Local 363, IBEW

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 875 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

LOCAL 363, IBEW 875
Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO and Whitman Electric Incor-
porated . Cases 2-CC-1225 and 2-CP-471
February 14, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
contends that because of the nature of Respondent 's 8(bX4) conduct, the
scope of these portions of the recommended Order should be broadened to
afford protection to all neutral persons or employers and individuals
employed by them who may become involved at the construction site in the
future . The Charging Party contends that the recommended Order should
conform to the wording of the notice which is couched in the broad terms
urged in the respective exceptions described above . Since the requested
modification in the Order conforms with our customary practice, we find
merit to both these contentions and have , therefore , modified the
recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge accordingly.
DECISION
On October 5, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Abraham H. Mailer issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel and Charging Party filed limited exceptions
with supporting brief. The Charging Party also filed
a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order with the
modification noted below.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein , and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent , Local 363, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, its officers , agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order , as so modified:
Amend paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) by inserting a
comma after the words "Warwick Construction
Company" and adding the following : "or by any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce,".
1 Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , since the
record , exceptions , and briefs adequately present the positions of the
parties.
2 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 were incorrect . Standard Dry Watt
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
3 The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed separate limited
exceptions to the failure of the Administrative Law Judge to provide in pars
1(a) and 1 (b) of his recommended Order that the Respondent will cease and
desist from engaging in unlawful secondary conduct not only with respect to
Warwick Construction Company but to other persons engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce as well. The General Counsel
ABRAHAM H. MALLER, Administrative Law Judge: On
April 11, 1972, Whitman Electric Incorporated, herein
called Whitman , filed a charge in Case 2-CC-1225 against
Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, herein variously called the Respondent or
Local 363. On the same day, Whitman filed a charge
against the Respondent in Case 2-CP-471. Upon said
charges, the Regional Director for Region 2 of the
National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board,
issued on May 9, 1972 , a complaint against the Respon-
dent, alleging that the Respondent engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec.
151, et seq.), herein called the Act; and on May 11, 1972,
issued a complaint against the Respondent in Case
2-CP-471, alleging that the Respondent engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(7)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. On
May 17, 1972, the Regional Director issued an order
consolidating the aforesaid cases . Briefly, the complaints
allege (1) that the Respondent threatened and picketed
Warwick Construction Company, herein called Warwick,
and induced the employees of Warwick to stop working
and to refuse to continue to work with an object of forcing
the Board of Education, Pine Bush Central School District
# 1, herein called the Board of Education , to cease doing
business with Whitman; and (2) that the Respondent
engaged in the aforesaid conduct and also threatened
Whitman with an object of forcing and requiring Whitman
to recognize and bargain with it, at a time when Whitman
had lawfully recognized International Union of District 50,
Allied and Technical Workers of the United States and
Canada on behalf of Local 14763, herein called District 50,
and a question concerning representation of the apprentice
and journeyman electrician employees of Whitman could
not appropriately be raised at the time of such conduct. In
its duly filed answer, the Respondent denied any violations
of the Act and averred affirmatively that Respondent's
conduct was solely of an informational nature and that its
conduct has at all times been primary and lawful.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before me at New
York, New York , on June 15 and 16, 1972. All parties were
represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence , to present
oral argument, and to file briefs with me . Briefs were filed
by all parties on or before August 7, 1972. Upon
consideration of the entire record and the briefs, and upon
my observation of each of the witnesses, I make the
following:
201 NLRB No. 123
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY
Whitman Electric Incorporated is a New York corpora-
tion with its office located at 744 Albany Avenue
Extension, Kingston, New York, where it is engaged in the
business of electrical contracting in the construction
industry. The parties stipulated that Whitman, during the
past 12 months, purchased equipment and supplies such as
panel boards and electrical fixtures valued in excess of
$50,000 from firms located within the State of New York,
of which said equipment and supplies in excess of $50,000
were delivered to Whitman directly from other firms
located outside the State of New York. Accordingly, I find
and conclude that Whitman is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Board to assert jurisdiction here.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is now, and has been at all times
material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the United
States and Canada, is now, and has been at all times
material herein, ,a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ISSUES
1. Whether the Respondent threatened and picketed
Warwick and induced the employees of Warwick to stop
working and refuse to continue to work, with an object of
forcing the Board of Education to cease doing business
with Whitman, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B)
of the Act.
