Local 103, Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 339 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LOCAL 103, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 339
Local Union 103 of Greater Boston International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and
A. B. Caiani , Inc. Case 1-CC-741
October 27, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On July 8, 1969, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent 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 Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision, and the Respondent, Charging
Party, and General Counsel filed briefs in support of
their respective positions'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
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 briefs, and
the entire record in this case, 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 adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Local Union 103 of
Greater Boston International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Boston,
Massachusetts, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
'Respondent ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied , since the
record , exceptions , and briefs adequately present the positions of the
parties
'Member Fanning concurs in the finding that Respondent's picketing
violated Sec 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) However, he bases his conclusion solely
on the evidence that the Respondent ' s picketing was not conducted in
conformity with the standards set forth in Moore Dry Dock Company, 92
NLRB 547 See Member Fanning ' s separate statement of position in
General Telephone Company of California, 151 NLRB 1490, fn 4
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Louis LIBBIN, Trial Examiner Upon charges filed on
January 14 and March 12, 1969, by A. B. Caiani, Inc.,
179 NLRB No. 57
herein called Caiani or the Charging Party, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region 7 (Boston , Massachusetts),
issued a complaint , dated March 14, 1969 , against Local
Union 103 of Greater Boston International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, herein called the
Respondent , alleging, in substance , that Respondent
engaged in conduct which constituted unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act In its duly filed answer , Respondent, in
substance , denies all unfair labor practice allegations
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held before me at
Boston , Massachusetts , on April 15, 1969. All parties
were represented at the hearing and were given full
opportunity to participate therein . By May 19, 1969, all
parties filed briefs which I have fully considered.
For the reasons hereinafter indicated , I find that
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the
Act
Upon the entire record in the case,' and from my
observation of the witnesses while testifying under oath, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Citadel Construction Company, herein called Citadel, is
a Massachusetts corporation engaged in the general
contracting business. A B Caiani, Inc , the Charging
Party herein, is a Massachusetts corporation engaged as
an electrical contractor in the building and construction
industry. During the calendar year 1968, Caiani purchased
and received materials and equipment valued in excess of
$50,000, which were shipped from outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Caiani for use within
said Commonwealth and other States.
During 1968 and 1969 Citadel was the general
contractor on a construction job at a Zayre Department
Store in the Saugus Plaza shopping center in Saugus,
Massachusetts There were about 16 or 17 subcontractors,
including Caiani, on this job
Upon the above admitted facts, I find that Caiani is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Caiani, Citadel,
and the subcontractors engaged in building construction
services on the Zayre construction job in the Saugus Plaza
shopping center are persons engaged in the building and
construction industry, which is an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the
Act
II THE RESPONDENT AND ITS AGENTS
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find,
that Local Union 103 of Greater Boston International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, the
Respondent herein, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act. I further
find, as the complaint alleges and the answer also admits,
'I hereby grant the General Counsel ' s unopposed Motion, dated May 13,
1969, to correct the typewritten transcript of testimony in three specific
respects and have made the requested corrections I also note and correct
the following obvious , inadvertent errors in the typewritten transcript of
testimony On p 48, 1 15, "Wouldn ' t" is changed to "Didn 't", on p 54, I
24, "stull" is changed to "stuff ', and on p 72 , 1 22, "from " is changed to
"to" and "classifying" is changed to "clarifying" and on I 23, "that" is
changed to "that's "
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that at all times material herein Don J Berry and Everett
M Warren, Assistant Business Managers of Respondent,
have been agents of Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
,A. Introduction 'The Issues
Citadel Construction Company, herein called Citadel,
was the general contractor on a construction job at a
Zayre Department Store in the Saugus Plaza shopping
center on U S Route I in Saugus, Massachusetts The job
began on October I, 1968, and consisted of the
remodeling and building of additions to the store as well
as the building of additional small stores. Citadel did not
have any of its own employees actually engaged in
construction work on this job There were about 16 or 17
subcontractors on the job, including Electrical
Subcontractor Caiani, the Charging Party herein All
subcontractors, except Caiani, employed union labor
Respondent informed Citadel that Caiani was not living
up to area practices and standards and that it would have
to picket the job for that reason Respondent picketed the
jobsite on January 13 and 14, 1969 During that period
the job was completely shut down because the other trades
refused to work while the picketing was in progress.
