Int'l Brotherhood Electrical Workers, Local 11

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1173 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 1173
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, United
Bakery and Confectionery Workers, Local 441, Retail, Wholesale & Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily
discharging or refusing to reinstate employees, or by discrimination against them
in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Nonnia Bell immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and will make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered
as a result of the discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
NOTE.-In the event the above-named employee is presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States we will notify him of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
WHITFIELD PICKLE COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
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 employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone
No. 529-2411, Extension 6396, if they have any questions concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , Local 11, AFL-
CIO; 1 Building Trades Council of Long Beach , AFL-CIO I
(T. A. Thornburgh Co.; 3 Ben J. Hughes, Inc.4) and John Berry.
Case No. 21-CB-2318. July 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 9,1965, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that Respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
i Hereinafter also referred to as IBEW.
a Hereinafter also referred to as BTC.
$ Hereinafter also referred to as Thornburgh.
* Hereinafter also referred to as Hughes.
153 NLRB No. 67.
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the IBEW and BTC filed exceptions to the
Decision and supporting briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings made
by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of
the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith.
As noted more fully in the Trial Examiner's Decision, Thornburgh,
the general contractor, was a member of the Building Contractors
Association and, as such, was bound by a master agreement containing
a subcontracting clause which was lawful under the construction
industry proviso to Section 8 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. This clause required that work at a jobsite be subcon-
tracted only to a party having a current collective-bargaining contract
with the Respondents. Nevertheless, Thornburgh subcontracted the
electrical work to Hughes, whose employees were represented by Dis-
trict 50, United Mine Workers of America. Respondents notified
Thornburgh of the violation of the above clause and picketed the proj-
ect. As a result, Thornburgh requested Hughes to remove its men and
equipment from the project. Hughes complied with that request, the
pickets were removed, and work on the project was resumed.
The General Counsel alleged, and the Trial Examiner found, on
these facts that the Respondents, by causing Thornburgh to honor its
contractual commitment and thereby removing Hughes' employees
because they were members of District 50 and not of Respondent
Local Union, violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A). We do not agree.
When Congress amended the Act in 1959, it added Section 8(e)
which outlawed the execution and maintenance of so-called "hot cargo"
agreements. However, Congress specifically sanctioned such agree-
ments in the construction industry with respect to work performed at
the jobsite. Under Thornburgh's collective-bargaining agreement
with Respondent Union, Thornburgh was therefore lawfully obliged
to assign or subcontract electrical work only to electrical contractors
also under contract with Respondent Union. Hughes did not have
such contract with Respondent Union. In the circumstances, Thorn-
burgh was contractually barred from assigning the work to Hughes
and his employess, and, by the Hughes' subcontract, Thornburgh
accordingly breached its lawful contractual commitment to Respond-
ent Union. As Respondent Union's conduct herein sought to achieve
only what it was lawfully entitled to have under its contract with
Thornburgh, we conclude that Respondent Union did not violate See-
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 1175
tion 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) by causing Thornburgh to terminate the%
Hughes' subcontract.5
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER ZAGORIA took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Order.
5 This does not mean, of course, that Respondent Union would have been entitled to
enforce the contract by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (B). Cf. Northeastern
Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council ( Centlivre Village Apartments), 148
NLRB 854.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The issue presented by this matter is whether International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local 11, AFL-CIO, and Building Trades Council of Long Beach,
AFL-CIO, violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2)1 of the Act by causing the dis-
charge of four employees.
The charge in this matter was filed on May 15, 1964, by John Berry on behalf of
himself, David Lewis, Thomas Cranford, and Harvey Chubb and a complaint was
issued by the General Counsel on August 14, 1964.
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy in Los Angeles,
California, and subsequent to the hearing briefs of the General Counsel and
Respondents have been received and considered.
Upon consideration of the entire record, including observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, and upon consideration of the briefs filed by the General Coun-
sel and Respondents, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD AND BUSINESS OF EMPLOYERS
Ben J. Hughes, Inc., the immediate employer of the alleged discriminatees, is a
California corporation with its principal place of business in Bell Gardens, Califor-
nia, where it is engaged in the business of electrical contracting. During the conduct
of its business in 1963, Ben J. Hughes, Inc., purchased goods valued in excess of
$50,000 from suppliers located in the State of California which suppliers received
said goods directly from States other than the State of California.
T. A. Thornburgh Co., the general contractor on the project where Ben J. Hughes,
Inc , was performing the electrical work, is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in West Covina, California, where it is engaged in the construction
business. Thornburgh is, and at all times material has been, a member of Building
Contractors Association of California, Inc., herein called BCA, a trade organization
which admits to membership building and construction firms, and exists in part for
the purpose of representing employer-members in multiemployer collective bargain-
ing. Employer-members of BCA, having offices and places of business in Califor-
nia, annually ship goods and perform services valued in excess of $50,000 directly
outside the State of California and annually receive goods and services valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside California.
