292 N.L.R.B. 1035 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

Laborers Local 261 (Skinner Inc)

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 13, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 1035 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

LABORERS LOCAL 261 (SKINNER INC) Northern California District Council of Laborers, AFL-CIO, Laborers' Local Union No 261, AFL-CIO and W B Skinner, Inc and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 202 Case 20-CD-623 February 13, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND HIGGINS On June 6, 1985, Administrative Law Judge James S Jenson issued the attached decision The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in opposition to the Respondents' exceptions The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified The judge found, and we agree, that the Re- spondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by maintaining a civil suit to enforce an arbitration award' in the Superior Court of the State of Cali- fornia after the Board had issued a 10(k) award as signing the disputed work to employees of the Em- ployer represented by IBEW Local 202, rather than to employees represented by the Respond ents 2 We agree with the judge that the Board's deci- sion in Longshoremen IL WU Local 32 (Weyerhauser Co)3 is controlling here In support of his finding, the judge also cited the Board's decision in Long- shoremen IL WU Local 7 (Georgia-Pacific Corp) 4 In Georgia-Pacific, the Board held, inter alia, that the filing of grievances for payments in lieu of a work assignment, before, as well as after, a contrary 10(k) award has issued, violates Section 8(b)(4)(D) Sub- ' The arbitration award was issued by a Board of Adjustment on Octo ber 11 1982 pursuant to a grievance filed by the Respondents on August 22 1982 over W B Skinner Inc s (the Employer) failure to assign cer fain underground construction work which was being performed by em ployees represented by IBEW Local 202 to employees represented by the Respondents The award required the Employer to pay 15 laborers listed in the grievance from August 19 1982 forward to the completion of the project and fringe benefits to be paid to the Trust Fund 2 See Electrical Workers IBEW Local 202 (W B Skinner) 271 NLRB 171 which issued on July 11 1984 S 271 NLRB 759 (1984) enfd 773 F 2d 1012 (9th Cir 1985) cert denied 476 US 1158 ( 1986) In Weyerhauser the Board found that a umon violated Sec 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by seeking to enforce an arbi tration award which was inconsistent with a prior Board 10 (k) award through the filing of payment in lieu grievances and a lawsuit under Sec 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act 4 273 NLRB 363 (1984) 1035 Sequent to the judge 's decision in this case, the Board reconsidered its decision in Georgia-Pacific 5 Thus , in Georgia-Pacific II, the Board , modifying its earlier decision , held that the mere filing of an ar guably meritorious grievance seeking "in lieu" pay- ments, before a 10(k) determination has been made, is not coercive and does not violate Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act However, the Board there stated that "if the dispute reaches the Board and the Board disagrees with the arbitrator , the Board's `superior authority' may be invoked and the Board 's award would `take precedence "' As noted , the Board issued a decision under Sec- tion 10(k) of the Act awarding certain disputed work to employees of W B Skinner who were represented by IBEW Local 202, rather than to employees who were represented by the Respond ents That decision put the Respondents , who fully participated in the 10(k) hearing , on notice that there was no longer any reasonable basis for con- tinuing to prosecute the lawsuit that they filed prior to the 10(k) award to confirm a contrary ar- bitral award Thus , we agree with the judge that by maintaining the suit after the Board had made its 10(k) determination , the Respondents sought to undermine the Board's 10(k) award and to coerce the Employer into reassigning to its members the work that the Board found had been properly as- signed by the Employer to employees represented by IBEW Local 202 6 Accordingly , the Respond ents ' conduct in maintaining the suit after the 10(k) determination issued violated Section 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act 7 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge, as modified below, and orders that the Re- spondents, Northern California District Council of Laborers, AFL-CIO, Emeryville, California, and Laborers' Local Union No 261, AFL-CIO, San Francisco, California, their officers, agents, and 291 NLRB 89 (1988 ) (Georgia Pacific II) 6 Under Georgia Pacific II the grievance and lawsuit filed by the Re spondent are not in themselves unlawful because they were filed before the Board issued its 10(k) award It is the continuance of the lawsuit by the Respondents after the 10 (k) award issued that the judge finds and we agree is unlawful Clearly once the Board issues a 10(k) award a respondent is entitled to a reasonable amount of time in which to refrain from pursuing a gnev ance or lawsuit that is inconsistent with that award i e seeking pay ments in lieu of disputed work As of the date of the hearing in this case which was held more than 7 months after the Board issued its 10(k) award the Respondents had not yet withdrawn their suit The judge s recommended Order shall be modified so as to clarify that the cease and-desist order is directed at the actions taken by the Re spondents after issuance by the Board of its 10(k) award We will also delete par 1(b) from the judge s recommended Order See Golden Grain Macaroni Co 289 NLRB 1 (1988) 292 NLRB No 115 1036 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a) "(a) Maintaining, after July 11, 1984, a petition to confirm arbitral award in Northern California District Council of Laborers, et al v W B Skinner, Inc, Case