205 N.L.R.B. 270 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

IBEW Local No. 3

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 6, 1973

205 N.L.R.B. 270 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No . 3, International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL-CIO (Eastern States Electrical Contractors, Inc.) and Diesel Construction , Division of Carl A. Morse, Inc. Case 2-CC-1257 August 6, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On April 30, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Fan- nie M. Boyls issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, and the Party-in-Interest, New York Tele- phone Company, filed a memorandum in opposition to the exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge I and to adopt her recommended Order as herein amended. The Respondent has excepted to the Administra- tive Law Judge's Order requiring it to mail a copy of the Board's notice to each of its members. The Re- spondent contends that such individual mailings to its 33,000 members is onerous; that it lacks the clerical staff to accomplish such mailing; that such mailing would only confuse its members by calling attention to the existence of a bylaw which is unknown to most of them; and that only approximately 100 of its mem- bers perform the kind of work involved herein. We agree with Respondent's contention. The Respondent suggested that it effectively communicates with its members via its semimonthly publication, "Electrical Union World," and would not be adverse to pub- lishing the notice therein. Accordingly, we shall revise our Order to provide that the Respondent shall notify its members of the Board's Decision by publishing the attached notice in a conspicuous place in its said semi- monthly publication. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent, Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Flushing, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Or- der, as so modified: Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a) of the recommended Order: "(a) Publish the complete text of the attached no- tice marked "Appendix" in a conspicuous place in its semimonthly publication, "Electrical Union World," and mail a copy of said publication to each member of Local 3 and post copies of said notice in conspicu- ous places in its business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by Local 3's representatives, shall be posted by it imme- diately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily displayed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 3 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material." 1 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge' s ultimate finding that the Respondent, by virtue of its bylaws, was responsible for inducing and en- couraging its members to walk off the job , we do so on the basis of all of the circumstances present herein , including, inter ala, the maintenance of the bylaws by Respondent, the longstanding jurisdictional dispute between the Respondent and CWA involving work of the New York Telephone Compa- ny, and the knowledge of the Respondent's steward and business agent of the walkout and their failure to make any attempts to prevent the walkout or to discipline the members after the walkout, as required by the Respondent's International constitution DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FANNIE M. BOYLS, Administrative Law Judge: This case was initiated by a charge filed on January 12, 1973, by Diesel Construction, Division of Carl A. Morse, Inc. (herein called Diesel), against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 3 or Respondent). The complaint, which was issued on February 7, 1973, alleges that Local 3 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging its members employed by Eastern States Elec- trical Contractors, Inc. (herein called Eastern States), to cease work on a building being constructed for New York Telephone Company (herein called Telco), and restraining and coercing Eastern States, an object being to force or require Eastern States, the general contractor, the owners of the building, Telco, and various subcontractors on the job- site to cease doing business with each other. Local 3 filed an answer, denying the commission of any unfair labor practice. The case was tried before me in New York, New York, 205 NLRB No. 51 IBEW LOCAL NO. 3 on February 26, 1973. At the hearing, pursuant to a stipula- tion of the parties, the transcript of testimony, exhibits, and pleadings in a related proceeding before Judge Charles L. Brieant of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were received in evidence and it was agreed that the record in that case would be considered by me along with the additional record made at the hearing before me, in reaching my decision herein. After the conclu- sion of the hearing, the General Counsel, Telco, and Local 3 filed helpful briefs. Upon the entire record in this case, including the record made before Judge Brieant, and after a careful consider- ation of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESSES OF THE EMPLOYERS Diesel, Telco, Eastern States, and Western Electric Com- pany, Inc. (herein called Western Electric), are New York corporations having offices and principal places of business in the Borough of Manhattan, city and State of New York. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, each had a gross revenue in excess of $1 million. During the same period, Diesel, which is engaged as a general contrac- tor in the construction industry, purchased and caused to be transported to its job projects in the State of New York materials and goods valued in excess of $50,000 from out- side the State of New York. During the same period, Telco, which is engaged in providing telephone service in the State of New York, purchased materials and goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from firms located outside the State of New York. During the same period, Western Elec- tric, which is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of telephone equipment, sold products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to firms located outside the State of New York. Also during the same period, Eastern States, which is engaged in business as an electrical contractor in the con- struction industry, purchased materials and goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from firms located outside the State of New York. Upon the basis of these facts, which are undisputed, I find that Diesel, Telco, Western Electric, and Eastern States, and each of them, are and have been at all times material herein employers and persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1), (2), (6), and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Respondent, Local 3, the recognized collective-bar- gaining representative for electricians employed by Eastern States, and Communication Workers of America, AFL- CIO (herein called CWA), the recognized collective-bar- gaining representative for various employees of Western Electric, are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Work in Dispute 271 This case arises out of a long-standing jurisdictional dis- pute between Local 3 and Telco as to whether employees represented by Local 3 or employees represented by CWA or some other labor organization are entitled to do certain work in connection with installing telephones in buildings being constructed for the use of Telco.' Telco, in this case, negotiated with Joseph F. Bernstein Company, Inc. (herein called Bernstein), owner of property at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, for the construction of a 42-story building in which Telco is to be the sole tenant. Bernstein assigned this contract to the 1095 Building Corpo- ration. Diesel, selected by Bernstein as the general contrac- tor for the job, subcontracted the electrical work for which it was responsible to Eastern States, which employed electri- cians represented by Local 3. Telco, however, contracted with its sister corporation, Western Electric,2 to perform that part of the electrical work involving the running of copper wire ducts to turbine engines in connection with the installation of an auxiliary or emergency backup power sys- tem for telephone services. This is the work in dispute. Eastern States president, Hoffman, early in 1972 ex- pressed to Telco's supervisory engineer, Pearson, his view that the work involving electrical connections to the genera- tors should be awarded to an electrical contractor. Pearson informed Hoffman, however, that a contract for that work had been awarded to Western Electric. By February 9, 1973, Telco had awarded 17 contracts to Western Electric for the installation of central office equipment in the building and Western Electric had submitted the specifications necessary for five more contracts. Western Electric did not employ any Local 3 electricians. i In Local 3, IBEW (N Y Telephone Co), 140 NLRB 729, enfd. 325 F.2d 561 (C A 2, 1963), the Board found that Local 3 had violated Sec 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act by conduct in protest against electrical work being assigned by the general contractor to members of a Hod Carvers local. In Local Union No 3, IBEW (Western Electric Co, Inc), 141 NLRB 888, the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dispute in a 10(k) proceed- ing, awarding certain preparatory and telephone installation work in the construction of a Centrex System in a new central office of Telco to employ- ees of a contractor, Western Electric, who were represented by CWA rather than to employees of another contractor, Diesel, who were represented by Local 3 The Board stated therein that its determination covered "assignment of work in issue here in any area served by Telco, where the geographical jurisdiction of CWA and Local 3 coincide " Subsequently, in Local 3, IBEW (Western Electric and Diesel), 144 NLRB 1318, enfd. 339 F 2d 145 (C A 2, 1964), the Board found that Local 3 had violated Sec. 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(D) in connection with conduct giving rise to the 10(k) proceeding mentioned above Finally in Local Union No 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Company), 193 NLRB 758, enfd 467 F 2d 1158 (C.A. 2, 1972), the Board again found Local 3 in violation of Sec 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) in connection with Local 3's conduct in protesting the assignment by Telco of disputed telephone installa- tion work on several construction projects to its own employees represented by CWA rather than to electrical contractors employing electricians repre- sented by Local 3 In each of these cases Local 3 had engaged in certain overt pressures against nonstriking employees or neutral employers such as re- quests, picketing, threats or violence The Board also found Local 3 to be in violation of Sec 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) in Local Union No 3, IBEW (N. Y Telephone Co), 197 NLRB 328, enfd 477 F.2d 260 (C A. 2, 1973), but Local 3's conduct in that case was in support of a strike by CWA members and was not to enforce a work jurisdictional claim. 