Electrical Workers Local 98 (Total Cabling Specialists)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 2003

339 N.L.R.B. 470 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 470
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 98 (Total Cabling Specialists, Inc.) and
Communications Workers of America, Local
13000. Case 4–CD–1071–1
June 30, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On March 6, 2003, Administrative Law Judge Joel P.
Biblowitz issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General
Counsel and Charging Party filed answering briefs, and
the Respondent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions1 and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 98, AFL–CIO, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Order.

William Slack Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jonathan Greystone, Esq. (Margolis Edeldstein), for Total
Cabling Specialists.
William Josem, Esq. (Cleary & Josem LLP), for the Respon-
dent.
Charles Szymanski, Esq. (Markowitz and Richman), for the
Charging Party.

1 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s finding that the Respondent
violated Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) by engaging in coercive conduct with an
object of forcing General Dynamics Government Systems Corporation
and/or Total Cabling Specialists, Inc. to reassign voice and data cable
work to employees represented by the Respondent.
2 We agree with the judge that a broad cease-and-desist order against
the Respondent is warranted based on its violation of Sec.
8(b)(4)(ii)(D) in this case, its violation of Sec. 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) in
Electrical Workers Local 98 (Telephone Man), 327 NLRB 593 (1999),
and its conduct in the prior 10(k) cases relied on by the judge. Accord-
ingly, we find it unnecessary to pass on whether a broad order would be
warranted based solely on the Respondent’s conduct in those prior
10(k) cases.
In adopting the judge’s recommendation of the broad order against
the Respondent, we do not rely on his discussion of the judge’s deci-
sion in Electrical Workers Local 98 (MCF Services, Inc.), JD–52–00
(2000), as that case is pending before the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL P. BIBLOWITZ, Administrative law Judge. This case was
heard by me on January 27, 2003, in Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania. The complaint herein, which issued on October 1, 2002,
and was based upon an unfair labor practice charge that was
filed on September 21, 2001,1 by Communications Workers of
America, Local 13000 (CWA) alleges that International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, Local 98 (Respondent and/or
Local 98) violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act by
threatening an agent of General Dynamics Government Sys-
tems Corporation (GDGSC) and thereby has induced and en-
couraged an individual employed by GDGSC to refuse to per-
form services at the jobsite and has threatened, coerced, and
restrained GDGSC, with an object of forcing GDGSC or Total
Cabling Specialists, Inc. (TCS), to assign certain work to Re-
spondent’s members, rather than to TCS’s employees who were
members of, and were represented by, CWA.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent admits, and I find, that GDGSC and TCS are
each employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that it and CWA are each la-
bor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE FACTS
The issue herein relates to work being performed at the Pub-
lic Ledger Building (the facility) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In about August, the General Service Administration (GSA)
contracted with GDGSC to perform voice and cable data work
at three office suites at the facility. GDGSC, in turn, subcon-
tracted this work to TCS, whose employees are represented by
the CWA. The individuals involved in this matter are Christo-
pher Martinez, telecommunications specialist for GDGSC,
James Chaney, Martinez’ superior at GDGSC, James Mengel,
who is employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services as an executive officer in the office of the regional
director and, at times, acting regional director, and Raymond
Della Vella, an organizer for the Respondent.
By Decision and Determination of Dispute dated September
12, 2002, at 337 NLRB No. 188, involving the situation herein,
the Board found, inter alia:

1. Employees of Total Cabling Specialists, Inc. repre-
sented by Communications Workers of America, Local
13000, are entitled to perform voice and data cable work at
the Public Ledger Building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and wherever the jurisdictions of Local 13000 and Local
98 coincide.
1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to herein relate to the
year 2001.
339 NLRB No. 68
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 98 (TOTAL CABLING SPECIALISTS) 471
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 98, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Total Communications Sys-
tems, Inc. to assign the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by it.