Citadel thereupon replaced Caiani with an electrical
subcontractor whose employees were represented by
Respondent, and work on the job resumed
The principal issue litigated in this proceeding is
whether, as the General Counsel contends, Respondent
engaged in its conduct with an object of shutting down the
job and thereby forcing Citadel to cease doing business
with Caiani in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act or whether, as Respondent contends, the sole
object of its conduct was to inform the public of Caiani's
alleged failure to conform to area or community practices
and standards
B The Undisputed Facts'
Caiani started working at the jobsite in the latter part
of October, 1968, performing work of a preliminary or
temporary nature for 2 days This consisted of moving
some parking lot light poles and reconnecting them in a
new location outside the Zayre store and of performing
some temporary wiring After Caiani had completed this
work, Respondent's Assistant Business Manager Everett
Warren, an admitted agent, visited Citadel's
Superintendent King in his office in a trailer on the
jobsite. King was in charge of the Saugus construction job
and was the highest management representative on the
jobsite Warren introduced himself and gave his business
card to King Warren then asked King if he was aware
that Caiani "did not live up to area practices and
standards " King replied in the negative, adding that
Caiani had only been doing temporary work and that he
did not believe Caiani had the contract for the full job
Warren then asked if Caiani would come back on the job.
King replied that he did not know.
The findings in this section are based on exhibits which are not in
dispute and on the credited and undisputed testimony of General Counsel's
witnesses Joseph L King , Construction Superintendent of Citadel, Roy
Christie, President and Secretary of Citadel, and Alexander Caiani,
President and Treasurer of Caiani Respondent's sole witness was William
Sullivan, a member of the Respondent who acted as a picket at the jobsite
on January 13, 1969
Subsequently King saw Caiani, the President and
Treasurer of Caiani, advised him of King's conversation
with Warren, stated that Caiani had better get this
resolved, and gave him Warren's card. After a number of
unsuccessful attempts, Caiani finally reached Warren by
telephone during November 1968
After identifying himself, Caiani stated that he was
informed that Warren wanted him off the Saugus job.
Warren said that was right When Caiani asked for the
reason, Warren replied that Caiani did not meet the
community standard and did not pay the union scale
Caiani asked how Warren knew what Caiani was paying
his men Warren replied that he had spoken to some of
Caiani's employees on a job in Woburn, Massachusetts,
about a year before. Warren refused Caiani's request that
he name the job and the men to whom he had spoken
Caiani offered to pay union scale in accordance with the
community standards if Warren would state what those
standards were. However, Warren refused to specify the
standards which he claimed Caiani was not observing, and
stated that Caiani would not work in harmony with the
union men on the job Caiani asked Warren for certain
information for his employees about Respondent and
about joining Respondent's organization He also asked if
Respondent would take his employees as members if they
voted to join. Warren told Caiani that his employees
could not join Respondent unless they were approved
Caiani suggested as a further alternative that he was
prepared to turn the job over to Barden, a friend of his
who is a union electrical contractor, if Barden would be
permitted to use Caiani's men if he did not have enough
men of his own. Warren stated that he was not interested
in that arrangement but just wanted Caiani off the job
Warren then indicated that he would send Caiani the
union information which he had requested
During November 1968, Caiani worked on the jobsite
for 2 days performing additional electrical work. While
Caiani was working, Warren appeared on the jobsite
again but did not talk to King or make any effort to
contact Caiani After Caiani completed his work on the
second day, Warren appeared on the jobsite frequently to
check and see whether Caiani had returned to work there
Thereafter, Caiani received from Warren a letter, dated
December 2, 1968, which made no reference to the
information requested by Caiani but, instead, enclosed a
questionnaire, labeled "Questionnaire to Determine Rates
of Pay and Fringe Benefits," with a request that Caiani
fill it out and return it The bottom of this questionnaire
contained the following
Notice All information given in this questionnaire may
be used as evidence before the National Labor
Relations Board and/or any court of competent
jurisdiction
Caiani did not complete and return to Warren this
questionnaire because the latter had not kept his promise
to send the information which Caiani had previously
requested Moreover, after noticing the above-stated
caveat on the bottom, Caiani asked and was advised by
