Laborers' Local No. 652

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1978

238 N.L.R.B. 986 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DI8E-CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
Laborers' International Union of North America, Lo-
cal No. 652, AFL-CIO and Richard Sewell, Inc.
Laborers International Union of North America, LA)cal
No. 652, AFL-CIO and Richard Sewell, Inc. Cases
21 CC-1997 and 21 CP 467
September 29, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MI MBi RS JINKINS
AND MURI'IIY
On April 17, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Richard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party, Richard
Sewell, Inc., filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thorit' in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
We find merit in Sewell's exception to the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's failure to find that Respondent's
picketing of Sewell and Pelayo, to the extent found
unlawful, also had as an object forcing or requiring
ETC Company, General Tire Company, Hansgen
Painting, Gaffer and Salter, and the Edison Company
to cease doing business with Sewell. 2 We also agree
that paragraph I(c) of the Order should be changed
to read "Threatening to picket or picketing Armando
Pelayo Landscape Management .... "I
AMENDi D CO N(I.tUSION OiI LAW
Delete Conclusion of' Law I in the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision and insert the following:
"I. By picketing Sewell and by picketing Pelayo at
other than the reserved gate with (a) an object of torc-
ing or requiring ETC Company, General Tire Com-
i In the absence if exceptiorns. Chairman Fanning and Member Murphy
adopt the Administrative l.aw Judge's finding that Respondent violaled Sec.
8(b)(7)(C) by threatening toi picket Pelayr See their dissents in (;Gneral r iS.r-
iie EmplJieis Uni(nr L.(i l 1i o 7S (Mi I Serlhrith `eriiii (..), 224 NlRB
434 (1976)
'The Charging Party also requests that the Broard order Respondent to
cease and desist from engaging in conduct designed to lorce or require the
Charging Party to cease doing business with "anys person" in the future I he
record, howeser, doies not re\eal a pattern of' crnducl that would indicate a
likelihood that the Charging Parts would again be subjected to the practices
similar to those found vioialive of' the Act herein. We will Iheretore niot
brroalden the Order as the Charging Party requests.
3See General Serilce Ermprhrree' U'liolr In.oira Noi 73 (,4 I Sir urith Si'r1ie
('o ), rupru.
pany, Hansgen Painting, Gaffer and Salter, and the
Edison Company to cease doing business with Sewell
and (b) with an object of forcing or requiring Sewell
to cease doing business with Pelayo, Respondent has
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
I.aborers' International Union of North America, Lo-
cal No. 652, AFL CIO, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a):
'(a) Inducing or encouraging, by picketing or any
other means, individuals employed by Richard Sew-
ell, Inc., ETC Company, General Tire Company,
Hansgen Painting, Gaffer and Salter, and the Edison
Company, or by any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, to en-
gage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their
employment to perform services for their respective
employers, where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire any person to cease doing business with Ar-
mando Pelayo Landscape Management or to force or
require ETC Company, General Tire Company,
Hansgen Painting, Gaffer and Salter. and the Edison
Company to cease doing business with Richard Sew-
ell, Inc."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph l(b):
"(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Richard
Sewell, Inc., ETC Company, General Tire Company,
Hansgen Painting, Gaffer and Salter, and the Edison
('ompany, or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce. where an object
thereof is to force or to require Richard Sewell. Inc.,
or any other person, to cease doing business with Ar-
mando Pelayo Landscape Management."
3. Substitute the word "or" for the words "and
then" after the word "picket" in paragraph 1(c).
4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NoiE'I(' To EMPI.OYlil S
PoSI.D) BY ORDIR ()i 1I111
NAI(ONAI. LABOR Rl. AI()NS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which we participated and had a
chance to give evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we had violated the Na-
238 NLRB No. 140
986
I ABORERS' LOCAL NO. 652
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice and abide by it.
