Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 20, 1967163 N.L.R.B. 511 (N.L.R.B. 1967) Copy Citation ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 16, Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16, ORDER International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO and John Newkirk , d/b/a CAL-NEVA Insulation Company ; Interstate Employers Association, Inc. Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16, International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO; Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and John Newkirk , d/b/a CAL-NEVA Insulation Company. Cases 20-CC-523, 20-CC-541-2, and 20-CC-594. March 20,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On November 10, 1966, Trial Examiner E. Don Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that Respondent Local No. 16 had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint in Case 20-CC-594 and recommended that the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent Local No. 16 filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief; the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support of the cross-exceptions and in answer to Respondent Local No. 16's exceptions; and both Respondents filed briefs in reply to the cross-exceptions and brief of the General Counsel. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 511 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16, International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents , and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case 20-CC-594 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. 1 Member Fanning dissents from that portion of the Decision herein which finds that Local No. 16's picketing at the Health Center violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. He concurs with his colleagues, however, in holding that the threats at that site violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO (General Telephone Company of California), 151 NLRB 1490 (Member Fanning's separate views at fn. 4); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO (L. G. Electric Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766 (Member Fanning's separate opinion at 769). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE E. DON WILSON, Trial Examiner : A charge in Case 20-CC-523 was filed on May 28, 1965, ' by John Newkirk, d/b/a, Cal-Neva Insulation Company, herein Cal-Neva, and Interstate Employers Association , Inc., herein the Association , against Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16 , International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, herein Local 16 , and others . A first amended copy of this charge was filed on January 19, 1966 . A charge in Case 20-CC-541-2 was filed by Cal-Neva and the Association on September 2 against Local 16 and others. A first amended charge in Case 20-CC-541-2 was filed on March 19 , 1966 , by Cal-Neva and the Association against Local 16 and others. On March 30, 1966 , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein the Board , issued a complaint in Cases 20-CC-523 and 20-CC-542-2, alleging that Local 16 violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein the Act. In Case 20-CC-594, an initial charge was filed on March 11 , 1966 , by Cal-Neva against Local 16 and Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council , herein the Council. A first amended charge was filed on May 9, 1966, by Cal-Neva against Local 16 and the Council. On May 19 , 1966 , the General Counsel of the Board issued a complaint alleging that Local 16 and the Council violated Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)( B) of the Act. ' Hereinafter all dates refer to 1965 unless otherwise specified. 163 NLRB No. 63 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On May 19, 1966, the General Counsel ordered Cases 20-CC-523, 20-CC-541-2, and 20-CC-594 consolidated. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing in this matter was held before me in San Francisco, California, on June 14, 15, and 16, 1966. The parties were afforded full opportunity to participate. Briefs of General Counsel and Local 16 and the Council have been received and considered. Upon the entire record in the case including my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Cal-Neva has an office located at San Lorenzo, California, and is a contractor in the building and construction industry engaged in the installation of insulating materials, The Association is a California corporation, at all times material being a voluntary association of employers engaged in the building and construction industries and in other industries. It exists for the purpose, inter alga, of representing its member-employers in collective bargaining and participating in the negotiating and administration of collective-bargaining agreements in behalf of its member-employers with various labor organizations. At all times material, Cal-Neva has been a member of the Association. During the year ending the last of March 1966, member- employers of the Association, including Schurr and Finlay, Inc., located at Yorba Linda, California; Ben J. Hughes, Inc., located at Bell Gardens, California; Truitt Electric Company, located at Los Angeles, California; and H. B. Rogers Electric, located at Santa Fe Springs, California, in