During the period involved herein, Martinez’ employment
with GDGSC was at the facility, where he maintained an office.
His job, at that time, was to coordinate with, and oversee the
work of the TCS employees at the office suites involved herein.
In fact, he had recommended that TCS obtain the work because
he had a friend who was employed by TCS. TCS, which began
performing the work at the facility in about mid-August, had
two employees at the facility performing the work pursuant to
its subcontract from GDGSC. Martinez testified that on about
August 26, while he was at the facility going to one of the
suites where the work was being performed, he was stopped by
Della Vella, who asked him who was doing the work there.2
Martinez responded by saying, “[W]e were.” Della Vella then
asked if he had the required permits and Martinez said that he
wasn’t sure. Della Vella said that he was from licensing and
inspection and he was wondering if they had the required per-
mits. Martinez said that was something that his boss would
have to straighten out, and they went to Martinez’ office. Mar-
tinez went into his office and he asked Della Vella and his as-
sociate to wait outside. Martinez called Chaney and told him
that a union representative was questioning him about permits,
and Chaney said that he should tell Della Vella to call him. He
went outside his office to tell Della Vella to call Chaney, but he
saw him walking down the hall into Mengel’s office. When he
got to Mengel’s office, Della Vella and his associate were
seated at a conference table with Mengel. When Martinez en-
tered the room, Mengel left. Della Vella asked him why they
weren’t using union labor on the jobs and Martinez said that
they were using union labor, the CWA. Della Vella said, “Well,
we don’t recognize them as a union.” He also said that Local 98
wanted the work, and by the time he was done, he would be
running the city of Philadelphia. Martinez laughed and Della
Vella said that if he wanted to play that game, “it would get
rough, and that he knew where I lived out in [Royersford].”
Martinez laughed and said, “Go ahead, it’s an old address.”3
Della Vella said, “We’ll see,” and Martinez gave him Chaney’s
telephone number, and he left.
Mengel testified that on August 26, while he was in his of-
fice at the facility, Della Vella and his associate came into his
office. Della Vella said that, as far as he was concerned, there
was a problem with the job that was being performed in his
office. Mengel asked what he meant, and Della Vella said that

2 Martinez testified that Della Vella “basically represented himself
from . . .” the city’s Licensing and Inspection Department, although he
also testified that Della Vella gave him his card, which identified him
as an organizer for Local 98. This same issue arose in the 10(k) hearing
on November 28, 2001. At that time, Martinez testified that Della Vella
asked to see the permits and when Martinez asked who he was, he said,
“‘Well, my name is Ray Della Vella from Licenses and Inspections,’
but the weird thing is he handed me a Local 98 card.”
3 In about 1994 or 1995, when Martinez was a member of Local 98,
he lived in Royersford.
the cable work being performed at the offices required permits
that had not been granted and that there could be safety issues.
That the union performing the work should not be doing it, and
that the work should be stopped and that he reserved the right
to either protest or notify Bob Brady, the congressman repre-
senting the district, and other “political people” regarding the
work. Mengel told Della Vella that he would contact the appro-
priate person and would give Della Vella his name. Mengel
testified that the tone of this conversation was “superficially
affable.” Sometime during this discussion, Martinez came into
the office and Mengel did not want to be in a situation with
both sides at the same time, so he asked Martinez to wait, and
he would speak to him later.
Della Vella testified that on about August 27 he received a
telephone call stating that cabling work was being performed at
the facility. He went to the facility with an associate, Larry Del
Spechio, “to insure that area wages were met, benefit standards.
Check for license and permits and make sure that the playing
field is kept level . . . it’s been my experience that contractors
who don’t obtain the necessary license and permits usually are
not living up to the area wages and standards and are breaking
the law.” He went to the fourth floor of the facility and saw
Martinez. They exchanged greetings, he said that he was from
Local 98, and gave Martinez his business card. He asked Mar-
tinez if he was working on a project on the floor and Martinez
said that he was in charge of the project. Martinez gave some
initials for the name of the contractor, but Della Vella could not
recollect what they were. Della Vella asked him if a permit had
been obtained for the job and Martinez said that the permits
were in his office. As they were walking to his office, Martinez
said that he was a former member of Local 98, but that they had
“fucked him.” Del Spechio asked him what happened, but Mar-
tinez never really responded. Martinez went into his office,
while they waited outside. After waiting for a couple of min-
utes, they decided that Martinez wasn’t going to come out of
his office and they went to the office where the job was being
performed, at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
where they met Mengel. Della Vella was questioned by counsel
for the General Counsel as to why he spoke to Mengel, the
tenant at the facility:

Q. Why did you want to talk to the tenant?
A. To inform them that the permits weren’t posted,
that we didn’t see no [sic] permits on the site and that we
believed that the work that was being performed in there
was being performed illegally.
Q. You had no reason to think that the United States
Department of Health and Human Services was actually
doing the work, did you?
A. We felt that they had contracted to do that work.
Q. But they weren’t actually doing it, right?
A. No, they weren’t doing it.
Q. So they would have had no reason to get the per-
mits; is that true?
A. No.
Q. So why did you feel it was necessary for you to
speak to them about why permits were necessary?
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 472
A. Because most clients want the work performed in
their space or leased areas to be in compliance with the lo-
cal codes and ordinances, so we felt that that was a direct
concern to them.
Q. What were you hoping that individual you spoke to,
Mr. Mengel, would do?
A. I was hoping that he would make whoever was per-
forming the work obtain the necessary permits.

At some point Martinez walked into the conference room, and
Della Vella told Mengel: “Our conversation does not concern
him. Our meeting is not with him, it’s with you.” Mengel asked
Martinez to leave, which he did. Della Vella explained to
Mengel that cabling work such as was being performed at the
facility required certain permits from the city. Mengel said that
he had no responsibility for contracting, but that he would ob-
tain the name of somebody from GSA for Della Vella to speak
to. Mengel gave him the name of an individual from GSA
whom Della Vella called. Della Vella testified that he never
told Mengel that he would protest to Congressman Brady. He
testified further that he never told Martinez that Local 98 did
not recognize the CWA, that it runs the city, or words to the
effect, or that he knew where Martinez lived. Finally, Della
Vella testified that he does not recall whether he told Mengel
that he reserved the right to protest.
Chaney testified that on about August 27, he received a call
from Martinez saying that he had been approached “in a hostile
manner” by a union representative who wanted to know why
the IBEW was not performing the work at the facility.4 He told
Martinez to have him call him, and Della Vella called him
shortly thereafter. After identifying himself, Della Vella said
that Chaney was required to use an IBEW contractor. Chaney
said that they were using a union contractor that met the Fed-
eral pay scale requirements. Della Vella said that wasn’t suffi-
cient, that low voltage permits were required, and only an
IBEW licensed electrician could obtain the permits. Chaney
said that he had no contacts with IBEW contractors, and Della
Vella offered to send him a list of such contractors. By letter
dated August 28, Della Vella wrote to Chaney: “As per our
conversation, the following is a list of contractors who would
be interested in doing your voice and tele-data work.” Three
area contractors, whose employees are represented by Local 98,
are listed. Della Vella testified that he told Chaney that the
work that was being performed at the facility required a permit
from the city of Philadelphia, and that only a licensed electri-
cian could obtain such a permit. He never told Chaney that only
a licened IBEW electrician could obtain the permit. Chaney
told him that he would look into it. Chaney asked him for a “list
of contractors that were in compliance with the local ordi-
nances” and that is why he sent him the August 28 letter.
Chaney then called Evan Mandras, operations manager for TCS
and asked him to verify whether permits were needed for the
work at the facility and, if so, to obtain the permits. About 2
weeks later, Mandras called him and told him that they had
obtained the permits and work at the facility resumed.

