Local 3, Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 584 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO and Atlas Reid , Inc. Case
29-CC-94
March 20, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On December 6, 1967, Trial Examiner Gordon J.
Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set. forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in other unfair labor, practices alleged in
the complaint and recommended that such allega-
tions be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Local 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be,
and hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges viola-
tions of the Act not specifically found herein.
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
The Trial Examiner found in effect that the "com-
mon situs" picketing here viewed alone did not
show an unlawful secondary object under Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B), but that a subsequent union state-
ment to the secondary Gas Company employer
showed a preexisting unlawful object of the picket-
ing. This statement was made at a meeting held at
the request of the Gas Company 3 days after the
picketing stopped. At this meeting, after explaining
that the purpose of the picketing had been to in-
form the public that the primary Employer (Atlas
Reid) did not pay its employees the same scale that
members of the Union were paid, and describing
the strike as "informational," the Union made the
statement in question that if the Gas Company had
a lot of maintenance work there were contractors
available employing union members who could be
engaged for such work.
In my view, the picketing and the subsequent
statement are separable, and the picketing is not
necessarily tainted by the subsequent statement,
particularly where, as here, the meeting at which
the statement was made was held 3 days after the
picketing stopped, and at the request of the Gas
Company. See International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local Union No. 11 (General
Telephone Company of California), 151 NLRB 1490
(My separate views at fn. 4); International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11 (L.
G. Electric Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766 (My
separate opinion at 769). Moreover, the statement
in question was, in my opinion, nothing more than a
polite suggestion addressed to the possibility that at
that time the Gas Company might have a lot of
maintenance work to be done, in which case union
contractors were available who could be engaged
for such work. Such a statement is hardly sufficient
evidence on which to base a finding that there was
a preexisting unlawful object of the picketing,
which itself did not demonstrate such an object.
Moreover, even if the postpicketing statement in
question is not viewed as separable from the picket-
ing, it should also be viewed in the light of the
Union's other remarks at the same meeting. There
emerges, from such an overall view, picketing
which itself did not show an unlawful secondary ob-
ject; and a postpicketing meeting held at the
request of the Gas Company 3 days after the
picketing stopped, at which there was an af-
firmance by the Union of the lawful "area stan-
dards" purpose of the picketing, and the polite sug-
gestion in question. The affirmance was, of course,
perfectly consistent with the demonstrated purpose
of the picketing itself, and the polite suggestion was
perfectly consistent with both the demonstrated
purpose of the picketing itself and the contem-
poraneous affirmance of that purpose at the meet-
ing. Accordingly, when viewed in the entire context
170 NLRB No. 73
LOCAL 3, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 585
of events, it cannot reasonably be concluded that
the statement in question revealed a different pur-
pose from that demonstrated by the picketing itself,
so as to taint the picketing.
On the basis of the foregoing, and also in view of
the Trial Examiner's recommended dismissal of the
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) allegations of the complaint
(based on the same picketing) to which no excep-
tion was filed, I would dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a
charge filed April 19, 1967,' by Atlas Reid, Inc.,
(hereinafter referred to as Atlas Reid), a complaint
and notice of hearing was issued on June 20 against
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the
Respondent Union). The complaint alleges, in sub-
stance, that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. The Respon-
dent's answer admits certain allegations of the com-
plaint, denies others, and specifically denies the
commission of unfair labor practices. This case was
tried before me on July 26 and 27 in Brooklyn,
New York. All counsel were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard and to introduce relevant evidence.
Briefs have been received from the General Coun-
sel and the Respondent Union, and they have been
fully considered by me in arriving at my decision in
this-case.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my
evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses based
on my observation of their demeanor and the rele-
vant evidence, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Atlas Reid, Inc., was incorporated in July 1966.