2 Each is an affiliate of American Telephone and Telegraph Company 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Its employees assigned to do the auxiliary power system installation work were represented by CWA. Western Elec- tric contends that it has assigned CWA employees to do such work on at least four other projects, two of which have been completed. Local 3 contends that this type of work comes under its jurisdiction and that its members have al- ways done such work. No one has seen fit, as a result of Local 3's action hereinafter described, to file 8(b)(4)(D) charges with the Board and thereby permit the Board, in 10(k) proceedings, to decide this particular jurisdictional dispute. Local 3's bylaws, article XIII, section 12, provide: No member is to give away work coming under the jurisdiction of this Local, or to allow any other trades- men to do work coming under this Local's Jurisdiction. The bylaws do not in themselves prohibit work stoppages, but the International's constitution which binds the local prohibits locals from causing or allowing a work stoppage in any controversy of a general nature before obtaining the consent of the International's president (art. XVII, sec. 13) and characterizes as misconduct for which members may be penalized the causing of a stoppage of work because of any alleged grievance or dispute without having the consent of the Local or its proper officers (art. XXVII, Sec. 1). The collective-bargaining agreement between Local 3 and the electrical contractor associations representing East- ern States contains no provision prohibiting work stoppag- es. B. Local 3's Conduct Alleged to be Unlawful Local 3 electricians had been working for Eastern States off and on in the subbasement of the Telco office building for about 3 months prior to January 4, 1973. On or about January 2, General Contractor Diesel 's construction super- intendent , Citardi , informed Telco's supervising engineer that Diesel 's work in the turbine room of the subbasement had been completed . The engineer checked this space, ap- proved Diesel 's work , then notified Western Electric to pro- ceed with the work necessary to install the auxiliary backup power system . On January 3, Western Electric employees represented by CWA started moving equipment into the turbine room and truckers brought in cartons of conduit. On January 4, when Local 3 's 12 electricians reported for work , they found the door to the subbasement locked and learned that CWA members employed by Western Electric were inside doing the work which they considered within their jurisdiction . All of these Local 3 men except Arthur Schleger , the union steward , and two assistant foremen walked off the job. They asked Schleger to walk out with them but he declined to do so, explaining , according to his testimony , that he was representative of Local 3 , that he did not want to involve Local 3 or get it into trouble and that he would not leave the job unless ordered by Local 3 to do so. When the nine electricians walked out, Schleger called Union Business Agent Lombardi and reported what had happened. Lombardi responded that he was 68 years old, had applied for retirement, was going to Florida , and that Schleger "shouldn't bother him about the thing." Schleger took no further action. Diesel Construction Superindent Citardi, on the morning of January 4, sought out Schleger to ascertain the cause of the walkout and was told by Schleger that the men had walked out "because they claimed that the Western Electric has been and is going to do the electrical work in the turbine room." On the following day, Diesel, pretending not to know the cause of the walkout, sent Local 3 a telegram inquiring about the reason. Local 3 did not reply. Telco's contract labor supervisor, Breen , on January 4 asked one of the electrical assistant foremen, in Schleger's presence, for an explanation of the walkout and the assis- tant foreman told him, "Well, I believe it's because of the situation in the basement." Breen then telephoned Union Business Agent Lombardi about the matter and the latter said he would talk to the union steward and call Breen back. Lombardi, however, did not call back. Eastern States' president, Hoffman, learned about the walkout on January 4, in a conversation with one of the assistant foremen, and after consulting with his electrical foreman, who was absent because of illness, sought replace- ments from the manpower division of the joint industry board. That board, provided for in the bargaining agree- ment between Local 3 and three electrical contractor associ- ations in the New York City area, is composed of seven representatives from Local 3, of seven representatives from the electrical contractor associations, and of one person representing the public. The bargaining agreement does not purport to establish an exclusive hiring hall but Eastern States always obtains its electricians from that source. Some of the nine electricians who walked off the Telco job were assigned by Eastern States to other jobs for which Eastern States had contracts. There was a shortage of Local 3 journeymen electricians in the New York City area both before and after January 4 and it is a reasonable assumption that none of those who walked off had any difficulty in finding work elsewhere. None of them ever returned to the Telco jobsite. On January 9 the general contractor, Diesel, sent Eastern States a telegram warning that the latter would be held responsible for any costs incurred due to the lack of man- power. Eastern States replied by letter dated January 10 that it had done everything necessary and required to provide the job with manpower and therefore could not accept re- sponsibility for any delays and hardships to the owner. Schleger and the two assistant foremen who remained on the construction project confined their work, for the most