Philadelphia Window Cleaners, Etc., Local 125

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1104 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activities
or sympathies and as to what chances any union has of getting into our
Gardner plant , under circumstances constituting interference , restrain, or
coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveillance of the union activities,
of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner violate Section 8 ( a)(1) of tho
Act.
HARRINGTON & RICHARDsoN, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be-
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 24
School Street , Boston 8, Massachusetts , Telephone Number, Lafayette 3-8100, if
they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.-
Philadelphia Window Cleaners and Maintenance Workers' Union,.
Local 125 and Atlantic Maintenance Co. Case No. 4-CP-20.
April 17, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 30, 1961, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate 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 Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed timely exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
support thereof.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner for the reasons stated below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent's picketing
of Atlantic did not come within the proviso to Section 8 (b) (7) (C)
protecting publicity picketing and that it violated that section of the
Act. However, we do so for the following reasons :
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent also violated Section , 8(b) (1) (A) by
its picketing . However, as the General Counsel neither alleged nor litigated a violation,
of this section of the Act, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding in this regard
136 NLRB No. 105.
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS, ETC., LOCAL 125 1105,
As more fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, on March 1,
1961, Respondent began picketing the 18th Street or main entrance
to the Signal Corps Building where Atlantic Maintenance Company,
the Charging Party herein, performed janitorial services. At that
time, Atlantic's employees were using the main entrance. Picketing
was suspended on March 2 pending the outcome of certain contractual
discussions between Atlantic and the Respondent. On March 6, fol-
lowing Atlantic's refusal to sign an agreement, the picketing was re-
sumed. However, since that date Atlantic's employees have used only
the Locust Street or side entrance to the building and the picketing
has been limited to that location. The picket signs involved were
addressed not only to the "Consuming Public" but also to "Employees
of Atlantic Maintenance." On their face, they did not state the Re-
spondent's position on any matter but rather requested those to whom
the signs were addressed to "Please Take One of Our Circulars and
Read It. It tells Our Story." The circulars thus referred to were
handed out by persons on or near the picket line and acting on the
Respondent's behalf; they asked the public to appeal to the Signal
Corps and Atlantic to establish union wages guaranteed by a union
contract, and requested employees of Atlantic to "join our union."
Both before and during the time of the picketing the Respondent was
engaged in certain activities designed to secure recognition from, and
to organize the employees of, Atlantic.
Picketing for an organizational, recognitional or bargaining objec-
tive is nonetheless protected if it complies with the second proviso to
Section 8(b) (7) (C), that is, if it is "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 organiza-
tion...." 3 However, where picketing, though ostensibly directed
at the public, is transparently not for that purpose, circumvention of
the statutory prohibition of Section 8(b) (7) (C) will not be tolerated.
In the instant case the evidence, taken in its total context, plainly dis-
closes that Respondent's picketing was not for the informational pur-
pose authorized by the second proviso but, rather, was focused upon
the employees qua employees. Thus, the picket signs, albeit also
addressed to the "Consuming Public," singled out the "Employees of
Atlantic Maintenance." The picket signs embraced the circulars
which were handed out on Respondent's behalf at or near the picket
line. The picket line itself was stationed at the main entrance to
the Signal Corps Building but only so long as that entrance was used
by Atlantic's employees; when the employee entrance was moved to
the Locust Street entrance, the picket line was likewise moved to that
entrance.3 Under all these circumstances, we find that the organiza-
2 See Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders,
etc (Leonard Snautley, at at d/b/a Crown Cafeteria), 135 NLRB 1183.
3 Cf. Normandin Bros. Company , 131 NLRB 1225.
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tional picketing was not "for the purpose of truthfully advising the
public . . . ." We conclude, therefore, that the picketing in question
did not conform to the second proviso. It follows, and we find, that
by picketing Atlantic for more than a reasonable time after March 1,
1961, without filing a timely petition, Respondent violated Section
8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.'
ORDER
The Board adopts the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
with the modification of provision 2 (c) 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."
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM, concurring :
We agree with our colleagues that Respondent's picketing did not
come within the protection of the publicity proviso to Section
8(b) (7) (C) because it was directed exclusively to Atlantic's employ-
ees. Additionally, we would find the picketing unlawful because of
Respondent's organizational and recognitional activity, found by the
Trial Examiner to have occurred both before and during the time
of the picketing, which further establishes that the purpose of the
picketing was organization and recognition, not publicity.6
4 Although we agree with the conclusion of our concurring colleagues, that Respondent's
picketing did not conform to the language or intent of the proviso, we do not agree with
their implication that surrounding circumstances might render unlawful picketing that in
other respects conformed to the language and intent of the proviso See our opinion in
Crown Cafeteria, supra
5In the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix, the words "A Decision
and Order" are hereby substituted for the words "The Recommendation of a Trial Ex-
aminer." In event that this Order is 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."
9 See the dissenting opinion in Crown Cafeteria, 135 NLRB 1183.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
It having been charged by Atlantic Maintenance Co., herein called the Charging
Party, that Philadelphia Window Cleaners and Maintenance Workers' Union, Local
125, affiliated with Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called Respondent , has engaged in and is engaging in, certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce as set forth and defined in the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 151, et seq., herein called the Act, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
Act and the Board's Rules and Regulations---Series 8, Section 102.15, issued a
complaint and notice of hearing and alleged that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U S.C. 151 et seq. (Act) more particularly
8(b)(7)(C) and Section 2(6) and (7) thereof.'