his attorney not to send the information to Respondent
However, after having been unable to reach Warren by
telephone, Caiani did inform Warren by letter, dated
December 13, 1968, of his unsuccessful attempts to reach
Warren and that he was still waiting for the information
and forms which Caiani had previously requested Warren
replied by letter, dated December 16, 1968, in which he
again failed to furnish the requested forms and
information but instead stated that Respondent was not
trying to organize Caiani's employees, that he just wanted
LOCAL 103, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
the information called for in the questionnaire and that, in
view of Caiam's failure to return the completed
questionnaire, he must assume that Caiani did not meet
the community standards
Caiani returned to the job again shortly before
Christmas, 1968, for additional 2 days of temporary work
At that time Warren again visited Citadel's
Superintendent King on the jobsite and informed King
that Respondent was going to picket the job because
Caiani did not live up to area practices and standards
King replied that he thought the matter had been resolved
Warren stated that he had not received the information
which he had requested Caiani to supply. The following
morning Warren appeared at the jobsite with two men
about 7 15 However, because of the inclement weather,
no work was being performed and no picketing took
place
Caiani began working on the job regularly in early
January, 1969, after having been awarded the contract to
perform the electrical work on the remodeling phase of
the job. On Thursday, January 9, Warren appeared at the
jobsite and asked King if Caiani was on the job. When
King replied in the affirmative, Warren stated that he was
going to have to start picketing the following Monday to
inform the public that Caiani did not live up to area
practices and standards, adding that he already had 40
men lined up for picket duty, with 8 men to picket per
day King asked Warren if he would attend a meeting the
next day with Caiani, Citadel's President Roy Christie,
Caiani's Attorney Fitzpatrick, and King Warren stated
that he would have to check with his superiors and did not
know whether he could attend Such a meeting was held
the next day but neither Warren nor any representative of
Respondent attended
About 7.15 on Monday morning, January 13, Warren
arrived on the jobsite with seven other men They posted
themselves in groups of four at each end of the two
entrances to the shopping center with signs reading
A B. CAIANI, INC DOES NOT CONFORM TO
COMMUNITY STANDARDS FOR WAGE AND
FRINGE BENEFITS AND WORKING
CONDITIONS THIS SIGN IS NOT FOR
ORGANIZATIONAL PURPOSES OR TO
INDUCE EMPLOYEES NOT TO WORK
ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 103
I. B. E. W A F L -C I.O.
The jobsite was picketed in this manner on January 13
and 14 from approximately 7 30 a in to 4 30 p.m.,
thereby covering the normal working hours of those
employed by the subcontractors on the job. While the
pickets never physically stopped anyone from entering the
shopping plaza or the jobsite, the entire job was
completely shut down during those 2 days as the 35 to 40
employees working for union subcontractors at that time
refused to cross the picket line or work behind the picket
line. When Caiani saw that the picketing had begun, he
instructed his employees on January 13 to go to another
job, and informed King that his men would not be on the
job until the matter was resolved. That same day Caiani
also conferred with Christie and they decided that Caiani
should stay off the job until this matter was resolved.
Consequently, Caiani did not perform any electrical work
on the jobsite during January 13 and 14, 1969.
About 7 30 am on January 14, the second day of
picketing, King approached Warren on the picket line,
341
advised that Caiani's men were not and would not be on
the job, and asked if there was any reason why the rest of
the men [the other trades] could not go back to work
inasmuch as Caiani's men were not on the job. Warren
replied that he never stopped anyone from working and
that the pickets were going to remain to inform the public
that Caiani did not live up to community standards King
further asked Warren whether he would remove the
pickets if King kept Caiani off the job "until we either
brought in another contractor or this was resolved
between A B Caiani and Local 103 " Warren replied in
the negative, reiterating that the pickets would remain to
inform the public of the situation Respondent continued
to picket the jobsite until 4 30 p m on January 14
although neither Caiani nor any of his employees, officials
or equipment were on the jobsite at any time that day
No picketing occurred on January 15. All the
employees scheduled to work that day thereupon returned
to work, except employees of Caiani. Superintendent King
refused to call Caiani back to work because King believed
there would be a further delay in his time schedule due to
another work stoppage if Caiani were back on the job.
