Int'l Brotherhood Electrical Workers, Local 313

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 137 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 313 137
WE WILL reinstate to their former or substantially equivalent position the fol-
lowing named employees and will make the last five named whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against
him:
David Britton David Weaver William C. Ritterson
Gilbert Flora David Wriggins Harry Read
Lloyd Johns Anthony Delre Andrew Sisco
Henry Jones Ernest R. Hunt
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International Union of
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit described below with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, •and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached:
All card design and etching employees, including draftsman, clerk pho-
tographer, proofreader, plater, and photoengraver of Respondent employed
at its Monmouth Junction plant, but excluding all office clerical employees,
all other employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named or .any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement declaring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members in the above-named or in any other labor organization.
BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES DIVISION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of, their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion 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, 614 Na-
tional Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey,. Telephone No.
Market 4-6151, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , Local 313,
AFL-CIO and James Julian, Inc.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 626 and James Julian , Inc. Cases Nos. 4-CC-273 and
4-CC-285. May 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 14, 1964, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Local 313,
one of the Respondents, had engaged in and was engaging in certain
147 NLRB No. 18.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, and finding that Local
626, the other Respondent, had not engaged in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending dismissal of the complaint as to it, all
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision . Thereafter,
Respondent, Local 313 , was found to have engaged in unfair labor
practices , and the General Counsel filed exceptions to said Decision
and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision , the exceptions and the briefs , and the entire
record in the cases , and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions', and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
complaint herein, insofar as it alleges violations of the Act by Re-
spondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 626, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. With respect to Respond-
ent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 313,
AFL-CIO, the Board adapts as its Order the Order recommended
by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent Union, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the following
modification :
From paragraph 1 of the Order, the last 5 words reading "or with
any other person," are deleted, and the notice attached as Appendix A
to the Trial Examiner's Decision is similarly modified.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on September 26 and November 27, 1963, by James Julian,
Inc., herein sometimes called Julian, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania), issued his consolidated complaint, dated December 2, 1963, against In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 313, AFL-CIO, and against
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 626, herein re-
spectively called Local 313 and Local 626, and collectively called Respondents.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hear-
ing, alleges, in substance, that Respondents engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act. In their duly filed answer, Respondents
deny generally all unfair labor practice allegations.
INT'L. BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 313 139
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at
Wilmington, Delaware, on December 16 and 19, 1963. All parties were represented
by counsel who participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to
argue orally, and to file briefs. Respondents' motion to dismiss all allegations in
the complaint, made at the close of the hearing and upon which I reserved ruling,
is hereby granted in part and denied in part, in accordance with the findings and
conclusions hereinafter made. On January 20, 1964, the General Counsel and Re-
spondents filed briefs, which I have fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED AND THEIR BUSINESS
James Julian, Inc., herein called Julian, is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
business of general construction , with its principal office and place of business at
Elsmere, Delaware. During the past yearr, Julian purchased and received on the
Delaware Turnpike job goods and materials, valued in excess of $50,000, from points
outside the State of Delaware.
Light and Power Construction Company, herein called Light and Power, is en-
gaged in the business of electrical construction. During the past year, Light and
Power purchased and received in Delaware goods and materials, valued in excess of
$50,000, from points outside the State of Delaware.
Frederick G. Krapf and Sons, Inc., herein called Krapf , is engaged as a general con-
tractor in the business of general construction.
Upon the above undisputed facts, I find that Julian and Light and Power are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) and Section 8(b)
(4) of the Act, and that they and Krapf are engaged in an industry affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (4) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that International Brother-
hood of Electrical . Workers, Local 313, AFL-CIO, and United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local 626, Respondents herein respectively
called Local 313 and Local '626, are each labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the issues
James Julian, Inc., herein called Julian, had contracts with the State of Delaware
for the paving and construction of the service area on the Delaware Turnpike, in-
cluding the installation of electrical equipment, and for the grading and construction
of ramps leading on and off the turnpike. Julian subcontracted the installation of
the electrical work at the service area to Light and Power Construction Company,
Inc., herein called Light and Power.
