Office and Professional Employees Intl. Union Local 2

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1981

253 N.L.R.B. 1208 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Office and Professional Employees International
Union, Local 2, AFL-CIO and American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case 5-CC-957
January 9, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND ZIMMERMAN
On August 29, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Sidney J. Barban issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting 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 Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Office and Pro-
fessional Employees International Union, Local 2,
AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C., its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard in Washington, D.C., on February 14
and 15, 1980, upon a complaint issued on January 3,
1980, based upon a charge filed by American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO (herein APWU), on Decem-
ber 3, 1979 (all dates herein are in 1979 unless otherwise
noted). The complaint alleges that Respondent Office
and Professional Employees International Union, Local
2, AFL-CIO (herein Respondent or Respondent Union),
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), by
picketing APWU at its Washington, D.C., national head-
quarters in furtherance of a labor dispute it had with the
Hospital Plan of American Postal Workers Union (herein
the Hospital Plan or(the Plan) while it had no labor dis-
pute with APWU. The answer to the complaint denies
the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged.
Upon the entire record in this case, from observation
of the witnesses and their demeanor, and after considera-
tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent, I make the following:
253 NLRB No. 159
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
APWU, an unincorporated association with its main
office located in the District of Columbia, annually re-
ceives dues from outside the District of Columbia valued
in excess of $50,000. The Hospital Plan, which is en-
gaged in providing insurance protection to APWU mem-
bers, is located in Silver Spring, Maryland. During a
recent representative annual period, the Hospital Plan re-
ceived in excess of $1 million in premiums from its mem-
bers, who are located throughout the United States, and
purchased and received materials and supplies valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from firms outside the State of
Maryland. I find that APWU and the Hospital Plan are
employers as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged
in commerce or an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)
of the Act.
It is admitted and I find that Respondent is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES
On November 30, Respondent Union, which is the
bargaining representative of a unit of clerical employees
employed by the Hospital Plan, went on strike against
the Plan and picketed the Plan's headquarters located in
Silver Spring, Maryland, in support of its demands for a
new bargaining agreement to succeed its most recent
agreement covering that unit, which expired on October
31.
Respondent Union also represents a unit of clerical
employees employed by APWU at its headquarters on
14th Street in Washington, D.C. Respondent Union has a
separate bargaining agreement with APWU covering the
latter's clerical employees which does not expire until
October 31, 1980. On December , Respondent Union
began picketing APWU headquarters in Washington in
support of its strike against the Hospital Plan. Respond-
ent, at the time, had no separate dispute with APWU.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent, by
picketing the headquarters of APWU in the circum-
stances, engaged in a secondary boycott in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, as amended. Re-
spondent asserts that APWU and the Hospital Plan "con-
stitute a 'single employer' thereby depriving . . .
[APWU] of the status of a neutral, secondary employer
protected by [the Act] from peaceful picketing" by Re-
spondent at APWU headquarters in Washington. The
General Counsel contends that APWU is a neutral, sec-
ondary employer in this dispute, and not a single em-
ployer, or an integrated enterprise, together with the
Plan.
Toward the end of its brief Respondent also argues, as
will be considered hereinafter, that even "[i]f it should be
found that the APWU and the [Plan] do not constitute a
'single employer,' nevertheless, it should be held that the
peaceful picketing by [Respondent] at the 14th Street
APWU headquarters did not violate the Act since [Re-
spondent] was merely following the 'struck product'
from the [Plan] to the APWU." Respondent asserts that
1208
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTL. UNION, LOCAL 2
in "the present case, the 'struck product' is 'service to
the APWU membership' provided by the Plan which
makes available to the membership of APWU, pursuant
to the 'Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959,
as amended, Title V, U.S.C., §89[01], et seq., certain
health and hospitalization benefits."' This issue was first
raised in Respondent's brief. It is not discussed by the
General Counsel.
III. STRUCTURE OF THE HOSPITAL PLAN AND ITS
RELATIONSHIP TO THE AMERICAN POSTAl WORKERS
UNION
A. In General
At the time the U.S. Postal Service became effective
in 1971, under the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C
§101, et seq., four unions that had previously represented
postal workers, and one described as "an independent in-
dustrial type union without bargaining rights," merged to
form APWU. Prior to that time four of these unions
each had health and hospitalization programs, two of
which were underwritten by a national insurance compa-
ny, and two of which were sponsored by two of the
unions. APWU apparently decided to sponsor its own
health and hospitalization program rather than secure its
plan through a national insurance carrier. This was ac-
complished, at least in part, by merger of the two prior
union-sponsored programs and dropping the national in-
surance carriers.