No 806103, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco, for the purpose of enforcing the Board of Adjustment decision requiring W B Skinner, Inc to pay monetary damages pursuant to the Board of Adjustment decision, with an object of forcing or requiring W B Skinner, Inc to assign, contrary to the Board's Decision and Determina tion of Dispute in 271 NLRB 171 (1974), the work described below to employees who are represented by the Respondents, rather than to employees rep- resented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 202 The work consists of All work involving the excavation and laying of underground cable and related conduits car rying television signals throughout the city and county of San Francisco " 2 Delete paragraph 1(b) 3 Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT maintain a petition to confirm ar- bitral award in Northern California District Council of Laborers et al v W B Skinner Inc, Case No 806103, in the Superior Court of the State of Cali- fornia in and for the County of San Francisco, for the purpose of enforcing the Board of Adjustment decision requiring W B Skinner, Inc to pay mon- etary damages pursuant to the Board of Adjust- ment decision, with an object of forcing or requir ing W B Skinner, Inc to assign, contrary to the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute in 271 NLRB 171 (1984), the work described below to employees who are represented by the Respond- ents, rather than to employees represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 202 The work consists of All work involving the excavation and laying of underground cable and related conduits car- rying television signals throughout the city and county of San Francisco WE WILL withdraw our petition to Confirm Ar- bitral Award and cease attempting to enforce the Board of Adjustment Decision NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS, AFL-CIO LABORERS' LOCAL UNION No 261, AFL-CIO Margaret M Dietz Esq, for the General Counsel William Sokol (Van Bourg Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld), of San Francisco California for the Respondent Unions Jerrold C Schaefer (Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Stromberg), of San Francisco , California , for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES S JENSON, Administrative Law Judge This case was heard in San Francisco, California, on 25 Feb ruary 1985 The complaint was issued on 28 November 1984,1 pursuant to a charge filed on 26 October The complaint alleges, in substance that the Respondents vio lated Section 8(b)(4)(u)(D) of the Act by maintaining a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California to enforce an arbitral award which is contrary to the Board s 10(k) determination awarding the disputed work to the Electrical Workers The Respondents deny their conduct violates the Act All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear to introduce evidence, and to ex amine and cross examine witnesses Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Charging Party and have been carefully considered The Respondents failed to call any witnesses or file a brief On the entire record in the case 2 including the de meanor of the witnesses and having considered the oral arguments and the posthearing briefs, I make the follow ing FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION It is admitted and found that W B Skinner, Inc (the Employer) is an employer and a person engaged in com merce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act ' All dates are in 1984 unless stated otherwise 2 G C Exhs 8(b) (c) and (d) which had been received in evidence at the request of Respondents were withdrawn at the conclusion of the hearing by Respondents counsel for the purpose of making copies for the parties and the record On 23 May 1985 I issued an order to show cause why those exhibits should not be rejected in the event they were not re ceived by me by 5 p in 30 May 1985 The exhibits have not been re turned and I have not therefore had an opportunity to consider them On Respondents failure to show cause why they should not be they are rejected LABORERS LOCAL 261 (SKINNER INC) 1037 II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED It is admitted and found that Northern California Dis tact Council of Laborers, AFL-CIO and Laborers Local Union No 261, AFL-CIO (Respondents), and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 202 (Electrical Workers) are each labor organiza tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III ISSUE Whether, by seeking court enforcement of an arbitra tion decision requiring the Employer to pay wages and fringe benefits payments to their members, the Respond ents are failing to comply with the Board s 10(k) deter mination in 271 NLRB 171 IV THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Viacom Cablevision of San Francisco possesses the ex clusive franchise to install and operate a cable television system in the city and county of San Francisco Pursuant to the franchise agreement, Viacom is required to install underground and aerial television cable throughout rest dential areas of San Francisco in accordance with a con struction plan and timetable extending into 1988 In June 1982, Viacom subcontracted some of the work of exca vation and installation of underground cable to the Em ployer As a prequisite to its agreement, Viacom required the Employer to sign a collective bargaining agreement with Electncal Workers covering the work to be per formed under the subcontract Viacom s employees who had been performing the work were represented by Electrical Workers Viacom's practice was to require all its subcontractors to sign an agreement with that Union prior to commencing work Accordingly, on 2 August 1982 the Employer signed a Letter of Assent B with the Electrical Workers whereby it agreed to adopt terms and conditions of employment contained in the Viacom Electrical Workers agreement The Employer