United Assn., Plumbing & Pipefitting, Local 562

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 475 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

UNITED ASSN., PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING, LOCAL 562 475
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee because he is a member of Retail
Clerks Union, Local 188, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor union, or because he engages in a strike or other form of con-
certed activity.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Retail Clerks Union, Local
188, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all selling and nonselling employees in our Chillicothe
store, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment, and will
embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
WE WILL, upon application, offer immediate and full reinstatement to Patricia
Baker, Betty Bivens, Burl Bowling, Victor Chaney, Linda Colley, Martha
Haubeil, Patricia Jackson, Tonita Johnson, Charles Phillips, Marilyn Ratcliffe,
Eugene Reed, Dorothy Reynolds, Samye Rowland, Harold Scott, Juanita
Sterling, and Oliver Zickafoos to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and will
reimburse them for any loss of pay they may have suffered after any refusal
,of their applications for reinstatement.
All our employees have the right to form, join, or assist any labor union, or
not to do so.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of these rights.
SEA-WAY DISTRIBUTING, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Transit
Building, Fourth and Vine Streets, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202, Telephone No. Dunbar
1-1420, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 562 and Foor Engineer-
ing Company. Case No. 1 i CP-,12. Jm e 28. 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 17, 1962, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.
The Board I has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with .this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
143 NLRB No. 54.
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report , the exceptions , and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.'
2 Members Rodgers and Leedom, although affirming the Trial Examiner 's conclusions, do
not affirm those portions of the Intermediate Report which are predicated on cases in
which they have previously indicated their dissenting views See particularly those cases
cited in footnotes 11, 12, and 13 of the Intermediate Report
"Paragraph 1 of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order is modified by the addition,
at the end of paragraph, of the words . . in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the
Act."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed September 25, 1962, by Foor Engineering Company
(herein called Foor ), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint dated October 31, 1962 , against United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 562 (herein called the Union or Respond-
ent), alleging that Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act. In substance, the complaint alleges that since August 27, 1962, Respondent
has picketed a construction project near Centralia, Missouri, where Foor is en-
gaged in certain work , with an object of forcing or requiring Foor to recognize or
bargain with it as the representative of certain employees of Foor, or to force or
require Foor's said employees to accept or select Respondent as their collective-
bargaining representative , although it is not certified as the representative of any
of Foor's employees and has not filed a petition , under Section 9 (c) of the Act, to
represent said employees. The Respondent has filed an answer which admits that
it has picketed the Centralia project and that it has not filed a petition under Section
9(c) of the Act, but denies that an object of the picketing is that proscribed by
Section 8 (b) (7) (C) of the Act.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Samuel Ross
in Columbia , Missouri , on November 19, 1962 . All parties were represented at
the hearing by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce
evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to present oral argument, and
to file briefs. A brief was filed by the General Counsel on December 7, 1962, which
I have carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Foor, an Oklahoma corporation whose principal office and place of business is
located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is engaged in the business of constructing oil
facilities , including refineries , gasoline plants , and booster stations . In the operation
of said business , Foor annually performs services and supplies materials valued
in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside the State of Oklahoma. On the
foregoing admitted facts, I find and conclude that Foor is engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties admit and I find that the Respondent is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
UNITED ASSN., PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING, LOCAL 562 477
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (herein called Panhandle ) is an employer
engaged in the production , purchasing , transmission , and sale of natural gas. In the
operation of said business Panhandle operates a compressor or booster station near
Centralia , Missouri . Panhandle is also engaged in expanding its pipeline and other
facilities . In this connection , on or about August 5, 1962 ,' Panhandle contracted
with Foor for the latter to install a compressor at Panhandle 's Centralia station.
The Respondent Union is the representative of pipefitters , steamfitters , and welders
in the eastern half of Missouri , including Boone County , in which the Centralia
station of Panhandle is located. On August 20, George Seaton, the business repre-
sentative of Respondent and its admitted agent, telephoned Raymond T. Foor, vice
president of Foor, at the latter 's office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Seaton asked
Foor whether his Company planned to perform its contract with Panhandle at Cen-
tralia on an "open shop" basis. Foor replied in the affirmative . Seaton then said
that the job would have to be 100 percent union or 100 percent open shop , that he
was going to notify Panhandle that "they [Respondent ] were not going to start the
Houstonia project ... [and] the pipeline ..., " 2 and that there would "be a picket
line put on your [Foor's] job."