Wt Wl.l Nt01 in any manner prohibited by
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act induce or encourage, by picketing or
any other means, individuals employed by Rich-
ard Sewell. Inc., ETC Company, General Tire
Company. Ilansgen Painting. Gaffer and Salter,
and the Edison Company, or by any other per-
son engaged in commerce or in an industry af-
fecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a re-
fusal in the course of their employment to
perform services for their respective employers,
where an object thereof is to force or require any
person to cease doing business with Armando
Pelayo Landscape Management or to force or
require ETC' Company. General Tire Compan\y
Hansgen Painting. Gaffer and Salter, and the
Edison Company to cease doing business with
Richard Sewell. Inc.
WF WIi\. NOI in any manner prohibited b\
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act threaten, coerce, or restrain Richard
Sewell, Inc., ETC Company, General Tire Com-
pany, Hansgen Painting, Gaffer and Salter, and
the Edison Company, or any other person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce. where an object thereof is to force or
require Richard Sewell, Inc., or any other per-
son, to cease doing business with Armando Pel-
ayo landscape Management.
Wt: i1.1. Not threaten to picket or picket Ar-
mando Pelayo Landscape Management. an ob-
ject being to force or require Pelavo to recognize
us as the collective-bargaining representative of
its employees or to force Pelayo's employees to
accept or select us as their collective-bargaining
representative, when we are not certified as such
representative and where said threats have gone
unretracted without a petition under Section 9 (c)
being filed within a reasonable period of time not
to exceed 30 days from the first threat.
WI w\v.i, NOI engage in any like or related
unfair labor practices.
L.ABOR RS' INII RNA IIONAI UNIO()N OF
NoRrt AM;nRI( A, Lo('AI. No. 652. AFL-
CIO
DECISION
Sil of\i i ' 1 I 1i (H xASi
R( IIARD .1. BoY('It. Administrative l.aw Judge: This
matter waIS heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on
February 8. 1978. Both underlying charges were filed on
December 15. 1977. byv Richard Sewell. Inc. (herein called
Sewell). The complaint issued on December 28. 1977. alleg-
ing that Laborers' International Union of North America.
Local No. 652. AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent) had
violated Section 8(b)(4}i) and (ii)(B) and Section 8X(b)(7}(C)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
The parties were given opportunity at the hearing to in-
troduce relevant evidence. examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and argue orally. Briefs were filed tfor the General
Counsel and for Respondent.
1. Jt RISDI(CIi\O
Sewell at relevant times was a general contractor in the
development of a multiple-housing complex in Costa Mesa.
California. In furtherance of the Costa Mesa project. Sewell
purchased products valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from suppliers outside California. It is undisputed that Sew-
ell at relevant times was an employer engaged in and affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6), and
(7) of the Act. and a person within Section 8(b)(4).
Armando Pelayo L[andscape Management (herein called
Pelayo) is a landscape contractor in the construction indus-
trS. and was the landscaping subcontractor on the C'osta
Mesa project. It is undisputed that Pelayo at relevant times
was an employer engaged in and affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). (7) and Section 8(b)(7) of
the Act. and a person within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4).
11. lAB()R OR(GANIZATI(ON
Respondent is a labor organization within Section 215) of
the Act.
III, IssMti s
The complaint alleges that Respondent threatened to
picket Pelayo on November 11, 1977. and did picket Pelayo
beginning on December 7 to force Pelayo to recognize Re-
spondent as the representative of Pelayo's employees, in
circumstances violating Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. The
complaint further alleges that, in aid of' its dispute with
Pelayo. Respondent picketed the Costa Mesa project in )e-
cember 1977 in a manner violating Section 8tb)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B).
The answer denies any wrongdoing.
IX. riHi At.It.(ilO) t NFAIR IAB()R PRA( II( i:S
A. Facts
As stated, Pelayo was the landscaping subcontractor on
the Costa Mesa project. Sewell being the general contrac-
tor. The project entailed the erection of 35 triplexes and two
apartment buildings on a 10-acre site. Work began in
March 1977. Pelayo began to perform under its subcontract
on November 7. 1977. The Pelayo crew ranged in size from
six to eight, and was not represented by an% union.