also hired some of Viacom s employees and purchased some of Viacom's equipment and in January 1983 took over all of Viacom s underground construction work Also in August 1982 the Respondents approached the Employer about assigning to its members the under ground construction work being performed by employ ces represented by Electrical Workers Upon the Em ployer s refusal to reassign the work to employees repre sented by the Respondents on 26 August 1982, the Re spondents filed a grievance under the 1980-1983 Master Agreement to which the Employer was allegedly bound The grievance was referred to a board of adjust ment, which found for the Respondents The Employer did not participate in the Board of Adjustment proceed ing which was held on 11 October 1982 The Board of Adjustment arbitration award directed the Employer to pay 15 laborers listed in the grievance from August 19 1982, forward to the completion of the project and fringe benefits to be paid to the Trust Fund As the Employer did not comply with the arbitration award, on 2 March 1983 the Respondents filed a Petition for Con firmation of Arbitration Award in the San Francisco County Superior Court On 20 April 1983, a hearing on the petition was held Through an inadvertent error on the part of its counsel, the Employer did not appear On 21 July 1983, the court entered an order confirming arbi tration award, which was signed 29 August and filed on 2 September 1983 On 21 December 1983, the Employer filed a motion to set aside default judgment which was granted on 2 March 1984 On 13 March, the Employer filed an answer and response to the Respondents petition for confirmation of arbitration award On 19 April, Re spondents filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was denied on 18 June The superior court action is still pending On learning of the claim by the Respondents to the work being performed by employees represented by it on 3 October 1983, the Electncal Workers threatened to take whatever action is necessary, including picket ing, to prevent such assignment As a consequence, on 4 November 1983, the Employer filed the charge in Case 20-CD-612 alleging the Electrical Workers violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act Thereafter, a 10(k) hearing was held on 30 January 1984 Also on 30 January, by letter Respondents attorney demanded that the Employ er fully and immediately comply with the superior court's default order confirming arbitration Award At the commencement of the 10(k) hearing the Respond ents counsel attempted to disclaim interest in the disput ed work and moved to quash the notice of 10(k) hearing The Employer opposed the motion on the ground the disclaimer was inconsistent with Respondents superior court petition to enforce the arbitration award requiring the Employer to pay members of Respondents for the performance of the work in dispute On 11 July the Board issued its Decision and Determi nation of Dispute3 in which it found reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has oc curred and that there exists no agreed method for volun tary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act The Board declined to honor the Respondents disclaimer and denied the motion to quash the notice of 10(k) hearing After considering all the relevant factors, the Board made the following De termination of Dispute Employees of W B Skinner, Inc represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 202, are entitled to perform all work involving the excavation and laying of underground cable and related conduits carrying television sig nals throughout the city and county of San Francis co The collective bargaining agreements between Viacom and Electrical Workers and between the Employer and Electrical Workers expired on 15 January The terms of both contracts were extended on a day to day basis pending agreement on a new contract between Viacom and Electrical Workers to which the Employer had agreed to be bound Viacom and the Electrical Workers, however failed to reach an agreement and on 4 May Viacom s employees voted to decertify Electncal Work ers as their collective bargaining representative The Em ' Reported at 271 NLRB 171 1038 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer s employees did not participate in that election and the Employer continued to recognize Electrical Workers as the collective bargaining representative of its employees Negotiations between the Employer and Electrical Workers commenced shortly thereafter It ap pears from the record that because of delays in construc tion attributable to Viacom s difficulty in obtaining the necessary clearances and permits from various local San Francisco agencies before excavation work could be re sumed by the Employer, the parties did not feel the need to complete negotiations promptly 4 By September the Employer and Electrical Workers were in agreement on everything except the senionty clause Having been in formed that the underground work would resume short ly the Employer informed the Electrical Workers that it wanted to complete negotiations Accordingly negotia tions resumed and an agreement was reached on 27 De cember, which was signed by the parties on 15 and 16 January 1985 While the underground excavation work had not resumed at the time of the hearing in this matter, the Employer s president had been in daily contact with Viacom representatives and had been advised that work would resume shortly Discussion Section 8(b)(4)(D) makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to threaten coerce, or restrain any person en gaged in commerce where an object is forcing or re quinng any employer to assign particular work to em ployees in a particular labor organization rather than to employees in another labor organization The General Counsel and Employer contend that the Respondents attempt to enforce the arbitration award through the filing of a state court proceeding is inconsist ent with the Board s 10(k) Decision and