part, to the maintenance of lights and power until more electricians were hired about February 8 and thereafter. On February 8, the day before the district court hearing on the General Counsel's application for a temporary injunction under Section 10 of the Act, five electricians were working on construction as well as maintenance work. On February 14 this number increased to 10 and it thereafter gradually increased to 16 by February 26, the date of the hearing before me and also the date upon which Federal District Court Judge Bneant handed down his decision, granting the General Counsel's application for a temporary injunction. At the time of the walkout of the nine Local 3 electricians, substantially more than the 12 men scheduled to work that day would have been needed but for the fact that an eleva- IBEW LOCAL NO. 3 tor constructors strike was in progress throughout the city which had interfered with work above the 20th floor at Telco's construction site. The strike ended in mid-January. Eastern States President Hoffman testified on February 9 that he could then use 30 or 40 electricians on the project, that on the preceding Monday, February 5, he had called for 10 from the manpower division of the joint industry board of the electrical industry, from which he obtains elec- tricians, and that only three or four electricians reported. Diesel's construction superintendent, Citardi, testified on February 26 that 40 or 50 more electricians were then need- ed on the job. According to Western Electric's project supervisor, Muehl, the walkout had no effect upon Western Electric's jobs then being installed but it would affect futurejobs and future contracts with Telco. At the time of the walkout the shell of the Telco building had been completed but most of the work in connection with partitioning the floor areas into rooms remained to be done. The services of electricians would, of course, be needed as that work progressed. C. Analysis and Conclusions This is the latest in a series of cases involving work juris- dictional disputes between two powerful entities in New York City-Telco and its sister coporation, Western Elec- tric, on the one side and Local 3 of IBEW on the other side. After 60 years of performing all the electrical work in con- nection with its installing telephones for Telco, Local 3 has not lightly surrendered its claim to any of such work, even after the Board in a 10(k) proceeding in 1963 awarded some of that work to employees of Western Electric who were represented by CWA 3 and in a number of other cases found Local 3 in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by reason of secondary boycott activities engaged in by it to enforce its jurisdictional claims. (See cases cited in fn. 1, supra.) Local 3 appears not yet ready to give up the struggle. Its argument that the walkout on January 4 of 9 of the 12 Local 3 electricians was the individual decision of the men, for which Local 3 is not responsible, may have some surface appeal , for it is true that their union steward refused to join them; that Local 3 made no overt demand, complaint or request of anyone; that no picketing occurred; that no threats were made; that no tradesmen except the 9 Local 3 men walked off and that they apparently obtained other assignments and never sought to return to the jobsite. Nev- ertheless , one cannot escape the conclusion that the men walked off their jobs when they found other tradesmen doing work which they considered as coming within the work jurisdiction of their own union because of the exis- tence of Local 3's bylaw which admonishes members not to give away work coming under Local 3's jurisdiction and not to allow other tradesmen to do the work. The record affords no other explanation for their action Was the continued maintenance by Local 3 of this provi- sion in its bylaws sufficient to hold Local 3 responsible for inducing and encouraging the walkout ? I am constrained to 7 Local Union No 3, IBEW (Western Electric), 141 NLRB 888 273 find that it was .4 As the Board stated as early as 1963 in Local 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Company), 140 NLRB 729, enfd. 325 F.2d 561 (C.A. 2, 1963), "The bylaw itself constituted an `inducement ' or `encouragement ' to the ac- tion." My conclusion that Local 3 is responsible for the action taken by the nine electricians is, moreover, buttressed by the fact that it took no action to discipline the men and seek to get them back on their jobs as required by the Union's constitution and bylaws where unauthorized work stoppages occur. Union Steward Schleger's refusal to join the men in the walkout was only a transparent device to seek to relieve his local of responsibility from which it cannot escape while maintaining the bylaw which caused the walk- out. It is well settled, moreover, that a complete stoppage of work is not necessary to show unlawful restraint or a "cease doing business" object within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. N L.R.B. v. Local 825, Operating Engi- neers, 400 U.S. 297, 304-305 (1971); Local 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Company), 140 NLRB 729, enfd. 325 F.2d 561 (C.A. 2). The enforcement by a union of a bylaw which obligates members not to permit their own employers to assign to other tradesmen employed by him work falling within the work jurisdiction claimed by the union would not appear to be in violation of the Act.5 The bylaw here in issue, however, is so broadly worded as to obligate Local 3 members not to permit any other tradesmen to perform work within their claimed jurisdiction irrespective of the employer for whom such other tradesmen may be working. Obedience to the bylaw in