4 This testimony was objected to as hearsay, and was not admitted
for the truth of what Martinez told Chaney.
Work resumed on about September 17 and, on about that
day, Martinez saw Della Vella at the facility near Mengel’s
office. He testified that Della Vella referred to him as “[h]is
buddy, Chris.” Martinez said that he wasn’t his buddy and “I
just kind of rubbed it in that it must really hurt that we got the
permits we needed to get this job done, and that he wouldn’t be
doing any of the work here.” Della Vella responded by saying
that it would hurt when he bashed in his fucking head. Martinez
laughed and walked away.5 Della Vella testified that he re-
turned to the facility on September 18 or 19 looking for per-
mits. While he was on his cell phone, Martinez interrupted him
by saying that it must hurt that they got the permits and were
performing the work. He told Martinez to go fuck himself; he
did not threaten to bash his head.
Chaney testified that on September 17 or 18 he received a
call from Martinez saying that he had been “confronted” by
Local 98 representatives, and he told Martinez to have them
call him. Shortly thereafter, he received a call from Della Vella,
who said that “the permit was not valid because it was not ob-
tained and being worked by IBEW employees, or IBEW repre-
sented employees.” Chaney told Della Vella that as long as they
had the permits they were within the requirements, and that
they were proceeding with the work. Della Vella told him that
they would not finish the job unless they used IBEW people,
and that the permit would be rescinded. Della Vella testified
that he never made these statements to Chaney.
In fact, the permit was rescinded. Della Vella was correct;
the work being performed did require a permit from the city.
After the work stopped at the end of August because of Della
Vella’s discussions with Martinez and Chaney, TCS obtained a
permit for the job through John Glenn, a licensed electrical
contractor, on about September 17. Della Vella testified that the
Electrical Code prohibits a licensed electrical contractor from
obtaining a permit for a third party, when the licensee is not
actually performing the work. Della Vella met with Glenn, who
did not testify. Glenn said that he had been paid $1000 for the
permit and that he was not working at the facility. In addition to
attempting to get Glenn to sign a contract with Local 98, he
showed Glenn the Code, and Glenn said that he didn’t want to
jeopardize his license, and he rescinded the permit he had ob-
tained for the work at the facility. At the time, the work was
about 60-percent complete. Shortly thereafter, GDGSC re-
quested bids on the job from IBEW contractors, chose Land
Connect, and they completed the work at the facility.
IV. ANALYSIS
This is an easy credibility determination. Martinez, Chaney,
and Mengel each testified to threats that Della Vella made to
them. Della Vella denies threatening Martinez and Chaney, and
testified that he does not recall whether he threatened Mengel
with protests. Chaney and Mengel were clearly credible and
believable witnesses who had no reason to testify to anything
5 In an affidavit given to the Board on October 16, 2001, Martinez
stated that in this conversation, he told Della Vella that they would give
the work on one of the suites to a Local 98 contractor, but Della Vella
screamed that he wanted all of the work. At the 10(k) hearing he testi-
fied that, although there was talk of giving one suite to a Local 98 con-
tractor, he never communicated that to a representative of Local 98.
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 98 (TOTAL CABLING SPECIALISTS) 473
but the truth. Mengel had no interest in who performed the
work and Chaney had completed the project with an employer
whose employees were represented by the Respondent. Al-
though there were some minor discrepancies between Martinez’
testimony herein and his earlier testimony at the 10(k) hearing
and an affidavit given to the Board, that can be explained by the
fact that the incidents occurred about 1-1/2 years ago. In addi-
tion, Martinez’ admission that his “razzing” of Della Vella on
September 17 preceded Della Vella’s threat to him reinforces
his credibility. Further, as he was terminated by GDGSC he
would have no reason to want to aid the Company. On the other
hand, Della Vella, who did not testify at the 10(k) hearing, was
a witness whose testimony was simply not believable. The
essence of his testimony was that he was at the facility to “level
the playing field” and, apparently, he felt that it was his civic
duty to ensure that the city’s building code was not compro-
mised. Even if that were true, he could not satisfactorily explain
why he threatened Mengel with possible protests. Mengel was
the acting director of the U.S. Department of Health and Hu-
man Services who, obviously, had no interest in which union
was performing the work in his office. In addition, Della Vella
and Local 98 have a long history of using threats to obtain work
that they want to obtain from others. Electrical Workers Local
98 (Swartley Bros. Engineering), 337 NLRB 1270 (2002), and
the cases cited therein. In addition, Administrative Law Judge
George Aleman issued a decision involving Local 98 and MCF
Services, Inc., T/A State Electric on June 23, 2000, where he
found that Local 98 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (4)(B) of
the Act. In the course of that decision, he found certain uncon-
tradicted statements that were made by Della Vella that are
similar to the statements he is alleged to have made herein: that
the objected-to employer “was in violation of City codes, did
not have proper permits and licenses, had not paid its business
privilege or city wage taxes and was generally a substandard
employer;” that he “had tried to be nice,” but that “we can
come back, not just the two of us, but en masse, but that’s not a
threat;” and there was “no way, no fucking thing’s coming in
and out of this building.” For all of these reasons, I credit the
testimony of Martinez, Chaney and Mengel over that of Della
Vella.
Under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act it is unlawful for a un-
ion

(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individ-
ual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or re-
fusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials or commodities or to perform
any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any per-
son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where in either case an object thereof is—
(D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign par-
ticular work to employees in a particular labor organiza-
tion or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to
employees in another labor organization or in another
trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to
conform to an order or certification of the Board determin-
ing the bargaining representative for employees perform-
ing such work.