On November 9. one of the Respondent's business
agents, Marvin Hunter. spoke with Pelayo's owner, Ar-
mando I'elayo. at the site. Declaring that the project was a
union job. Hunter told Pelayo that his firm should not be
987
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there. Hunter added that Pelayo could get union jobs if he
signed a contract with Respondent, and suggested that he
visit Hunter at the union hall.' About the same time, Hunt-
er told Thomas Scherer, a field superintendent for Sewell,
that Pelayo was not signatory to a union contract and asked
that Scherer do what he could to get Pelayo to sign.2
On November I 1, Pelayo telephoned Hunter, stating that
he would come to the union hall the next Tuesday, Novem-
ber 15. Hunter responded that if Pelayo did not show up
the project would be shut down. Pelayo assured him that he
would be there. Hunter then summoned Respondent's busi-
ness manager, David Hernandez, to an extension phone,
and asked that Pelayo repeat that assurance.3
Pelayo went to the hall as promised on November 15.
Hunter asked that he sign a contract, and Pelayo asked
about the advantages to him if he did. Hunter answered
that it would enable Pelayo to work on the Costa Mesa
project and other union jobs. Pelayo said he would have to
speak to Richard Sewell, president of Sewell, about cover-
ing Pelayo's added expenses, should he sign. Hernandez,
who had just joined the conversation, stated that Pelayo
had no intention of signing, and spoke to the effect that the
project would be picketed or shut down the next day.4 This
was the last communication between Respondent and Pel-
ayo.
After Pelayo left the hall on November 15, Sewell's gen-
eral superintendent, James Austin, happened to telephone
Hernandez about another matter. Hernandez told him, dur-
ing the conversation, that Pelayo had just left without sign-
ing a contract and that Austin consequently knew "what to
expect" should Pelayo be on the job the next day. Austin
said he would speak with Pelayo in an effort to resolve the
problem, and would keep Hernandez informed.5
Austin and Richard Sewell accordingly decided to re-
move Pelayo from the project for the time being. Austin so
advised Hernandez on the evening of November 15; and
Richard Sewell so advised Pelayo on the morning of the
I This is Pelayo's credited version of the conversation. Hunter admits invit-
ing Pelayo to the hall to "look at the agreement," but denies asking that he
sign or saying that he should not be on the project. Pelayo evinced great
sincerity from the witness stand, and his testimony was both internally con-
sistent and plausible. Hunter's testimony, on the other hand, was flawed by
vagueness and occasional self-contradiction.
2 This is Scherer's credited version of the conversation. Hunter admittedly
told Scherer that Pelayo was not signatory, but denies asking Scherer's aid to
change the situation. Scherer testified in a direct and believable fashion,
whereas Hunter, as indicated in the preceding footnote, was not an impres-
sive witness.
This is Pelayo's credited version of the conversation. Hunter denies
threatening to shut the job down. Pelayo is credited for the reasons previ-
ously stated. Hernandez, although late to the conversation. admits that
Hunter "mentioned something about signing an agreement."
' This is Pelayo's credited version of the meeting. Hunter admits showing
him the union contract, but denies asking him to sign or that either he or
Hernandez threatened to picket or shut the project down if Pelayo failed to
sign. Hernandez likewise denies making such a threat, recalling that "we
talked about whether he [Pelayol was a member or something," and of being
under the "impression" that Pelayo would be returning to sign. Cornelius
Perez testified of being present part of the time, and that he saw Pelayo
examining a contract. Perez denies that any threats to picket or shut down
were made. As mentioned earlier, Pelayo was an eminently believable wit-
ness and Hunter was not. Hernandez' testimony, like Hunter's, was flawed
by vagueness and implausibility; and Perez' was palpably self-serving. Perez
is a union business agent.