Determination of Dispute, and constitutes prohibited economic coercion of the Employer in that in order to avoid payment to Respondents members for work they will not perform, the Employer will be compelled to reassign the disputed work to members of the Respondents It is argued that the maintenance of the lawsuit exerts continuing eco nomic pressure on the Employer the unavoidable con sequences of which the Respondents must have intend ed Consequently even though the state court lawsuit is limited to money damages, it has an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the disputed work to the [Respondents] ' Such conduct, it is claimed, is coer cive and an unlawful effort to undermine the Board s Section 10(k) award Both the General Counsel and the Employer rely on Longshoremen IL WU Local 32 (Weyer haeuser Co) 271 NLRB 759 (1984), and Longshoremen IL WU Local 7 (Georgia Pacific Corp), 273 NLRB 363 (1984) Respondents argue that the work covered by the 10(k) award was never performed by individuals represented by Electrical Workers and therefore what the Respond ents seek to do does not contradict or run contrary to the Board s [10(k)] award Respondents also argue that under the Supreme Court s opinion in Bill Johnson s Res 4 The record reveals however that some upgrading and troubleshoot ing work was performed at Viacom s direction throughout the year taurants v N L R B 461 U S 513 (1983), the Board no longer has the authority or power to in somehow order the laborers [Respondents] that they cannot pursue a legitimate statutorily supported suit in State Court According to Respondents, the Board made an incor rect interpretation and application of the Bill Johnson s decision and the W R Graces decision when it decided Weyerhaeuser In the Decision and Determination of Dispute the Board found that employees represented by Electrical Workers are entitled to perform all work involving the excavation and laying of underground cable and related conduits carrying television signals throughout the city and county of San Francisco Among the factors consid ered by the Board in concluding a junsdictional dispute existed was the Respondents argument that it had effec Lively disclaimed any interest in the work described in the notice of hearing and had done nothing inconsistent with its disclaimer Noting that the arbitration award which at that point had been confirmed by the superior court, provided that [T]he Employer be directed to pay the 15 laborers listed in the grievance from August 19, 1982, forward to the completion of the project and fringe benefits to be paid to the Trust Fund, the Board found that the Respondents had not effectively dis claimed interest in that work Notwithstanding the Board s 10(k) Decision and Determination awarding the subject work to Electrical Workers, Respondents contin ue to maintain their petition to confirm the arbitral award in superior court At the outset it is noted that the record facts do not support the Respondents claim that the work in issue was not performed by individuals represented by Electn cal Workers Rather the record shows that on the expi ration of the initial agreement in January 1984 the Em ployer and Electrical Workers agreed to extend the terms and conditions of the expired contract on a day to day basis pending agreement on a new contract between Viacom and Electrical Workers, to which the Employer had agreed to be bound that when Viacom and Electri cal Workers failed to reach agreement negotiations coin menced between the Employer and Electrical Workers culminating in an agreement in late December 1984 which was signed in mid January 1985 that upgrading and troubleshooting work was performed dunng 1984 by employees of the Employer pursuant to the Viacom agreement, that while the Employer did not deduct Union dues during this period, it failed to do so because of the minimal and sporadic tenure of the work, that the Employer failed to make health and welfare payments during 1984 because its employees worked insufficient hours to qualify for benefits, that the delay in construc tion work was attributable to Viacom s difficulty in ob taming clearances and permits from various city and county of San Francisco agencies and that the Employer continued at all times to recognize Electrical Workers as the collective bargaining representative of its employees in San Francisco 5 W R Grace 4 Co Y Rubber Workers Local 759 461 U S 757 (1983) LABORERS LOCAL 261 (SKINNER INC) The Respondents argument that enforcement of the arbitration award in the superior court does not run con trary to the Board s 10(k) determination also lacks merit It is clear that the amounts the Respondents seek to re cover by enforcement of the Board of Adjustment Arbi tration Award are based on the amount that Respond ents members would have earned if they, and not the Employer's Electrical Workers represented employees had been assigned the work in dispute It is obvious that if the Employer is compelled to pay wages and benefits to Respondents members for work not performed it will suffer economically, and will inevitably be compelled to reassign the disputed work to Respondents members 6 In these circumstances, it is found that the Respondents have used the state court lawsuit as an economic device against the Employer with an object of forcing or requir ing the Employer to assign the disputed work to Re spondents members 7 In this regard it is noted that the Respondents' answer as amended at the hearing admits in pertinent part that the maintenance of the superior court action was `for the purpose of enforcing the Board of Adjustment decision and/or to pay monetary dam ages for failure to assign work to employees represented by Respondent 8 As authority for the proposition that a 10(k) determi nation takes precedence over a contrary arbitration award, the Board in both Georgia Pacific and Weyer haeuser, quoted with approval the following excerpt from Auto Workers Local 1519 v Rockwell