The constitution and bylaws of APWU provide (art.
VI, sec. 5) for a "Hospital Plans Department" in which
there "shall be" a director of hospital plans, an executive
assistant, and an administrative assistant to the director.
It is provided that each of these shall be a member of the
National Executive Board of APWU and also of the
board of directors of the Hospital Plan. It is also pro-
vided (art. X, sec. 19) that the National Executive Board
of APWU shall be the board of directors of the Hospital
Plan.
The Hospital Plan has its separate constitution, which,
complementary to the APWU constitution, provides that
the officers of the Plan shall be members of the Plan's
board of directors, and that the board of directors shall
be composed of members of the APWU Executive
Board. The constitution of the Plan further provides that
the general president of APWU shall be president of the
Plan and chairman of the board of directors, and shall
have "general supervision" over the "affairs" of the Plan
and over its officers.
However, the record shows that, while the APWU
general president has potential power to oversee the op-
eration of the Hospital Plan, in actual practice the direc-
tor of the Plan, with the aid of his assistants (all of
whom are paid by the Plan), determines and implements
the day-to-day operations of the Plan, including labor re-
lations, hiring and termination of employees, and collec-
tive bargaining with Respondent Union, without input or
supervision from APWU or the board of directors. So
far as appears, the general president of APWU does not
concern himself with the operation of the Hospital Plan
and rarely visits the Plan's headquarters in Silver
Spring.' The Plan's board of directors seems to meet
normally but one time a year for the purpose of formu-
lating health and hospital benefits and premium rates for
the coming year, which are proposed to the Office of
Personnel Management (herein "OPM," previously the
Civil Service Commission) for acceptance. When the
persons comprising the Plan's board of directors assem-
ble as the APWU National Committee Board, they meet
at APWU headquarters or some place other than the
Plan's headquarters and do not appear to concern them-
selves, ordinarily, with the operation of the Plan or its
affairs (one exception to this will be considered herein-
after).
The Hospital Plan keeps its own records, files its own
tax returns, has its separate bank accounts, employs its
own attorneys, leases its own computer equipment and
services, and hires its own auditors, who issue financial
reports for the Plan alone, all separate from APWU. For
some time APWU has been the owner of the building in
Silver Spring which is the Plan's headquarters. The Plan
uses this pursuant to a written lease providing for sub-
stantial compensation to APWU.
B. The Operation of the Health and Hospitalization
Benefits Program
The Hospital Plan exists for the purpose of providing
health and hospitalization benefits for members of
APWU. Like other similar programs provided for em-
ployees of the Federal Government, the Plan's program
is subject to regulation and general supervision by OPM.
Thus, annually APWU and OPM sign a written agree-
ment setting forth the conditions of operation of the
Plan's program, including the benefits to be offered and
the premiums that will be charged.
The Hospital Plan is described, and eligibility for par-
ticipation in the Plan is set forth, in article I, section 1.2,
of the agreement, in pertinent part, as follows: "Persons
Eligible (a) The Plan is an employee organization plan, as
defined in Chapter 89 of Title 5, Unites States Code,
sponsored by the Carrier [APWU] and available only to
eligible employees and annuitants (and members of their
families) who at the time of their enrollment are mem-
bers of the sponsoring organization."2
The fact that a postal worker or other Federal em-
ployee must be or become a member of APWU in order
to participate in the Hospital Plan is critical to the rela-
tionship between APWU and the Plan. Because the Plan
The fourth step in the grievance procedure in Respondent Union's
bargaining agreement with the Hospital Plan, which expired in 1979, pro-
vided for intervention of the APWU general president in the grievance
process. However. the general president seems to have regularly delegat-
ed this function to the Plan's director or some other person associated
with the I'lan In the agreement between the parties which has succeeded
the contract which expired in 1979. this provision in the grievance proce-
dure has been eliminated
2 The basic terms of this agreement are summarized in a brochure
which is printed yearly by OPM and distributed t IFederal employees
during the annual so-called open season, when such employees may
become participants in the Plan's program or others offered bh OPM.
change front one plan to another, or change from one level of benefits
offered to another level. The most recent hrochure for he Postal Work-
ers Plan states that it is "sponsored" by APWU Some past brochures
have stated that the Plan was sponsored and administered" by APWU.