5 This is Austin's credited version of the conversation. Hernandez denying
that the Pelayo matter was so much as mentioned. Not only does probability
favor Austin's version, but his recital was convincing in detail and sureness.
16th, citing "some problems with the Union." Pelayo com-
plied, not resuming work until December 1.
On November 17, Sewell established a "reserved gate" at
the project for the sole use of Pelayo. It was located on the
Baker Street side, and was designated by this sign:
Stop. Read. Gate Number One. This gate is reserved
for the exclusive use of employees, suppliers, and mate-
rial men of the following contractors: Armando Pelayo
Company. All other contractors, employees, suppliers,
and material men must go to Gate Number Two or
Number Three.
At the same time, this sign was installed at the main gate, so
called, at the corner of Paularino and Jeffrey Streets:
Stop. Gate Number Two. This gate is for the sole use
of employees, suppliers. and material men of all con-
tractors except Armando Pelayo Company. All em-
ployees. suppliers, and material men or contractors
listed above must use Gate Number One only.
Respondent was informed of the new gate arrangement
by this letter, dated November 17, from Richard Sewell to
Hernandez:
Re Westbay Jobsite in Costa Mesa .... and your dis-
pute with Armando Pelayo Landscape Management,
please be advised that said company will not be per-
forming work at this jobsite until December 1, 1977. A
reserved gate system has been established. An entrance
for Pelayo and his suppliers is set aside for his use and
is located at 840 Baker Street at the south end of the
project.
If you choose to engage in picketing on or after De-
cember 1, 1977, at that site, please confine such picket-
ing to the gate reserved for Pelayo.
Coincident with Pelayo's resumption of work on Decem-
ber 1, Sewell placed a guard at the main gate with instruc-
tions to prevent its use by employees, suppliers, etc.. of Pel-
ayo.
On December 7, Respondent picketed both the main and
reserved gates. The main-gate picket sign bore this legend:
Richard Sewell, Incorporated
Unfair to Laborers' Local 652
Sanctioned by Orange County Building Trades
The reserved-gate legend was the same, except that Pelayo's
name appeared instead of Sewell's. Hunter intimated in his
testimony that picketing was addressed to Sewell, as well as
Pelayo, because Sewell had laborers on its payroll, but no
contract with Respondent.'
On December 7, shortly' after the onset of picketing, the
employees of ETC Company, a carpentry subcontractor,
left the site. In addition, Sewell postponed the delivery of
carpet padding by General Tire ('ompany upon being told
by General Tire that its deliver)s drivers would not cross a
picket line.
I In its answer, however, Respondent admits par. 9 of the complaint,
which alleges in part: "At all times material herein, Respondent has been.
and is now, engaged in a labor dispute with Pelayo. At no time material
herein has Respondent been engaged in a labor dispute with Sewell ....
(Emphasis supplied.)
988
LABORERS' LOCAL NO. 652
Sewell responded to the picketing of the two gates by
placing its name on the reserved gate sign along with
Pelayo's, by ceasing its use of the main gate, and by so
advising Respondent. Presumably as a consequence, picket-
ing was confined to the reserved gate. and referred only to
Pelayo. from December 8 through 14.
On December 15, pickets again appeared at the reserved
and main gates, the legends at both naming Pelayo as the
offending employer.' ETC's employees left the site once
more, as did those of a painting subcontractor, Hansgen
Painting. The Edison Company refused to cross the picket
line to turn on the power, and a firm known as Gaffer and
Salter declined to make a scheduled deliver), of appliances.
Picketing addressed to Pelayo continued at both gates on
December 16. and Sewell was picketed at the reserved gate
as well. The Edison Company again refused to turn on the
power, and the employees of ETC and Hansgen Painting
again withheld their services.
December 17 and 18 fell on Saturday and Sunday, and
nothing of moment occurred.
