IBEW Local 1186

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 254 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1186, AFL-CIO and Pacific Electrical
Contractors' Association and Its ' Members (A-1 A-
Lectrician, Inc.; AA Electric,' LTD.; Able Electrical
Service;' American 'Electric Co., Ltd.; Arakaki
Electric, Inc.; Aruda Electric Co., Ltd.; Bowman
Electric Shop, )LTD.; Jack Endo Electric, Inc.;
Grant's Electric,Inc.; John Gushiken Electric, Inc.;
Halfhill Electrical Co., Ltd.; T. Hata Electric,,Inc.;
Hygrade Electric Co., Ltd.; Jimmy's, Electrical
Service ;- Kamibayashi Electrical Works, Inc.; Ka-
neohe Electric; Kihara Electric, Inc.; Kimura
Electric, Inc.; L. A. Electrical Service; Larry's
Electric Service ; M & I Electric Co., Inc.; Mid-Pac
Electric, ' Inc.;-'Robert Y. Miyamasu Electric; G.
Morishige Electrical Contractors, Inc.; Nakagawa
Electric ; Nakai Electrical Service , Inc.; Oahu
Electrical Contractors, Ltd.; Geo. Okano Electrical
Contracting, Corp.; Oki's Electric, Inc.; Progressive
Electric ; Reynolds Electrical Co., Inc.; Rite Way
Electric Co., Ltd.; Saan Electric; Standard Electric,
Inc.; Stan's Electrical Service ; K. Takai Electrical
Contractor; R. K. Takemoto Electric, Inc.; Ted's
Wiring .Service, Ltd.; Fumio Teruya, Ltd.; -Times
Electric, Inc.; Toyomura Electric Service ; United
Electrical Service,' Ltd.; Universal Electric Co.,
Ltd.; Veteran's Electric Co., Ltd.;' S. Wasa Electri-
cal Service, Inc.; Watanabe Electric) and Alexan-
der & Baldwin, Inc.; Amfac, Inc.; E. E. Black, Ltd.;
C. Brewer & Co., Ltd.; Castle & Cooke, Inc.; Theo.
H. Davies + & Co., Ltd.; James W.' Glover, Ltd.;
Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc.; Hawaiian Telephone
Co.; Honolulu Gas Co., Ltd. Case 37-CE-2
July 28, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On August 11, 1970, Trial Examiner James R.
Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent Association and Respondent Union filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
supporting briefs. The General Counsel filed a letter
1 Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we find in agreement with the
Trial Examiner that the disputed contract provision is not exempt from
Section 8(e) of the Act by virtue of the construction industry proviso. See
the House Conference Report (H. Rept. 1147, 86th Cong., Ist secs., p. 39)
which stated, "It should be particularly noted that the proviso relates only
and cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Charging Parties filed cross-exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision, a brief in support of
cross-exceptions and in opposition to exceptions of
Respondent Association and Respondent Union, and
a request for oral argument. Respondent Union and
Respondent Association filed answering briefs. Res-
pondent Association also filed an . answer to, the
request for oral argument. The Board granted oral
argument which was held on January 4,197 1, with the
parties participating therein.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, letter, briefs,
request 'for oral argument and answer thereto, the oral
argument, and the entire record inn the case, _ and
hereby, adopts the findings, conclusions,, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner,l as, modified
herein. , , ,
ORDER"
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National, Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order and Recom-
mended Order of the Trial "Examiner-,as, modified
herein and hereby orders, that, Pacific Electrical
Contractors' Association and its employer-'members
in Hawaii, their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 1186, AFL-CIO, and its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
modified below:
a. Strike the phrase "or any other labor organiza-
tion" from the Notice to Employees, Appendix A.
b. Strike the phrase "or any other employer" from
the Notice to Members, Appendix B.
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting:
I am constrained to disagree with my colleagues'
holding that the contract clause in issue is violative of
Section 8(e) as, in my view, it not only is a valid work
protection clause, but, in any event, is within the
exception to the proviso to Section 8(e).