In a telegram dated January 18, 1969, Caiani advised
Respondent as follows
In order that there may be no misunderstanding,
please be advised that I will pay my employees on the
Citadel Construction Company job at the Zayre store
in accordance with your union rates and fringe benefits
or any other rates and benefits which you claim accord
with community or area standards. Please advise me
immediately as to the rates of pay and other benefits
you believe conform with such standards I am sending
copies of this telegram to Citadel Construction
Company and to Albert J Hoban, Regional Director of
the National Labor Relations Board.
On Monday morning, January 20, Warren appeared on
the jobsite and asked Citadel's Superintendent King if
Caiani was working on the job When King replied in the
negative, Warren stated that he intended to come back to
make sure that Caiani was no longer working on the job
Warren also warned King that if Caiani did come back on
the job, Warren would have no choice but to resume the
picketing again King replied that that was the reason he
was going to keep Caiani off the job, adding that he did
not want a resumption of the picketing.
On that same day, January 20, Citadel's President
Christie telephoned Respondent's Assistant Business
Manager Berry, an admitted agent After Berry admitted
having received Caiani's telegram, Christie asked if it
would be possible for Caiani to return to work Berry
replied that there first had to be a meeting between
Respondent and Caiani When Christie then asked if
Caiani could start work immediately, Berry answered that
if Caiani went on the job before the meeting took place,
the picketing would be resumed As a result of this
conversation, Christie made arrangements to have Renzi
Electric Company, a union contractor, perform the work
which would have been performed by Caiani at the
jobsite
Meanwhile, in response to Caiani's telegram of January
18, Respondent's Assistant Business Agent Warren
advised Caiani, by letter dated January 21, that he would
like to meet with Caiani at Respondent's office "for the
purpose of giving you related information which you
requested in your telegram." Caiani thereupon telephoned
Respondent's office and, in Warren's absence, arranged
with Berry for a meeting at Respondent's office on
January 23 at 2 p.m. On the morning of January 23,
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Berry cancelled the meeting by the following telegram to
Caiani
Please be advised that we have been informed by the
Renzi Electric Company of Dedham, Massachusetts
that they are now engaged in performing the work in
question on the Saugus Shopping Center and have been
on the jobsite since January 21, 1969, at 8 a m
Therefore, it would appear that you no longer have an
interest in the job and our meeting for 2 p m Thursday,
January 23, 1969 would be of no use
C. Analysis and Conclusions
Simply stated, Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act is violated
when a union engaged in conduct which induces or
encourages employees of neutral or secondary employers
to engage in a work stoppage or to refuse in the course of
their employment to perform services, or which threatens,
restrains or coerces such employers, in each case with an
object of enmeshing the neutral or secondary employers in
the primary dispute and thereby pressuring them to cease
doing business with another person In the instant case,
the record unmistakably demonstrates, contrary to
Respondent's position at the instant hearing, that
Respondent had a labor dispute only with Caiani because
of Caiani's alleged failure to pay the accepted standard
wages and fringe benefits in the community Accordingly,
I find that Caiani was the primary employer involved in
this controversy and that Citadel and the other
contractors on the jobsite were neutral or secondary
employers
Respondent contends that it engaged in lawful primary
picketing of an informational nature, that the sole object
of the picketing was to inform the public about Caiani's
failure to conform to community standards and practices,
that the picketing conformed with the standards
prescribed by the Board in its decision in Moore Dry
.Dock' for common situs picketing, that the statements of
its agents to Superintendent King and President Christie
of Citadel did not constitute unlawful threats, and that the
work stoppage by neutral employees was merely a
byproduct of the primary picketing. In support of these
contentions Respondent relies primarily on the wording of
the picket signs, the statements of its agents to King and
Christie concerning the nature of the picketing, and the
fact that the pickets did not prevent anyone from working
on the jobsite.