2. Whether the Respondent threatened Whitman with
an object of forcing or requiring Whitman to recognize and
bargain with it at a time when Respondent was not
currently certified as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of Whitman's employees, Whitman had lawfully
recognized District 50, and a question concerning repre-
sentation of the apprentice and journeyman electrician
employees of Whitman could not appropriately be raised
at the time of such conduct, in violation of Section
8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. Background
Warwick, a general contractor in the construction
industry has a contract with the Board of Education for the
construction of an elementary school on Route 302, in
Circleville, New York, herein referred to as the jobsite. The
1 Coleman testified that he was positive that he did not make any
statement to the effect that there would be trouble on the jobsite . Sawyer
was a neutral witness and I credit his testimony.
2 Except as otherwise indicated , all events mentioned herein occurred in
1972.
value of this contract is over $1 million. Since about late
October or early November 1971, employees of Warwick,
who are members of Carpenters, Laborers, and Teamsters
Locals, worked at the jobsite.
On November 16, 1971, Whitman entered into a contract
with the Board of Education to perform the necessary
electrical work in connection with that construction. Since
on or about August 1971, Whitman has had a collective-
bargaining agreement with District 50 covering its appren-
tice and journeyman electricians. No charge has been filed
with the Board under Section 8(a)(2) of the Act alleging
that Whitman has unlawfully recognized or assisted any
labor organization.
2. The picketing in January 1972
In late October or early November 1971, Joseph
Coleman, Sr., assistant business manager of the Respon-
dent, visited the jobsite and met George Sawyer, Warwick's
superintendent. Coleman asked Sawyer who had the
electrical contract. Sawyer replied that he had read in the,
paper that Whitman had it. Coleman replied that there
could be trouble on the job because Whitman was not
union. When Sawyer said that he felt that Whitman was
union, Coleman replied, "Not our union."'
On January 21, 1972,2 Whitman's employees appeared at
the jobsite and installed a temporary power pole. Since that
date, Whitman's employees did no physical work on the
contract until June 1, except that on or about May 17, after
the General Counsel had obtained an injunction against
picketing by the Respondent, Whitman's employees did
unload material and moved a job trailer to the jobsite. On
January 21, about 10 minutes after Whitman's employees
started to work, Coleman appeared at the jobsite and told
Sawyer that he would have pickets on the job that
afternoon. Coleman testified that he told Sawyer he would
have an "informational" picket on the jobsite.
On January 24, the Respondent began picketing at the
jobsite with signs that read in substance:
Electrical contractor on this job does not employ
members of L.U. 363. We wish to inform employees
and the public We do not ask anyone to refuse to cross
our picket lines, refuse to perform work or services or
refuse to patronize any service or product.
On January 24, according to the credited testimony of
Sawyer, Coleman told him that the Respondent was
picketing the jobsite because Whitman employed members
of District 50 and did not employ members of Local 363;
that he did not want District 50 to get a foothold in the
area.3
On January 24, after the picketing commenced, the
employees at Warwick stopped working at the jobsite and
refused to work each day that week while the picketing
continued. On January 28, Warwick closed down the, job
because none of its employees was going to work.
On January 24, Jacob Sherman, shop steward for
Carpenters Local 574, asked Coleman why they had put a
3 Coleman testified that he could not recall anything that he directed to
Sawyer and did not recall saying words to the effect "the guys on the job are
District 50," or that he did not want District 50 to get a foothold in the area.
Again, I credit Sawyer and do not credit Coleman.