First, I think it dubious that the wording of Section
8(e) clearly embraces the clause in question in that on
its face it relates only to the ownership of property to
be worked on and, second on its face, cannot be said
and exclusively to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at
the site of the construction . The proviso does not exempt from Section 8(e)
agreements relating to supplies or other products or materials shipped or
otherwise transported to and delivered on the site of the construction."
192 NLRB No. 43
IBEW LOCAL 1186
to have arisen from an objection to the source of the
property.2 However, even if Section 8(e) could
possibly have some application here, I would construe
the clause as having--at least for purposes of Section
8(e)-a work preservation objective.
It cannot be gainsaid that the clause insofar as
honored by the employers would in fact perserve, for
the electricians covered by it, work they have
historically and traditionally performed. There is, of
course, as the Trial Examiner's findings show, little
evidence showing that the electricians have experi-
enced a material loss-of work in the past; but this lack
of evidence is significant only in that it establishes
that the electricians have in fact historically and
traditionally ;performed the work they now seek to
perserve. Obviously, a work perservation clause by its
very purpose 'is preventive in nature; i.e., designed to
avoid encroachments upon employee work areas.
Surely, the Union need not wait until the harm is done
before being permitted to take those steps deemed
necessary to protect employees which it' represents.
And this is what'the clause in issue does.
My colleagues seemingly do not disagree with the
basic 'p'roposition that the clause does in fact have a
work perservation -objective, but they nonetheless
have deemed the, clause unlawful because of the
means by which the objective is accomplished. I am
unpersuaded, .for I view it inherently inconsistent to
hold a clause to be a work protection one and also to
be unlawful. But in any event, and assuming that a
secondary meaning-can be read into the clause, I'
would find it exempt by reason of the proviso' to
Section 8(e).
By the terms of the proviso, the exemption applies if
the agreement is one with an employer in the
construction industry and, insofar as is material here,
relates to construction work to be done on the jobsite.
These conditions-have been met here.3 The employers
are in the construction industry, and the agreement
relates `solely ' to- construction site work; i.e., "all
electrical construction, erection, installation, han-
dling, and moving 'work on the job site...."
Concededly, the agreement here contains a novel
provision that the jobsite work to be performed will be
done on "material, equipment, and apparatus" owned
by the employer; but this qualification of ownership
does not remove the clause from the proviso's
exception, for the clause does not concern itself with
either the manufacturer of the goods to be installed or
the mode of movement from that source to the jobsite.
In sum apart from any consideration of whether the
agreement here may be held invalid for other reasons,
I must conclude that the General Counsel has not
demonstrated. that it is unlawful under Section 8(e).
Accordingly, I would dismiss the complaint in its
entirety. - -
255
2 Cf. National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. N.L.RB., 386
U.S. 612, 619, wherein the Supreme Court expressed its doubts as to the
actual scope of Section 8(e).
3 Not in issue in this case is the qualification that the clause to be
exempt must contain no self-help provision . Ets-Hokin Corporation 154
NLRB 839, 842. None is present here.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES R. WEBSTER , Trial Examiner: This case, with all
parties represented , was heard in Honolulu , Hawaii, on
March 24, 1970, on complaint of the General Counsel and
answers of Pacific Electrical Contractors ' Association, et
al., herein referred to as the Association, and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , Local 1186, AFL-CIO,
herein referred to as the Union , and answer of Mid-Pac
Electric, Inc., herein referred to as Mid-Pac . The complaint
was issued on October 27,4969 , upon charges filed July 23,
October 9 , and October 22, 1969. The complaint alleges
that the Union and the Association have entered into,
maintained, and enforced a contract proscribed by Section
8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the
Act. -
Bri efs have been filed by the general Counsel and the
Union and the Association and these have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF EMPLOYERS
The Pacific Electrical Contractors' Association is a
voluntary association of employers, organized for the
purpose, among others, of assisting its employer-members
and representing them in negotiating and entering into
collective -bargaining agreements with , representatives of
their employees, including the Union. The employer-
members of the Association are engaged in -business as
building and construction contractors - in the State of
Hawaii . During the past year, the employer-members
purchased and received goods , materials, and supplies
valued in , excess of $50,000 directly from places located
outside the State of Hawaii.