"It is well settled, however, that the Board is not bound
to accept such signs and statements at face value, but is
entitled to consider the totality of the Union's conduct "
N.L.R.B v Knitgoods Worker, Local 155, 403 F 2d 388,
390-391 (C A. 2). The undisputed evidence shows, as
Respondent must concede, that the picketing did in fact
induce employees of the neutral or secondary employers to
cease work and thereby brought about a complete
shutdown of the job for a period of 2 days. It is also clear,
as the record further demonstrates, that as a result of the
work stoppage induced by the picketing and to avoid
further work stoppages from a resumption of such
picketing, Citadel replaced Caiani with a union electrical
contractor. Therefore, "the key factor is the objective of
the union activity, whether it is aimed at the primary
employer [Caiani] or whether it is also aimed at
pressuring the secondary employer" (Emphasis in
original ) I B E W, Local 480 v. N L R B, 413 F.2d 1085
(C.A.D.C.).
'Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock) , 92 NLRB 547
Upon consideration of the entire record as a whole, I
am convinced and find that, notwithstanding the wording
on the picket signs and the protestations of Respondent's
agents, an object of Respondent's activity was to enmesh
the neutral or secondary employers in the dispute so as to
force Citadel to stop doing business with Caiani In
making this finding I have been primarily motivated by
the following factors
1 Respondent's Assistant Business Manager Warren
concentrated his efforts on Citadel by repeatedly
approaching Citadel's Superintendent King on the jobsite
and making a point of discussing Respondent's dispute
with Caiani and the action Respondent intended to take,
as previously found Indeed, the only contact initiated by
Respondent in connection with this dispute was with
Citadel Thus, after Caiant had completed his first 2 days
of temporary work on the job in late October 1968,
Warren immediately contacted King on the jobsite to
advise him that Caiani was not conforming to area
standards. Yet, as previously found, Warren obviously had
no current knowledge at that time on which he based his
claim and had made no genuine effort to obtain any
current information relating thereto Then when Caiani
had completed his second period of temporary work
shortly before Christmas, Warren lost no time in
approaching King on the jobsite again and in warning
King that Respondent was going to picket the job because
Caiani was not living up to area practices and standards.
On January 9, 1969, Warren again approached King on
the jobsite and, after ascertaining that Caiani was working
on the job, warned King that Respondent was going to
start picketing the following Monday to inform the public
about Caiani not conforming to area standards and
practices. Warren even impressed on King the number of
pickets he had available for the entire week and the
manner in which the pickets would be used. Even after
Caiani's January 18 telegram to Respondent to the effect
that Caiani would comply with community standards as
soon as Respondent would advise what they were, Warren
appeared on the jobsite on January 20 and again warned
King that if Caiani did come back to the job Respondent
would have no choice but to resume its picketing.'
2 Warren made it clear to Caiani that Respondent's
real purpose was to get Caiani off the job, as previosuly
found. Thus, while on the one hand warning King that
Respondent was going to picket the job because Caiani
was not conforming to community standards and
practices, Warren on the other hand refused to inform
Caiani, upon the latter's request in November 1968, about
the nature of the standards which Respondent claimed
Caiani allegedly failed to follow Moreover, Warren
indicated, and Respondent's subsequent conduct verified,
that he had no knowledge of the standards and practices
which Caiani was following at that time. Finally, not only
did he on that same occasion reject Caiani's alternative
suggested arrangement whereby Caiani's men would work
for a union contractor on the job, but Warren made it
clear that he was only interested in getting Caiani off the
Saugus job.
3 Respondent's picketing failed to conform with all the
conditions of Moore Dry Dock, supra Thus, one of the
conditions is that picketing must be limited to times when
the primary employer's employees are engaged in their
'That same day President Christie telephoned Respondent 's Assistant
Business Manager Berry who admitted receiving Caiam 's telegram of
January 18 but also warned Christie that picketing would be resumed if
Caiani went back on the job before Respondent had a meeting with Caiani
LOCAL 103, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
employer's normal business at the common situs As
previously found, Caiani's employees did not work on the
job on either of the 2 days of picketing, King told Warren
soon after the picketing started on the second morning
that Caiani was not working and would not be working
there until the matter was resolved, and neither Caiani nor
his employees nor his equipment were anywhere on the
premises during the second day of the picketing.