On August 20, Foor commenced work on the Centralia job for Panhandle. On
August 23, before Foor hired or utilized any pipefitters , steamfitters , or welders,
Business Representative Seaton and "Buck" Rowe, a representative of the Hoisting
Engineers , visited the Centralia project and had a conversation with Percy Allen Foor,
the president of the Charging Company, in the presence of B. D . Jacobs, Foor's con-
struction superintendent . According to Foor's credited testimony , Seaton introduced
himself as the Union 's representative , and asked Foor whether he had changed his
mind "about organizing the job or working union " 3 Foor replied that he had not.
Seaton then asked whether Foor would utilize local pipefitters and laborers. Foor
replied that he would, and that no one would be barred whether union or nonunion.
Seaton then asked how many would be used on the job. Foor replied four welders
and two pipefitters . Foor also told Seaton that the Company controlled the job
by doing its own hiring , and that , because of the specialized work involved, the
employees utilized on the job would include a skeleton crew of experienced per-
sonnel from the Company's other projects outside of Missouri . Seaton responded,
that he "couldn't go for that , it [the job] had to be 100% union ." Seaton also
said that "he was going to shut the pipeline and the river crossings down tomorrow,"
and that he would "show Panhandle that this was Missouri." 4 Foor replied that
that was no concern to him, and that his only interest was to complete the construc-
tion of the "Centralia Station" in accordance with his contract and bond.
The parties stipulated that on the following Monday, August 27, the Respondent
Union commenced picketing the north gate to the Centralia project with picket
signs which bore the following message: "Unfair , Pipe Fitters Local 562," and that
such picketing was still in progress at the time of the hearing in this case , Novem-
ber 19.5
As a consequence of said picketing , Foor encountered difficulties in securing
deliveries of supplies and equipment to its project , as follows- In the performance
of its contract with Panhandle , Foor was required , inter alia , to construct a concrete
bed or mat on which the compressor or engine was to be installed . To that end,
Foor had ordered 815 cubic yards of ready-mix concrete from Oliver Ready Mix
Concrete Company of Mexico, Missouri (herein called Oliver ). On August 30,
the Company was ready to pour the concrete bed. However , when requested to
'All dates hereinafter refer to 1962 unless otherwise specifically noted.
2 Foor is not involved in either of these Panhandle projects
3 According to Seaton, he mistakenly thought that P A. Foor was the same For to
whom he had spoken on the telephone 3 days earlier
4 From Seaton's testimony, it is apparent that the pipeline and river crossings were
other projects of Panhandle on which members of Respondent were employed. There is
no testimony that the threatened conduct ever occurred. Morever, there is no charge or
complaint herein of violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii)
6 Originally, the Respondent also picketed the south gate to the station, but when ad-
vised by Panhandle that no employees or suppliers of For used that gate, and threatened
with an unfair labor practice charge unless the pickets at the south gate were removed,
Respondent discontinued the picketing at said gate either the same day or the day after
it commenced
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make delivery of the concrete, Oliver advised Superintendent Jacobs that "he was
sorry that he couldn't make delivery" because "he couldn't cross the picket line with
his men." Thereafter, Foor convassed the area in an unsuccessful effort to secure
.ready-mix concrete from other suppliers. In each instance, Foor was advised that
the material could not be obtained because "none of them would cross the picket
line." Consequently, Foor was required to lease a mobile concrete mixer from
Amarillo, Texas, to purchase aggregate , sand, and cement from Moline, Kansas, to
cause these materials and equipment to be shipped by train to Centralia, Missouri,
to transport them from the Centralia siding to the jobsite with its own and leased
trucks, and to mix concrete at the jobsite. As a result, the pouring of the concrete
bed was delayed approximately 3 weeks. Additional delay was experienced by
Foor in connection with the delivery of the compressor. Foor had contracted with
Belger Cartage Company to transport the compressor from the Centralia siding to
the project, but after picketing commenced, Belger 's Superintendent Ross advised
P A. Foor that he could not perform because "they couldn't cross the picket line." e
Moreover, according to reports received by Respondent' s Business Representative
Seaton from the pickets, some trucks came up to the picket line but did not enter
the project. Vice President R. T. Foor testified that as a result of the delays de-
scribed above, he now estimates that the job, originally scheduled for completion
on December 5, will not be finished until about the first of January 1963, provided
weather conditions are favorable.