the course and conduct of their respective business operations, purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located in the State of California, which suppliers received said goods and materials directly from outside California. During the same period of time, Schurr and Finlay, Inc., a member-employer of the Association, in the course and conduct of its business operations, received in excess of $400,000 for services performed for the United States Air Force at Travis Air Force Base and the United States Army and the United States Navy in California. The operations of Schurr and Finlay, Inc., described above have had a substantial impact on the national defense. The Association and its member-employers, including Cal-Neva, at all material times, have constituted an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. Memorex Corporation, herein Memorex, is a California corporation which manufactures percision magnetic tape. During the 1965 calendar year Memorex shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its Santa Clara, California, plant to points outside California. It is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Local 16 and the Council , at all material times, have been labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues (1) Did Local 16 engage in a course of conduct in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act during material times at (a) the District Health Center in San Francisco, herein the Health Center; (b) the KRON-TV Building in San Francisco, herein KRON; (c) the Educational Testing Center in Berkeley, herein the Testing Center; and (d) at the Memorex Plant in Santa Clara, herein Memorex, where various general contractors and their subcontractors were engaged in construction, the objects of the conduct being (a) to force the subcontractors to cease doing business with Cal-Neva Insulation Company and the general contractors to cease doing business with the subcontractors, in order to force them to cease doing business with Cal-Neva, and (b) to force Cal-Neva to recognize and bargain with the Local Union although the Local Union was not the certified representative of Cal-Neva's employees? (2) Did the Council for itself and as agent for Local 16 violate Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by its conduct at Memorex? B. Background In 1963, having unsuccessfully sought a contract with Local 16, Cal-Neva entered into a contract with District 50, United Mine Workers of America. In March 1964, Cal-Neva joined Interstate Employers Association, Inc., an association of California employers engaged in the building and construction industry and in other industries. The Association was designated by Cal-Neva as its collective-bargaining representative, a purpose for which the Association existed. Through the Association, Cal- Neva, in May, was a party to a contract between the Association and District 50, which contract ran until September 30. This contract was terminated by the Association and District 50 as of June 30. Not long after and before September, Cal-Neva through the Association became a party to a contract between the Association and Brotherhood of Independent Workers, or BIW. The activities of Respondents occurred in San Francisco, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties in California. Local 16 is affiliated with building and construction trades councils, including the Council, in each of these counties. C. The Health Center Dispute Stenmark Construction Company was the general contractor at the Health Center in May and June. Valley Sheet Metal Company, herein Valley, was a subcontractor and in turn contracted with Cal-Neva to perform insulation work at the Health Center, Cal-Neva starting its work on May 17. On May 18, Ben Hockstrasser, Local 16's business agent, visited the jobsite and spoke to Valley's foreman, George Kemper. Hockstrasser, having identified himself as a business agent of Local 16, told Kemper that if Cal-Neva's men didn't get off the insulating work, Local 16 "would picket the job." Also, on May 18, Local 16's attorney advised Cal-Neva's attorney, by letter, that Cal-Neva was not party to a contract with a union and requested a contract with Local 16. On May 19, Cal-Neva's attorney replied, saying Cal-Neva could not contract with Local 16 since it had a contract with District 50. ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 16, On May 19, Hochstrasser spoke to Chester H. Nelson, Stenmark' s general superintendent, saying Cal-Neva was not in good standing with Local 16 and "he was going to put a picket on the job" against Cal-Neva. That afternoon and on the morning of May 20, Local 16 picketed the Health Center, the picket sign reading: Cal-Neva Insulation Company, John D. Newkirk owner, unfair to San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. This dispute is with Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16. On the morning of May 20, the employees of various subcontractors in the building trades industries refused to cross Local 16's picket line. On the same morning, Wayne Kelly, Local 16's business manager, asked Nelson to take Cal-Neva off the job, Nelson replying that he could not because Cal-Neva was the responsibility of Valley. On May 20, Local 16's attorney again wrote a letter to Cal-Neva's attorney, asserting he had been