Moreover, also as previously found, when King asked
Warren that morning whether he would remove the
pickets if Caiani were kept off the job "until we either
brought in another contractor or this was resolved
between A B. Caiani and Local 103," Warren replied in
the negative, adding that the pickets would remain to
inform the public of the situation Thus, the continued
picketing with full knowledge and , notice that Caiani
and his employees were not and would not be on the
jobsite further demonstrates Respondent's objective of
exerting pressure on the neutral employees and employers.
Local Union No. 519, Association of Journeymen of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 416 F.2d 1 120
(C.A.D C ), Local 254, Building Service Employees
International Union, 173 NLRB No 49; Local 4,
Hoisting and Portable Engineers, IUOE, 167 NLRB 123.
4 The picketing took place only during the normal
work hours of the various construction trades on the job
Although the retail establishments at the shopping center
had to use the same entrances and exits as the contractors
on the jobsite, the picketing started each day more than 2
hours before any of the retail establishments opened for
business and ended several hours before the stores closed
That picketing coincided solely with the normal work
hours of the construction trades on the jobsite, warrants
the inference that Respondent was not solely concerned
with informing the public of the situation relating to
Caiani
D Concluding Findings
I find that the subcontractors engaged in building
construction services on the Zayre project in the Saugus
Plaza shopping center are, as alleged in the complaint,
persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act Accordingly, I
find that by its picketing activities on January 13 and 14,
1969, Respondent induced and encouraged individuals
employed by persons engaged in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in a work stoppage and to refuse in
the course of their employment to perform services, with
an object of forcing or requiring Citadel Construction
Company to cease doing business with A. B Caiani, Inc.,
and thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. I
further find that the picketing warnings made by Assistant
Business Managers Warren and Berry, Respondent's
admitted agents, to Citadel's Superintendent King and
President Christie, respectively, to the effect that
Respondent would picket the jobsite if Caiani were
permitted to work on the job, constitute threats within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act.' I also find that
by such threats and picketing with the foregoing
proscribed object, Respondent threatened, coerced or
restrained Citadel Construction Company and other
persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce and
thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act
'See, e g , Local 254, Building Service Employees International Union.
AFL-CIO, 173 NLRB No 49
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
343
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
employers named in section 1, 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 now of commerce
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By its picketing activities on January 13 and 14,
1969, Respondent induced and encouraged individuals
employed by persons engaged in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in a work stoppage or in a refusal in
the course of their employment to perform services with
an object of forcing or requiring Citadel Construction
Company to cease doing business with A B. Caiani, Inc ,
and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
2 By the foregoing conduct and by threatening Citadel
that it will picket the jobsite if A B Caiani, Inc. were
permitted to work on the job with the aforestated object,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which
will effectuate the policies of the Act
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent , Local Union 103 of Greater Boston
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Inducing or encouraging, by picketing or other
means, any individuals employed by persons engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce (other
than A B. Caiani , Inc ) to engage in a strike or refusal in
the course of their employment to perform services, where
an object thereof is to force or require Citadel
Construction Company or any other person to cease doing
business with A B. Caiani, Inc.
(b) Threatening , coercing, or restraining Citadel
Construction Company or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce (other
than A. B. Caiani , Inc ), where an object thereof is to
force or require Citadel Construction Company or any
other person to cease doing business with A. B Caiani,
Inc.
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act-
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the attached notice marked "Appendix. Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period
of 60 days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region
1, sufficient copies of said notice, to be furnished by him
for posting by Citadel Construction Company and all
other persons engaged in building construction services on
the Zayre project in the Saugus Plaza shopping center, if
they are willing, at places where they customarily post
notices to their employees
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region I, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith '
in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice If the Board's
Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the
notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" for the words
"a Decision and Order "
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 1 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION 103
GREATER BOSTON INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL
EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage, by picketing or
any other means, any individuals employed by persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce (other than A B Caiani, Inc ) to engage in
a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to
perform services, where an object thereof is to force or
require Citadel Construction Company or any other
person to cease doing business with A. B. Caiani, Inc
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Citadel
Construction Company or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce (other
than A B Caiani, Inc ), where an object thereof is to
force or require Citadel Construction Company or any
other any other person to cease doing business with A
B Caiani, Inc
Dated By
LOCAL UNION 103
GREATER BOSTON
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor,
John F Kennedy Federal Building , Cambridge and New
Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone
617-223-3300
OF