International Corp, 619 F 2d 580 (6th Cir 1980), in which the court stated Once the NLRB decides a work assignment dis pute its determination takes precedence over a con trary arbitrators award Carey v Westinghouse Corp, 375 U S 261, 84 S Ct 401, 11 L Ed 2d 320 (1964), NLRB v Radio & Television Broadcast Engi neers, supra, New Orleans Typographical Union No 17 v NLRB, 368 F 2d 755 (5th Cir 1966) This is true regardless of which action was initiated first Dock Loaders and Unloaders ILA Local No 854 v Richeson & Sons Inc, 280 F Supp 402 (E D La 1968) In Carey the court specifically noted that where an NLRB determination and an arbitrator s award conflict the former s ruling would take prec edence Further [t]he superior authority of the Board may be invoked at any time 375 US at 272, 84 S Ct at 409 Accord New Orleans Typo graphical supra As noted in Weyerhaeuser 271 NLRB at 763 'The Court went on to hold that when an employer has been acting in accord with a 10(k) ruling, 'it is not liable for damages to the disappointed union' The Respondents' argument that the Supreme Court s decision in Bill Johnson s precludes the Board from en joining Respondents from maintaining their superior court lawsuit against the Employer was considered and rejected by the Board on the basis of Carey v Westing 8 See Georgia Pacific above 7 Ibid 8 Par 12 of complaint 1039 house Corp, 375 U S (1964), in both Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific While I view W R Grace distinguish able on its facts, Respondents position ignores the Su preme Court's decision in Carey v Westinghouse that a Board determination takes precedence over an arbitration award and that [t]he superior authority of the Board may be invoked at any time On the foregoing, I conclude and find that by main taming a petition to confirm arbitral award in Northern California Distict Council of Laborers et al v W B Skin ner Inc Case No 806103, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francis co thereby undermining the Board s authority to resolve jurisdictional disputes, the Respondents have failed to comply with the Board s 10(k) Decision and Determina tion of Dispute and have engaged in prohibited econom is coercion of the Employer with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the disputed work to Respondents' members rather than to employees who are members of Electrical Workers Such conduct violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act, substantially as alleged in paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of the complaint CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I Northern California District Council of Laborers, AFL-CIO, Laborers Local Union No 261, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 202, are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 2 W B Skinner, Inc is an employer engaged in com merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 3 Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by main taming a Petition to Confirm Arbitral Award in Northern California District Council of Laborers et al v W B Skinner Inc Case No 806103, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco for the purpose of enforcing the Board of Ad justment Decision requiring W B Skinner, Inc to pay monetary damages pursuant to the Board of Adjustment Decision, with an object of forcing or requiring W B Skinner Inc to assign the disputed work below to em ployees who are represented by Respondents rather than to employees represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 202 The work con sists of All work involving the excavation and laying of un derground cable and related conduits carrying tele vision signals throughout the city and county of San Francisco 4 The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(II)(D) of the Act I recommend that they cease and desist therefrom 1040 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed9 ORDER The Respondents, Northern California District Coun- cil of Laborers, AFL-CIO and Laborers' Local Union No. 261, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and represent- atives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Maintaining a petition to confirm arbitral award in Northern California District Council of Laborers, et al. v. W. B. Skinner, Inc., Case No. 806103, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco , for the purpose of enforcing the Board of Adjustment Decision requiring W. B. Skinner, Inc. to pay monetary damages pursuant to the Board of Adjust- ment Decision , with an object of forcing or requiring W. B. Skinner, Inc. to assign the disputed work below to employees who are represented by Respondents, rather than to employees represented by International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 202. The work consists of: All work involving the excavation and laying of un- derground cable nd related conduits carrying televi- sion signals throughout the city and county of San Francisco. 9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings , conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. (b) Refusing to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute reported at 271 NLRB 1711 (1984). 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Withdraw their Petition to Confirm Arbitral Award, in Northern California District Council of Labor- ers, et al. v. W. B. Skinner, Inc., Case No. 806103, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco. (b) Post at in conspicuous places in their business of- fices, meeting halls, and all other places where notices to members are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre- sentatives, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate- ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice to the Regional Director for Region 20 for posting by W. B. Skinner, Inc. where notices to employees are usually posted, if the Employer is willing. (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."