The employer-members of the Association are employers
engaged in commerce and in operations affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
1186, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issue
The Union and the Association have contracted that
employees will be assigned to work only on material,
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAT IONS BOARD
equipment, and apparatus owned by their employers. The
issue is whether these contract terms require the electrical
contractors to cease doing business with any other person
in violation of Section 8(e),of the Act or whether they are
work-preservation provisions and therefore outside the
proscriptions of Section 8(e). If the contract is found to fall
within Section 8(e), then is it exempt therefrom by the
construction industry proviso?
B. Statement of Fact
In the early part of 1969, the Union and the Association
commenced meetings to renegotiate their collective-bar-
gaining agreement., In March , the Union proposed article
VII, Section 1(e), as follows:
Employees, covered by this agreement, shall do all
-electrical construction, erection, installation , handling,
and moving work on the job site and in the shop, and all
electrical maintenance thereon, including and subject to
the following:.. .
(e) all work, other than maintenance work, will be done
on material, equipment, and 'apparatus own by the
Employer.
By memorandum dated April 25, 1969, Walter Oda,
executive secretary for the Association„ notified all
members , among other , things, the following 'in regard to
article VII, Section 1(e):
Employees covered by the agreement shall do all
electrical construction,_ erection, installation, handling
and moving work on the job site and in the shop, and all
electrical maintenance thereon . All work, other than
maintenance work, will be done on material, equip-
ment, and apparatus owned by the employer.
It is to be noted that this was a proposal of management
that the - employees would not handle any fixture,
equipment, and/or apparatus that is not furnished by
the electrical contractor. On all new projects contracted
for after August 15, 1969 the electrical contractors
would- not be able to bid on job where the fixtures,
equipment` and/or apparatus are to be furnished by
others. In- this matter, it is expected that if the owner
intends to have any electrical work done, then he would
have to concede to our demands.
On May 1, 1969, the Association held. a meeting of
members at which the contract was ratified. Although the
prior collective-bargaining agreement .did not expire until
August 14, 1969, the membership of the Association voted
in favor of ' a recommendation from the negotiating
committee that all of the noncost items of the revised
contract were to take effect immediately.
It is noted that Oda, in his memorandum to the members
of the Association, claimed section 1(e)" of article VII as a
proposal of management, and it obviously has advantages
to management due to the markup that electrical contrac-
tors receive on fixtures and equipment. Oda testified,
however, that he made this claim to the Association
members to demonstrate that the contract did not contain
only concessions made bythe association.
In the early part of 1969, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.
began the remodeling of an office building. Nordic
Construction Company was selected as the general
contractor and work commenced on or about June 1, 1969.
Alexander & Baldwin , through its wholly-owned subsidiary
Hawaiian. Lighting and Supply Corporation, owned all of
the materials, supplies, and electrical , fixtures that were to
be used on this ,project. After one electrical contractor was
considered but not employed, Halfhill Electric Company
was asked to submit a bid- for the electrical work on this
project. Halfhill advised Nordic by letter dated May 13,
1969, as follows:
We are sorry to inform youthat we will be unable to
accomplish the electrical work on subject job, as the
owner will supply the lighting fixtures on this job. It is
the negotiated intent as we understand & the electrical
association's interpretation of -our, new union contract,,
that the electricians in Hawaii will not install ,materials
supplied by others than the electrical contractors. We
also do not intend to use the electricians on our payroll
on a labor only job as we are importing electricians
from Wyoming ' to accomplish work presently on our
books.
We enclose 'copies of our new contract which actually
went into effect May 1, 19691.