unaware of Cal-Neva's contractual relations with District 50, and advising that Local 16 withdraw its contractual demands. He further stated the pickets had been withdrawn since Local 16 had been mistaken in believing that Cal-Neva had no labor contract. Cal-Neva returned to work at the Health Center on May 21. Anthony Meley was executive manager of the Sheet Metal Contractors Association of San Francisco. Valley was a member of the Sheet Metal Association. On May 27, Meley had a telephone conversation with Kelly. Kelly told Meley he wasn' t going to have Cal-Neva on the job and discussed the furnishing of insulation workers by Local 16 to Valley to complete the job. On June 1, Kelly had another conversation with Nelson. Kelly said " he was going to put a picket on the job" as of 1 p.m. that day. Beginning at 1:30 p.m. on June 1 and ending at 4:30 p.m., during working hours, on June 2, Local 16 picketed the Health Center with the following sign: Cal-Neva Insulation Co., John Newkirk, owner, does not observe conditions of employment for asbestos workers and insulators for this area, Asbestos Workers Local No. 16. On June 2, the employees of the building trades subcontractors refused to cross the picket line which was maintained in front of the premises where the work was going on . During each of the episodes of picketing Cal- Neva had work to be done and materials stockpiled at the jobsite. On June 1, Newkirk, or Cal-Neva, by telegram asked Kelly to advise what Cal-Neva must do to induce Local 16 not to picket. Local 16 never replied. On June 2, Newkirk phoned Kelly and asked the conditions for removal of the picket. Kelly replied only that Newkirk should talk to someone else and hung up. On June 4, Newkirk substantially repeated his June 1 telegram and again received no reply. During the times that Local 16 picketed the Health Center, Kelly did not know "specifically" the hourly wage Cal-Neva was paying its employees. Kelly did not know the employees' hours of employment. He had only an "understanding" as to fringe benefits. He had never seen Cal-Neva's contract and never attempted to 2 Another union official was present His name is not disclosed. 3 Considering his demeanor and his entire course of conduct as revealed by this record, I do not credit Kelly's denials of his 513 get one. Charles Andrews, Valley's vice president, Kelly, and Meley met on June 2 while the job was shut down.2 Andrews asked Kelly what they could iIo to stop the picketing and get the job done. Kelly replied he was not going to have any District 50 men on the job but that Local 16 was to do the job. Andrews asked Kelly "if he would sign up John Newkirk on a contract with Local 16." Kelly replied that he would do this under no circumstances because of prior problems he had had with Newkirk. Kelly added that "under no circumstances" was John Newkirk going to be on that job. Andrews and Kelly then discussed the possibility of Andrews signing a contract with Kelly. Kelly said he would give it some thought but Local 16 would not have Cal-Neva on the job, "and under no circumstances was Newkirk [Cal-Neva] to go on the job due to other problems he had on previous, other jobs." Kelly agreed to furnish two men from Local 16 and did so. They were employed by Andrews. Cal-Neva stopped on June 1 and its work was done by Kelly's'men. D. The Testing Center On August 30, Cal-Neva commenced work for the Testing Center as a subcontractor of Fischer Plumbing Company which in turn had a contract with Lyons Construction Company. The latter's superintendent was Wally Lueck. About 9 a.m. on September 1, Kelly appeared, saw Newkirk, and said, "Hello, John. I see you scabs are back again." Newkirk made no reply. Kelly, having briefly observed one of Newkirk's employees, spoke to Lueck. Kelly introduced himself as business agent of Local 16 and asked Lueck if he knew there was a nonunion insulation contractor on the job (Cal-Neva). Kelly added that Cal-Neva was affiliated with District 50 and Local 16 did not recognize them. Lueck said he was unaware of the problems and asked Kelly what he intended to do. Kelly said he would go to the Alameda County Building Trades Council and have a picket put on the jobsite and the Council would see that the rest of the crafts were pulled off.3 There was no picketing at the jobsite. E. KRON Project In November, Cal-Neva entered into a contract with Valley to perform work at KRON. On November 18, Meley of the Sheet Metal Contrictors Association of which Valley was a member, called Kelly on the phone. Meley said he wanted to know Kelly' s position on the KRON job, adding that he wished an assurance that there would be no pickets. Meley said Cal-Neva had the lowest bid for insulation work and had been awarded the contract by Valley. Kelly said he would not tolerate Cal-Neva on the job and if it appeared Kelly would put up pickets. Meley advised that Local 16 had entered into a settlement agreement providing that Local 16 would not interfere with Cal-Neva on any job. Kelly said the agreement was good for only 60 days. Kelly did not agree that the settlement agreement was permanent, saying "the order was only good for 60 days" and he had a right to picket again . Meley suggested to Kelly that he ask his attorney for an interpretation. Cal-Neva never performed the work on KRON, Valley doing the work