situations such as that here presented therefore necessarily induces and encourages employees to refuse to perform services or to take other proscribed action with an object of forcing or requiring persons to cease doing busi- ness with other persons within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. This is not to say that the maintenance of the bylaw is in itself a violation. Rather, it constitutes the inducement and encouragement element of the 8(b)(4) violation which oc- curs when members, acting in obedience to the bylaw, cease their work for a proscribed object. Joliet Contractors Associ- ation v. N.L.R.B., 202 F.2d 606, 612 (C.A. 7, 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 824 (1953). For the foregoing reasons, it is found that Local 3 induced and encouraged its members to engage in a strike or to cease in the course of their employment to perform services for Eastern States, and restrained and coerced Eastern States, with whom Local 3 had no dispute, an object being to force and require Eastern States, Diesel, 1095 Building Corpora- tion, Bernstein, Telco, Western Electric, and other contrac- tors at the jobsite to cease doing business with each other. Local 3 therefore violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Local 3 suggested at the hearing and in its brief that the failure of any of the interested parties to invoke the 4 The Supreme Court concluded in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v NLRB, 341 U S 694, 701 (1951 ), that "the words `induce or encourage ' are broad enough to include in them every form of influence and persuasion " See also , N L R B v Local Union No 3, IBEW, 477 F 2d 260 (C A 2, 1973), enfg 197 NLRB 328 5 National Woodwork Manufacturers 'Association v N L R B, 386 U.S 612 (1967) 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k) provisons of the Act and thereby per- mit the Board to determine the merits of the jurisdictional dispute warrants a dismissal of the 8(b)(4)(B) complaint. Its argument is that although Section 8(b)(4)(D) and 8(b)(4)(B) are not mutually exclusive and the same conduct may be found to be a violation of both provisions (N.L.R.B. v. Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers (Burns and Roe, Inc), 400 U.S. 297 (1971), nevertheless, there should be an accommodation of those two provisions so that if Section 8(b)(4)(D) is found not to have been violated by reason of pressures exerted against secondary employers, the Board should not find the same conduct to be in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B). That appears to have been the view of Board Member Fanning in his dissenting opinion in Local 5, United Association of Journeymen, etc. (Arthur Venneri Company), 137 NLRB 828, 834-836, enfd. as modified 321 F.2d 366 (C.A.D.C., 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 921 (1963). He considers the Board's recent decision in Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Company, 198 NLRB No. 18, that it would not find an 8(a)(3) violation by reason of an employer's dis- charge of employees as a result of a genuine work jurisdic- tion dispute, which the Board, in a Section 10(k) proceeding, had decided in favor of the discharged employees, as a vindication of his views expressed in the Venneri case 6 I must reject Local 3's suggestion, however, for I am bound by the views of the Board majority, which, with court ap- proval, has continued to reject a similar suggestion and has found an 8(b)(4)(B) violation where no 8(b)(4)(D) charge has been filed. See, e .g., Local 3, IBEW (New York Tele- phone Company), 140 NLRB 729, enfd. 325 F.2d 561 (C.A. 2, 1963) and Local Union No. 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Company), 193 NLRB 758, enfd. 467 F.2d 1158 (C.A. 2, 1972). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By inducing and encouraging its members employed by Eastern States to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, and re- straining and coercing Eastern States, with an object of forcing or requiring Eastern States, Diesel, 1095 Building Corporation, Bernstein , Telco, Western Electric and other contractors at the Telcojobsite to cease doing business with each other, the Respondent, Local 3, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6 The Board had earlier, in Local 502, International Hod Carriers, etc (Cement Work Inc), 140 NLRB 694, declined to find a violation of Sec 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act prior to a resolution of a work jurisdiction dispute giving rise to the union's alleged unfair labor practices THE REMEDY Since it has been found that Local 3 's bylaw obligating its members not to permit other tradesmen to perform work within the Local 's claimed jurisdiction stands as the "in- ducement and encouragement " element of unlawful sec- ondary boycott activities of its members seeking to protect jurisdictional claims, the remedial order in this case would be no more effective than most of the other remedial orders in 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) cases against Local 3 unless the order addresses itself to the use by Local 3 of that bylaw . It would not be appropriate to order an elimination of the bylaw or even a revision of it , for clearly Local 3 may , without violat- ing the Act , apply it to encourage the employers of its mem- bers not to employ other tradesmen to do work claimed by Local 3 . The bylaw, as it stands , may also, it would seem, be implemented by a refusal of Local 3 to refer members to employers , and a refusal of members to accept offers of jobs with employers , whose contracts or subcontracts exclude types of work claimed by Local 3 as falling within its