1 The pertinent portions of the Act alleged to have been violated read-
SEc 8 (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
(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 employer to recog-
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS, ETC., LOCAL 125 1107
The charge and the complaint were duly served. The complaint alleged in sub-
stance that the Respondent is not now, and was not at all times material herein
the certified representative of any of the Charging Party's employees, and has not filed
a petition under 9(c) of the Act to determine the bargaining representative of any
of the Charging Party's employees nevertheless, since January 1961, and at all times
material herein, the Respondent has demanded that the Charging Party recognize and
bargain with the Respondent as the representative of certain of its employees and
has attempted to compel employees of the Charging Party to accept or select the
Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative; that on or about March 1,
1961, the Respondent commenced picketing the Charging Party and caused said
Charging Party to be picketed at the Signal Corps Building in Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania; and that the Respondent engaged in the activity described above, with an
object thereof being to force and require the Charging Party to recognize and bar-
gain with the Respondent as collective-bargaining representative of the employees
of the Charging Party and to force and require said employees to accept and select
the Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative.
On April 21, 1961, the Respondent filed an answer denying that it had engaged in
any of the unfair labor practices as alleged.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner
at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 4 to 6, 1961, inclusive. All the parties were
represented by counsel (herein referred to in the names of their principals) and
participated in the hearing and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, to argue orally and to file briefs,
proposed findings of fact and/or conclusions of law with the Trial Examiner, a date
being set for such filing.2 The Respondent presented an oral argument. Briefs
have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record and from the observation of the witnesses, the Trial Ex-
aminer, makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY
Herman O. Wunsch and William J. Smith, herein jointly called the Charging
Party, are, and have been at all times material herein, copartners doing business under
the trade name and style of "Atlantic Maintenance Co." At all times material herein,
the Charging Party has maintained its principal office and place of business at 28 Old
Turnpike, Pleasantville, New Jersey, and is engaged in the business of performing
custodial and janitorial services.
William J. Smith, one of the partners, testified credibly that the Charging Party
renders custodial services under contract for various United States military estab-
lishments in various States of the United States; that under such contracts it rendered
services during 1960 to various military establishments in New Jersey for which it
received fees in excess of $65,000; at Cheyenne, Wyoming, for which it received fees
of $17,000; at various Army Reserve Centers including Fort Meade, Maryland. and
in Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia, for fees amounting to $37,000,
and at Olmstead Air Force Base, Middletown, Pennsylvania, for fees amounting to
nize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or
forcing or requiring the employees of an emplo""er to accept or select such labor
organization as their colective bargaining representative, unless such labor organiza-
tion is currently certified as the representative of such employees-
- e ► f #
(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) of
the absence of a showing of a substantial interest on the part of the labor organiza-
tion, 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 em-
ploy 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
2 On request of the General Counsel the Chief Trial Examiner extended the time for the
submission of briefs to June 12, 1961.
641795-63-vol 136-71
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
$25,000; that sometime in January 1961, the Charging Party was awarded a contract
for janitor and custodial services by the U.S. Government for the United States
Army Signal Supply Corps Building at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the fee therefor
to be $109,000.
Smith testified, without contradiction, that foremen for these various projects are
sent from the Charging Party's New Jersey office, that various supplies are sent to
the projects from New Jersey and that all employees are paid by checks sent from
New Jersey where the books and records are kept
Mark S. Knox testified- that he is Chief of the United States Army Signal
Regional Labor Office, with offices at 225 South 18th Street, Philadelphia, which
houses 3,200 Signal Corp employees; that he is also Staff Adviser to the Command-
ing General "on all labor matters"; traveled to various Army installations in con-
nection with his work; was the field officer directly under the Chief of the Legal
Division who is located in Washington, D.C.
Knox further testified that he is "thoroughly familiar" with the activities and
functions of the Signal Corps and that all contracts let by the Signal Corps are
processed at Philadelphia.
It is clear that the Charging Party's "dollar volume" income for services performed
outside the State in which it is located meets the Board's jurisdictional standards 3
The Board will also assert jurisdiction where the activities engaged in have a sub-
stantial impact on national defense.4
That the Signal Corps is vital to the national defense is not open to question, and
that the Signal Corps building at Philadelphia is an essential arm of the Signal
Corps is equally plain The function of the Charging Party in connection with
the work of the Signal Corps, humble as it may be, becomes part of machinery
necessary to the smooth operation of the Signal Corps A small tooth on a minor
gear, yet necessary.5
It IIiF LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Philadelphia Window Cleaners and Maintenance Workers' Union, Local 125,
affiliated with Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act and admits employees of the
Charging Party to membership.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The record discloses that the General Services Administration of the United States
Government awarded the Charging Party a contract to perform the custodial and
janitor services for the United States Army Signal Supply Corps building at Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, effective February 1, 1961. This contract superseded a similar
service contract held by Penn Associates, who had serviced the building with employ-
ees represented by the Respondent, with whom Penn Associates was under contract
Floyd Braman, who was one of the partners of the Atlantic Maintenance Com-
pany (the Charging Party) until March 20, 1961, testified that he and Partner
Herman Wunsch called on Mr. Morris, the Respondent's business manager, at the
Union's hall, "the latter part of January 1960." Braman testified
I knew that the other contract for their cleaning was a union contract, so I
thought I'd go see Mr Morris of Local 125 to discuss his contract.
We discussed the contract, my partner, Herman Wunsch and myself went
there and we discussed the contract and Mr. Morris said he would like to see
3 The Board has held it will best effectuate the policies of the Act to assert ,urt^dlction
over all nonretail euternrises which perform services outside the State in which the enter-
prise is located, valued at ovei $50,000 Steuions Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85.
National Labor Relations Board Twenty-third Annual Report (1958), pp 8, 9: Cement
Masons Local No 555, etc, 102 NLRB 1408, enfd 225 F. 2d 168 (C A 9) , Eduiarrl A
Sargon, et at, doing business as Saigoy & Stein, 92 NLRB 1693 Rlrenstein Coasts action
Company, Inc, 88 NLRB 46, City Window Cleaning Company, 114 NLRB 906, Pinker-
ton's National Detective 4 gency. Inc, 90 NLRB 532
4Geronimo Sea vice Company, 129 NLRB 366, Canal Marais Insprovenient Corpoaalion,
129 NLRB 1332' Gray, Rogers, Graham (C Osborne, 129 NLRB 950, Machine Piodaots
Company, Inc, 94 NLRB 668, 671
The Trial Examiner is reminded of the boyhood poetry recitation relating to the final
loss of a kingdom because of the original loss of a horseshoe nail, although today the
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS, ETC., LOCAL 125 1109
us hire Union people and sign a contract with his Union, and he handed us
each a copy of the contract and we went over it. . . . [Emphasis supplied.]
However, according to Braman because of a clause the Charging Party found ob-
jectionable, as it required all the Charging Parties to become members of the
Respondent Union, "we stopped negotiating with them right there and told them
we couldn't possibly sign the contract and we left."
Braman further testified that "a couple of days later" he received a telephone call
from Union Business Manager Morris in which:
He [Morris] asked if we were going to sign this contract with him. He was
very concerned about it and I told him I don't think we were. He said then
we'll have to picket the building. [Emphasis supplied.]
Braman testified he had no further contact with Morris or other representatives
of the Respondent until "the beginning of March" at which time:
I was called by my foreman and he told me that the Union was picketing
the building and that I was supposed to get up there the next morning as soon
as possible to talk with people from G.S.A who came down from New York
and the Building Manager. I arrived there about ten o'clock and I was told
that the Union had already left. The Union people were in the building so I
called Mr. Morris and I asked him if it would do any good. He could make any
amendments or deviation from this contract and he said no, so I said then there
is no sense of coming over and the conversation ended. Then I called him
back later and I told him I'd come over and talk to him anyway, so I did. I
went over to the Union Hall-
According to Braman's further testimony, at the Union's hall he met with Morris,
Joseph Strong, and Bernard Levinson representing the Respondent; that "Mr.
Hogan of the Signal Corps" was also present; that
Mr. Levinson did most of the talking. He said he would like to straighten
this thing out because naturally nobody wants to have picketing and disputes and
everything He said he thinks we can work this thing out with this contract,
so I asked him-"well, first of all, could you make an amendment to this
contract saying that all our employees in Philadelphia would belong to the
Union?" He said, "yes" and could send us a letter to that effect. Then he
said-then I said, "well, I couldn't give you an answer now. I have two part-
ners. I'll let you know because there are other things in the contract that I'm
concerned about." He said, "well, if you let us know, I'd like to know before
before Monday " This was a Thursday. "I'd like to know before Monday, 3:30,
because if your answer is negative, we're going to picket the building again, at
3 30 Monday, because they promised the Signal Corps not to picket until we see
if we could straighten things out." I told him I would let him know before
Monday. [Emphasis supplied ]
On Monday, at Braman's request Partner Wunsch telephoned Morris and told
him that the Charging Party would not enter into a collective-bargaining contract
with the Respondent.
The record discloses that picketing began at the Signal Corps building on March 1,
was suspended on March 2 It was resumed on March 6, the same day, but after
the Charging Paity informed the Respondent it would not sign a contract. The
picketing was continuing at the time of the hearing
At a previous hearing on a 10(1) petition for a temporary injunction in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil No 29464)
closed on April 17, 1961, Braman had testified with respect to the same facts The
Respondent, at the instant proceeding, closely cross-examined Braman with respect
to his former testimony, pointing up quite a number of instances in which his state-
ments were not exactly alike. After considerable examination of this character,
largely on what seemed to the Trial Examiner merely minutiate, liberally interposed
with pointed observations by the Respondent, the following colloquy between the
Trial Examiner and the Respondent's attorney (who really impressed the Trial
Examiner as a skillful courtroom advocate) appears in the record:
TRIAL EXAMINER' Mr. Goldstein, don't you think that it would be better for
all of us to merely point out, if you want to point out what he testified to be-
fore Judge Egan in order to discredit his testimony now, that you do it without
poem might well be rewritten to refer to the breakdown of an ICI:-,NI because the sparkplug
was allowed to remain dirty
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any further comment and let me draw the inferences because I have to earn
my salary.
Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I think you're absolutely right.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Thank you.6
Of course the comparison between Braman's language in Civil No. 29464 and
his choice of words before the Trial Examiner can be used to test his credibility,
however, the Trial Examiner is not at all persuaded that the cross-examination de-
stroyed Braman's credibility as a witness, on the contrary he would be more in-
clined to question Braman had the two versions been exactly alike.
The Trial Examiner finds strong support for his opinion in the fact that Part-
ner Herman Wunsch corroborated Braman and was not cross-examined by the
Respondent.
Joseph Strong, organizer and business agent for the Respondent, with respect to
the Charging Party's last meeting with the Respondent's officials in the Union's
hall, testified:
Q. (By Mr. GOLDSTEIN.) Mr. Braman testified, Mr. Strong, that in the very
early part of March he and Mr. Hogan of the Signal Corps came to your union's
office. Do you recall that occasion?
A. Yes, I do.
The WITNESS: I was there. Mr. Braman came in. Mr. Morris and myself
were sitting in the room talking. Mr. Braman came in and Mr. Morris started
a conversation about hiring our people back as he had formerly promised
Mr. Morris that he would do.
Q. (By Mr. GOLDSTEIN.) That's what Morris said9
A. That's what Morris said to Mr. Braman, using our people that he had
formerly talked about. . . . Mr. Levinson came in, Mr. Morris and Mr. Braman
were still talking about our people going back to work. Mr. Levinson then
set down and started to talking to Mr. Braman. Mr. Braman asked him to ex-
plain certain clauses of the contract to him that he didn't understand. Mr.
Levinson then started out to explain to Mr. Braman about the different parts
of the contract. After he explained certain parts, Mr. Braman said "Will you
sustain [sic] from this clause or that clause?" He said, "Yes, we'll do anything
we can to get this thing over because we don't want to continue with this thing
like this which is no good At that time Mr. Levinson got up and walked out
of the office. He said "If you can, I would like you to let me know by 1:00
o'clock Monday because we have stopped this information line out there and
we are not going to start it anymore until Monday at 3:00 o'clock. Will you
let me know by 1:00 o'clock Monday9" Mr. Braman said, "I will." Then
Mr. Levinson left the office and the room where we were talking at. Mr. Morris
and myself still stayed there and talked to Mr. Braman about different parts of
the contract and if he'd ask about the contract, we'd explain it to him, but the
mostest thing we talk about was our people going back to work. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Bernard Levinson, who has been "administrator" of the Respondent since Feb-
ruary 20, 1961, was called by the Respondent. With respect to the above-mentioned
meeting, which Levinson fixed as March 2, he testified:
When I came into the room, Mr. Braman began to ask me questions about
the contract; and when I asked him if he had read the contract-because I
knew my associates had discussed the matter before-he said he hadn't gotten
beyond Section 3 of the contract.
Mr. Braman asked me some questions He also asked me if he signed the
contract with this union, would all of the Company's employees, in the various
operations that they had, come-have to become members of the union. I
said no, that this union was willing to sign a contract with him for the present
operation at the Signal Corps, and we discussed this a bit; and we even got to
the point where we decided that instead of the usual clause 3 that says all of
the employees have to become members, we would insert the phrase "the
Philadelphia area." [Emphasis supplied.]
Levinson also testified that he asked Braman for an answer "by Monday" be-
cause he needed an "answer"-
6 The Trial Examiner takes it that the attorney meant more
than just that the Trial
Examiner should earn his salary.
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS, ETC., LOCAL 125 1111
whether or not our people would be put back to work-what they were
going to do with the situation . Mr. Braman informed me that he wanted to
discuss it with his partners , and thereupon , I left.
Levinson denied that he told Braman the Respondent would picket if the Charg-
ing Party did not sign a contract . Levinson further testified:
Q. (By Mr HIGH. ) What do you mean by resolve the situation?
A. We had twenty -five persons out of work.
Q. Did the change in the contract include resolving the situation , signing
the contract?
A. Look, once the contract would have been signed, in accordance with the
terms of the contract-even though it was limited to the Signal Corps-the
only employees they could have would be members in good standing in this
union. At least twenty-five persons were members in good standing in this
union. [Emphasis supplied.]
Mr. HIGH: No further questions.
Upon the entire record, the evidence considered as a whole, and his observa-
tion of the witnesses the Trial Examiner credits Braman's testimony and finds
that his account of his March 2 meeting with the Respondent 's officials represents
the more accurate version thereof
Edward Harold Christian testified that he was employed by the Charging Party as
foreman of its operations at the Signal Corps Building when it was awarded the
contract to service the building , he having been the foreman for the preceding con-
tractor; that he began hiring employees for the operation on January 25, 1961,
and actually began servicing the building under the contract on February 1; that
sometime during the first week of February 1961, he was visited at the Signal Corps
Building by Joseph Strong (stipulated to be an organizer and assistant business
agent for the Respondent); that
Well Mr. Strong came to the building and asked one of the guards to get
me because he wanted to talk to me. And I walked out and greeted him and
he greeted me We know each other . And he said was the Company going
to sign a Union contract , and I told him that I didn 't know at this time whether
they were . So then we went to small talk about Union benefits and so forth-
which he knows that I am familiar with because I used to be a member of the
union. So he says , "We're going to organize you," to the effect that-
I'm trying to think of the exact words-but as far as I can remember he says
that "Well , you know we 're going to organize you ." This was about the ex-
tent of the conversation. [Emphasis supplied.]
that about "2 weeks," later, Strong again talked to him at the same place and
At this time , Mr. Strong asked me the same question , if the Company was
going to sign the contract with the Union , and I told him that at this time, as
far as I knew , we would not . And then he says , "Well, what will be your
stand in this7" And I asked him what he meant. He says, "Well, will you tell
the employees to join the Union or not to join the Union? I told him that
as far as I was concerned I didn 't care whether they joined the Union or didn't
join the Union, but that I was part of management and would go along with
whatever the Company decided to do. And at this time he stipulated the fact
that he was going to organize us and that he was going to start a picket-line,
which I, in turn , told my office-called my office the next day and told them
about it. [Emphasis supplied.]
Christian further testified that the "next time I saw Mr. Strong was March 1st"
at which time Strong was in front of the Signal Corps Building together with a
"group of people carrying signs."
The Respondent stipulated that "one or more people" were carrying signs, the
wording of which it furnished to the General Counsel. These signs 7 read
TO THE CONSUMING PUBLIC
TO THE EMPLOYEES OF ATLANTIC
MAINTENANCE CO.
PLEASE TAKE ONE OF OUR CIRCULARS
AND READ IT. IT TELLS OUR STORY.
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS AND
MAINTENANCE WORKERS UNION, AFL-
CIO, LOCAL 125.
I General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to Christian he went out of the building and spoke to Strong who said
to him: "We're here, and I told you that we would be." That Strong then handed
_him a leaflet reading: 8
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS & MAINTENANCE UNION
Local 125
201 North Broad Street
Philadelphia 7, Penna
AFL-CIO
To The Consuming Public
To The Employees of Atlantic Maintenance Corp.
Atlantic Maintenance Corp is doing the janitorial work at the Signal Corps.
Atlantic Maintenance Corp. does not have a contract with our Union, nor
are its employees members of our Union, or of any union
The welfare of this community depends upon stablized [sic] and decent
wages and working conditions When employees enjoy such wages and condi-
tions, the community prospers, because then the employees can be good citizens,
able to live in decent homes, and to raise their families in the American way.
Only union members can insist on, and assure these benefits for themselves
and for the community, because they have a contract which guarantees these
benefits
To the Employees of Atlantic Maintenance Corp -
Join our Union and protect yourself and your family.
To the Consuming Public
Send letters and appeals to Atlantic Maintenance Corp. and to the Signal
Corps to establish good union wages and working conditions, guaranteed by a
contract between Atlantic Maintenance Corp. and our Union.
Note.-We are not asking anyone to refuse to pick up, deliver or trans-
port any goods, or not to perform any services either for Atlantic
Maintenance Corp. or for the Signal Corps.
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS &
MAINTENANCE WORKERS UNION
Local 125
AFL-CIO
that on March 1, the pickets were at the 18th Street entrance to the building,
they did not appear from March 2 to March 6 when they reappeared and have
continued to picket at the Locust Street entrance to the building.
Joseph Strong, assistant business agent and organizer for the Charging Party
testified.
I-about the first week in February I came to the Signal Corps Building to see
Mr. Christian after I found out that their company was not going to hire our
people.
that he spoke to Christian, referring to an occasion when Christian was employed
as foreman at Norristown by a contractor who employed nonunion labor on a
similar job taken over from a contractor employing the Charging Party's members,
and who later hired the Union's members but did not sign a contract. Strong
described Christian's then employer as "a very fine and understanding gentleman":
He went along with the thing that I told him to do. He hired my people
without a union-speaking about a union contract, signing a union contract.
According to Strong he asked that Christian keep the former union member
employees; that Christian stated he could not do so; that he left telling Christian
"I'll see you later," denying that he told Christian, "We are going to organize you."
With respect to the second meeting with Christian, Strong testified that he told
Christian he was not interested in a contract but only wanted to keep the jobs
for the former employees, all members of the Charging Party. He denied asking
"is your company going to sign a contract with the union?" and telling Christian
"I am going to organize you and I'll start a pickt line," or anything to that
effect.
Upon the evidence considered as a whole and from his observation of the witnesses
the Trial Examiner credits Christian and finds that his account of his two meetings
with Organizer Strong in front of the Signal Corps building more accurately states
the conversations between Christian and Strong.
8 General Counsel's Exhibit No 5
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS, ETC., LOCAL 12 5 1113
On the theory that he was testing the credibility of certain witnesses 9 the
Respondent's attorney introduced testimony to the effect that Foreman Christian
had been instructed by the Charging Party not to employ the Union's members
and that he called a meeting of the employees he had hired at which he spoke
to them regarding union affiliation.
With respect to this kind of testimony the Trial Examiner made the following
statement to the Respondent, on the record-
TRIAL EXAMINER: May I point out that any unfair labor practice that may have
been engaged in by the Employer has been held not to be a defense to the
Union who may be engaged in an unfair practice in another matter. And if
testimony is being taken for that purpose, it had no place in this record and is
merely cluttering the record with a lot of unnecessary testimony.io
The Respondent questioned Christian closely with respect to his former testimony
before Judge Egan in Civil No. 29464 regarding Stiong's request that Christian em-
ploy the former union member employees. After his former testimony before
Judge Egan was read to him Christian testified:
By Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Had you testified under cross-examination that Strong
wanted to get the jobs back for the former employees of Penn Associates, and
you replied that you couldn't help him, whereupon, Strong said, "But you have
the right to hire and fire"-you remember your testifying that way?
A. I believe I did say that.
Q. So that Strong did ask you to get the jobs back for these people.
A He didn't ask me to get the jobs back, he said he wanted to get the jobs
back for them.
Q. And you said you couldn't help him?
A. I couldn't help him
Q Why do you think he was telling you about it.
A. I don't know why he was telling me about it-because I have a full force
of workers. What was I supposed to do fire the full force? [Emphasis
supplied.]
As herembefore found picketing by the Respondent began in front of the 18th
Street entrance of the Signal Corps building on March 1, 1961, was suspended on
March 2, and resumed on March 6. When picketing was resumed it was at the
Locust Street entrance. It is clear that the Charging Party's employees used the
18th Street entrance, which is the main entrance to the building, on March 1, and
that on March 6 and thereafter used only the Locust Street entrance.
As found herein the pickets carried signs jointly addressed "To the Consuming
Public" and "To the Employees of Atlantic Maintenance Co. [the Charging Party]
and also distributed circulars which read "To the Employees of Atlantic Mainte-
nance Corp join our union and protect yourself and your family."
The circular closes with a "saving clause" designed to show that the picketing
met the requirements of Section 8(b) (7) (C).
The Respondent's organizer, Joseph Strong, was present at the site of the picketing
during all the times it was conducted, apparently in charge of the pickets and the
picketing.
The parties stipulated that some of the Charging Party's employees signed applica-
tion cards for membership in the Respondent Union after the first of March 1961.
Organizer Strong testified that his purpose was not organization but obtaining their
former jobs for those of the Union's members who had been employed by Penn at
the Signal Corps building; that he did not want the Charging Party's employees to
hold an organizing meeting because Christian had stated that he preferred to hire
the former employees "and if his [present] people joined the union he'd have to
keep them."
Christian denied making this statement.
Strong admitted he did not inform the Charging Party's employees of Christian's
alleged statement, and further testified "I couldn't keep the people out of the union."
However, according to other testimony Strong was not entirely passive during the
picketing.
Vera Boyd testified she was employed by the Charging Party to work at the
Signal Corps building on February 1, 1961: that on a day "about 2 weeks" after the
picketing began as she was going in to work, using the Locust Street entrance, she
was offered and refused literature; that Strong then came up to her and said, "you
0 Floyd Graman, Samuel Riggs, and Clarence Gamble
10 See Charles A. Blinne, d/b/a C A . Blinne Construction Company, 130 NLRB 587
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
know the building is going to be organized ," and berated her for her attitude,
however , she answered Strong that she was "satisfied" with her job and entered the
building.
Boyd further testified that "about 2 weeks later" she came to the Locust Street
door and found it locked, that
At this time Mr. Strong, he was standing directly on the step with his back
against one of the doors and when I put my hand on the handle to open the
door to go in the door was locked. He said, "They are not letting any scabs in
today," so I didn 't say anything to him.
Boyd then went to the 18th Street entrance , informed the guard the Locust Street
door was locked and was told to return . She returned and waited for the guard,
while she waited
Mr. Strong said, "What did they say to you?" I said, "the guard said he'll be
around to open the door ." He said , "Oh, you're nothing but a scab . They're
not going to open the door for you."
Strong again referred to her as a scab to which she objected saying:
You call me Mrs. Boyd, or call me Vera. I said I'm willing to talk to you,
but as long as you call me scab or some other name that I don't know anything
about, I said I won 't ever talk to you . Well, you could do the same to me.
If you tell me to call you Mr. Strong I will. I said since that's your name I'll
call you Mr. Strong if I ever have anything to say to you and I said if you don't
want to call me Mrs. Boyd or Vera, I said in the beginning God created me a
woman and if you don't want to call me Mrs. Boyd or Vera, you can call me
"woman," because that's what I am, a black American, and by that time that's
all. I went inside of the building.
Organizer Strong testified that he was "standing in front of the door" as Boyd
came up and found the door locked. According to Strong:
She started toward the front entrance, this lady did. I said to Mrs. Anthony,
Mrs. Newkirk and Miss Collins "probably they're not going to let any of these
scabs into this entrance today." That's what I said to them. She overheard me
and took it up and I said-my members never said anything to her. I said,
"I'm not talking to her, I don't know what she's talking about " I walked on up
the street and she kept fussing up the street. She went around and come back
and somebody let her inside the door. I didn't see her come back.
Mrs. Boyd further testified that after this incident one night as she left the build-
ing at the end of her work about 10 o'clock, Organizer Strong who was at the corner
of 18th and Locust Streets called to her and Agnes Cofield who was with her, "Hey
do you want to join the union," to which she made no reply, but as they crossed
the street, Mrs. Cofield answered, "No," and Strong started calling out vulgar names
and said, "By the time you get your so and so kicked you will join the union "
Boyd further testified that during the above incident, except for Mrs. Cofield and
herself, only Strong and two other men were present.
Agnes Cofield corroborated Boyd and in her testimony repeated the obscenities
used by Strong and the two other men.
Strong denied the testimony of Boyd and Cofield, testified that he was never at
the building at 10 p in., and always was accompanied by two of three of the female
pickets, whom he invariably drove to their homes at 9 p.m. He named one of these
as Mrs. Daisy Anthony. However, in testifying regarding another incident Strong
admitted having a meeting with a group of the Charging Party's employees in a
nearby bar between 11 p.m. and midnight.
Mrs Daisy Anthony testified she distributed union literature at the Signal Corps
building every day during the picketing; that Strong was always present and in her
view and hearing; that Strong took her and the other female pickets home every
night at 9 o'clock; and that she never heard Strong yell vulgarities to Boyd and
Cofield.
Mrs. Anthony impressed the Trial Examiner as a very willing witness - Her testi-
monv with respect to the above-related incident can hardly be called Probative
Both Bovd and Cofield impressed the Trial Examiner as honest, forthright wit-
nesses upon whose testimony he could rely. Strong did not create such an
impression
On the entire record the Trial Examiner credits Boyd and Cofield as against
Strong.
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS , ETC., LOCAL 125 1115
Samuel Riggs testified he was employed by the Charging Party to work at the
Signal Corps building on March 6 , 1961 ; that after the picketing began he was
handed a circular by one of the female pickets at the Locust Street entrance, and
that "a couple of days later" he was handed another copy of the same circular ii
by a male picket.
The circular reads:
MAINTENANCE WORKERS
LOCAL #125
BSEU-AFL-CIO STANDS FOR:
1-GOOD WAGES
2-DECENT WORKING CONDITIONS
3-REAL PROTECTION ON THE JOB
FOR EVERY MAN AND WOMAN
ITS MEMBERS RECEIVE:
TOP DOLLAR
40 HOUR WEEK
OVERTIME PAY
PAID VACATIONS
PAID HOLIDAYS
FREE MEDICAL CARE
HOSPITAL AND SURGICAL BENEFITS
LIFE, HEALTH AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE
MANY OTHER IMPORTANT BENEFITS
They get all this because they have a UNION! And what is more, all this is
a GUARANTEE . In a Union Shop, your job is protected , your working con-
ditions are protected by Union-backed guarantee-the contract.
In a Non -Union Shop, the boss can fire you at will , take away any of your
Benefits when he feels like it. If you don't like, all you can do is quit and go
job hunting again-there is no other alternative.
You owe it to yourself and your family to have job protection !! GET IT
TODAY!!!
JOIN THE
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS AND MAINTENANCE UNION
LOCAL NO. 125-BSEU-A.F L -C.I O.
201 North Broad Street, Philadelphia 7, Pa.
LOcust 7-3244
AND ENJOY THE SAME PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS SO MANY
HUNDREDS ALREADY HAVE BY BEING LOCAL # 125 MEMBERS
GEORGE B. MORRIS, Financial Sec'y.-Manager.
Riggs testified that on neither occasion did he ask for the circular and that Strong
was present on both occasions but was not the man who gave him the circular.
He further testified that sometime later he was asked "by a couple of fellows
employed with me on the job" to attend a meeting "about going into the union,"
the meeting was to be held after work , which was after 10 p.m., at the Chancellor
Bar; that he attended and there met several of his fellow workers as well as
Organizer Strong and "a couple of ladies" who said they were employed by the
Union. According to Riggs:
And they asked us were we willing to come into the Union , we were trying
to organize and get a union shop and they showed us the papers, the benefits we
will have.
that he was given an application card which he did not sign saying he would first take
it home for discussion with his wife; that during the evening he had "a bottle of
beer" which Strong paid for; that a "couple of days" later he again saw Strong and-
Yes. He asked me, well , did I decide to come into the Union or not. I told
him I didn't know yet. The statement was made, "Well we have quite a few
of the fellows already signed up. You should come in too," and I said, "I don't
know yet . I'll let you know."
that he saw Strong later and again was asked to sign the application card but did not
do so but again "a couple of weeks" later he again saw Strong and
11 General Counsel's Exhibit No 7
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He said "Are you ready to sign now?" My co-workers were with me and they
said "You may as well sign up too because there are more fellows in there."
So I said "Okay, I'll sign."
Riggs testified that Strong told him that signing the card made Riggs a union
member but that
The membership fee will be paid by the Union which is $10.00 and then at
the end of the month you will just have to start paying your monthly dues.
Organizer Strong testified that the pickets did not distribute the circular Riggs
testified he received, that only Strong himself passed it:
If they came to me and asked me about the union , I handed them this.
Q. (By Mr. GOLDSrEIN.) By "this" you mean GC-7?
A. Yes, if they asked me the benefits of the union which from time to time
practically everyone in there stopped me on Locust Street side and asked.
According to Strong he arranged the meeting at the Chancellor Bar at the urgent
request of some of the Charging Party's employees; that Morris, who is business
manager of the Respondent, was also at the meeting; that Riggs asked for an appli-
cation; that he offered to excuse Riggs' payment of dues because:
Well, he spoke to me about what to do about this $10.00. He said "My
wife is sick and I'm not able to pay no $10.00 right now." I said "Well, in a
hardship case like that the union will go along with you. We'll give you the
initiation fee and at the end of the following month you can start paying your
dues."
Agnes Cofield testified that "a week or two" after the night Strong used vile
language to Boyd and herself, as herein related, she was coming in to work at 4 p.m.
and Strong asked her to attend a meeting at the Chancellor Bar that night at the
same time handing her a circular, two application cards for union membership, and
his own business card.
According to Strong, "Mrs. Cofield came to me one afternoon" and asked about
union benefits:
I says "We have a lot of benefits in the union. Do you want to join the union
too?" I handed her one of these pamphlets.
Q. That's GC-7?
A. GC-7. She said to me "Could you explain anymore about it?" I run
my hand in my pocket and I said "If you want to see me in the morning at
9:00 o'clock," I had my hand in my pocket and pulled my business card out and
handed it to her and said, "You can see me in the morning at 9:00
o'clock-9:30-and then I'll explain to you more about it."
Concluding Findings
If the Respondent had no warning of Penn Associates loss of the Signal Corps
building contract the Charging Party gave it ample notice well before the Charging
Party's contract with the U.S. Government became effective.
The Trial Examiner credits the testimony of Floyd Braman , corroborated by
Wunsch, with respect to the meetings between the Charging Party and the Respond-
ent's officials as well as the telephone call made by the Respondent's Business Man-
ager Morris to Braman in which Morris asked if the Charging Party intended to sign
a contract and upon receiving a negative reply stated "we'll have to picket the build-
ing." The Respondent admits that at one of these meetings its "Administrator"
offered to limit the unit asked for in its proposed contract, if the Charging Party
agreed to sign it The Administrator volunteered on cross-examination that the
Respodnent was interested in a signed contract because:
Look, once the contract would have been signed . . . the only employees they
could have would be members in good standing in this union.
Before picketing began, Christian was visited by Strong and told "we're going to
organize you" and on another visit, 2 weeks later, was asked if the Charging Party
intended to sign a contract with the Respondent, asked if he would tell the Charging
Party's employees to join the Union, and threatened with a picket line. On the day
the picketing began, Strong said to Christian "we're here and I told you that we
would be."
Although Strong maintains that his sole interest was the recovery of their former
jobs by the Respondent' s members , Christian testified Strong did not ask me "to get
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS, ETC., LOCAL 125 1117
the jobs back" but merely said "he wanted to get the jobs back for them" and when
asked by the Respondent "why" he thought Strong spoke so, Christian replied:
I don't know-I have a full force of workers. What was I supposed to do fire
the full force?
Despite Organizer Strong's contention that he did not want the Charging Party's em-
ployees to hold an organizing meeting, he arranged such a meeting, at which the
Respondent's Business Manager Morris was also present, and at which literature and
application cards were distributed, memberships solicited, and at which Strong seeking
the application of one individual agreed in the Union's behalf to forego the collection
of an initiation fee from him if he joined.
The pickets were stationed at the building entrance used by the Charging Party's
employees, they carried signs and distributed handbills addressed jointly to "The
Consuming Public" and "'The Employees of Atlantic Maintenance." (See Nor-
mandin Bros. Company, 131 NLRB 1225.)
The Signal Corps not being a business organization does not attract or depend on
a "consuming public" and there being no showing that the Signal Corps building
is a warehouse the closing "Note" in the handbill stating that the Respondent was not
asking anyone to refuse to perform services is of course meaningless as no conse-
quential deliveries or shipments would be made from the building but if it is a ware-
house surely the Respondent would not desire to impede the National Defense.
The complaint is based on Section 8(b)(7)(C) which (a) prohibits an uncertified
union to picket an employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an
employer to recognize or bargain with it as his employees' representative or (b) to
force or require such employees to accept said union as their bargaining representa-
tive, (c) the picketing is proscribed from continuing for more than 30 days without
the filing of a petition (by the picketing union) to determine the bargaining agent.12
The Respondent is not the certified representative of the Charging Party's em-
ployees. No petition was filed.
There can be no doubt on this record that the principal object, if not the sole
object, of the Respondent's picketing was to gain recognition by, and a contract
from, the Charging Party and to become the bargaining representative of the Charg-
ing Party's employees without benefit of their elective choice.
Were the Trial Examiner to accept the Respondent's contention that together with
the dissemination of information the object of its conduct was to secure employment
for the former employees of Penn Associates, he must still conclude that the picketing
had an object of illegally requiring the Charging Party to recognize the Respondent 13
Nor can it be argued that the conduct referred to as "picketing" herein is not
picketing and is not coercive. As stated by Judge Hicks of the CA-2 in the Stan-Jay
case. 14
The union's argument that its object was not to "fore or require" recognition
or organization is premised on the notion that the statutory language contem-
plates physical violence or threats thereof. But the setting of the language
makes it clear that "forcing or requiring" refers to the intended effect of the
picketing, not the manner in which the picketing is carried on, to the "object,"
not the method, and it is clear that the union's object was swiftly to compel
organization or recognition, not merely to create a climate in the shop favorable
to the union. The phrase "forcing or requiring" was used in § 8(b) (4) before
the passage of the 1959 amendments, see 29 U.S.C A. § 158(b) (4){A), (B),
(C), (D), and the case law thereunder does not require violence. See, e.g.,
N L.R.B. v Enterprise Ass'n of Steam, etc. Pipfitters of New York and Vicinity,
Local Union No. 638, 2 Cir., 285 F. 2d 642, 645, where we found an entirely
peaceful refusal to install pipe to have as its object "forcing or requiring any
employer to cease using, * * * or otherwise dealing in the products of any
other producer or to cease doing business with any other person" in violation of
§ 8(b)(4)(A). And see the discussion of the instant problem in Comment,
69 Yale L.J. 1393, 1398. The fact that picketing, which involves the use of
speech, is the subject-matter of § 8(b)(7) does not change the meaning of
"forcing or requiring." And the union's argument is no more persuasive when
cast in constitutional language. Cf. Greene v. International Typographical
Union, D.C.D. Conn., 182 F. Supp. 788, 792-93. It is true, of course, that
N.L.R.B. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Local Union No. 639, 362 U.S. 274,
12 See footnote 1, supra
13 Cartage and Terminal Management Corporation, 130 NLRB 55S
i' Stan-Jay Auto Parts and Accessories Corporation, 289 F. 2d (CA. 2) at p. 44
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
80 S. Ct. 706, 712, 4 L. Ed. 2d 710, the Curtis Bros. case, held that peaceful
recognition picketing does not amount to "restraint or coercion" of rights guar-
anteed by §§ 7, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157, which made it an unfair labor practice under
§ 8(b)(1)(A), and that the Supreme Court referred to "the sensitive area of
peaceful picketing." And see N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, etc., Local Union No. 182, 2 Cir., 272 F. 2d 85. But this cannot be said
to amount to a holding that peaceful picketing can constitutionally be said to
have the object of "forcing or requiring" only if it involves violence. Indeed,
Curtis Bros. itself, 362 U.S at page 291, 80 S. Ct. at page 716, notes that
§ 8(b) (7) "proscrib[es] peaceful organizational strikes in many situations."
Conclusion
Upon the entire record, and the evidence considered as a whole, the Trial Ex-
aminer finds that the General Counsel has fully sustained the allegations of the
complaint to the effect that the Respondent, not a certified representative of the
Charging Party's employees, picketed the Signal Corps building on and after March 1,
1961, for more than 30 days, without filing a petition to determine representatives
with an object of forcing or requiring the Charging Party to recognize and bargain
with it and further with the object of forcing or requiring the Charging Party's
employees to accept it as their bargaining representative.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The acts and conduct of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, in con-
nection with the operations of the Charging Party described 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, and do 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
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has picketed the Charging Party in a manner
violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act the Trial Examiner will recommend that
the Respondent, is officers, representatives, agents, employees, and all members
and persons acting in concert or participation with them, cease such picketing or
causing such picketing where an object thereof is to force or require the Charging
Party to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative of its em-
ployees or force or require the Charging Party to accept or select the Respondent as
their collective bargaining agent unless and until the Respondent has been certified
as such by the Board.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Herman 0. Wunsch and William Smith (herein jointly called the Charging
Party), are, and have been at all times material herein, copartners doing business
under the trade name and style of Atlantic Maintenance Co, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing the aforesaid Charging Party from and after March 1. 1961, with
an object of forcing and requiring the Charging Party to recognize and bargain col-
lectively with the Respondent, notwithstanding that the Respondent did not represent
a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, the Respondent
restrained and coerced the Charging Party's employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8' (b)1(1) (A) of the Act.
4 By picketing the Charring Party from and after March 1, 1961, with an object
of forcing and requiring the Charging Party to recognize and bargain with the
Respondent as the collective-bargaining representative of the Charring Party's em-
ployees and forcing and requiring employees of the Charring Party to accept and
select the Respondent as their bargaining representative, although more than a period
of 30 days elapsed after March 1, 1961, without a petition under Section 9(c) of
the Act being filed, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS , ETC., LOCAL 125 1119
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case , the Trial Examiner recommends that the Respondent,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
Cease and desist from:
1. Picketing or causing the Signal Corps Building at 225 South 18th Street , Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania , in which building the Charging Party performs certain serv-
ices, with an object of forcing or requiring the Charging Party to recognize or bargain
with the Respondent or forcing or requiring the Charging Party's employees to select
or accept as their bargaining agent unless and until the Respondent has been certified
as such bargaining representative by the Board as provided by the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent 's business offices, meeting
halls, and all places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix " Copies of said notice to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall , after being duly
signed by official representatives of the Respondent , be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Fourth Region signed copies of the
aforementioned notice for posting by the Charging Party, the Charging Party will-
ing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said
notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall,
after being signed by the Respondent , as indicated , be forthwith returned to the
Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing , within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director in
writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National Labor
Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS AND MAINTENANCE
WORKERS' UNION , LOCAL 125, AFFILIATED WITH BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, AND TO THE EMPLOYEES OF ATLANTIC MAIN-
TENANCE Co ., EMPLOYED AT THE SIGNAL CORPS BUILDING , PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT, under conditions prohibited by Section 8(b)(7) of the Act,
picket or cause to be picketed , or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed,
Atlantic Maintenance Co., Philadelphia , Pa., where an object thereof is to force
or require .the aforesaid company to recognize or bargain with us as the repre-
sentative of its employees , or to force or require the employees of the aforesaid
company to accept or select us as their collective bargaining representative.
PHILADELPHIA WINDOW CLEANERS AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS'
UNION, LOCAL 125 AFFILIATED WITH BUILDING SERVICE EM-
PLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut & Juniper Streets , Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania;
Telephone Number, Pennypacker 5-2612, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.