On December 19. Pelayo and Sewell were picketed all
day at the reserved gate, and until about 10:30 a.m., Sewell
also was picketed at the main gate.' On December 20, Pel-
ayo and Sewell again were picketed all day at the reserved
gate, with Pelayo also being picketed at the main gate until
8:30 or 9 a.m.' From December 21 through 27, when Pel-
ayo completed its work, picketing was confined to the re-
served gate and was addressed to both Pelayo and Sewell.
There is no evidence of picketing after December 27.
Hunter testified that the decision to picket was his, and
that one of his reasons was the hope that Pelayo would sign
a union contract. He seemingly contradicted himself mo-
ments later, testifying that he never asked Pelayo to sign
and that getting Pelayo to do so was not the reason for the
picketing: that the idea was to bring Pelayo into conformitys
with union wage levels.' 0 Hunter added that if Pelayo
"would sign an agreement. we would . . . appreciate it."
Similarly, Hernandez testified that he "didn't care if [Pel-
ayo] signed ... or not"; that his concern was observance of
prevailing union standards.
At no relevant time was an election petition filed con-
cerning Pelayo's employees, nor was Respondent certified
by the Board to represent them.
B. Conclusions
It is concluded that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and 8(b)(7)(C) as alleged.
Regarding Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). violations oc-
curred each time Respondent picketed with signs naming
Sewell. This picketing was unlawful because it was in aid of
7 Hunter testified that. on December 15. he saw a Pelayo employee enter
the site through a third gate t'he record is scant concerning a third gate.
although the sign designating the reserved gate referred to gates numbered 2
and 3, 2 being the main gate. In any event, Hunter's testimony was vague
and unconvincing and is discredited.
I The (General Counsel concedes that Sewell mas have breached the integ-
nty of' the main gate on December 19.
IThe parties stipulated that, if called, the Union's picket captain would
have testified that he saw a Sewell supplier using the main gate on December
2(0.
to Hunter testified at ione point that he did not know if' Pelayo's employees
were receising union scale. onl tio assert elsewhere that, while he did not
know what their wages were, he did know that they were under scale
Respondent's dispute with Pelayo over Pelayo's failure to
sign a contract, and plainly had an object of forcing Sewell
to cease doing business with Pelayo.
That Respondent had a primary dispute with Pelayo but
not with Sewell was shown first and foremost bv the admis-
sion to that effect in its answer. It was further shown by
Hernandez' telling Sewell's Austin on November 15 that,
since Pelayo had not signed. Austin knew "what to expect,"
should Pelayo be on the job the next day: by the absence of
picketing at any time that Pelayo was not at the site. includ-
ing November 16 to December 1, when Sewell removed
Pelayo in response to Hernandez' implied threat; by the
commencement of picketing on December 7, a few days
after Pelayo's return to the job: and by the apparent cessa-
tion of picketing after December 27. coincident with the
completion of Pelayo's work.
The cease-doing-business object of the picketing of Se\w-
ell is inferable from Hernandez' November 15 implied
threat to Austin, and from the nonoccurrence of picketing
when Pelayo was not at the site.
Respondent also violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by
picketing the main gate with signs addressed to Pelayo, in-
asmuch as a reserved gate had been established for Pelayo's
use, and there is not credible evidence that Pelayo used
other than that gate. Local 761, International Union oJ'Elec-
trical, Radio & Machine 'Workers, AFL-CIO IGeneral Elec-
tric Compan.y] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 667 (1961); Sailors
Union of'the Pacific (Moore Drv Dock Company ,. 92 NLRB
547 (1950).
Regarding Section 8(b)(7)(C), a violation vested with the
lapse of over 30 days following Hunter's November II
threat to shut the project down if Pelayo failed to appear at
the hall on November 15 to discuss signing a contract. For.
without an election petition being filed, Respondent not
only failed ever to retract that threat, which had a manifest
recognitional object. but reaffirmed it on November 15
when Hernandez declared that Pelayo had no intention of
signing and that the project therefore would be picketed or
shut down, and acted consistently with both threats by
picketing Pelayo from December 7 to 27.
As stated in General Service Employees Union Local No.
73, affiliated with Senrice Employees International LUnion.