itself. conversation with Lueck A settlement agreement entered into by Local 16 and others and set aside by the Regional Director for various reasons has not influenced me in my findings 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD F. The Memorex Project On March 10, Cal-Neva began performing work at the Memorex plant in Santa Clara, under a contract with Nead Insulation Company which in turn had a contract with Natkin and Company. Natkin had the contract with Memorex. Newkirk and one employee were performing the insulation work in behalf of Cal-Neva. Memorex had about 400 employees. The various crafts involved in construction, including pipefitters, electricians, and painters were working on the project which consisted of the construction of a three-story addition to the buildings of Memorex. On the morning of March 10, Kelly phoned Roger Brennan, executive secretary of the Council, and said he had a report that Nead had a contract to work on the Memorex project and Nead was in violation of his contract with Local 16. Kelly asked Brennan to visit the Memorex job and see if Nead was working there, adding that he was leaving for Washington, D.C., and could not do the job himself. Brennan thereupon went to the jobsite and spoke to two employees who were doing insulation work. He learned they were not employees of Nead but of Cal-Neva. It appeared to Brennan "that the particular group in question would have been covered by this BIW contract." Brennan called Local 16. He was unable to speak to Kelly who was enroute to Washington, D.C. He reported the factual situation to a Mr. Storey. On March 11, about 8 a.m., Brennan placed a picket on the job. He did not, at that time, know the identity of Newkirk. The picket sign identified Cal-Neva Insulation Company as the employer the Council was picketing because it did not have a contract with the Council. Local 16 never requested picketing at the Memorex job. The Council picketed because it did not consider Cal-Neva to be a union operation. Twenty to thirty building trades employees employed by various subcontractors refused to cross the picket line. When the Council pickets it normally is on its own behalf and not on behalf of a local union. The picketing lasted from about 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. The picket was on public property nearest to where Cal-Neva was working and the dispute was clearly described by the picket sign as being between Cal-Neva and the Council. Cal-Neva, at the time of the picketing, was performing its normal operations. Shortly before 8 a.m. Reginald Simpson, construction superintendent and inspector for Memorex, spoke to Brennan. He asked Brennan what the problem was. Brennan said his problem was with Cal-Neva and the prime problem was that Cal-Neva had no contract with the Council. Brennan said the picket sign would be removed if Cal-Neva agreed not to operate until its problem was straightened out. Simpson was surprised to learn that Cal-Neva was a subcontractor of-Memorex. There is no substantial evidence that Brennan asked any representative of Memorex to take any action. Brennan also said to Simpson that if Natkin and Company would give some assurance that Cal-Neva would leave the job, he would discontinue the picketing. Robert Beasley, a central office supervisor foi Natkin and Company, spoke to Brennan about 8:15 a.m. Beasley had received a call from Simpson that there was some 4 Beasley had told Nead and Newkirk that they had both breached the contract by Nead subcontracting to Cal-Neva labor problem at the site concerning Cal-Neva. Beasley knew nothing of Cal-Neva and was certain something was wrong. He was aware of the picketing. He went to Brennan and spoke to him. In response to Beasley's inquiry, Brennan said the picket sign was informational and that while Nead was authorized to do the work by Local 16, Cal-Neva was not. Later, Beasley spoke to Brennan again. Newkirk and another representative of Natkin were present. Beasley said he had talked to Newkirk4 who had agreed to pull off the job for the time being. Brennan said this was agreeable to him. The picket was removed and the men returned to work. It was Beasley's opinion that Nead had violated his contract by subcontracting to Cal-Neva. It is clear that Beasley removed Cal-Neva from the job as a result of his "own decision" which he later communicated to Brennan and not as a result of any request from Brennan. After Beasley told Brennan that Cal-Neva was being removed from the job as a unauthorized subcontractor, there was a cessation of picketing. It is plain to me that there is insufficient probative evidence to establish that the Council was an agent of Local 16 in its picketing of Memorex. Kelly had a dispute with Nead because of his failure to pay moneys to Local 16. Kelly requested Brennan merely to look into the matter so Local 16 could place a claim against Nead's job. In no way did Local 16 authorize the Council to take action regarding Cal-Neva. That Local 16 was a member of Council does not make the Council an agent for all purposes, and particularly for alleged unlawful purposes. The Council engaged in purely informational picketing truthfully advising that Cal-Neva did not have a contract with the Council. This was primary picketing. The Council was not seeking a contract with Cal-Neva. There is