Halfhill, as well as the prior electrical- contractor , called
Hawaiian Lighting Company for quotation of prices -on
fixtures. Prices were not quoted , Donald Avery, vice,
president and general manager of Hawaiian Lighting and
Supply Corporation , testified that he had been informed
that the lighting fixtures were to be supplied directly to the
owner of the building, Alexander & Baldwin that it would
furnish the fixture to the electrical subcontractor for
installation on this project. -
A third electrical subcontractor, Wasa Electrical Service,
was asked to bid on the project. ,A bid was submitted on
May 15 , 1969, for the "electrical work with fixtures"; it was
accepted , and Wasa purchased the fixtures from Hawaiian
Lighting and Supply Company and performed the electrical
work.
The original charge herein was filed on July 23, 1969, and
on or about July 25, 1969, article VII,' section 1 of the
contract was amended to delete the words "and in die'
shop," thus limiting the work claimed by the Union to that
to be performed "on the job site.""
The Union and the Association expressed recognition,of
the fact that some exceptions would have to be made to the
application of article VII, section 1(e) since governmental
contracting agencies and utility companies provide some of
their own equipment . Also it was 'their understanding that
the section did not apply to certain large equipment such- as,
big generators, transformers and switch gears used in power
plants.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that by this contract
provision the electrical contractors are agreeing to cease'.
doing business with contractors and building owners who
own and retain ownership of electrical fixtures and supplies
that they want installed, and that therefore the Union and
the Association are engaging in an unfair labor practice in '
violation of Section 8(e) of the Act.
The Respondents Contend that the contract provision has,
as its objective the preservation of,work for the employees
of the electrical contractors and therefore does not fall
IBEW LOCAL 1186
within Section 8(e) of the Act ; and that in situations where
the electrical contractor owns the fixtures and equipment,
he controls the assignment of the installation work and this
would lessen the likelihood of this work being assigned to
another craft or class. Furthermore , Respondents contend
that article VII relates to work to be done at the jobsite.
The contract provision in question , in requiring the
electrical contractor to be the owner of all fixtures and
electrical supplies installed by his employees, means that he
cannot do business with a building owner or general
contractor who owns the electrical fixtures and supplies
that he wants used and installed-unless the owner sells
these fixtures and supplies to the electrical contractor, who
would, in turn, sell them back to the owner. Thus, by this
contract provision a condition is imposed on an electrical
contractor's ability to- do business with other persons. If the
condition is not met, he is contractually obligated not to do
business with that person . Is this proscribed by Section 8(e)
of the Act, or is it an unavoidable side effect of a primary
work-preservation -clause?
Aside from the general assertion that the intent of the
contract provision in question is "to preserve historically
and traditionally the work-performed by members of our
Union," A. Fujikawa, business manager and financial
secretary for the Respondent Union, testified that the
contract provision in question was included in the contract
to solve the following problems : (1) to correct the practice
and prevent owners and general contractors from assigning
installation and other electrical work to other trades; (2) to
avoid jurisdictional disputes as to work assignments
claimed by Respondent ; (3) to give the electrical contractor
control over, the -electrical fixtures and supplies to facilitate
proper job scheduling and to prevent Loss of time
occasioned by delay in receipt of materials and from any
need to change improper materials, and (4) to facilitate the
fixing of warranties on materials and equipment. Fujikawa
then cited incidents where some general contractors of
building owners have in the past assigned the installation of
electrical fixtures that they owned to-crafts and employees
other than members of Respondent Union. In early 1969,
carpenters installed ' bathroom fixtures above medicine
cabinets for a general contractor on a Moanalua Terrace
job. In about May or.June 1969, a general contractor on a
golf course job called the Union to inquire if a sprinkler
contractor could install the control wiring . Fujikawa replied
that he could not do so, and members of the Union
installed the wiring and did the hookup work on the
sprinkler system . About 1967, at a Waialae Shopping
Center job, a contractor other than an electrical contractor
installed the "ends" and the ballast for certain fixtures, but
this was- subsequently-corrected and members of Union did
the installation work on this job . Fujikawa also mentioned
that -about 12 or 13 years ago, carpenters installed about
500 electrical fixtures on a Wigwam Building project. On
this job, carpenters put the fixtures in place and electricians
wired them . Fujikawa testified that there have been many
other small jobs that members of his union did not get to
perform because owners utilized other crafts for installation
of fixtures.