juris- diction . This would appear to be the holding of the Board and the court in Glaziers ' Union Local 27, etc., 99 NLRB 1391, 1392- 1393, and Joliet Contractors Association v. N.L.R.B., 202 F .2d at 612 (C.A. 7, 1963). My recommended Order will , however, require Local 3 to cease and desist from applying its bylaws in such a manner as to induce or encourage its members to engage in unlawful secondary boycott activities , in support of its work jurisdic- tional claims at the Telco jobsite Local 3 will also be re- quired , by the posting of an appropriate notice , as well as by mailing a notice to each of its members, to inform its members that nothing in its bylaws is intended to suggest or require that any member refuse in the course of his employ- ment to perform services because work within Local 3's claimed jurisdiction is assigned to or being performed by other tradesmen or other persons not in the employ of his own employer or over whom his own employer has no con- trol. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Local No. 555 (Clark Brothers Transfer Co. and Coffey's Transfer Co.), 262 F .2d 456 , 463-464 (C.A.D.C., 1958); J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc v. N.L. R B., 380 F . 2d 292 (C.A. 2, 1967). Moreover , because of the repeated instances in which the Board has found Local 3 to have engaged in unlawful sec- ondary boycott activities in connection with attempting to enforce its work jurisdictional claims on construction pro- jects for Telco occupancy , and the past ineffectiveness of Board and court orders in those cases in preventing further similar violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii )(B) of the Act, my recommended Order will require Local 3 to cease and desist from in any other manner engaging in unlawful sec- ondary boycott pressures to enforce its work jurisdiction claims on projects occupied or to be occupied by Telco. Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act , I hereby issue the following recommended: IBEW LOCAL NO. 3 ORDER? Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers, AFL-CIO, and its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Applying its bylaws in such a manner as to induce or encourage any member employed by Eastern States Electri- cal Contractors, Inc , or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to perform any services, or in such a manner as to restrain or coerce Eastern States or any other person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require Eastern States, Diesel Construction, Division of Carl A. Morse, Inc., 1095 Building Corporation, Joseph F Bernstein Company, Inc., New York Telephone Company, Western Electric Compa- ny, Incorporated, and other subcontractors on thejobsite at 1095 Avenue of the Americas in New York City, to cease doing business with each other. (b) In any other manner inducing or encouraging any member employed by a person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in action pro- scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (u)(B) of the Act in connec- tion with enforcing a work jurisdictional claim involving work in or on any building occupied by or to be occupied by New York Telephone Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix" to each member of Local 3 and post copies of said notice in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are custom- arily posted.8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by Local 3's representatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily displayed. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by Local 3 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail copies of said notices to the Regional Director for posting by Eastern States Electrical Contrac- tors, Inc. and by Joint Industry Board, if they are willing, at places where notices to their employees or Local 3 mem- bers are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Local 3 has taken to comply herewith. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 8 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 275 WE WILL NOT apply our bylaws in such a manner as to induce or encourage any member employed by East- ern States Electrical Contractors, Inc. or any other per- son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to perform any service, or in such a manner as to restrain or coerce Eastern States or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require Eastern States, Diesel Construction, Division of Carl A. Morse, Inc., 1095 Building Corporation, Joseph F. Bernstein Com- pany, Inc., New York Telephone Company, Western Electric Company, Incorporated, and any other sub- contractors on thejobsite at 1095 Avenue of the Ameri- cas in New York City, to cease doing business with each other. WE WILL NOT in any other manner induce or encour- age any member employed by a person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to en- gage in action proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(1) or (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act in connection with enforcing a work jurisdictional claim involving work in or on any building occupied by or to be occu- pied by New York Telephone Company. We hereby notify each of our members that no provi- sion in our bylaws is intended to suggest or require that any member refuse, in the course of his employment, to perform any services because work falling within our claimed jurisdiction is assigned to or being performed by other tradesmen or other persons not in the employ of your own employer or over whom he has no control. LOCAL UNION No 3, INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Telephone 212 -264-0306.