AFL-CIO (A-l Security Senrvice Co.), 224 NLRB 434, 436,
fn. 8 (1976):
A threat continues in effect [for purposes of Section
8(b)(7)(C)] until it is retracted. Thus, a threat to picket
for a proscribed object is operative until such time as
the union clearly indicates that it no longer intends to
pursue the threatened picketing. Our task in a threat to
picket situation is analogous to that in circumstances
of actual picketing since in both cases we asses the
reasonableness of the period of time during which the
threat remains outstanding. With picketing, the period
of activity runs from the establishment of the picket
line until its abandonment: with threats to picket, the
applicable period runs from the date the threat is made
until the date it is retracted.
Logic dictates that, once 30 days had passed following
the initial threat, the picketing of Pelayo also became viola-
tive of Section 8(b)(7)(C). e'en though itself lasting less
than 30 days, it being an intergrated folloAup of that and
989
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hernandez' November 15 threat. It cannot be said that the
picketing came within the saving "publicity proviso" of
Section 8(b)(7)(C), because the picket signs said only that
Pelayo was "Unfair to Laborers' Local 652," without refer-
ring to the absence of a labor contract or the nonhire of
union members; because, regardless of the picket legend,
Respondent's purpose plainly was recognitional rather than
informational:" and, in any event, the picketing had the
effect of inducing employees of others to withhold their ser-
vices, and thus was outside the proviso's embrace.
C (N('I.USIONS OF LA"W
1. By picketing Sewell and by picketing Pelayo at other
than the reserved gate, with an object of forcing Sewell to
cease doing business with Pelayo, as found herein, Respon-
dent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
2. By threatening to picket and then picketing Pelayo,
the object being to force or require Pelayo to recognize Re-
spondent as the collective-bargaining representative of its
employees or to tforce Pelavo's employees to accept or select
Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative
when Respondent was not certified as such representative
and where said threats had gone unretracted without a pe-
tition under Section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable
period of time not to exceed 30 days from the first threat.
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
3. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law.
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act. I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"2
I he Respondent. Laborers' International Union of North
America, Local No. 652. AFL CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in or inducing or encouraging any individ-
ual employed by Richard Sewell, Inc.. or by any other per-
son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
11 E.g., Lc;aul 275 I.abhorerr Inrerntinol ULnion of ',Vorlh A,merrira .4F1
('10 (S.B. 4partrnment, Inci. 209 NLRB 279 (1974).
12All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order
hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec.
102.46 of' the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board.
the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec 102.48 of' the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
heciome its findings, conclusions and Order. and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes
merce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his
employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any articles, materials, or com-
modities, or to refuse to perform any other services where
an object thereof is to force or require Richard Sewell, Inc.,
or any' other person, to cease using, handling, or otherwise
dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or
manufacturer, or to cease doing business with Armando
Pelayo Landscape Management.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Richard Sewell,
Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to
tbrce or to require Richard Sewell, Inc.. or any other per-
son, to cease doing business with Armando Pelayo Land-
scape Management.
(c) Threatening to picket and then picketing Armando
Pelayo Landscape Management, an object being to force or
require Pelayo to recognize Local No. 652 as the collective-
bargaining representative of its employees or to force
Pelayo's employees to accept or select Local No. 652 as
their collective-bargaining representative, when Local No.
652 is not certified as such representative and where said
threats have gone unretracted without a petition under Sec-
tion 9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not
to exceed 30 days from the first threat.
(d) Engaging in any like or related unfair labor practices.
2. Take this affirmative action:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members customarily are posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice to the
Regional Director for Region 21 for posting by Richard
Sewell. Inc., and Armando Pelayo Landscape Manage-
ment, should they wish to do so, at all locations where no-
tices to employees customarily are posted.
(c) Notitfy the Regional Director for Region 21, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, wshat steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
13 In the event that this Order is enforced by ajudgment of a United States
Court of' Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of Ihe United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board.
990