Ben J. Hughes, Inc., and T. A. Thornburgh Co. are now, and have been at all
times material , employers engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
18(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-
(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in sec-
tion 7: Provided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization
to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership
therein ; . ;
(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in
violation of subsection (a) (3) or to discriminate against an employee with respect to
whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground
other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly re-
gnired as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership,
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 11, AFL-CIO, and Build-
ing Trades Council of Long Beach, AFL-CIO, the Respondent labor organizations,
are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and setting
This dispute arose on the Tri-Seven construction project in Long Beach, Califor-
nia, where Thornburgh was the general contractor In early 1964, Thornburgh
entered into a contractual arrangement with Ben J. Hughes, Inc., to have the elec-
trical work performed. At this time Thornburgh was a member of BCA and was
bound by the following subcontracting clause:
The contractor agrees that he, or any of his subcontractors on the jobsite will
not contract or subcontract work to be done at the site of the construction, alter-
ation, painting , or repair of a building , structure , or other work , except to a
person, firm or corporation party to an appropriate current labor agreement
with the appropriate unit or subordinate body affiliated with the Building and
Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, or with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
affiliates thereof.
Ben J. Hughes, Inc., employed members of District 50, a union not affiliated with
the AFL-CIO. Ben Hughes and his relatives had a common interest in two other
business entities engaged in the electrical contracting business in the same area.
The testimony of Union Representative Toy Dial establishes that C & H Electric,
the electrical contractor associated by family ties with Ben Hughes, employed AFL-
CIO electricians. The following testimony of Dial reflects the situation:
Well, I have to be honest about this. We have a group of contractors banded
together here. It seems like there is a half a dozen of them. We have a con-
tractor signatory to an IBEW agreement by the name of C & H Electric. We
have one that isn't signatory that we have picketed a number of places. The
same company , the same people called L & G Electric. Then we have Ben J.
Hughes, Inc., or whatever it is. When I hear of a job that Hughes has I have to
pretty thoroughly check it out to see if he's going to do it with union people or
non-union people, or District 50 people. That is what I get paid for.
B. The events
On or about May 7, 1964,2 Herman Webber, superintendent for Thornburgh, had
a conversation at the construction site with Respondent Local Union Representative
Dial. On this occasion, Dial asked Webber who the electrical contractor was. Web-
ber told Dial that it was Ben Hughes and Dial indicated that he didn't think Hughes
was affiliated with the Union. Approximately a week later Dial, along with another
business representative, Ray Shannon, was present on the jobsite. On this occasion,
Dial informed Webber that Hughes was not union. Webber replied that Hughes
had informed him that he was union and then Dial stated that they were not AFL-
CIO union and that they belonged to the Miners' Union, which was not a part of
the Building Trades Council. At this point Webber called Richard L. Lintz, the
project manager of the construction project, and after Webber turned the phone
over to Dial, a conversation ensued between Dial and Lintz in which Dial stated
that the problem was due to the District 50 electrical contractor.
On May 14 pickets were at the project. The legend on the picket sign recited
that: "Ben J. Hughes Electric Inc. does not pay prevailing wages nor maintain pre-
vailing working conditions of Local Union 11, IBEW AFL-CIO affiliated with the Los
Angeles Building Trades Council." 3 On this occasion, Shannon was at the area
where picketing was being done. Webber asked Shannon the reason for the picket-
ing and Shannon told him it was because District 50 men were on the job. Shan-
non was asked by Webber what was necessary to remove the picket line and Web-
All dates herein are 1964.
3 Hull, the executive secretary of the Long Beach Building Trades Council, was a
participant in the unfair labor practices as Indicated herein. It is immaterial whether
the record reflects an error or Is correct in including "Los Angeles Building Trades
Council" on the picket legend.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 1177
her was referred to a Mr. Hull, an official of the Respondent Long Beach Building
Trades Council. Webber called Hull and after acknowledging that he knew a
picket was on the project, Hull stated to Webber: "He ... (that) he couldn't tell
me who to hire or fire or how to run my job, but Mr. Hughes belonged to the
District 50 and was not recognized by the Building Trades Council." Webber
informed Lintz of this and gave him Hull's phone number. Lintz called Webber
back in approximately an hour and dictated a letter over the telephone to be given
to Hughes. The following letter was personally delivered to Hughes on that date
by Webber:
5/14/64
To: BEN J. HUGHES INC.
7618 Ramish Ave.
Bell Gardens, Calif.