1209
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is an important means by which APWU recruits new
members among bargaining unit employees, and secures
"associate members" among other Federal workers who
pay APWU an annual fee for the privilege of participat-
ing in the Plan, APWU budgets substantial sums of
money each year, and makes considerable efforts to pro-
mote the Plan-particularly during the open season. The
Hospital Plan, though permitted to engage in informa-
tional or instructional activity, is restricted by law or
regulation from expenditure of money to promote its
benefits. Significantly, it is the APWU director of orga-
nization, Ben Zemsky, who participates with Plan Ex-
ecutive Assistant Ben Evans and Administrative Assist-
ant Frank Kowalszuk to form a committee to fashion a
program for the open season. The Plan and APWU ap-
portion expenses for these activities, apparently in ac-
cordance with guidelines as to what is appropriate for
each. 3
Various problems arise with respect to persons who
make application to participate in the Plan though they
are not, and do not become, members of APWU, or for
some reason or another are terminated from membership
in APWU. These persons, of course, are not eligible to
participate, or continue participating, in the Plan, and
must be removed from the rolls. It is apparently the re-
sponsibility of APWU to notify OPM (see, e.g., art. I,
sec. 1.2(b) of the contract between OPM and APWU)
and/or the employing postmaster involved (see, e.g.,
Resp. Exh. 7) when these persons should be terminated
from participating in the Plan. There was considerable
testimony concerning the procedures followed in accom-
plishing these purposes, as well as the problems of keep-
ing track of the members involved, their status, address-
es, and the like. This requires regular communication be-
tween the Plan and APWU, and sometimes locals of
APWU. Most of this communication, it appears, is in
writing, sometimes in the form of computer printouts or
tapes.
It is also not unusual that persons wishing information
about the Hospital Plan, or desiring to file claims or
having complaints about the operation of the Plan, write
or call APWU, or its officers, with respect to those mat-
ters. These are generally referred to the Plan by the offi-
cer involved with appropriate notification to the person
initiating the inquiry. In some cases the APWU officer,
as a service to his constituent, will obtain the requested
information and advise the party directly. On some occa-
sions, clericals or officers of APWU, in performing the
functions of APWU, have need of information most
easily available in Plan files. There is some telephone
communication between employees of APWU and em-
ployees of the Plan for this purpose.
C. Collective Bargainining
As has been noted, the APWU unit of employees rep-
resented by Respondent is separately located from the
I There are also other occasions when the same official may serve the
Plan and APWU during a single period. Thus Evans, an officer of the
Plan, testified that at an out-of-town meeting on behalf of the Plan he had
occasion to incur out-of-pocket expenses on behalf of APWU. Evans was
reimbursed for those expenses by APWU, while the expenses relative to
the meeting were paid by the Plan.
unit of Hospital Plan employees Respondent represents,
and each unit is covered by a separate bargaining agree-
ment. There is no interchange between the two units.
Vacancies in the Plan unit which must be posted are
posted only at the headquarters of the Plan. While some
of the members of each of the units may have reason to
communicate with the other unit, in writing or by phone,
it does not appear from the record that members of one
unit have reason, in the course of their employment, to
meet or work with members of the other unit. There is a
necessity that employees of APWU cooperate with the
Plan, and vice versa, in exchanging information and doc-
uments which aid in the efficient conduct of the affairs
of each of them, as has been noted.
Collective bargaining by the Plan is conducted by the
director of the Hospital Plan, John R. Dubay, with the
aid of his assistants, and by the Plan's attorney. Bargain-
ing objectives and decisions on contract proposals are
made by these Plan officials. There is no participation by
APWU in these matters. Indeed, it is clear that not even
the Hospital Plan board of directors, during the 1979 ne-
gotiations with Respondent, was consulted or directly in-
formed about the bargaining positions being taken by the
Plan, or the issues dividing the negotiators until just
before the strike.
On November 27, 1979, a meeting of those members of
the APWU National Executive Board located in Wash-
ington (who are also members of the Plan's board of di-
rectors) was convened to have Plan Director Dubay
inform them of the status of the negotiations with Re-
spondent, inasmuch as they apparently had become dis-
turbed by rumors and reports of what was occurring.