In other words, under (ii) it is unlawful for a union to “coerce”
an employer with an object of forcing the employer to assign
work to employees in a particular union rather than to another
group of employees. Laborers Local 190 (ACMAT Corp.), 306
NLRB 93, 95 (1992), states: “In order to constitute a violation
of the Act, the Respondent must have communicated a ‘threat
of illegal conduct.’ Longshoremen ILWU Locals 40 & 8 (STC
Submarine), 299 NLRB 203 fn. 2 (1990).” Teamsters Local 82
(Champion Exposition), 292 NLRB 794 fn. 6 (1989), stated that
“the critical considerations are the specific language used and
surrounding conduct and events.” Subjective interpretation of
the statements are not determinative. The credited testimony
establishes that Della Vella told Martinez that Local 98 did not
recognize CWA as a union and that Local 98 wanted the work
and that by the time he was done they would be running the
city. When Martinez laughed, Della Vella told him that if he
wanted to play that game, he knew where Martinez lived. On
about August 27, Della Vella told Chaney that only a Local 98
contractor could obtain the required permits for the job; on
about September 18, after TCS obtained the permit for the job,
Della Vella told Chaney that the permit was not valid because it
had not been obtained by a Local 98 contractor and that they
would not finish the job unless they used IBEW people. In
addition, Della Vella told Mengel that if the work being per-
formed by TCS was not stopped, he reserved the right to pro-
test. I find that under the cases cited above, these statements
clearly represented threats that Local 98 would engage in pro-
scribed conduct at the facility in order to obtain the work.
The Respondent defends that Della Vella’s actions herein
were solely limited to ensuring that the proper permits be ob-
tained and that initially there was no permit and the permit that
was subsequently obtained was inadequate because the licensee
was not working on the job. However, I find that Della Vella’s
interest in the permit for the job was a transparent excuse for
his real purpose, to get the work transferred to Local 98 mem-
bers. In United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers Local 30 v.
NLRB, 1 F.3d 1419, 1424 (3d Cir. 1993), the court stated:

The law is clear that a single unlawful objective, even if it ac-
companies other lawful objectives, is sufficient to make pick-
eting unlawful under the Act. Thus the issue is not whether
Local 30’s professed purpose of protesting the perceived area
standards violation is supported by the evidence, but whether
the Board’s finding that the picketing had an unlawful objec-
tive, even if not the sole objective, of seeking the reassign-
ment of the work, is supported by substantial evidence on the
record as a whole. [Citations omitted.]

In that same case, the Board, at 307 NLRB 1429 (1992), stated:
“It is well settled that picketing falls within the scope of Section
8(b)(4)(D) so long as one object is to coerce an employer to
assign work to employees represented by a particular union
rather than to employees in another union.” I cite these cases
even though I find that the only object behind Della Vella’s
actions at the facility was to force GDGSC and/or TCS to as-
sign the work at the facility to members of Local 98, rather than
to CWA members. I therefore find by these actions the Re-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 474
spondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act. However,
as there is no evidence that the Respondent spoke to any em-
ployees of TCS to induce them to stop performing the work at
the facility, I recommend that the allegation that the Respon-
dent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(D) of the Act be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. GDGSC and TCS are each employers engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Respondent and CWA are each labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By Della Vella’s actions in August and September, the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.
4. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(D) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged herein, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive actions designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. In
that regard, I note that this Respondent, by Della Vella and
others, has engaged in similar conduct on a regular basis. In a
summary of the Respondent’s “rap sheet” up until that time, the
Board, in Electrical Workers Local 98 (Swartley Bros. Engi-
neering), 337 NLRB at 1273 fn. 7, stated:

In this regard, we note not only that the record in this case
supports the conclusion that Local 98 has a proclivity to en-
gage in wrongful conduct in order to obtain disputed work,
but also that the record in other recent cases before the Board
underscores this as well. See, e.g., Electrical Workers Local
98 (General Dynamics, Inc.), 337 NLRB [1275] (2002); Elec-
trical Workers Local 98 (NFF Construction, Inc.), 332 NLRB
[1262] (2000); Electrical Workers Local 98 (Honeywell, Inc.),
332 NLRB [526] (2000); Electrical Workers Local 98
(AIMM, Inc.), 331 NLRB 1075 (2000); Electrical Workers
Local 98 (Kastle Security), 324 NLRB 728 (1997); Electrical
Workers Local 98 (LaSalle University), 324 NLRB 540
(1997); Electrical Workers Local 98 (Lucent Technologies),
324 NLRB 226 (1997) (Board issues broad area wide award
against Local 98 because of likelihood of dispute’s recurrence
and union’s proclivity to violate the Act).
We further note that on July 1, 2002, the Board de-
cided to pursue civil contempt proceedings against both
Local 98 and Della Vella as a result of the conduct under-
lying the dispute in the instant case. In a separate case is-
sued 3 years ago, the Board found that Local 98 violated
Sec. 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act at several construc-
tion sites in the Philadelphia area. Electrical Workers Lo-
cal 98 (Telephone Man); 327 NLRB 593 (1999). In that
case, the Board adopted the judge’s conclusion that Local
98’s “unlawful actions toward 10 separate neutral employ-
ers in a 19-month period, involving picketing, threats to
picket, and work stoppages at six locations in the Phila-
delphia area, demonstrates [Local 98’s] proclivity for vio-
lating the Act and its general disregard for the fundamental
rights of employees and neutral employers.” 327 NLRB at
602. The Board determined that a broad cease and desist
order was warranted in that case. On September 29, 2000,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the third Circuit issued its
judgment enforcing the Board’s order by default. One year
later, the court of appeals issued a consent order which
broadly prohibits Local 98 from violating Sec. 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act. The Board has now determined that
Local 98’s conduct underlying the instant case is in direct
contempt of the Third Circuit’s 2001 consent order, and
will pursue civil contempt proceedings accordingly.

In addition, Judge Aleman, in his decision, recommended
that a broad order be issued against the Respondent. He dis-
cussed the Board’s broad cease-and-desist order against the
Respondent in Telephone Man, supra, and stated: “As evident
by its conduct here, Local 98 has not changed its ways. Indeed,
Local 98 has, by its conduct herein, demonstrated a deliberate
and near contemptuous disregard for the Board’s processes and
remedial orders, and has again shown its proclivity to violate”
the Act.
Even after the Board and the judges’ decisions herein, Della
Vella and the Respondent continue to flout the law and existing
Board and court Orders. As Judge Aleman stated, the Respon-
dent appears to have a contemptuous disregard for the Board’s
processes and orders. In the numerous cases cited above over
the prior 6 years, the Board has ordered the Respondent to
cease and desist from engaging in wrongful conduct in order to
obtain disputed work, and the record establishes that Della
Vella engaged in that same conduct herein for the same pur-
pose. One can only assume that the Respondent will continue to
engage in these activities in the absence of an unusual and ef-
fective remedy. As I have no authority to grant any extraordi-
nary remedy herein, one that would effectively convince the
Respondent that it can no longer engage in this type of activity,
the strongest remedy within my discretion is a broad cease and
desist order enjoining the Respondent from the commission of
similar illegal actions, not only with respect to GDGSC and
TCS, but also with reference to any other employer, and that is
what I recommend herein. Operating Engineers Local 450
(Industrial Painters & Sandblasters), 117 NLRB 1301, 1302
(1957); Carpenters (Wendnagel & Co.), 119 NLRB 1444, 1448
(1958).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 98, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining
General Dynamics Government Systems Corporation, Total
Cabling Specialists, Inc., or any other person or employer en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,

6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 98 (TOTAL CABLING SPECIALISTS) 475
where an object of its actions is to force or require the employer
to assign voice and data cable work to the Respondent’s mem-
bers, rather than to its own employees who are not members of
the Respondent, unless and until Respondent is certified by the
Board as the bargaining representative of the employees per-
forming such work.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
union office copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”7
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 4, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies
of the notice for posting by General Dynamics Government
Systems Corporation and Total Cabling Specialists, Inc., if
willing, at all places where notices to employees are customar-
ily posted.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(i)(D) of the Act.

7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with
your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce or restrain General Dynamics
Government Systems Corporation, Total Cabling Specialists,
Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce with an object
of forcing any such employer to assign voice and data cable
work to our members.
WE WILL comply with the Board’s Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, which issued on September 12, 2002, which
awarded all voice and data cabling work performed by Total
Cabling Specialists, Inc. to Communications Workers of Amer-
ica, Local 13000, and which prohibited us from attempting to
obtain this work by means proscribed by the Act.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL 98