Frederick G. Krapf and Sons, Inc., herein called Krapf, had contracts with the
State of Delaware for the erection of the restaurant building at the service area and
for the erection of the administration building and toll booths of the turnpike.
Krapf subcontracted the electrical work for these buildings to Light and Power.
Light ,and Power had a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 313, which is a
member of the Wilmington Building and Construction Trades Council for the State
of Delaware, herein called the Council. Krapf had a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Local 626, which also is a member of the Council. Julian's employees
were represented by District 50, United Mine Workers, which is not a member of
the Council.
During the period from September 6 to 11, 1963, pickets appeared at the service
area of the turnpike, carrying signs which stated that "James Julian works its em-
ployees at lesser than union conditions. Building and Construction Trades Council
for the State of Delaware." During this period, the Local 313 members who were
employed by Light and Power and the Local 626 members who were employed by
Krapf refused to work at the service area. The picketing was resumed during the
period from September 24 to 28, 1963. This time the pickets patrolled all the en-
trances and exits along the turnpike, and carried signs which stated that "This message
is addressed to the public. James Julian, Inc., employees are working under condi-
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions lower than those which prevail under Building and Construction Trades Coun-
cil." During this period, the Local 313 members employed by Light and Power
refused to work on any turnpike job. Members of Local 626 worked for Krapf
on September 24 and 25 but not during the following 2 days. As a result of an
agreement reached between the Council and the State Department of Highways, the
pickets were withdrawn on September 28, 1963, and work was resumed on the turn-
pike. This agreement provided that in the future the State Department of Highways
would require all contractors on :the turnpike to pay the prevailing wage rates under
Delaware law.
The foregoing facts are not in dispute. The only issues litigated are whether, dur-
ing the aforestated periods of the picketing, Local 313 and Local 626 engaged in
conduct which constitutes a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
B. The case against Local 313
The General Counsel relies on the following two incidents, one during each period,
to establish violations by Local 313.
1. During the period from September 6 to 11
a. The facts 1
John Healey, a member of Local 313, was the general foreman of Light and Power
on the turnpike job. After the picketing began on September 6, 1963, Healey, who
at that time'was working on Julian's subcontract at .the service area jobsite, telephoned
the union hall of Local 313 and spoke to Peter Kindbeiter, the assistant business
manager of Local 313. Healey asked Kindbeiter what the pickets were for. Kind-
beiter replied that Healey should read the picket signs and "be guided by the letter"
which he had received. Healey then asked Kindbeiter if "it was all right to proceed
with Rupert 2 and Krapf -work." Kindbeiter replied that it was. Healey admitted
that as a result "we went to work at the Administration Building" on Krapf's sub-
contract and that after the picketing ceased "we went back to work" on Julian's
subcontract at the service area. Healey also admitted that all Light and Power em-
ployees stopped working on Julian's job during the picketing.
The letter which Kindbeiter told Healey to use as his guide was one which Healey
had received from Local 313 about a month earlier. Healey explained that the
letter reminded us that "we are all brothers in the trades," that we should "work with
one another ," that "we should stick together," that "we should respect one another's
membership in the local in the Unions," and that "we should work with Union
people."
b. Concluding findings
By telling Healey to read the picket signs, Kindbeiter was thereby calling Healey's
attention to the fact that Julian was being listed by the Council as an "unfair" em-
ployer. By advising Healey to be guided by the letter he had received, Kindbeiter
was reminding Healey that union members are all brothers in the trades and that they
should stick together and cooperate with one another. Local 313 is a member of
the Council. The plain message conveyed by these statements was that Healey
should honor the Council's picket line and stop doing Julian's work.3 Any doubt
as to Kindbeiter's meaning was dispelled by his assurance to Healey that it was all
right to work on the subcontracts of Rupert and Krapf. The obvious implication
was that it was not all right to work on Julian's subcontract. As a result of his con-
versation with Kindbeiter, Healey stopped doing Julian's work at the service area,
left that jobsite and went to work on Krapf's subcontract at the administration build-
ing, and did not return to work on Julian's subcontract at the service area until the
picketing of the service area had ceased. I find that Klndbeiter's statements to
Healey constituted inducement and encouragement to cease work within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (4) (i) of the Act.