Prior to its formation, Authur Miller, vice president
and principal shareholder in Atlas Reid, operated a
proprietorship doing business under the name of
Atlas Electric Company. Reid was an employee of
Atlas Electric Company and a member of the
Respondent Union. Some time prior to July 1966
Reid resigned from the Respondent Union and
became an officer and part owner of Atlas Reid. As
such, Reid was the holder, on behalf of the cor-
poration, of the license to perform electrical con-
tracting in the city of New York. In September
1966 Miller relinquished his license as an electrical
contractor doing business as Atlas Electric Com-
pany and that firm went out of business . Miller then
went on the payroll of Atlas Reid.
On February 5, 1967, Atlas Reid made an appli-
cation to join United Construction Contractors As-
sociation , Inc. The Association is an employer's
group which bargains collectively on behalf of its
members and its party to a contract with Industrial
Workers of Allied Trades, Local 19,9, affiliated with
National Federation of Independent Unions. The
application was accepted, and Atlas, Reid executed
a series of promissory notes to the Association, pay-
able throughout the year, covering its membership
dues.
The Respondent Union contends that Atlas Reid
is not a, bona fide member of the Association, and,
even if so, that the Board should not assert jurisdic-
tion over the Association or its members. I find
these objections to be without merit. Atlas Reid ap-
plied for and, according to the credited testimony,
of Al Picoult, president of the Association, was ac-
cepted into membership in that organization.' The
Board has asserted jurisdiction in the past over the
operations of the present president of the Associa-
tion . Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO (Jack Picoult and Al Picoult
d/b/a Jack Picoult), 137 NLRB 1401. The Board
has also asserted jurisdiction in cases involving in-
dividual members of the Association based on the
fact that the Association itself is in' commerce.
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO (Ladd Electric Corp.), 158
NLRB 410; Local 25, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Emmett Electric
Company, Inc.), 157 NLRB 44; Local 25, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
(Sarrow-Surburban Electric Co., Inc.), 157 NLRB
715. The record here shows that Al' Picoult is a
member of a New Jersey partnership doing business
under the name of Jack Picoult and has its office
and place of business in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Dur-
ing the past 12 months this partnership had a
volume of business in excess of $1 million and
received shipment of materials in excess of $50,000
at one of its construction sites (Federal Office
Building) in New York.
Although the operations of Atlas Reid, when
considered alone, do not meet the Board's jurisdic-
tional standards, I find that jurisdiction over this
case exists by virtue of Atlas Reid's membership in
an employer association which is itself engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act. Ac-
cordingly, I find that Atlas Reid and the Associa-
tion are employers within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein refer to 1967
z The Respondent Union's effort to discredit the testimony of Al Picoult
is unpersuasive. Picoult testified that the Association's executive commit-
tee acted upon Atlas Reid's application some time in the latter part of
January or the early part of February The application itself (G C Exh 3),
dated February 5, corroborates this testimony and does not warrant the in-
ference that the Association acted before ever receiving a formal applica-
tion from Atlas Reid
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Picketing on April 14
On Friday, April 14, Miller of Atlas Reid went to
the Clifton Distribution Center of the Brooklyn
Union-Gas Company located in Staten Island, New
York. This installation, one of several used by the
Gas Company in Staten - Island , was a new facility
being readied for use and the construction was
nearly completed. Miller went to the site pursuant
to the request of Samuel Schwartz, senior engineer
of the Gas Company, who was responsible for the
electrical engineering at the Distribution Center.
Miller was instructed to familiarize himself with the
location and arrangement of the electrical equip-
ment and conduits at the plant in order to gain
firsthand knowledge of the system in the event that
he was called in at some future date to perform
maintenance work .3 Miller drove a truck clearly
marked with the name of Atlas Reid and arrived at
the plant some time .before noon. He parked the
truck on Bay Street, a main thoroughfare running
along one side of the Gas Company's property. The
only entrance to the plant was through a gate facing
a little traveled side street bordering another side of
the facility. This latter street, Willow Avenue, inter-
sected with Bay Street.
Inside the plant Miller checked over blueprints
with engineers employed by the Gas Company and
examined the electrical equipment. The engineers
were having difficulty with certain lights blowing
out on the switchboard, and Miller proceeded to
check the equipment to see if he could locate the
cause of the problem.4 While Miller was making his
inspection, James McCarren, business representa-
tive of the Respondent Union, came into the plant
and observed Miller checking equipment with a
voltmeter.5 McCarren left and ordered a picket line
set up outside the gate on Willow Avenue. The
picket line was noticed by Charles Boss , inspector
of new construction for the Gas Company, at ap-
proximately, 2:30 p.m. The pickets were carrying
signs which contained the following legend:
To the Public
The electricians employed by Atlas Reid Elec-
trical contractors receive wages, terms and
' Atlas Reid performed maintenance work for the Gas Company at other
installations in Staten Island The Gas Company had an arrangement,
described by Schwartz as a "blanket order," under which it could call upon
Atlas Reid's services for a period of a year whenever needed
' Although Miller was not called in to make any specific repairs at this
time, he testified that he was intrigued by the problem and made an ex-
conditions of employment less than those
received by Local 3 of the IBEW, AFL-CIO.
Boss placed a telephone call to Schwartz informing
him of the picketing. Approximately 45 minutes
later Shwartz called Boss back and instructed him
to ask Miller to leave the Gas Company's property.
Miller complied with this request, and the picketing
ceased immediately after he left.
B. The Picketing on April 15
On April 15 the Respondent Union continued to
picket although no one from Atlas Reid appeared
or was scheduled to appear at the Distribution
Centers McCarren was not at the union office that
morning, and the general supervision of the picket-
ing was left to Joseph Carey, a rank-and-file
member of the local. Although he was not at the
Distribution Center when the picketing began that
day, Carey testified that he drove over to the site at
approximately 11:15 a.m. He stated that he asked
the pickets if they had seen anyone from Atlas Reid
on the property, and, when informed that they had
not, he instructed the pickets to pack up their signs
and leave. Carey further testified that later that af-
ternoon he had occasion to drive past the Distribu-
tion Center and noticed that none of the ' pickets
were present. Boss, on the other hand, testified that
he had received a report the following Monday from
one of the Gas Company's employees that the
picketing continued until 4:30 in the afternoon.
Miller testified that he drove to the property at ap-
proximately 1 p.m. that day-and parked on Willow
Avenue. Miller was in, his private car which did not
bear any markings of Atlas Reid. Miller stated that
he remained parked at that spot for approximately
5 minutes and he observed the pickets patrolling in
front of the gate.
C. The Picketing on April 17
The picketing resumed on April 17. Boss testified
that as he came to work at approximately 8:15 that
morning he informed the pickets that Atlas Reid
was not on the premises, but received no response.
At approximately 12 noon Miller again visited the
Distribution Center in his private-car. Miller parked
on Bay Street and proceeded to Willow Avenue on
foot where he snapped a picture of one of the
pickets. Some time thereafter, McCarren received a
telephone call at the union office from one of the
pickets who stated that- they had seen Miller but
could not find the Atlas Reid truck. The picket in-
formed McCarren that Miller was "playing peek-a-
amination of the blueprints and equipment in order to see if he could sug-
gest a possible solution
' McCarren was at the Distribution Center to check out a report that
Atlas Reid was doing some work for the Gas Company -He testified that as
he approached the property he saw someone , other than Miller, take a
meter box from Atlas Reid's truck and enter the plant.
6 The pickets were unemployed members of the Respondent Union.
LOCAL 3, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
boo" and they thought that he was "trying to set
them up." McCarren then instructed the pickets to
leave until it could be ascertained that Miller or
someone from Atlas Reid was on the Gas Com-
pany's premises.7 All picketing of the Distribution
Center then ceased.
D. The Meeting Between McCarren and the Gas
Company Officials
On April 20, McCarren met with several officials
of the Gas Company, including Schwartz. The Gas
Company's officials had requested the meeting, and
it was held at their main office in Brooklyn, New
York. Schwartz testified that McCarren explained
that the purpose of the picketing (which had ter-
minated several days before the conference) was to
inform the public that Atlas Reid did not pay its
employees the same scale that members of the
Respondent Union were paid. According to
Schwartz, McCarren described the picketing as "in-
formational" and stated that if the Gas Company
had a lot of maintenance work, there were contrac-
tors available employing Local 3 members who
could be engaged for such work. McCarren, on the
other hand, testified that the suggestion did not
originate with him, but rather that he was asked by
one of the officials of the Gas Company if Local 3
had contractors who did electrical maintenance
work, and he replied in the affirmative. The Gas
Company officials informed McCarren that they
were satisfied with the services of Atlas Reid and
had no intention of discontinuing them at that
time.'
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
The General Counsel argues that the picketing
here violated the provisions of Section 8(b)(4)(B)
of the Act. The General Counsel takes the position
that the picketing did not conform with the require-
ments of Moore Dry Dock." The cornerstone of this
argument is the assumption that Atlas Reid was not
engaged in its normal business at the Distribution
Center, and the requirements of Moore Dry Dock
automatically dictate the finding of a violation. In
my judgment this approach does not fully meet the
problem as it suggests no more than a mechanical
application of the conditions set forth in Moore Dry
Dock without due regard for all of the circum-
stances found in the instant case. Both the Board
and the courts have stated that the requirements of
Moore Dry Dock are not to be applied on a per se
basis, but are to be regarded as aids in determining
the underlying question of statutory violations. New
Power Wire and Electric Corp., 144 NLRB 1089,
r McCarren had also received a call that morning from an official of the
Gas Company advising him that Atlas Reid was not working at the D istribu-
tion Center.
e In spite of this statement , the Gas Company decided to use its own em-
ployees for maintenance work at the Distribution Center . Schwartz
587
enfd in part 340 F.2d 71 (C.A. 2); Plauche Electric,
Inc., 135 NLRB 250. Cf. Local 761 , International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO [G.E. Company] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S.
667. Applying this to the facts of the instant case,
it thus becomes necessary to consider the totality of
the circumstances surrounding the picketing.
On Friday, April 14, Atlas Reid gave every ap-
pearance of being engaged in work at the Distribu-
tion Center, although the record clearly indicates
that Miller was merely to become familiar with the
layout and the electrical equipment in order to be
in a position to render future maintenance service.
Thus, when McCarren went into the plant, he saw
Miller examining equipment and using a voltme-
ter-one of the tools of his trade. The picket signs
left no doubt that Atlas Reid was the Employer
with whom the Respondent Union had a dispute,
and the picketing that day occurred only when
Atlas Reid was at the Distribution Center. Although
the General Counsel makes much of the fact that
the picketing took place on Willow Avenue, a little
traveled street, and not only on Bay Street, a major
thoroughfare bordering one side of the property, I
find this to be of little consequence. The only en-
trance to the property was through a gate on Wil-
low Avenue and hence the picketing was, in my
judgment, "reasonably close" to the location of the
situs.
The following day the Respondent Union began
picketing when there was no indication that Atlas
Reid was or would be at the Distribution Center.
Although Miller testified that he parked across
from the Brooklyn Union property at approximate-
ly. 11 a.m. and observed the picketing, there is
nothing in the record to show that pickets were
aware of his presence or that they reported this to
the union officials. Whether the picketing ceased
on Saturday at 11:15 a.m. (as reported by Carey)
or at 4:30 p.m. (as reported by Boss) is of little sig-
nificance. More important is the fact that the Union
did picket that day when Atlas Reid was not at the
situs , and when there was no indication that Atlas
Reid would appear.
The facts are further complicated, however, by
the events that took place on Monday, April 17.
Again the picketing began when Atlas Reid was not
at the Distribution Center, and the pickets were so
advised by Boss , at approximately 8:15 a.m. Miller,
however, did appear at approximately 12 noon, and
was seen by the pickets as he watched them from
behind parked cars and took photographs. It is
clear that the picketing ceased shortly thereafter
once the Respondent Union was assured by officials
of the Gas Company that Atlas Reid was not per-
forming work at the Distribution Center.
testified that the Gas Company "felt as long as there was some conflict
going on, that it would be in the best interest of the gas company to try not
to have either Local 3 or Atlas Reid on the Property."
"Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92
NLRB 547.
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Were this all, I might very well be constrained to
find that the General Counsel had failed to meet
the burden of establishing a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(B) by a clear preponderance of the.sub-
stantial evidence. The picketing commenced on
April 14 when Atlas Reid was ostensibly engaged in
work at the jobsite, and the signs clearly indicated
that the dispute involved only, that Employer.
Although Atlas Reid did not perform any work at
the Distribution- Center on April 15 and 17, Miller
did appear at the site on the latter date and was
seen by the pickets. But whether his mere presence
in these circumstances is sufficient to bring the
picketing under the rational of New Power Wire is a
matter which I need not determine here, because
this does not take into consideration all of the cir-
cumstances surrounding the picketing. There is the
additional factor of the meeting on April 20
between McCarren and the officials of the Gas
Company. It was during this meeting that McCar-
ren informed the Gas Company officials that if
maintenance work were involved, electricians em-
ploying members of the Respondent Union could
be engaged. Although McCarren claims that he
made this statement in response to a question put
to him by the officials rather than as a positive
"suggestion" concerning employing Local 3 mem-
bers for the maintenance work, I do not credit him
in this regard. His explanation of the purpose of the
so-called "informational picketing" coupled with
the statement that contractors employing his
Union's members were available is sufficient, in my
judgment, to tilt the balance in favor of establishing
a violation. I find it reasonable to infer from Mc-
Carren's comments that the Respondent Union was
not only protesting the fact that Atlas Reid did not
meet the area-standards with respect to wages and
working conditions, but was also seeking to cause
the Gas Company to cease using Atlas Reid's ser-
vices at the Distribution Center. Moreover, this in-
ference is consistent with the manner in which the
picketing occurred. It was only on the first day that
the union officials made an effort to ascertain that
Atlas Reid was on the site engaged in some sort of
work. The following Saturday and Monday the
picketing commenced when there was no visible in-
dication that Atlas Reid was present; nor did the
Union have any information at that time which
could have reasonably led it to believe that Atlas
Reid would be at the Distribution Center. In my
judgment , this far outweighs any effect that Miller's
return visit to the site in his private car may have
had. On balance therefore, I find that one of the
objectives of the picketing was to force the Gas
Company to cease doing business with Atlas Reid.
Such picketing restrains and coerces a secondary
10 Although enforcement was denied in this case, the Board 's ruling -that
there was no violation of subsection (i) of Section 8(b)(4)(B ) was not con-
tested before the court.
11 While the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the
Board 's determination that the picketing did not violate 8(b)(4)(i)(B), I
employer and violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act. International Brotherhood of Electrical Wor-
kers,- Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO, et al. (L.G.
Electric Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766; Local
254, Building _ Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO (Herbert Kletjian, d/b/a University
Cleaning Co.), 151 NLRB 341; Building Service
Employees International Union, Local No. 105 (In-
dustrial Janitorial Services, Inc.), 151 NLRB 1424.
Nor does the fact that the Respondent Union may
have had a lawful concurrent objective at the time
of the picketing relieve it of the consequences of
the unlawful conduct. L.G. Electric Contractors,
Inc., supra; Northeastern Indiana Building and Con-
struction Trades Council (Centlivre Village Apart-
ments), 148 NLRB -854, enforcement denied on
other grounds 352 F.2d 696 (C.A.D.C.). Ac-
cordingly, I find that under all of the circumstances
of this case , -the Union violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
The complaint also alleges that the Union vio-
lated 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act in that the picketing
induced and encouraged employees of the Gas
Company and other employers to refuse to perform
services. I am not persuaded that the facts support
this contention. Picketing which coerces or
restrains an employer does not automatically com-
pel the conclusion that it also induces or en-
courages employees to make a common cause with
the union for an unlawful objective. Upholsterers
Frame & Bedding Workers Twin City Local No. 61,
etc. (Minneapolis House Furnishings Co.), 132
NLRB 40, 40-41, enforcement denied 331 F.2d
561 (C.A. 8);10 United Wholesale and Warehouse
Employees, Local 261, etc. (Perfection Mattress &
Spring Company), 134 NLRB 931, reversed in part
321 F.2d 612 (C.A. 5).11
In the instant case, the picketing on the first day
occurred when Atlas was apparently engaged in
work at the situs and ceased when, Atlas left. The
picket signs themselves, if viewed in isolation, were
lawful area standard signs. While it is true that the
picketing occurred on Saturday and the following
Monday when Atlas Reid was not at the Distribu-
tion Center, it is also true that no work stoppages
occurred.12 Neither the pickets nor the officials of
the Respondent Union spoke to any of the em-
ployees entering or leaving the premises. Nor was
there any appeal to enlist their support even though
the employees of the electrical contractor perform-
ing the construction work at the Distribution
Center were members of the Respondent Union.
Consequently, there is nothing in this record
beyond the actual picketing itself which can be said
to support the conclusion that the Respondent
Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
am nonetheless required to follow the -Board's precedent Moreover, there
is disagreement among the various courts of appeals on this very point.
17 I am aware that picketing need not succeed in causing work stoppages
in order to constitute a violation, but, in the circumstances of this case, this
is a factor whichshould be considered in determining motivation
LOCAL 3, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
Weighing all of the factors present in this case, I am
of the opinion that this is not sufficient to establish
that the Respondent Union induced and en-
couraged or intended to induce and encourage em-
ployees of other employers to cease performing ser-
vices in order to cause the Gas Company to sever
its relationship with Alas Reid.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Atlas Reid , Inc., by virtue of its membership
in United Construction Contractors Association,
Inc., is an employer engaged in' commerce - within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor -organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. -
3. By picketing at the Clifton Distribution
Center on April 14, 15, and 17, the Respondent
Union threatened , coerced, and restrained the
Brooklyn Union Gas Company with an object of
forcing or requiring that employer to cease doing
business with Atlas Reid, Inc.
4. The Respondent Union has not engaged in
conduct which violates Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of
the Act.
5. The above unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union has en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend the issuance of an order that it cease
and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
The General Counsel requests a broad order in
this case covering any future unlawful secondary
activity by the Respondent Union. In support of this
request, the General Counsel cites several cases in
which the Respondent Union was found to have
violated the provisions of Section 8(b)(4) of the
Act. In each instance the employers involved were
parties to a collective-bargaining agreement with
Industrial Workers of Allied Trades, Local 199, af-
filiated with National Federation of Independent
Unions. If the activity here were such that it in-
volved a flagrant violation of the secondary boycott
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision 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 is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
589
provisions of the Act, I would be inclined to grant
the General Counsel's request. But the circum-
stances of this case will not, in my judgment, sup-
port -an order extending beyond the specific con-
duct which I have found to be unlawful. Ac-
cordingly, I shall deny the request for a broad
order.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and upon the entire record in this
case, I recommend pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers , AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, representa-
tives, sucessors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening , coercing,
or restraining Brooklyn Union Gas Company, or
any other person engaged in commerce or in an in-
dustry affecting commerce, where an object thereof
is to force or require Brooklyn Union Gas Com-
pany, or any other person to cease doing business
with Atlas Reid, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I
find will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."13 Copies of said notice , on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 29, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent Union, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the
Regional Director for Region 29 for posting by
Brooklyn Union Gas Company , if willing , at its Clif-
ton Distribution Center in Staten Island , New York.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations
of the complaint be dismissed insofar as they allege
violations not found herein.
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
14 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX LOCAL 3, INTERNATIONAL
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 3,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO, AND BROOKLYN UNION
GAS 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain , or coerce
Brooklyn Union Gas Company, or any other
employer or person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce, where an
object thereof is to force or require them to
cease doing business with Atlas Reid. Inc.
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 16 Court Street, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, New
York 11201, Telephone 596-3535.