LOCAL 363, IBEW
picket on this job when the pouring of the concrete was
almost completed. Sherman pointed out to him that, if the
Carpenters did not cross the picket line, they would lose
unemployment benefits for 7 weeks? A heated argument
ensued, in which Coleman said, "We have to protect our
work. We are not like the Carpenters, we protect our
work." 5 Coleman, on the other hand, testified that he said,
"Jake, you have to use your own judgment. Read the signs
and use your own judgment ." Sherman testified that he did
not remember that Coleman said anything to the effect
that he should "go read the picket sign ." Sherman testified
that he did not read the picket sign , because regardless of
what the sign said he would not cross a picket line because
it is "a union rule, or a good union member won't cross the
picket line." As indicated above, the employees of
Warwick refused to cross the picket line each day that
week, and Warwick closed the job down on January 28,
because nobody was going to work.6
On January 28, a separate gate was established at the
jobsite for the use of Whitman's employees and was so
marked . The other, or main gate, was for the use of
Warwick and contractors other than Whitman and was so
marked . The length of the jobsite is about 1 ,000 feet along
a highway, and the gates were about 150 to 200 feet apart.?
3. Conversation between Sanford Whitman and
Pat Damiani
In February , there was a telephone conversation between
Sanford Whitman, president of Whitman, and Pat E.
Damiani , business manager for the Respondent . Damiani
had requested his secretary to telephone Sanford Whit-
man's brother, another electrical contractor . By mistake,
Damiani's secretary telephoned Sanford Whitman and put
Damiani on the line . Sanford Whitman told Damiani that
he had the wrong Whitman, whereupon Damiani was
ready to terminate the conversation. Sanford Whitman
According to Sherman, it Warwick closed down the job after the
pouring of the concrete and laid off the men , they would be entitled to
receive unemployment compensation, whereas if they were laid off because
there was picketing and they did not cross the picket line, they would have
to wait 7 weeks before receiving unemployment compensation.
S The credited testimony of Sherman, a neutral witness.
6 Coleman's testimony that Sawyer told him that the construction site
was being closed down because of the winter months was explicitly denied
by Sawyer and is not credited . Moreover, it is inconceivable that Sawyer
would have said this, in the light of Sherman 's heated discussion with
Coleman as to the effect of the picketing on the Carpenters unemployment
compensation . The testimony of Sherman , a neutral witness, was corrobo-
rated by Sawyer.
r The separate gate for Whitman was marked - "This Gate is for the
Exclusive Use of Whitman Electric and its Suppliers."
8 The foregoing is Sanford Whitman 's version of the conversation.
Damiani's version of the telephone conversation is substantially different
877
then said, "Don't you want to talk to me?" Damiani
replied, "What could we talk about?" Sanford Whitman
then asked him what they could do to have peace on the
Circleville job, and Damiani told him that all he would
have to do would be to sign up with the Respondent and he
wouldn't have any more problems. Sanford Whitman then
pointed out that Whitman already had an agreement with
District 50, and Damiani replied that they could probably
work something out and suggested that he would be willing
to sit down and talk with him at his office.8
4. The resumption of picketing
On March 20, Warwick attempted to resume its work on
the jobsite . On the same day, the Respondent resumed
picketing at the jobsite , picketing both entrances to the
jobsite . The employees of Warwick thereupon refused to
cross the picket line. On March 21, counsel for Whitman
sent the following telegram to the Respondent:
Regarding Elementary School Pinebush NY: Please be
advised that Whitman Electric Inc has not been and is
not presently on the above-mentioned construction
site-and there is no other electrical contractor on that
site. Also separate gates exist on that site for Whitman
Electric and it's [sic] employees and all other contrac-
tors and their employees respectively . Please adhere to
the separate gates-you will be advised by the
undersigned when Whitman Electric returns to the job.
Nevertheless , the Respondent continued to picket both
entrances , and picketing continued until the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, at
the request of the General Counsel , on May 17 enjoined
such picketing . The picketing ceased when the Respondent
was served with the injunction order . After January 21,
when Whitman's employees installed a temporary power
line at the jobsite , its employees did no physical work on
the contract until June 1.8
According to Damian, when Sanford Whitman asked , "Don't you want to
talk to me?" he, Damian , replied , "You can talk to me any time you want,
my office door is open any time you want to talk to me you can come down
and talk to me." According to Damian, the conversation ended when
Sanford Whitman said , "Okay , I will think about it" I credit Sanford
Whitman 's testimony in this regard , and do not credit Damiani 's version of
the telephone conversation
9 In addition to the foregoing, counsel for the Charging Party presented
witnesses who testified that members of the Board of Education were
threatened with picketing by individual members of the Respondent,
because it had awarded the electrical contract to Whitman . The Charging
Party argues that the Respondent was responsible for such threats and that
the individual members in making such threats were acting as agents of the
Respondent, while Respondent contends that the persons who communicat-
ed with members of the Board of Education were acting in their individual
capacity of citizens residing within the area . In view of the disposition that I
make of this case, it is unnecessary to resolve this issue.