I find no -merit in Respondent's contention that it was not unlawful to induce and
encourage Healey because he ,allegedly was "a person" rather than "an individual,"
as required by that section. Although classified as a general foreman on the turnpike
'The findings in this section are based on the credited and undisputed testimony of
John Healey, a member of Local 313 who was subpenaed to testify as a witness for the
General Counsel.
2 Rupert is another contractor on the turnpike.
2 See, e . g., District Council of Painters No. 48, et al . ( Hamilton Materials , Inc.), 144
NLRB 1523.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 313 141
job, Healey had no authority'to hire or discharge employees. He was an hourly paid
employee whose wages were governed by the collective-bargaining agreement between
Local 313 and Light and Power.. About 25 men worked under his supervision.
Healey was a. member of Looal 313. I am convinced from the foregoing and the
incidents previously described that, while Healey was a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act, his interests were more nearly related to rank-and-file employees than
to management, as the term is generally known. I therefore find that Healey was
"an individual," rather than "a person," within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i)
of the Act?
Local 313 is a member of the Council. Kindbeiter was fully aware of the Council's
reason for picketing Julian. It therefore seems obvious to me, as I further find,
that the immediate object of Kindbeiter's conduct was to force or require Light and
Power to cease doing business with Julian and thereby bring pressure to bear upon
Julian in order to accomplish the ultimate object of having Julian work its em-
ployees under the prevailing union conditions. Thus, the immediate object is "an"
object proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (B).
As Kindbeiter was an assistant business agent of Local 313 and acted in that
capacity when he spoke to Healey, I find that Local 313 is responsible for his conduct,
I therefore find that, by the above-described conduct of Kindbeiter, Respondent
Local 313 violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act.
2. During the period from September 24 to 28
a. The facts
As previously noted, the picketing resumed on September 24, with the pickets this
time patrolling all entrances and exits along the turnpike. Millard Dawson, an
employee of Light and Power and a member of Local 313, was working at the
service area at that time. He was subpenaed by the General Council and testified
as follows with respect to the men leaving the job: After the picketing had resumed
on this occasion, the men began "milling around" and he asked Carmean, the shop
steward of Local 313, "What are we going to do?" Carmean replied that he was
going to take his tools and get off the job and go home. Carmean made this state-
ment in the presence of the rest of the men. Dawson assumed that that was the
thing to do. So he and "the men just automatically left the job.
In his pretrial affidavit given to the General Counsel on September 30, Dawson did
not attribute the above statements to Carmean. Instead, he stated that Carmean
approached him and told him "not to work on any of Julian's work until the thing
was straightened out." He further stated in his affidavit that on the following day
Carmean told all the employees of Light and Power "not to work on any job on
the entire turnpike until this thing was straightened out," and that all IBEW elec-
tricians then left the jobsite.
When confronted on the witness stand with his pretrial affidavit, Dawson admitted
having made the statements contained therein but testified that he did not tell the
truth at that time. He specifically denied that Carmean made any of the statements
attributed to him in the affidavit, and insisted that the -real truth was his present
testimony in which he reiterated that Carmean only made the statement under the
circumstances previously set forth in response to Dawson's query. He further ad-
mitted that he had also lied when he told the State inspector on the job around
September 24 that "we have orders from the Hall not to do any work for Julian"
and that "any man caught working for Julian will be gotten rid of one at a time."
Dawson is thus a self-confessed liar. It does not follow, however, that all his
testimony must automatically be rejected. On the other hand, great care and
scrutiny must be exercised in determining whether to attach any credence to it. It
seems significant to me that the timing of Dawson's statements in his affidavit and
to the State inspector was closely related to the period of the picketing, whereas
his testimony in the instant hearing was given almost 3 months later. No reason
has been advanced, or does any occur to me, as to why Dawson should have de-
liberately made false statements in his affidavit. I am convinced from all the cir-
cumstances, including Dawson's demeanor on the witness stand, that Dawson was
lying when he so testified and I do not credit his denials that Carmean made the
statements attributed to him in the affidavit.
4Local Union No. 505, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et at . (Carolina Lumber
Company), 130 NLRB 1438, 1443-1444.