Sir: The I.B.E.W. has of this date shut our job down by placing a picket line
in front of our project and will not remove them as long as you or your men are
on this job.
There fore [sic] Tri Seven request you to remove your men and equipment
from the job at 777 Bellflower Blvd. Long Beach, Calif. immediately in order
for us to continue working the other trades.
Respectfully yours
(S) Richard L. Lintz
RICHARD L. LINTZ
Project Manager.
By H. E. Webber Jr.
Superintendent.
In a telephone conversation that Project Superintendent Lintz had with Dial, Dial
told Lintz the problem was the District 50 subcontractor and Lintz told Dial that
he didn't know that Hughes was a District 50 contractor. Lintz called Wayne J. Hull
of the Building Trades Council of Long Beach and was informed that if Hughes'
men were taken off the job the pickets would be pulled. This eventuated in the let-
ter that Lintz dictated over the telephone addressed to Hughes, which is set forth
above. At the same time a telegram was sent by Lintz to Hull as follows:
MR WAYNE J HULL: IN REFERENCE TO OUR PHONE CONVERSA-
TION THIS DATE BEN J HUGHES INC AND HIS MEN AND EQUIP-
MENT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR CONSTRUCTION SITE 777
BELLFLOWER BLVD. LONG BEACH PER YOUR INSTRUCTIONS
PROJECT MANAGER RICHARD L LINTZ
The pickets were then removed and after the District 50 electricians left on May 14,
C & H Electric came on the job to perform the electrical work. On May 14,
when the picketing commenced, there were four electricians employed by Hughes;
namely, John Berry, Thomas Cranford, Harvey Chubb, and David Lewis. When
Hughes received the letter dictated by Lintz to Webber, he informed these individ-
uals that they should leave the job.
The employees of Ben J. Hughes, Inc., again went to the project on September 30.
The picketing by Respondents was renewed with the same legend on the picket sign.
On this occasion, Webber again called Hull and asked him what was necessary to
remove the picket. Hull replied that when the District 50 men were removed the
work could be resumed. The General Counsel did not offer this evidence to estab-
lish a separate violation but as evidence of the intent of Respondent on May 14th
in picketing to force a removal of the employees of Ben Hughes, Inc., from the
Tri-Seven jobsite.
Union Representative Dial testified that the picketing would probably have
occurred even though Thornburgh was not a signatory to the BCA agreement requir-
ing the use of subcontractors employing AFL-CIO craftsmen
Testimony of Dial and Shannon did not contradict that of Webber in any material
respect. Hull thought he might have initiated a telephone call to Lintz but con-
ceded that Lintz might have called him first as he was a party to a great number of
calls. The testimony of Lintz appeared accurate and is credited.
C. Discussion and concluding findings
Respondents advance as defenses the contentions that the picketing was purely
informational and also that the picketing was in support of an attempt to require
Thornburgh to honor his contractual obligation relative to engaging only subcon-
tractors employing AFL-CIO craftsmen.
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record facts outlined above leave no doubt that the picketing was aimed at
removing the four employees of Ben Hughes, Inc., who were members of District 50
and not members of Respondent Local Union. The fact that C & H Electric, which
Local Union Representative Dial regarded as having some common ownership with
Ben Hughes, Inc., finished the job with AFL-CIO employees bolsters the finding that
the picketing was aimed primarily at the removal of the four Ben Hughes employees
who were members of District 50 and not their employer.
The defense that the Respondents were seeking to enforce a contract does not
prevent the actions of Respondents from constituting an unfair labor practice. Local
1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, etc (Sand
Door & Plywood Co.) v. N.L R.B., 357 U.S. 93, 106; N.L R B. v. International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO (Tri-County Assn.
of Civil Engineers), 293 F. 2d 319, 322 (C.A. 9); N.L.R.B. v. Bangor Building Trades
Council (Davison Const. Co.), 278 F. 2d 287, 290 (C.A. 1) ; N.L R.B. v. Local 294,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, and Howard Bennett (Bonded Freightways), 273 F. 2d 696 (C.A. 2).
It is immaterial that the coercion was exercised on Thornburgh who does not
stand in a usual relationship of an employer to the four displaced employees. The
Board, relying in part upon decisions of the United States Supreme Court, has
determined that a violation of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(a)(3) may be caused by an
employer (such as a general contractor 's actions affecting the employment of crafts-
men of subcontractors) whose relationship with the employees suffering discrimina-
tion is not the customary common law variety. Northern California Chapter, The
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., et al., 119 NLRB 1026, enfd. sub
nom Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 of the International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers, AFL-CIO v. N L R.B., 266 F. 2d 905 (C.A D C.), cert. denied 361
U S. 834. In its decision , the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated
at 909:
It is also contended that no unfair labor practice can be found where the dis-
criminatory action is against employees other than those of the direct employer;
specifically , that AGC could not be found to have violated section 8 (a)(3) by
terminating the employment of Musser 's employees , nor could Local 3 have been
found to have violated section 8(b) (2) by causing that action , since there was no
direct employer -employee relationship between AGC and Musser 's employees.