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Concluding Findings
1. As to Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (iixB) fo
off of the job and compelling the Board of Education to
replace Whitman with a contractor whose employees were
represented by the Respondent . Building & Construction
Trades Council (Markwell & Hartz, Inc.), 155 NLRB 319,
326, enfd. 387 F.2d 79 (C.A. 5).
Respondent's contention that the picketing was merely
"informational" is no defense in the circumstances of this
case . Coleman knew that Warwick's employees, being
union men , would not work behind a picket line. Indeed,
he admitted that if the picketing caused people to stop
working that was fine with him. Witness also Coleman's
statement to Sherman , when the latter protested the
picketing because of the effect that the ensuing layoff
would have on Warwick's employees , that "We have to
protect our work ." In any event, it is well settled that the
protection afforded to informational picketing by the
second proviso to Section 8(bX7XC) of the Act12 applies
only to that subparagraph . Local 3, Intl Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (Darby Electric Corporation), 153 NLRB
717, 722-723 (and cases cited in fn . 10), enfd . 362 F.2d 232
(C.A. 2).
Respondent contends that its picketing was primary and
that it met the requirements of the Moore Dry Dock
criteria.13 Respondent argues that Whitman had a "con-
tractual presence" at the jobsite, because it had a
contractual obligation to maintain the power line after its
installation . Thus, Respondent seeks to equate such
"contractual presence" with the requirement in Moore Dry
Dock that Whitman was "engaged in its normal business at
the situs ." (92 NLRB at 549). The contention must be
rejected . The alleged "contractual presence" is negated by
the fact that at no time after the establishment of the
separate gate did Whitman have at the jobsite any
employees to whom the picketing could be directed. Intl
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 (Albert K
Newlin, Inc.), 143 NLRB 1169, 1174-75, enfd. 353 F.2d 736
(C.A. 5). Furthermore, it is undisputed that the Respon-
dent did not confine its picketing to the separate gate
reserved for Whitman's employees and suppliers, but
picketed the common gate as well.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent
violated Section 8(bX4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
picketing ..
ii In Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 144 NLRB
1089; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 861, 145 NLRB
1163, and Building & Construction Trades Council, etc (Markwell & Hartz,
Inc.), 155 NLRB 319, In. 22, the Board held that the picketing which
occurred prior to the establishment of the separated gates was not violative
of Sec 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXB ). It is noted that these cases are factually
distinguishable from the instant case . However, it is unnecessary to
determine whether the picketing that preceded the establishment of the
separate gate was violative of the Act , inasmuch as the remedy to be
provided for such picketing, if found to be violative of that section, would
be no different from the remedy which I recommend herein for the violation
which I have found.
iz "Provided further, That nothing in this subparagraph (C) shall be
construed to prohibit any picketing or other publicity for the purpose of
truthfully advising the public (including consumers ) that an employer does
not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor organization,
unless an effect of such picketing is to induce any individual employed by
any other person in the course of his employment, not to pick up, deliver or
to transport any goods or not to perform any services "
13 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, 92 NLRB 547,549
The foregoing facts demonstrate that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. The Board
of Education and Warwick are persons for whose protec-
tion that section of the Act was enacted. The Board of
Education , a political subdivision , is a person within the
meaning of the Act. Local 16, Longshoremen, 176 NLRB
889. Warwick , a general contractor in the construction
industry, is a secondary person engaged in "an industry
affecting commerce" within the meaning of Section 8(bX4).
Sheet Metal Workers Intl. Assn., Local 299, 131 NLRB
1196, 1199.