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While I recognize that no affirmative findings may be based on the statements
in Dawson's pretrial affidavit,5 it does not follow that the affidavit has completely
neutralized all of Dawson's testimony and that the remainder of his testimony must
also, be rejected. Conceivably, Carmean may have made both the statements attrib-
uted to him by Dawson on the witness stand and in his affidavit. Thus, the state-
ments which Dawson attributed to Carmean on the witness stand may reasonably
be regarded as supplementary to, and not inconsistent with or in contradiction of,
those attributed to Carmean in Dawson's affidavit. Moreover, and this looms very
strongly in my consideration, Respondent Local 313 did not call Carmean as a wit-
ness, so that Dawson's testimony as to what Carmean did say stands unrefuted.
Respondent's unexplained failure to call Carmean as a witness is thus a most signifi-
cant factor to be considered in evaluating the veracity of Dawson on this phase of
his testimony.6 Finally, Dawson impressed me as a witness who, while determined
to repudiate any statements which implicated Carmean or Local 313 in giving direct
instructions to stop work, was not unwilling to disclose the truth in all other respects.
Upon careful consideration of all the foregoing, I am convinced and find that,
whatever else Carmean may or may not have said, he did state, in the presence of
all the men and in response to Dawson 's question as to what they should do, that
he (Carmean) was going to take his tools and get off the job and go home. I further
find that the other members of Local 313 employed by Light and Power followed
Carmean's example and left the jobsite. It is undisputed that the men did not return
to the turnpike job until the picketing ceased.
b. Concluding findings
It is clear to me, as I find, that Shop Steward Carmean's statement, made in the
presence of all the Local 303 members employed by Light and Power in the service
area and in response to Dawson's query as to what the men should do, acted as a
signal to the rest of the men and induced and encouraged them to engage in a work
stoppage within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) of the Act.7 As Dawson ex-
plained, when Carmean replied that he was going to, take his tools and get off the
job and go home, "I assumed that was what to do, so the men just automatically
left the job."
As shop steward, Carmean was an agent for whose conduct Local 303 was liable.
Hence, Local 303 is liable not only for the inducement-and encouragement but also
for the entire work stoppage of its members employed by Light and Power, a neutral
employer. The Board has consistently held that a strike against a neutral employer
constitutes restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) of the
Act.3 As previously found, an object of the conduct was to force or require Light
and Power to cease doing business with Julian, an object proscribed by Section
8(b) (4). Accordingly, I find that, by the above-described conduct of Shop Steward
Carmean, Local 303 violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
C. The case against Local 626
The General Counsel relies on the following single incident, which I find occurred
during the first period of the picketing, to establish violations of the Actby Local 626-
1. The facts
The essential facts as to what occurred are not in dispute . On one morning during
the picketing , the Local 626 carpenters employed by Krapf arrived at the jobsite
about an hour late but did not work. That morning, Shop Steward Sartin had tele-
phoned Business Agent Hartnett , informed him that there were pickets at the job,
and asked Hartnett to come down to the jobsite. Hartnett arrived at the jobsite
shortly thereafter . Before he reached the men who were standing around the trailer
where the tools were kept , Hartnett met President Krapf. The latter asked if
Hartnett was going to take the men off. Hartnett replied in the negative. Krapf
5 Sealtest Southern Dairies, 126 NLRB 1223 , 1225-1226 ; Quest Shon Afark Brassiere
Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 185 F. 2d 285, 289 (C.A. 2).
6 M. Benevento Sand d Gravel Co , 131 NLRB 358, 364 ; and of Interstate Circuit v.
U.S., 306 U S. 208, 226.
7Local Union No. 741, United Association of Journeymen , etc. (Keith Riggs , etc.), 137
NLRB 1125, 1141.
$ General Teamsters Local No. 324, etc . ( Curly's Daii y, Inc., et al. ), 144 NLRB 836.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 313 143
then asked what the trouble was and what position they were in. Hartnett replied
that he did not know and was trying to find out .9 Hartnett then continued to the
trailer where approximately 25 carpenters were congregated. Some of the men
asked Hartnett what they should do., Hartnett replied that "it is strictly up to, each
individual what he wants to do." Thereafter, the shop steward picked up his tools
and went home. The remaining carpenters then picked up their tools and left.