Business Representative Seaton's version of the conversations with Foor was not
substantially different from that adduced by the General Counsel Seaton admitted
that he had a telephone conversation with Vice President R. T. Foor on August 20,
and that the conversation was substantially that to which Foor testified. In respect
to the August 23 conversation with President P. A. Foor at the jobsite, Seaton testified
that he inquired whether Foor was going to run an open or a union shop, that Foor
replied that it would be an open shop, and that Seaton then expressed surprise that
Panhandle would contract with Foor and permit it to operate on an open-shop basis
since all the rest of Panhandle's project was "union." Seaton testified on direct
examination that the reason for his request "for hiring," and for the subsequent
picketing, was that the Union had unemployed members living in the area who were
capable of performing the work and who should not "be deprived of doing the work."
He denied that an object of the picketing was either to force Foor to sign a contract,
grant recognition to Respondent, or to require that Foor's employees join the Union.
Seaton testified that on the contrary, the Respondent's only interest in picketing, and
its condition precedent to removal of the picket line, was that Foor pay the wages,
and observe the hours, and other working conditions of other contractors in the
area. However, on cross-examination, Seaton admitted that he made no inquiry
regarding the rates paid by Foor, and he also conceded that Foor told him "he paid
the [Union] rate for pipefitters" on other projects, "and that he wasn't opposed to
[paying] it" at Centralia. Seaton further testified that since Foor insisted on being
"the sole judge of who he hired and who he brought in there," Respondent could
not know "whether they [Foor] are paying the rate unless we've got some people on
the job." When asked in what respect Foor was not adhering to local working rules,
wages, hours, and working conditions, Seaton testified that since Foor was using four
welders, he was required to employ four pipefitters, but used only two of the latter
classification. Seaton admitted that this requirement was based on the Union's
contract with contractors in the area. Seaton further testified that although he did
not ask Foor to sign the Union's agreement, he did request that Foor "take the agree-
ment . . . and work by it," which included a requirement "to pay the going rate,
the wage rate, plus 30 cents an hour for welfare and pension" to the joint management-
labor welfare and pension plan established by the Union under its collective-
bargaining agreement with contractors in the area. Finally, Seaton admitted that he
had told Foor on August 23 that Respondent desired to represent all, not just part,
of the welders employed by Foor. In this connection, he further acknowledged that
he had told Foor that "it had to be 100% [ union] or nothing," and that if Foor
"agreed to hire your [the Union's] local pipefitters, the pickets would have come
down."
B. Discussion and concluding findings
As noted above, the complaint alleges that Respondent's picketing of the Centralia
project is an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(7)(C) of
G The record does not disclose whether or how the compressor was delivered to the
project.
UNITED ASSN., PLUMBING S PIPEFITTING, LOCAL 562 479
the Act 7 As noted above, the parties stipulated that the picketing of the Foor jobsite
was commenced by Respondent on August 27, that it was still in progress on No-
vember 19, the date of the hearing (more than 30 days from its inception),8 and
that no petition has been filed under Section 9(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the
principal issue which requires determination is whether the Respondent's picketing
is for an object proscribed by Section 8(b) (7) (C).
Respondent's counsel contended at the hearings that the picketing of Foor's project
did not violate Section 8(b)(7)(C) because the Union's object was to compel Foor
to hire "local people," an object not proscribed by the section. However, the record
does' riot support this contention` of Respondent; since, it is not disputed that Foor
expressed a willingness to hire qualified local pipefitters and welders, whether union
or nonunion . From the foregoing, it is quite apparent that although Respondent's
dispute with Foor might have been over Foor's intention to hire employees without
regard to their union affiliation, it could not have been based on its refusal to em-
ploy "local people." 10 Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent's picketing of
Foor's jobsite at Centralia was not motivated by any refusal by Foor to hire "local
people."
Another objective of Respondent's picketing was suggested by Seaton's testimony
that the Union's only interest in the project, and its condition precedent for removal
of the pickets, was that Foor pay the wages and observe the hours and working con-
ditions of other contractors in the area. If in fact, the observance by Foor of area
standards was the object for which Respondent picketed the jobsite, under recent Board
decisions , such picketing does not violate Section 8 (b) (7) (C).11 However, the record
"Section 8 ( b) (7) (C) provides as follows:
(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-
r • ► s ♦ s •
(7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be
picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an em-
ployer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of
his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or
select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, unless
such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such
employees:
(C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under
section 9 ( c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed
thirty days from the commencement of such picketing: Provided, That when
such a petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith, without 'regard to
the provisions of section 9(c)(1) or the absence of a showing of a substan-
tial interest on the part of the labor organization, direct an election in such
unit as the Board finds to be appropriate and shall certify the results thereof:
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 transport any
goods or not to perform any services.