It is clear that by picketing the jobsite after the
establishment of a separate gate for Whitman , Respondent
threatened and attempted to coerce Warwick with "an
object" of forcing and requiring the Board of Education to
cease doing business with Whitman ." Thus , in November
1971, before Whitman began to work under its contract,
Coleman, Respondent 's assistant business manager, ap-
peared at the jobsite and warned Sawyer, Warwick's
superintendent, that there could be trouble on the job
because Whitman was not union . And after Whitman's
employees appeared at the jobsite on January 21, and
installed a temporary power line , the Respondent began to
picket, and such picketing continued to January 28 (even
though Whitman's employees were no longer at the jobsite
after January 21) causing Warwick to shut down the job
because its employees refused to cross the picket line. After
March 20, when Warwick attempted to resume work on
the job, Respondent established a picket line at the main
gate (Warwick's) and continued to so picket even though a
separate gate for Whitman 's employees and suppliers had
been established and the Respondent was admittedly
notified to that effect, and was notified further that
Whitman was not at the jobsite, and that the Respondent
would be notified when Whitman would return to the
jobsite. Such picketing continued until enjoined by the
United States District Court. By the foregoing conduct,
Respondent indicated its intent to induce employees of
Warwick not to work with "an object" of forcing Whitman
10 Sec 8(b)(4xi ) and (iiXB) reads as follows
(b) It shall be a unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
.
(4xi) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual
employed by any 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 , materials, or commodities or to
perform any services , or (it) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where in
either case an object thereof is
(B) Forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling , handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other
producer, processor , or manufacturer to cease doing business with any
other person , or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or
bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees
unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative
of such employees under the provisions of section 9: Provided That
nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make
unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary
LOCAL 363, IBEW 879
2. As to Section 8(b)(7)(A) 14
The record also discloses that an object of the Respon-
dent's picketing was to force or require Whitman to
recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the
representative of its employees, at a time when Whitman
had lawfully recognized and had a contract with District
50, and a question concerning representation could not
appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act.
It is not disputed that Whitman has had a collective-
bargaining agreement with District 50 since August 1971,
and further that no charge has been filed with the Board
under Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, alleging that Whitman has
unlawfully recognized or assisted any labor organization. It
is also clear that the Respondent was aware of these facts.
Thus, as previously noted, in November 1971, when
Coleman told Sawyer that there could be trouble on the
job because Whitman was not union and Sawyer said that
he felt that Whitman was union , Coleman replied, "Not
our union." Again, in January, Coleman told Sawyer that
the Respondent was picketing the jobsite because Whit-
man employed members of District 50 and that he did not
want District 50 to get a foothold in the area. Finally, in
February, in his telephone conversation with Damiani,
Sanford Whitman asked what he could do to have peace
on the job, and Damiani responded that all he would have
to do would be to sign with the Respondent. When Sanford
Whitman pointed out that Whitman already had an
agreement with District 50, Damiani replied that they
could probably work something out and suggested that he
would be willing to talk to Sanford Whitman at Damiani's
office.
In the light of the foregoing, I find and conclude that an
object of the picketing was to force or require Whitman to
recognize and bargain with the Respondent at a time when
Whitman had lawfully recognized District 50 and had a
collective-bargaining agreement with it, and no question
concerning representation could be appropriately raised
under Section 9(c) of the Act. Local 3, Intl Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (Darby Electric Corporation), 153 NLRB
717, 722, enfd. 362 F.2d 232 (C.A. 2); Local 1199, Drug and
Hospital Employees Union, etc. (Jane! Sales Corporation),
136 NLRB 1564; Local 182, Intl Brotherhood of Teamsters,
etc., 129 NLRB 1459, 1464; International Hod Carriers'
Building, etc. (Roman Stone Construction Company), 153
NLRB 659; Local No. 8280, UMW, 166 NLRB 271, 272,
enfd. 422 F.2d 115 (C.A. 6).
Respondent's contention that the picketing was protect-
ed because it was informational in character is without
merit. I have heretofore rejected the contention as a
defense to the violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). For
the same reasons, the contention urged by the Respondent
as a defense to the violation of Section 8(b)(7)(A) must be
rejected.