As Hartnett was leaving the jobsite, Krapf said to him, "I thought you were going
to let the men work." Hartnett replied that he did not tell the men not to.19
2. Concluding findings
The General Counsel contends in his brief that, because the carpenters left the job
within 5 minutes after Business Agent Hartnett spoke to them on the jobsite, an
inference must be drawn that they were unlawfully induced and encouraged by
Hartnett. I do not agree that in this case such an inference may properly be drawn
in the face of Hartnett's credited testimony as to what he did in fact tell the men,
as previously found.
The General Counsel further contends- in his brief that, in any event, Hartnett's
admitted statement to the men, hereinabove set forth, ",acted as a signal for the
immediate collective work stoppage of the carpenters at the jobsite." However, I
regard the case of Local Union No. 741, United Association of Journeymen, etc.,
supra, controlling on this issue. In that case, a business agent of a Carpenters'
local told a member, who inquired over the telephone as to whether the carpenters
could work in view of a picket line established by a plumbing union at a project in
dispute with a nonunion plumbing subcontractor, "I cannot tell you what to do.
You have to make up your mind yourself" (137 NLRB at 1142). Following
this conversation, the carpenters left their work. The Board held that neither the
business agent's statement nor his failure to instruct the employees to continue to
work constituted unlawful inducement and encouragement of employees to stop
work. Contrary to the General Counsel's contentions, there are no significant dis-
tinctions present in the instant case which warrant a different finding.
I find that the General Counsel has not sustained the allegations of the complaint
with respect to Local 626 and I will recommend their dismissal.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Companies set forth in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Local 313 engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct of Assistant Business Agent Peter Kindbeiter and Shop Steward
Carmean, as set forth in section III B, supra, Respondent International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 313, AFL-CIO, has induced sand encouraged individuals
employed by Light and Power Construction Company, a person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the
course of their employment to perform services for their employer, and has restrained
and coerced said Light and Power Construction Company, in each case with an
object of forcing or requiring said Light and Power Construction Company to cease
doing business with James Julian, Inc.
9 Although she was a delegate from Local 626 to the Council, Hartnett was not present
at the Council meeting at which It was decided to, put up the picket line. He did not know
about the picketing until the telephone call from Sartin, and did not see the picket signs
until he got to the jobsite.
10 The findings In this paragraph are based on a synthesis of the credited and mutually
consistent testimony of Krapf, Hartnett, and Sartin.
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By the conduct set forth in the preceding paragraph, Respondent Local 313 has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii)
(B) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
626, has not engaged in zany unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that the Re-
spondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 313, AFL-CIO,
its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging any individual employed by
Light and Power Construction Company, or by any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal 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,
and cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining the aforenamed Em-
ployer or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require Light and
Power Construction Company to cease doing business with James Julian, Inc., or
with any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and
all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 11 Copies -of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respond-
ent's authorized representatives, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure .that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Fourth Region signed copies of the
aforementioned notice for posting by each of the Employers named in the preceding
paragraph, who are willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after
being signed by Respondent, as indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Di-
rector for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director in writing, within 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.12
• I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations
of the Act by Respondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 626.
"In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be 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."
12 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, In writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE
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 induce or encourage any individual employed by Light and
Power Construction Company, 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.
MY STORE, INC. 145
WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce or restrain the aforenamed employer or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where,
in either case , an object is to force or require Light and Power Construction
Company to cease doing business with James Julian , Inc., or with any other
person.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LocAL 313, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut sand Juniper Streets, Philadelphia , Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 735-2612 , if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
My Store, Inc. and United Retail Workers Union . Case No.
14-CA-3050. May 05, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 9, 1963, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Union filed cross-
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, the
Union's cross-exceptions, and the entire record in this case,' and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications.
The Trial Examiner's Decision found certain unfair labor practice
violations, but failed to recommend a fully appropriate remedy for
them. Without deciding whether the Trial Examiner had jurisdic-
tion to issue errata amending his Decision after it had issued and
the case had been transferred to the Board, we shall frame an appro-
priate remedy for the violations found.
1 The Respondent has requested oral argument . The request is hereby denied ; the
exceptions and the briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
147 NLRB No. 16.
756-236-65-vol. 147-11