Nothing in this paragraph ( 7) shall be construed to permit any act which
would otherwise be an unfair labor practice under this section 8(b).
Subsequently , on November 21, the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Missouri enjoined the picketing in a Section 10(1) proceeding instituted by the
Regional Director . Sperry v. Local 562, Civil No. 851.
1 No brief has been filed on behalf of Respondent although the time to file was extended
until December 7.
'° According to the uncontroverted testimony of Poor's construction superintendent,
Jacobs, some local residents were hired by Fo^or, but no local. pipefitters or welders How-
ever, the failure to hire local pipefitters and welders was not based on any refusal by
Poor to employ them, but because none applied for work at the picketed project.
n Cf. International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers ' Union of America,
Local No 41, AFL-CIO ( Calumet Contractors Association ), 133 NLRB 512; Houston
Building and Construction Trades Council (Claude Everett Construction Company), 136
NLRB 321 ; Local 107 , International Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers' Union
of America, AFL-CIO; et al (Texarkana Construction Company ), 138 NLRB 102.
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is not persuasive that such was the object or even an object of Respondent's picketing.
Thus, as noted above, Seaton made no inquiry regarding either the rates paid by Foor
or the working conditions which Foor observed. Moreover Seaton admitted that
Foor had told him that "he paid the [Union] rate for pipefitters" on other projects,
"and that he was not opposed to [paying] it" at Centralia. In the light of the fore-
going, I am not persuaded that Respondent's object in picketing the jobsite was the
maintenance of area standards.
On the contrary, the record, including Business Representative Seaton's own testi-
mony, quite clearly discloses that Respondent's object in picketing was to compel
Foor to operate a "union shop" pursuant to the terms of the Union's contract with
other employers in the area. I base this conclusion on the entire record, including
the following: (1) When Seaton was informed by Vice President R. T. Foor that the
job would be operated on an "open shop basis," Seaton replied that it would have
to be "100% union" and threatened, inter alia, to picket the project. (2) Subse-
quently, Seaton asked President P. A. Foor whether he had changed his mind about
"organizing the job or working union." (3) When Foor replied that he intended
to do his own hiring, to employ local people whether union or nonunion, and that
he further planned to utilize a skeleton crew of experienced personnel from the
Company's out-of-State projects, Seaton responded, "He couldn't go for that, it
[the job] had to be 100 percent union." Seaton also told Foor that it was surprising
that Panhandle would contract with the Company since all the rest of the project
was "union." (4) Seaton's testimony that Respondent had unemployed members in
the area who were capable and should not "be deprived of doing the work," and his
further testimony that he wanted Foor to employ the Union's pipefitters, and that
Foor was "free to hire from other places if there was none in the area." (5) Seaton's
admission that he told Foor that he wanted to "represent" all, not lust part of Foor's
pipefitters and welders. (6) Seaton's testimony, in connection with his assertion
that Respondent's picketing was for the purpose of maintaining area standards, that
he asked Foor to "take the agreement" with other contractors in the area, and
"work by it," and that this required Foor, inter alia, to hire four pipefitters, since
he expected to use four welders, and to pay, in addition to the Union's scale of
wages, 30 cents per hour to the joint labor-management welfare fund established
under the Union's area contract. (7) Seaton's testimony explaining the presence
on the job on August 23, of Rowe, the Hoisting Engineers' representative, that
"Rowe would want the job to go union the same as me."
All of the foregoing impels me to the conclusion that the Union was not con-
cerned with Foor's maintenance of area standards for its nonunion or out-of-State
employees, or to compel Foor to employ "local people,"' but rather that the objective
of its picketing was to compel Foor to hire union members for pipefitters and welders
to the extent that such were available, and that to the extent that Foor used others,
that such would become members of and/or represented by the Union. I am fur-
ther persuaded and conclude that the Union's objective was to require Foor to adhere
to and operate under the terms of the Union's' area contract with other employers.