D. Conclusions
257
Most of those who seek the services of an electrical
contractor will look to him (1) to furnish the fixtures and
equipment, (2) to install them, and (3) to make the electrical
connections or hookups. Some building owners may
purchase fixtures directly from a supplier and ask the
electrical' contractor to install them and connect them; here
the union members retain the work assignments sought.
Among building owners who own their own fixtures, there
may be some who wish to assign the installation work to
their own employees or others than members of the Union.
This is what the Union is seeking to avoid. If the Union
were to picket a jobsite where that has occurred, it would
subject itself to involvement in a jurisdictional dispute.'
This it also wants to avoid. -
If -an electrical contractor owns the fixtures and
equipment to be installed, he has control over the
assignment of their installation . Section VII 1(e) seeks to
place the ownership and control over the work assignments
with the electrical contractors. So, in this respect,
subsection (e) has a work preservation objective, but it
seeks to accomplish it by a circuitous means. It is not the
ownership of the fixtures in and of itself that concerns the
Union but an anticipated consequence or effect
thereof-that being the assignment of the installation work
to its members. But, are not the means sought to be used
too sweeping in effect? Is the validity of the contract to be
judged by one of its effects or by its total effect and
consequences?
,There is no estimate as to what percentage of electrical
jobs there are where fixtures and equipment are provided
by the owner rather than by the electrical contractor, nor in
what percentage of these the electrical contractor is not
called upon for both the installation of the fixtures and the
hookups. The Union's business manager, Fujikawa, named
only two large jobs where the installation work was not
done by union members. However, to avoid the possibility
of losing any installation work, the Union, is causing all
building owners and general contractors who- own their
own fixtures to make a choice--either (1) sell their fixtures
and equipment to the electrical contractor, or (2) find some
other means of having their fixtures installed and hooked
up.
As to article VII, section 1(e), the Union has an
immediate or first objective and then a second or sequential
objective that it expects will flow from an accomplishment
of the first objective. The immediate objective is to give to
the electrical contractors control over the assignment of
installations and hookups ; the sequential objective is the
employers' utilization of this control -to make the assign-
ments of this work to members of the Union.
In work preservation situations , a cessation of-business
with a subcontractor is at the very heart of the work
preservation objective; the effect is the objective. A
preservation of the' work requires a cessation of business
with a subcontractor. There is no sequence of objectives. In
the instant case, the effect and consequence of the Union's
first objective are much broader in scope than its sequential
objective . It requires a cessation of business or a divestation
I Plumbers & Fitters Local 761, 54 LRRM 1020, 144 NLRB 133.
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of ownership of fixtures by building owners even where
there would be no loss of installation work to union
members.
Another consequence of ownership but one not expressed
as an objective is control over source of fixtures and
supplies. But I ' find no direct evidence that the Union
herein is seeking to affect or control the labor relations of
any manufacturer of electrical equipment. Although such is
usually an objective and consequence of contracts that
violate Section 8(e) of the Act, that section outlaws any
agreement to cease doing business with another employer
who is not involved in and is secondary to a union's labor
dispute, and it seeks to prevent injury to or the regulation of
the practices of such other employer by said union. The
Union's dispute or grievance on work assignment herein is
actually - with those who assign installation work to
employees who are not electricians and members of the
Union. To prevent them from being in a position to do this,
the Union is seeking to require all general contractors and
building owners to cease buying their fixtures from any
source other than electrical contractors. Thus, included
therein are employers neutral and secondary to the Union's
dispute with those who would assign installation work to
others.