This position had the support of two members of the Board , relying upon previous
Board decisions , The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co , 116 NLRB 943 (1956):
United Association of Journeymen of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, 116
NLRB 119 ( 1956) , and language in N.L.R.B. v. Denver Bldg. & Const . Trades
Council, 341 U.S. 675, 71 S .Ct. 943, 95 L.Ed. 1284. The provisions of the Act
here involved , ... do not read as this contention would construe them , in con-
trast with language in other provisions . The terms used in the applicable pro-
vision bear an interpretation which reaches discrimination as to employees of
another employer . We must guard against giving this broad language a scope
which includes employees whose relationship to the controversy is so attenu-
ated as to cause their inclusion to defeat a sound administration of the Act; yet
the closeness of Musser to the dispute leads us to refer to the Board's interpre-
tation which brings its four employees within the questioned protection . This is
an area of interpretation into which we should follow the Board N L R B. v.
Hearst Publications , Inc., 322 U.S . 111, 128-129, 64 S Ct. 851 , 88 L Ed. 1170;
N.L.R.B. v. Gluek Brewing Co., 8 Cir., 1944 , 144 F. 2d 847, 855.
In the present case, as in the Northern California Chapter, AGC case, the employ-
ees of Ben Hughes , Inc., stood in the same relationship to Thornburgh as did the
employees of the subcontractor Musser to the general contractor who were found
to have been discriminated against in violation of Section 8(b)(2) by the respond-
ent unions . In the case at hand it is found, Respondents caused employees to be
terminated because of union considerations violating Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)
(A).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent labor organizations have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation 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 that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate affirm-
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 1179
ative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, it will be rec-
ommended that Respondents be ordered to notify T. A. Thornburgh, in writing,
that they withdraw their objections to any District 50 employees working on the Tri-
Seven site or any other construction project on which T. A. Thornburgh is a general
contractor. It will also be recommended that Respondents be required to make whole
John Berry, Thomas Cranford, Harvey Chubb, and David Lewis for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them as
set forth above. Loss of pay, as aforesaid, shall be computed in accordance with the
formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall bear
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing and Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
The nature and extent of the unfair labor practices of Respondents and the likeli-
hood of reoccurrence warrant a broad cease-and-desist order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 11, AFL-
CIO, and Building Trades Council of Long Beach , AFL-CIO, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act.
2. Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record in
this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, it is recommended that Respondents, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local 11, AFL-CIO, and Building Trades Council of Long Beach,
AFL-CIO, their officers , agents, and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requiring T. A. Thornburgh to cause discrimination among its employees or
the employees of any subcontractor of Thornburgh.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Make whole John Berry, Thomas Cranford, Harvey Chubb, and David Lewis
for any loss of pay suffered by reason of discrimination against them in the manner
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify John Berry, Thomas Cranford, Harvey Chubb, and David Lewis if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States that Respondents have
no objection to their full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Notify T. A. Thornburgh, in writing that they have no objection to the
employment of the employees of Ben J. Hughes, Inc., upon the Tri-Seven construc-
tion project or any other project in which T. A. Thornburgh is a general contractor.
(d) Post at their offices and meeting halls in the Los Angeles area, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by authorized repre-
sentatives of Respondents, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to their members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Promptly mail or deliver to the Regional Director for Region 21 signed copies
of the foresaid notices for posting.
IL 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".
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to com-
ply herewith .5
6In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify the said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps have been taken in compliance."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL 11, AFL-CIO, AND BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL OF LONG BEACH, 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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT require T. A. Thornburgh, or any other person, to refuse to
engage subcontractors employing District 50 personnel or in any other manner
attempt to cause T. A. Thornburgh Co. to discriminate against employees in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act except as permitted by an agreement
authorized by said section of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL reimburse John Berry, Thomas Cranford, Harvey Chubb, and
David Lewis for any lost wages caused by our discrimination.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL 11, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL OF LONG BEACH, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify John Berry, Thomas Cranford, Harvey Chubb, and David
Lewis if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States that we do not
object to their full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204, if they have any ques-
tion concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada , Local No.
533, AFL-CIO (Hall Refrigeration Sales and Service ) and In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers , Locals No. 6, 6A and
6B, AFL-CIO and Hall Refrigeration Sales and Service and
H. C. Beck Builders , Inc. Cases Nos. 17-CD-70, 17-CD-71, and
17-CD-72. Julry 1,1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of charges under Sec-
153 NLRB No. 76.