These objectives are, in my opinion, equivalent to forcing or requiring Foor to
recognize or bargain with the Union, and to compel Foor's employees to select and
accept the Union as their representative.12 Accordingly, I conclude that the Union
picketed Foor for objectives proscribed by Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
There remains for consideration only the question of whether the Respondent's
picketing can be regarded as "informational" within the meaning of the second
proviso to Section 8(b)(7)(C), and thus exempted from its proscription.13 As
noted above, the picket sign utilized by Respondent from August 27 until Novem-
ber 19 stated only "unfair" and the name of the Union. Thus, the sign did not convey
either that Foor did not employ members of, or that it did not have a contract with,
Respondent. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to perceive how such picket-
ing can be regarded as falling within the ambit of the second proviso to Section
12 On November 19, the day of the hearing herein, the Union picketed with a new sign
which stated, "This job does not hire members of Local 562." The Board has held that
picketing with such a sign "clearly imports an object of organization." Local Union 429,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL -CIO (Sam M. Melson d/b/a Sam
Melson, General Contractor), 138 NLRB 460; Leonard Smitley and Joseph W Drown
d/b/a Crown Cafeteria, etc., 135 ' NLRB '1183
1S Cf. Retail Clerks Union Local 324, at at. (Barker Bros. Corp. and Gold's, Inc.), 138
NLRB 478; San Diego County Waiters and Bartenders Union Local 500, etc ( Joe Hunt's
Restaurant ), 138 NLRB 470.
UNITED ASSN., PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING, LOCAL 562 481
8(b)(7)(C). Moreover, the record clearly discloses that an effect of the picketing
was to induce employees not to deliver materials and equipment to the project,14
that suppliers of Foor and truckers failed to fulfill their contracts with the Company
because they either could not or would not cross the picket line, that as a conse-
quence, Foor was compelled to resort to various expedients to get its materials and
equipment to the jobsite, and the completion of Foor's contract with Panhandle
was delayed for about 1 month. Under all these circumstances, I conclude that
Respondent's picketing materially interfered with and delayed Foor's completion of
its contract.15 Accordingly, I conclude that in the light of this "effect of such picket-
ing," it is not protected by the second proviso, even if otherwise regarded as
"informational." 16
For all the foregoing reasons, I find and conclude that by picketing Foor's
Centralia jobsite on and after August 27, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Foor described in section I, above, have a close, in-
timate, 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in,
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No.
562, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By picketing the Centralia, Missouri , project of Foor Engineering Company
since August 27, 1962, with an object of forcing or requiring Foor to recognize or
bargain with the Respondent as the representative of its pipefitters and welders,
and of forcing and requiring the employees of Foor to accept or select the Respond-
ent as their collective-bargaining representative, although the latter was not then
certified as the representative of said employees and did not file a petition under Sec-
tion 9(c) of the Act within 30 days from the commencement of said picketing, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 562, its officers, agents,
representatives , successors , and assig'ns ,^ shall:
I.-Cease and desist -from picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to
picket or cause to be picketed, Foor Engineering Company, where an object thereof
is forcing or requiring said employer to recognize or bargain with Respondent, or'
any other labor organization, as the bargaining representative of Foor's employees,
"As noted above, Seaton testified that he received reports from the pickets that some
trucks came up to the picket line but did not enter the project.
15,Cf Barker Bros. Corp. and Cold's , Inc., supra.
16 In view of the foregoing, I regard it unnecessary to consider the effect of the changed
language of the picket sign . See footnote 12, supra . Moreover, there is no evidence•in the
record that the change in the language of the picket signs was based on any change in the
object of the Union 's picketing.
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or forcing or requiring the employees of Foor to accept or select Respondent, or
such other labor organization, as their collective-bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act.
(a) Post at its business offices, meeting halls, and all other places where notices
to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 17 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Seventeenth Region, shall after being duly signed by a representative of the Re-
spondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members and employees 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) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, signed copies
of said notice for posting by Foor Engineering Company, if willing, in places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director shall, after being signed by the Respondent, be forthwith
returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.18
11 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" In the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
18 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF FOOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause
to be picketed, Foor Engineering Company, where an object thereof is forcing
or requiring said employer to recognize -or bargain with us or any other labor
organization as the bargaining representative of any of its employee s , or forc-
ing or requiring the employees of Foor Engineering Company to accept or
select us or any other labor organization as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND AP-
PRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING
INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL UNION, No. 562,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
Employees or members may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 1200 Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106,
Telephone No. Baltimore 1-7000, Extension 731, if they have any questions con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.