I find that subsection (e) of article VII, section 1 of the
collective-bargaining agreement falls within the proscrip-
tions of Section 8(e) of the Act. I also find that the contract
is not exempt from the coverage of Section 8(e) by the
construction industry proviso thereto. The Union's immedi-
ate objective relates to the ownership of the equipment and
apparatus'-and not to work to be done at the jobsite. The
second objective is related to the jobssite work, but, is once
removed front the action required by the contract terms. It
is an anticipated consequence of the accomplishment of the
first objective. I find that the application 'of the construc-
tion industry, proviso must be determined on the basis of
the action called for by the contract terms in question. The
fixing of ownership of the material, equipment, and
apparatus is not related to the contracting or subcontract-
ing of work to be done at the site of construction.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Those activities of the Respondents, set forth in section
III, above, found to constitute an unfair labor practices,
occurring in connection with the businesses of the
employers as 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 of commerce.
2 In October, 1969, the Respondents notified the Board that they
waived their rights under, and therefore would not give effect to, article
VII, section 1(e) of their collective-bargaining agreement , pending final
action on this case by the Board.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I.,- The employer-members of -the Pacific Electrical
Contractors' Association are employers engaged,^in com-
merce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. -
2, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1186, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3. By entering into and maintaining subsection (e) of
article VII, section l of a collective-bargaining agreement
whereby the Electrical Contractors have agreed to cease
doing business with other persons, Respondents have
engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section
8(e) of the Act.2
4. Such unfair labor practice affects' commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7),of'=the Act:
THE REMEDY -
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in an
unfair labor practice, it shall be recommended that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, I
recommend that, pursuant to Section 110(c) .of the Act, the
Board issue the following:
ORDER
1. The Pacific Electrical Contractors', Association and
its, employer-members, their officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
a. Cease and desist from, entering into and maintaining
subsection (e) of article VII, section. 1 of its current
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. • ,
b. The, Association and each of its employer members
shall post, at their places of, business, copies of the notice
attached hereto as.-Appendix A.3 Copies of said notice, on
forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region
20, shall, ,after being duly signed _ by - an authorized
representative, of the Association, be posted^ by each
Respondent employer-member- and by the,AAssociation
immediately upon receipt thereof and ;be maintained by
each for 60 consecutive days ' -in- conspicuous places
including all places where notices , to employees are
customarily, posted. reasonable steps, shall >be taken to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or. covered
by other material.
c. Notify the Regional Director 'for, Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the-date-of receipt of,this
Decision,-what steps have been taken to comply herewith:4
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical,, Workers,
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. In the event
that the Board's' Order is enforced by a judgment df'a United States Count
of Appeals, the words ' in the notice reading "Posted ' by Order of the
National Labor Relations - Board" , shall be changed, to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of, the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
4 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the' Board,
this provision shall be modified to read :,`.`Notify the regional-Nrector'for
Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
IBEW LOCAL 1186 259
Local 1186 , AFL-CIO; its officers, agents, and representa-
tives shall:
a. Cease and desist from entering into and maintaining
subsection (e) of .Article VII;, Section I of its collective-
bargaining agreement with the Pacific electrical Contrac-
tors' Association.
b. Post at its business offices and meeting halls, and all
places where notices to, :members , are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."5
Copies of said notice , on fomrs to be provided by the
Regional Director for Region 20, shall , after having been
duly signed by an authorized representative of the Union,
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by other materials.
c. Notify-- the' Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date , of receipt of this
Decision , what steps have been taken to comply herewith .6
Region 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith."
5 See fn. 3.
6 See fn. 4.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, or give effect to an
agreement with' Local` Union 1186, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers or any other" labor
organization to the, effect that employees covered by
such agreement shall work only oninaterial, equipment,
and apparatus owned by their employer.
PACIFIC ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION
(Employer) -
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050
Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047,
San Francisco, California, 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, or give effect to an
agreement with the' Pacific ' Electrical Contractors'
Association or any of 'its' members or any other
employer that employees covered by such agreement
shall perform work only on material , .,equipment; and
apparatus owned by their employer.
Dated By
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL 1)86, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be , altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. - °
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions , may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050
Federal, Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047,
San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197.