The meeting was held at APWU headquarters. Though
the board members were told that the meeting was infor-
mational only and not intended to invite their comments,
a few members expressed strong criticism that some of
the bargaining positions being taken by the Plan were in-
consistent with positions being taken by APWU in bar-
gaining with the Postal Service, and thus not in the best
interests of APWU. Plan Director Dubay testified that
these criticisms did not affect the bargaining stance of
the Plan, however.
About this time there were rumors that Respondent in-
tended to picket APWU headquarters in the event of a
strike against the Plan. In an effort to head this off, the
executive vice president of APWU, David Johnson, ar-
ranged for a meeting with Secretary-Treasurer Lowe of
the Office and Professional Employees International
Union (OPEIU) to see what could be done to prevent an
anticipated disruption of APWU operations. Lowe had
John Hazel, business agent of Respondent, attend. John-
son brought Dubay, who in turn was accompanied by
the Plan's attorney. Johnson emphasized at the meeting
that APWU had nothing to do with the negotiations be-
tween the Plan and Respondent, but was there to per-
suade Respondent not to picket APWU headquarters.
Hazel and Dubay discussed the issues separating the par-
ties at the negotiations. Johnson did not participate in
this. At the end, Lowe said that the question of picketing
APWU headquarters was a matter that would have to be
1210
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTL. UNION, LOCAL 2
decided by Respondent; that OPEIU could not intervene
in local affairs. The meeting broke up on this note.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
Respondent Union, which was engaged in a strike
against one employer, the Hospital Plan of APWU, over
terms of a bargaining contract, picketed a second em-
ployer, APWU, with which it had no separate dispute, in
order to pressure APWU to put pressure on the Hospital
Plan to make concessions to Respondent in the bargain-
ing negotiations. Employees of APWU were thereby in-
duced and encouraged to concertedly cease work, inter-
rupting the business relationships between APWU and
the Hospital Plan, and between each of them and others
with which they customarily dealt. This is a classic ex-
ample of a secondary boycott violating Section 8(b)(4) of
the Act in the absence of special circumstances justifying
such conduct. As has been noted, however, Respondent
contends that in this case it was justified in its conduct.
In the first instance, Respondent asserts that the
APWU and the Hospital Plan are so interrelated as to
form a "single emnloyer," or are "allies" in the dispute
between Respondent and the Hospital Plan, and thus
APWU was not a "neutral" in the dispute between Re-
spondent and the Plan. For reasons set forth below, I
find this contention without merit.
The Board has been considering various aspects of this
problem for over 30 years. All of those cases, of which I
am aware, have involved commercial enterprises. None
to which I have been referred are quite like the present
matter. In the most recent of its decisions on the issue,
involving two regional branches owned and operated by
the same corporation distributing chemical and labora-
tory products, the Board, in holding that one of the
branches was not a "neutral" in the dispute between the
union there and the second branch, held that "[n]one of
the individual factors determining neutrality is [to be]
considered in isolation," but "all of them [are to be
weighed] to determine whether in fact one employer is
involved in or is wholly unconcerned with the labor dis-
putes of the other." Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers, Local Union No. 560, IBT (Curtin
Matheson Scientific, Inc.), 248 NLRB 1212, 1214 (1980).
As that case, and cases cited therein, make clear, the fact
that the two employers may be part of the same enter-
prise or corporation, or that such corporation may exer-
cise potential, though not actual, control over both em-
ployers is not decisive.4 In Curtin Matheson, the Board
noted that the corporation and its branches were so inte-
grated as to form "a single enterprise" in which disrup-
tion of the business of any branch by a strike would
"hardly [have] any immediate effect on its business" be-
cause of "the virtual certainty that the other branches
will perform the struck work." Curtin Matheson, supra.
In this case the two employers exist for separate pur-
poses, and conduct separate and distinct operations, with
' The Board quoted from V L.R.B. v Local 810. Steel, Metals. Alloys &
Hardware Fabricators d Warehousemen, IBT [Sid Harvey Inc.], 460 F2d
1, 6 (2d Cir. 1972): "Neutrality, for the purposes of the Act, is not a tech-
nical concept To determine whether an employer is neutral involves a
common sense evaluation of the relationship between the two employers
who are being picketed"
no interchange of employees and a rather restricted in-
terrelationship. APWU exists for the purpose of repre-
senting postal workers for collective-bargaining pur-
poses. It derives considerable benefit from the operation
of the Hospital Plan, including funds it receives from as-
sociate members who join APWU in order to participate
in the Hospital Plan. Therefore, APWU sponsors and
normally cooperates with the Plan and promotes it. It is
noteworthy that APWU did not assist the Plan in its dis-
pute with Respondent, perform any struck work for the
Plan, or have any influence over the manner the Plan
conducted its affairs in the dispute. Indeed, certain posi-
tions taken by the Plan in its dispute with Respondent
may well have been contrary to the best interests of
APWU. 5
The Hospital Plan, on the other hand, exists only to
provide insurance benefits to APWU members. While
APWU obviously can perform its primary function with-
out the Hospital Plan, the latter cannot exist, at least in
its present form, without APWU. The Plan occupies a
headquarters building separate and distinct from APWU,
one is in the District of Columbia and the other is in
Silver Spring, Maryland; 6 and the Plan's clerical employ-
ees represented by Respondent are located at the Plan's
headquarters, separate from the APWU clericals repre-
sented by Respondent. There is no interchange of em-
ployees, though clericals in each unit, in the course of
their work, have occasion to contact clericals in the
other for information. There are two separate collective-
bargaining agreements covering the two units. The Plan
maintains its own records, employs its own auditors and
attorneys, issues its own financial reports, and has its
own bank accounts, all separate and distinct from
APWU.
The APWU retains potential authority to control the
operations of the Plan. In actual fact, the officers of the
Plan control and direct its operations without assistance
by or intrusion from APWU. This is most significant in
the area of labor relations. The Hospital Plan hires its
own employees, determines their working conditions,
subject to the collective-bargaining agreement with Re-
spondent and the latter's representational rights, and ter-
minates its own employees. The Plan determines its own
labor relations policies, determines its own bargaining
positions and strategies, and carries them out without
consulting with or even informing APWU so far as this
record shows. Thus, it is clear that the Plan conducted
its own collective bargaining with Respondent in 1979,
with its own people, in accordance with its own policies,
and without even informing APWU. As has been noted,
when informed, some members of the APWU board
s APWU was not involved in, nor was it informed of, the issues in-
volved in the collective bargaining between Respondent and the Plan
until 3 days before the strike occurred. At that time Plan Director Duha,
advised the APWU National Executive Board of the status of the necgoti-
ations for their information Some of the members of the board protested
that the Plan's bargaining positions would tend to undermine APWU bar-
gaining with the Postal Service This criticism did not alter the Plan's po-
sitions
6 Though APWU owns the building in which the Plan is headquar-
tered, the Plan leases the building pursuant to a written lease at a substan-
tial rental.
1211
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were greatly opposed to what the Plan was doing as det-
rimental to the best interests of APWU. There is no evi-
dence that APWU gave any assistance to the Plan
during the strike.7
Based upon the above, and the record as a whole, I
find no basis for holding that APWU and the Hospital
Plan constitute a single employer or an integrated enter-
prise insofar as the application of Section 8(b)(4) of the
Act is concerned. I find that, in fact, they are separate
"persons" within the meaning of that section of the law.
Respondent's final argument, based on Retail Store
t:'nployees Union, Local 1001, etc. [Safeco Title Insurance
(o.] v. N.L.R.B., 627 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1979), is that
it was justified in following the "struck product," which,
in this case, Respondent argues is the "service" provided
to the members of APWU by the Hospital Plan. In that
case, the circuit court of appeals held that, where certain
insurance brokers sold, almost entirely, insurance pro-
duced by a carrier (Safeco) with whom the union there
had a dispute, the union did not violate the Act by pick-
eting the insurance brokers on the theory that the union
was following the "struck product." However, the Su-
preme Court has since reversed that decision, N.L.R.B.
v. Retail Store Employees Union Local 1001, etc [Safeco
Title Insurance Co.], 447 U.S 607 (1980) (herein referred
to as Retail Clerks Local 1001), holding that, "When a
union's interest in picketing a primary employer at a 'one
product' site [directly conflicts] with the need to protect
. . neutral employers from the labor disputes of others,
Congress has determined that the neutrals' interests
should prevail," and that "[p]roduct picketing that rea-
sonably can be expected to threaten neutral parties with
ruin or substantial loss does not square with the language
or the purpose of §8(b)(4)(ii)(B)."
Quite aside from the fact that the precedent upon
which Respondent relies is no longer valid, that decision
is obviously not applicable to the facts of the present
case. The Safeco decision involved picketing designed to
appeal to consumers not to buy a product from a second-
ary employer where the union had a dispute with an-
other primary employer who produced the product
(sometimes referred to as "consumer picketing"). In
other words, the product was identified with the dispute
and the union was following the dispute (product) even
in the hands of the purveyor of the product (the insur-
ance brokers) who sold it to the consumer. In this case
the product produced by the Hospital Plan never rested
at the headquarters of AI'WU. Consequently the dispute
was never there to be picketed. In fact, the members of
APWU subscribed to the Hospital Plan most frequently
through OPM, which notified the Hospital Plan directly,
or otherwise, so far as this record shows, directly with
the Plan. Payments for the insurance go directly to the
Plan. APWU, aside from its sponsorship and promotion
of the Plan, becomes involved in the process only inci-
v There was a tilecling betsecl the executive vice president of the
APWLI iand the retary treasurcr of the Internationalt, with which Re-
.ponldent is affiliated. i which the APWU sought to persuade the Office
Wt rkers Internallonal Io pcrnt Respondent from picketing APWU to
no avail Represll;aties of Rcsplondenll and the Pl'an were present and
discusscd the ssues btlccrl them Ithe APWU ice president did not
particpate hl I his disctlsilon and disalvrowed any inlerest in it.
dentally. So far as can be determined from this record,
Respondent's appeal was not to the "consumers" of the
Plan's "product" not to buy that product, but to the
APWU to put pressure on the Plan, or otherwise alter its
relationship with the Plan, in furtherance of its labor dis-
pute with the Plan.' In so doing Respondent violated
Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and
the Hospital Plan of the American Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, are, and at all material times have
been, employers engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Office and Professional Employees International
Union, Local No. 2, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by the Postal Workers Union to engage in refusals to
perform services in the course of their employment with
an object of forcing or requiring Postal Workers to cease
doing business or dealing with the Hospital Plan, or with
other persons engaged in commerce, and thereby threat-
ening, coercing, and restraining Postal Workers with the
object aforesaid, the Union has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, which unfair labor
practices affect commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Union, Respondent
herein, has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the purposes 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:
ORDER 9
Office and Professional Employees International
Union, Local No. 2, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C., its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging, by picketing or any other
means, any individual employed by a person engaged in
commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, other
than a person with whom Respondent has a primary dis-
pute, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of
his (or her) employment to perform services, where an
object thereof is to force or require American Postal
n The complaint alleges and the answer admits that Respondent picket-
ed APWU with picket signs "which stated that Respondent was on strike
against Hospital Plan."
I 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 find-
ings, 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
1212
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTL. UNION, LOCAL 2
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other person, to
cease doing business or dealing with the Hospital Plan of
the Postal Workers Union.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining the Postal
Workers Union, or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, other than a
person with whom Respondent has a primary dispute,
where an object thereof is to force or require the Postal
Workers Union, or any other person, to cease doing busi-
ness or dealing with the Hospital Plan.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'1 Copies of
said notice, on forms furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 5, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for a 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
10 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the ords in the notice reading "Posted hb
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu
ant to a Judgment of the United States of Appeals Enforcing an ()rder of
the National L.abor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
PosrEt) BY OR) R )1 til
NATIONAl. LABOR RELA-IlONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL. NOT picket, or otherwise induce or en-
courage employees of American Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
with whom we do not have a primary dispute, to
engage in a strike, or otherwise stop work, where
an object of such action is to force American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other person, to
stop doing business with or dealing with the Hospi-
tal Plan of American Postal Workers Union, AFIL
CIO.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce. or restrain
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or anx
other person engaged in commerce or in an indus-
try affecting commerce with whom we do not ha,.c
a primary dispute, to engage in a strike, or other-
wise stop work, where an object of such conduct is
to force American Postal Workers Union, AFI.
CIO, or any other person, to stop doing husiness
with or dealing with the Hospital Plan of American
Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
OFFICE ANI) PROFFSSIONAI EMPI ()I:I s
INTERNATIONAI UNION, LOCAI 2, AFl
CIO
i 2 g