insufficient probative evidence that the Council, in any manner, requested, threatened, or required Memorex, Natkin, or Nead, or any or all of them to cease doing business with each other or Cal-Neva. Cal-Neva was ordered off the job by Natkin because Nead, who at that time appears to have been a phantom- like operation, had no legal right to subcontract to Cal-Neva. This is why Beasley rid himself of Cal-Neva. I find no relevant evidence that the Council sought the enmeshment of neutrals. Brennan's picketing was primary. I find the sole objective of the Council's picketing was informational. There is insufficient substantial evidence that the Council or Local 16 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B) of the Act by the conduct of Brennan at Memorex. G. Concluding Findings I have already found that there is insufficient evidence that the Council or the Local Union violated the Act by Brennan's conduct at Memorex. The Local Union argues that its conduct at the other locations met Moore Dry Dock standards5 and consequently did not violate the Act. The Board, however, had found that, "[w]hile literal compliance with the standards of Moore Dry Dock may indicate the primary nature of common situs picketing, the Board has held that such an inference is not conclusive but may be negated by other relevant evidence disclosing the respondent's true objective to be the enmeshment of neutral employers and 5 92 NLRB 547 ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 16, 515 employees into the primary dispute."s The facts in this case reveal that in its conduct at the locations other than Memorex, the Local Union's objective was the enmeshment of neutrals into the primary dispute. The Local Union, by its picketing at the Health Center on May 20 and June 2, caused employees of neutrals to withhold their labor from their employers. This was inducement encompassed by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B). Such work stoppages were restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). Local 16's letter of May 18 makes clear that an object of its picketing on May 19 and 20 was to force or require Cal-Neva to recognize and bargain with Local 16 even though Local 16 was not the certified representative. So, too, did Hockstrasser disclose this objective when he told Stenmark's foreman, Nelson, that Local 16 would picket because Cal-Neva and Local 16 did not have a contract. It is plain that an object of Local 16's picketing at the Health Center was to force or require Valley to cease doing business with Cal-Neva and to force or require Stenmark to cease doing business with Valley so as to bring about a cessation of business between Valley and Cal-Neva. Thus, on May 19, Hockstrasser told Valley's foreman, Kemper, that Local 16 would picket "the job" if Cal-Neva was not off the job. During the course of this picketing, Kelly asked Nelson to remove Cal-Neva from the job. By its picketing on May 1.9 and 20, Local 16 induced employees of neutral employers to cease work, thereby threatening, restraining, and coercing the neutral employers. The objects of the picketing being found as above, the picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. It has been found that on May 27 Kelly told Meley that the unwanted Cal-Neva would be picketed again if it worked on the Health Center job and that simultaneously Kelly offered Local 16 men to finish Cal-Neva's job. Obviously, Local 16 was seeking to have Valley cease doing business with Cal-Neva. On June 1, Local 16 resumed its picketing at the Health Center. Employees of neutral employers refused to cross the picket lines. At no time did Local 16 advise Cal-Neva of the alleged desirable working conditions Cal-Neva was failing to meet although Cal-Neva sought such advice. It is clear that again Local 16 was picketing for unlawful objects. On June 1 and 2, Local 16 was not picketing for the reasons or objects as displayed on the picket sign , but rather for objects proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. Thus, Kelly on June 2 told Andrews of Valley that he did not want District 50 members on the job and "under no circumstances" were members of District 50 nor was Cal-Neva to resume work. It was to gain this objective that Kelly suggested to Valley that it employ Local 16 members to perform Cal-Neva's job. At no time did representatives of Local 16 suggest to representatives of Valley or Stenmark that they persuade Cal-Neva to meet Local 16 working conditions. I find that the June 1 and 2 picket sign did not disclose the true objective of the picketing which was to require Valley and Stenmark to replace Cal-Neva or in its stead utilize Local 16 members. The picketing of June 1 and 2 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. The threats of Hochstrasser to Kemper and Nelson as well as Kelly's threats to Meley and Nelson, particularly since they involved threats of picketing "the job," establish that an object of the threats to picket was to cause Valley to cease doing business with Cal-Neva or to cause Stenmark to cease doing business with Valley. At the Testing Center, on September 1, Kelly told Lyons' superintendent, Lueck, that Cal-Neva was associated with District 50 and was a nonunion contractor. Kelly added the threat that the Alameda Council would picket the jobsite and have all building