14 Sec 8(b)(7)(A) reads as follows
(b) It shall be a unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
(7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or caused
to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or
requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization
as the representative of its employees , or forcing or requiring the
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV,
above, occurring in connection with the business opera-
tions of Warwick set forth in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and
(ii)(B) and 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Whitman Electric Incorporated is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Warwick Construction Company is a secondary
person engaged in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
3. The Board of Education, Pine Bush Central School
District # 1, is a person within the meaning of Section 2(1)
of the Act.
4. The Respondent and District 50 are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
5. By inducing individuals employed by Warwick
Construction Company to engage in a refusal in the course
of their employment to perform services, with the object of
forcing the Board of Education to cease doing business
with Whitman Electric Incorporated, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
6. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Warwick
Construction Company with an object of forcing the Board
of Education to cease doing business with Whitman
Electric Incorporated, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
of the Act.
7. By picketing the jobsite of Whitman Electric
Incorporated with an object of forcing or requiring
Whitman Electric Incorporated to recognize and bargain
with the Respondent as the representative of its employees
at a time when the Respondent was not currently certified
as such representative, Whitman Electric Incorporated had
employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as
their collective-bargaining representative , unless such labor organiza-
tion is currently certified as the representative of such employees
(A) where the employer has lawfully recognized in accordance with
this Act any other labor organization and a question concerning
representation may not appropriately be raised under section 9(c) of
this Act
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lawfully recognized in accordance with the Act another
labor organization , and a question concerning representa-
tion could not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of
the Act, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
8. 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 foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 15
ORDER
Respondent , Local 363, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and
representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing individuals employed by Warwick Con-
struction Company to engage in a refusal in the course of
their employment to perform services , where an object
thereof is to force or require the Board of Education, Pine
Bush Central School District # 1, to cease doing business
with Whitman Electric Incorporated, under circumstances
prohibited by Section 8(bX4)(iXB ) of the Act.
(b) Threatening , restraining, or coercing Warwick Con-
struction Company, where an object thereof is to force or
require the Board of Education , Pine Bush Central School
District # 1, to cease doing business with Whitman
Electric Incorporated , under circumstances prohibited by
Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(B) of the Act.
(c) Picketing or threatening to picket either the premises
of Whitman Electric Incorporated , or any of its construc-
tion projects, where an object thereof is forcing or
requiring Whitman Electric Incorporated to recognize or
bargain with the Respondent as the collective -bargaining
representative of its employees , where Whitman Electric
Incorporated has lawfully recognized in accordance with
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, District 50,
Allied and Technical Workers of the United States and
Canada on behalf of Local 14763, or any labor organiza-
tion other than the Respondent , and a question concerning
the representation of said employees may not appropriate-
ly be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, unless the
Respondent is then currently certified as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees of Whitman
Electric Incorporated.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of the
notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 2, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places , including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Forthwith mail to the aforesaid Regional Director for
Region 2 signed copies of the said notice for posting by
Whitman Electric Incorporated , if it so chooses, in places
where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.17
i5 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 recommendations, 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.
is In the event that the Board 's 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."
17 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 2 , in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT in any manner prohibited by Section
8(bX4XB) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , induce or encourage individuals employed
by Warwick Construction Company, or by any other
persons engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, to engage in a refusal in the course
of their employment to perform services, or threaten,
restrain , or coerce Warwick Construction Company or
any other employer or person engaged in commerce or
an industry affecting commerce , where an object
thereof in either case is to force or require any
employer or person to cease doing business with
Whitman Electric Incorporated.
WE WILL NOT under conditions prohibited by
Section 8(bX7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , picket, or cause to be picketed , or threaten to
picket , Whitman Electric Incorporated or any of its
projects where an object thereof is to force or require
Whitman Electric Incorporated to recognize or bargain
with us as the representative of its employees.
LOCAL 363, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
LOCAL 363, IBEW 881
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days directed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor Federal Building,
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Telephone
or covered by any other material. Any questions concern- 212-264-0300.
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be