corrected immedi- ately on its discovery. In contrast, the primary's name here was deliberately omitted and the omission extended throughout the picketing. Finally evincing Respondent's purpose to enmesh neu- trals in its dispute with Hylan was the pickets' conduct described above vis-a-vis the telephone and plumbing em- ployees and their interference with the bulldozer. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hylan Electric Co. is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Malone-Victoria Corp. and all of its subcontractors at its Lyman Avenue construction project are engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By inducing and encouraging employees of subcon- tractors engaged in work at the Lyman Avenue construction project of Malone to engage in a strike or a concerted refus- al to perform services, and by threatening and coercing Julius Koziol, with an object of forcing or requiring Malone to cease doing business with Hylan, Respondent has violat- ed Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY In order to remedy the unfair labor practices found here- in, my recommended Order will require Respondent to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend the following: ORDER 22 197 Respondent, Local 3, International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individ- ual employed by Malone-Victoria Corp., Blumin Associ- ates, Barone Earth Moving Corporation, 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 his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi- als or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require said person or any other person to cease doing business with Hylan Electric Compa- ny, Inc. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Malone-Victo- ria Corp., Blumin Associates, Barone Earth Moving Corpo- ration, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object there is to force or require said person or any other person to cease doing business with Hylan Electric Company, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." % Copies of said no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 29 signed copies of said notices in sufficient number for posting by Malone-Victoria Corp., Blumin Associates, Barone Earth Corporation, and the employer of the telephone employees found herein to have been induced to withhold services, such employers being willing, at all locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 21 Not without significance in this connection is the stress Respondent itself places upon its cessation of picketing after receipt of the above-men- tioned telegram which negated the presence at the site of "electricians em- ployed by Hylan Electric Co, Inc " and was signed only, "Hylan Electric Co, Inc" 22 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 23 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government To all members of Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO To employees of Malone-Victoria Corp., Blumin Associ- ates, Barone Earth Moving Corporation , and any other em- ployer whose employees have been induced by Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , to with- hold services at 101, 111, or 121 Lyman Avenue , Staten Island , New York. After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice, and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers , business represen- tatives, business agents , or anyone acting for us, what- ever his title may be, engage in , or induce or encourage any individual employed by Malone-Victoria Corp., Blumin Associates , Barone Earth Moving Corporation, or any other person engaged in commerce , or in an industry affecting commerce , to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of employment to use , manufac- ture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials , or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require any such person or any other person to cease doing business with Hylan Electric Company, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Malone Vic- toria Corp., Blumin Associates, Barone Earth Moving Corporation, or any other person engaged in com- merce, or in any industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said person, or any other person, to cease doing business with Hylan Electric Company, Inc. Dated By LOCAL 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (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 direct- ed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201 Telephone, 212-596-3535.