trades employees removed from the job. It is clear that an object of this threat was to cause Lyons to cease doing business with Cal-Neva. Thus the threat was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. Local 16 again engaged in unlawful activity at the KRON project. On November 18, Kelly threatened Meley, a representative of the Sheet Metal Association of which Valley was a member, that Kelly would not tolerate having Cal-Neva on the job and that if it showed up, Kelly would picket. I find Local 16's dispute with Cal-Neva at this time was as it had been and Local 16 still had the object of coercing Valley and other neutrals to cease doing business with Cal-Neva. By its threats to Meley, Local 16 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Local 16 as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the employers named in section I, above have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found Local 16's conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all times material the employers named in section I have been employers within the meaning of the Act and have been engaged in commerce and/or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Local 16 and the Council are each labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. By picketing and other conduct, by inducement and encouragement, and by threats and coercion as found above, with the objects of causing other employers to cease doing business with Valley or with Cal-Neva or to force or require Cal-Neva to recognize or bargain with Local 16 as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees although Local 16 was not certified as such, Local 16 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 16, International Association of Heat & 6 Carpenters Local Union No 944, et al . (Interstate Employers Association , et al.), 159 NLRB 563, 564 295-269 0-69-34 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) By picketing or other conduct, inducing or en- couraging any individual employed by Valley or Stenmark, or any other employer, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use or handle any materials or perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require said employers to cease doing business with Cal-Neva or where an object thereof is to force or require Cal-Neva to recognize or bargain with Local 16 as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees unless Local 16 has been certified as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Valley or Stenmark or any other employer where an object thereof is to force or require Cal-Neva to recognize or bargain with Local 16 as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees unless Local 16 has been certified as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. (c) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Lyons, Fischer, Valley, or Stenmark, or any other employer, where an object thereof is to force or require said em- ployers to cease doing business with Cal-Neva. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices or meeting halls, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent 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 posting by Fischer, Valley, Stenmark, Lyons, and Cal-Neva, they being willing, at all locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.8 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 16, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT & FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, AFL-CIO. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT, by picketing or other conduct, induce or encourage any individual employed by Valley Sheet Metal Company or Stenmark Construction Company or any other employer to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use or handle any materials or perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require said employers to cease doing business with John Newkirk , a sole proprietor, doing business as Cal-Neva Insulation Company, otherwise known as Cal-Neva, to recognize or bargain with Local 16 as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees , unless Local 16 has been certified as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT threaten or restrain or coerce Valley Sheet Metal Company or Stenmark Construction Company or any other employer where an object thereof is to force or require Cal-Neva to recognize or bargain with Local 16 as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees unless Local 16 has been certified as the representative of Cal-Neva's employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten or coerce or restrain Fischer Plumbing Company or Lyons Construction Company or Valley Sheet Metal Company or Stenmark Construction Company or any other employer where an object thereof is to force or require said employers to cease doing business with Cal-Neva. ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 16, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT& FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) r 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 Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " fi 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 " Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 13050 Federal Building, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation