Local 134, IBEW

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 507 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LOCAL 134, IBEW
Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, and its agent , Louis Celano
(Polly Electric Company ) and United Construction
and Trades Union , Local 102. Case 13-CC-582
April 23, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On November 4, 1968, Trial Examiner Arthur M.
Goldberg 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 General Counsel and Respondent
filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting
briefs, and the Charging Party filed an answering
brief.
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 the 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 Respondent, Local 134, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
The General Counsel failed to allege as a separate violation Respondent
business agent Celano 's conversation with Anthony Mugnolo, La Bono's
secretary concerning the picketing of the premises of La Bono In these
circumstances , and as such a finding would in any event be cumulative, we
find no ment in the General Counsel' s exception to the Trial Examiner's
failure to find an independent violation based on such conversation
Nonetheless , we are of the view that the credited testimony of Mugnolo
concerning their discussion about the picket line lends further support to
the Trial Examiner's finding of unlawful object on the part of Respondent
at the La Bono premises Mugnolo testified that he told Celano his only
interest was in having the job performed and was not concerned with what
union did the work whereupon Celano handed him the list of Respondent
Union approved contractors and stated "anyone you choose from 134, we
promise we will take the picketing out "
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
507
ARTHUR M GOLDBERG , Trial Examiner : Upon an
amended charge filed on July 26, 1967,' the amended
complaint herein issued on March 27, 1968, alleging that
Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 134 or the
Respondent Union ) and its agent , Louis Celano (herein
called Celano) had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
called the Act ). The complaint alleged that Local 134, in
furtherance of a labor dispute with Polly Electric
Company (herein called Polly ) had threatened , coerced,
and restrained Acra Electric Corporation (herein called
Acra) by threatening picketing of Acra's premises if Acra
did not cease doing business with Polly. The complaint
further alleged that the Respondent Union had induced
and encouraged individuals employed by A & B Freight
Lines, Inc. (herein called A & B ) to refuse in the course
of their employment to deliver products to Acra with an
object of forcing A & B to cease doing business with Acra
and in turn coercing Acra to cease doing business with
Polly The complaint alleged that the Respondent Union
in furtherance of its dispute with Polly had picketed the
premises of the LaBorio Baking Company, Inc. (herein
called LaBorio or the Bakery) thereby threatening,
coercing , and restraining LaBorio with an object of
forcing or requiring LaBorio to cease doing business with
Polly. Finally the complaint alleged that Local 134, by
and through its agent , Celano, had induced and
encouraged an individual employed by the Illinois Bell
Telephone Company (herein called Illinois Telco) to refuse
to perform services at LaBorio with an object of forcing
or requiring Illinois Telco to cease doing business with
LaBorio and in turn to require LaBorio to cease doing
business with Polly. The complaint alleged that at no time
material herein had the Respondent Union been engaged
in a labor dispute with any named person engaged in
commerce other than Polly The Respondent Union's
answer admitted that it had picketed Polly at the two sites
named but denied any violation of the Act Further, the
answer denied the allegation that there was no labor
dispute in existence between Local 134 and Illinois Telco
In all other respects the answer denied the material
allegations of the complaint.
All parties participated in the hearing in Chicago,
Illinois, on June 6 and 7 and July 23 , 1968, and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard , to introduce
evidence , to examine and cross -examine witnesses and to
present oral argument. Various motions by the
Respondent Union to dismiss allegations of the complaint
are disposed of in accordance with my findings below.
Oral argument was waived and briefs were filed by
General Counsel and the Respondent Union.
Based upon the entire record in the case, my reading of
the briefs , and from my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The parties stipulate and I find that Acra Electric
Corporation is an Illinois corporation engaged in the
'The original charge was filed on July 13, 1967 The original complaint
was issued on February 29, 1968, and Respondent ' s original answer is
dated March 12, 1968
175 NLRB No. 88
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manufacture of electrical products. During the last
calendar year, Acra, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, purchased and received at its Schiller
Park, Illinois, place of business goods and materials
valued in excess of $61,800, which goods and materials
were transported to said Schiller Park place of business
either directly from States other than the State of Illinois
or from enterprises located in the State of Illinois which
had received the said goods and materials directly from
States other than the State of Illinois
I find that Acra is and has 'been at all times material
herein, a person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act and is an employer engaged in
commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets
the Board's standards for assertion of its jurisdiction.
Pursuant to General Counsel's motion made July 3,
1968, the amended complaint was further amended to
allege that the LaBorio Baking Company, Inc., is an
Illinois corporation engaged in the manufacture of bakery
goods and that during the past calendar year LaBorio in
the course and conduct of its business operations in
Rockford, Illinois, and River Grove, Illinois, had
purchased and received supplies at said Illinois places of
business valued in excess of $15,000 which supplies had
been shipped to local suppliers of LaBorio from places in
the United States other than the State of Illinois. Andrew
Mugnolo, secretary of LaBorio, testified that in the month
preceding his appearance herein, on June 6, 1968, LaBorio
had purchased flour valued in excess of $5,000 from a
local supplier and that said flour originated in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. I find that LaBorio is, and has
been at all times material herein, a person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
Polly Electric Company is the sole proprietorship of
Jack J. Polly who is an electrical contractor in the
construction industry performing services for persons
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act and for employers within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and is and has
been at all times material herein engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.'
A & B Freight Lines, Inc., is a common carrier of
motor freight performing services for persons engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the
Act and/or an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and is and has
been at all times material herein a person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
Illinois Bell Telephone Company provides telephone
services in the State of Illinois to persons engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the
Act and/or to employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and is and has
been at all times material herein an employer engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act
As hereinafter found, Local 134 on July 11, 1967,' and
in the days which followed engaged in acts at the premises
of Acra with an object of forcing or requiring Acra, an
employer engaged in commerce and meeting the Board's
'Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No 299
(S M Kisner, etc, d/b/a S M Kisner & Sons). 131 NLRB 1196, 1199
standards for the assertion of its jurisdiction, to cease
doing business with Polly. These activities at the Acra site
ended on or about July 15.
As further found herein, commencing on or about July
17, the Respondent Union engaged in acts at the premises
of LaBorio with an object of causing LaBorio to cease
doing business with Polly
During the entire time of the events herein there existed
a dispute between the Respondent Union and Polly
concerning union representation of Polly's employees. I
find that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act for
the Board to assert jurisdiction over all of the events and
persons herein because "all the secondary employers were
victims of a pattern of unfair labor practices and . . . the
business of one . . of the secondary employers [Acra] .. .
standing alone, - meets the jurisdictional requirements."
Commission House Drivers, Helpers, and Employees
Local No. 400, I B T. (Euclid Foods, Inc), 118 NLRB
130.'
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material
herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act. Louis Celano has been the business agent
of Local 134 for 10 years . As hereinafter found Celano
solicited Polly to join and sign a collective -bargaining
agreement with Local 134 and when Polly appeared before
the Respondent Union ' s executive board Celano
introduced him and attested to Polly's qualifications as an
electrical contractor . As further found Celano solicited
both Acra and LaBorio to use the services of an electrical
contractor under contract with Local 134 and supplied
both Acra and LaBorio with lists of contractors approved
by the Respondent Union. I find that for the purposes of
this proceeding Celano was an agent of the Respondent
Union.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Polly Joins the Union
Jack J. Polly has been in business as an electrical
contractor since approximately 1952. The offices of Polly
Electric Company are maintained in Polly's home in a
residential area and no sign appears on his home
indicating that an office is maintained therein
Early in June Polly was performing electrical services
on an installation in Franklin Park, Illinois. At that time
Celano approached Polly regarding the question of Polly
joining Local 134. Polly asked what procedure he should
follow to join the Respondent Union and Celano
suggested that Polly present himself and his employees to
Local 134's executive board. Shortly thereafter Polly and
several of his employees appeared at Local 134's offices
and Polly stated that he wished to speak to the executive
board. Celano introduced Polly stating that Polly wished
to present himself and his men for membership. Polly was
then advised to write a letter of application following
receipt of which he would be investigated to determine if
his was a reputable enterprise and acceptable to the
Respondent Union. In the course of that meeting Celano
'Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter were in the year 1967
'See also New Furniture & Appliance Drivers, Warehousemen &
Helpers, Local Union No 196, 1 B T (Biltmore Furniture Manufacturing
Corporation), 120 NLRB 1728, 1729
LOCAL 134, IBEW
told the executive board that he personally would
recommend Polly as he had known Polly to be an
electrical contractor for a period of time and was, in
Celano's words, "a pretty nice guy."
Polly testified that he thereafter wrote to the Union's
executive board addressing the letter to one Johnson but
never received a reply. It was Celano's testimony, which I
credit, that there is no member of the Union's executive
board named Johnson and that no letter was ever received
from Polly
Late in June Polly contacted Robert N. Harnack,
president of Local 102, the Charging Party herein, and
thereafter a meeting was arranged at Polly's home with
his employees and Harnack present. At that time Local
102's rules and regulations and bylaws were discussed, the
employees signed applications for membership in the
Charging Party, and Polly signed a collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 102.
Polly testified that in his and Harnack's presence his
employees voted to affiliate with Local 102 Polly himself
holds a journeyman's card in that organization.'
B. The Acra Incident
1. The Schiller Park job
At the time of the events herein Acra was constructing
a plant in Schiller Park, Illinois, in which it was to
consolidate operations previously conducted at two other
locations. Construction at Schiller Park started in the fall
of 1966. The general contractor on the project was
Northern Builders and the electrical work was
subcontracted to Mohawk Electric, which maintained
contractual relations with Local 134.
Starting in December 1966, Donald W. Brown,
president of Acra, commenced discussions with Polly
concerning the interior wiring of the new plant and the
electrical services to be utilized for the plant machinery.
By the first week in July Mohawk Electric had finished
the major part of its subcontract and at that time only
one Mohawk Electric employee remained on the premises
cleaning up odds and ends of the contract.
Polly reported to the Acra site in Schiller Park on July
10 with four of his employees and started the preliminary
work connected with the interior and equipment wiring.
That same day Celano was called to the Schiller Park site
by a Local 134 member who reported that electricians
were at work and that he had been unable to determine
whether they were affiliated with the Respondent Union.
During this visit to the Schiller Park site Celano left word
that he wished to see Polly at the Acra site the following
day, July 11 In anticipation of this meeting with Celano,
Polly asked that Harnack, president of Local 102, be
present at the jobsite the morning of July It.
2. The events of July 11
a. The facts
At approximately 9 a m. on July 11 at the Acra plant
in Schiller Park Louis Celano, Local 134 business agent,
met with Brown of Acra, Harnack, president of Local
'This account of Polly's acquisition of union affiliation is based on a
synthesis of Polly's and Celano's testimony Where there was a conflict
between those two witnesses I have credited Celano Although the choice
was a tenuous one, Polly showed himself on a critical matter to be an
unreliable witness who took grave liberties with the truth
509
102, and Polly. Celano asked Brown if he was aware of
the fact that neither Polly nor his men belonged to Local
134. Brown assured Celano that he knew of that situation.
After some conversation concerning Polly's application for
membership in Local 134 Celano asked if Brown did not
think that Mohawk Electric should be put back on the
job. After Brown said that Mohawk had finished its
contract, Celano stated, "Well, I will do my utmost to get
Mohawk back " General conversation followed and when
Celano asked if some agreement could not be reached
Brown stated that he had chosen Polly and would adhere
to that decision. At this point Celano stated that if this
was Brown's decision Celano would take the matter back
to the Local and that they would probably have to put out
pickets. Brown ended the conversation by stating that he
was a busy man, that Celano should proceed with what he
had to do and the session ended
The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of
Brown who impressed me as a credible witness during his
appearance on the stand and was the only disinterested
participant in the conversation of July 11. Harnack's
version of the conversation was in substantial agreement
with that of Brown Celano claimed that his complaint to
Brown was based upon Polly's failure to compensate his
employees at the level established by Local 134 in its
contracts with electrical contractors. While Celano
admitted that he had announced an intention to picket the
Schiller Park site it was his contention that he had
referred to informational picketing pertaining to Polly's
substandard wage structure Harnack confirmed that
Celano had said the pickets would be informational.
Celano denied stating that he would do his utmost to have
Mohawk Electric returned to the Schiller Park project I
do not credit this denial.
In his direct testimony Polly related substantially the
same version of the July 11 conversation as that testified
to by Brown However, on redirect examination Polly
insisted that Celano had told Brown that if Polly "was not
taken off the job that the machinery movers and all
trucking would be stopped to the building." When Polly
was challenged on recross-examination that this threat was
not in his investigatory statement taken by a Board agent,
Polly insisted that he had told the Board agent of
Celano's alleged declaration but that the Board agent had
left it out stating, "It doesn't have any bearing on the
case." While the hearing was in recess the Respondent
Union subpoenaed the Board agent who had taken Polly's
statement. When the hearing was resumed on July 23,
1968, General Counsel entered into the following
stipulation-
That at no time did Mr. Jack Polly, who previously
testified in this hearing, tell . . any agent of the
National Labor Relations Board, during the course of
the investigation of this matter or any matter that Mr.
Celano stated in the conversation related by Polly as
having occurred at Acra Electric on Tuesday, July 11,
in the presence of Mr. Harnack, Mr Polly, Mr.
Browne, and Mr. Celano that he, Mr. Celano, was
going to stop trucks or words to that effect. At no time
did Mr. Polly ever make any such statement to any
NLRB agent.
further ... that at no time was Mr. Polly told
by any NLRB agent of any such statement relating to
the stoppage of trucks, "It does not have any bearing
on this case," or words to that effect.
I cannot fathom why Polly fabricated this
embellishment of the facts but General Counsel's
stipulation to Polly's lack of veracity leads me to discredit
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any testimony by Polly unless corroborated by a credited
witness.
b. Findings and conclusions
Having found that in the conversation of July 11
Celano stated that he would do his utmost to have
Mohawk Electric, an I.B.E.W . contractor , returned to the
Schiller Park project and that coupled to this declaration
of object was a statement of intent to picket the project, I
find that on July 11 the Respondent Union threatened and
coerced Acra with the object of causing Acra to cease
doing business with Polly in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(n)(B) of the Act. United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local
No 32, AFL- CIO (A & B Plumbing , Inc), 171 NLRB
No. 66.
The facts that Celano characterized the picketing as
"informational" or that the picket signs were couched in
"area standards" language do not militate against this
finding. Celano had announced his purpose as doing his
"utmost to get Mohawk back" and this object was linked
to the picketing . Informational picketing is protected as a
means to accomplish a legitimate union purpose, not as a
mask for proscribed activity . A & B Plumbing, supra
3. The picketing
Sometime during the afternoon of July 12 Local 134
placed pickets at the Acra construction site in Schiller
Park . The pickets carried one of two placards bearing the
following language:
POLLY ELECTRIC NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC ELECTRICAL
WORK BEING INSTALLED IN THIS BUILDING IS BEING
DONE BY EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE
PREVAILING RATE OF PAY & WORKING CONDITIONS AS
ESTABLISHED FOR ELECTRICIANS IN THE AREA BY
LOCAL 134, IBEW
POLLY ELECTRIC NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC SUBSTANDARD
WAGES & WORKING CONDITIONS DESTROY HIGHER
UNION STANDARDS LOCAL 134, IBEW
The pickets patrolled on the shoulder of the road at the
entrance driveway to the site which was the closest point
to the plant and yet on public property.
For some time Acra had been utilizing the services of A
& B Freight to transport materials between its two plants
in Oregon, Illinois, and Franklin Park, Illinois. With
consolidation of its operations in the Schiller Park plant
Acra was using A & B to move inventory and equipment
from the old plants to the new facility during the time of
the events herein.
About 10 or 10:30 a.m. on either July 13 or 14 (the
witnesses were confused as to the actual day) George W.
Hetherington, an A & B driver, arrived at the Schiller
Park site with a load of freight from Acra's Oregon,
Illinois, plant. Included in the load was plant machinery.
Hetherington testified that when he observed the pickets
he pulled up his truck and got out to determine "what the
deal was" and whether he should deliver the consignment.
Celano introduced himself to Hetherington, and said to
the driver, "I would rather you didn't go in."
Hetherington testified that after his conversation with
Celano he called the trucking company's offices in
Rockford and was advised to use his own judgment as to
whether to cross the picket line. Hetherington then
arranged with Celano to pick up an empty trailer from the
Schiller Park site after disposing of the freight he was
hauling at Acra's discontinued Franklin Park site. Polly
testified that he had participated in Celano's and
Hetherington's conversation and had urged Hetherington
to come through the picket line with the load of freight
for the plant. It was Polly's testimony that Celano had
said to the truckdriver, "I cannot stop you from crossing
this picket line, but I wish you would respect it."
Celano did not testify as to this specific incident.
Instead, Celano made the general claim that if a driver
asked what the picketing was about he would advise them
of the circumstances and then tell them it was up to them
to determine whether they would or would not cross the
picket line.
I credit Hetherington's testimony as set forth above,
noting that Polly's version substantially agrees with that
of the truckdriver and that Celano, who was present when
they testified, did not contravene this evidence. The
complaint alleges that Celano had induced and encouraged
the A & B driver to engage in a refusal to transport
materials with an object of forcing or requiring A & B to
cease doing business with Acra and to force or require
Acra to cease doing business with Polly. I so find.
Celano's statement to Hetherington "I would rather you
didn't go in" constitutes inducement within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4)(i).' Having found that Local 134's
object throughout was to cause Acra to cease doing
business with Polly, this inducement violated Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. In addition, since the Respondent
Union was successful in its inducement of Hetherington to
refuse to perform services for Acra, a neutral employer,
for a proscribed purpose, Local 134 violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. Local 370, United Association of
Journeymen (Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company,
Incorporated), 157 NLRB 20, 21
I further find that the picketing described was
secondary in nature and violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the
Act. While conforming on its face to the Moore Dry
Dock? criteria for common jobsite picketing, Local 134's
picketing herein loses such sanctuary from the remedial
purposes of Section 8(b)(4) because Celano's statement of
object, to cause Acra to cease doing business with Polly,
and the inducement of an A & B employee to refuse,to
perform his normal duties in connection with a delivery to
Acra, an innocent secondary employer, discloses "the
respondent's true objective to be the enmeshment of
neutral employers and employees in the primary dispute."
Carpenters Local Union No. 944, 159 NLRB 563, 565.8
"'The words ` induce or encourage ' are broad enough to include in them
every form of influence and persuasion " International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers v N L R B., 341 U S. 694, 701-702
'Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92
NLRB 547.
'Local 134's true object to require Acra to cease doing business with
Polly was further evidenced by a conversation between Brown , Acra's
president, and Celano on Monday , July 17 which was credibly testified to
by Brown Present as well at the time of Brown ' s and Celano's
conversation was a representative of the Millwrights Union . Celano asked
Brown if there had been any changes and the Acra president replied that
Polly had been dismissed and that he "certainly didn't look for any further
trouble ." Celano assured Brown that there would be none Brown asked
the Union's business agent for a list of approved contractors and Celano
supplied him with a booklet containing such names . Thereafter Acra
retained the services of a contractor listed in Local 134's approved list and
the job was finished with no further difficulties.
LOCAL 134, IBEW 511
C. The LaBorio Incident
1. Background
The LaBorio Baking Company was at the time of the
events herein preparing its shop for operation as a
wholesale and retail bakery. In connection with this
renovation LaBorio had arranged with the Lee Oven
Repair Company to move and install bakery equipment in
the shop and Lee Oven in turn had employed Polly
Electric to perform the electrical work involved.
The bakery is located in a store with the usual window
front and front and back doors
On July 17 Polly commenced work at the LaBono site.
On that day Polly had a conversation with Anthony
Mugnolo, LaBorio's secretary, and George Lee of Lee
Oven Repair. Polly advised Mugnolo that he was ready to
proceed with the electrical work but was having union
problems. Mugnolo stated that this should not affect his
job and Polly started his work.
On July 18 Local 134 commenced picketing at the
LaBono site, the pickets carrying signs bearing the same
language as those which had been displayed at the Acra
site.'
Some days after the picketing began Celano came to
the bakery seeking Mugnolo who was not there. Celano
left his card, and thereafter Mugnolo contacted the
Union 's business agent and a meeting was arranged at the
premises of a currency exchange where Mugnola was
employed.
At their meeting Mugnolo told Local 134's agent that
all he wanted was to get his job finished and he wasn't
interested in which union had the work. At this point
Celano handed Mugnolo the booklet containing the list of
approved Local 134 contractors saying "anyone you
choose from 134, we promise we will take the picketing
out."'"
2 The events of August 7
On August 7, Robert Riegel an employee of Illinois
Telco, came to LaBorio to install telephone service At
that time Riegel and Celano had a conversation. The facts
of that conversation are in sharp dispute. Riegal testified
but he was either a reluctant witness or had poor recall of
the actual words said. Mugnolo, who overheard the
exchange, has a poor command of English However,
Robert Harnack, president of Local 102, who was at the
bakery on August 7 testified clearly and credibly as to his
recollection of the events of that day.
Harnack testified that when Riegel arrived at the
bakery he asked Polly and Harnack where the phone was
to be installed Mugnolo was not then present and they
advised Riegel to wait for his arrival. Shortly thereafter
Mugnolo appeared and Harnack observed Riegel and the
bakery official enter the building Thereafter, the
telephone man came out of the bakery and at this point
Harnack heard Celano say to Riegel, "Hey, what are you
doing here " There were some words which Harnack did
not hear and then the Respondent Union's business agent
asked, "Well, didn't you know you're not supposed to be
here9 Are you 134?" Riegel stated that he was not and
identified his local union to Celano. At this point Harnack
'At times the Carpenter's Union also picketed the bakery
''The foregoing account of the Mugnolo-Celano conversation is based on
Mugnolo's uncontradicted testimony which I credit Celano testified but
made no mention of this incident
heard Celano ask Riegel, "Did you see the pickets in
front9 Did you cross 134 pickets?" Celano then asked for
the telephone installer's union card and proceeded to copy
the information thereon. At that point the Illinois Telco
employee stated that he thought he had better call his
boss. Harnack testified that he then interceded in the
conversation and asked Celano why he did not explain to
the Telco employee that the pickets were informational
and what an informational picket line was. Celano advised
Harnack in obscene language not to interfere and turning
to the telephone employee stated, "Now, I didn't tell you
that you can't work here. I can't tell you because this man
is standing here taking down everything that I say and he
is going to tell a bunch of lies about me." At this point
Riegel turned to Mugnolo and said, "I am sorry I can't
do anything for you," packed his truck, and left.
Celano testified that on the day in question he had a
conversation with a telephone company employee and that
he had in fact advised the man not to install the phone
because the installation of the telephones in buildings
under construction was within the jurisdiction of Local
134 and not that of the local union to which the Telco
employee belonged. Thus, Celano claimed his inducement
of the Telco employee not to install the phone in the
LaBorio Bakery was merely in protection of Local 134's
jurisdiction and was totally unrelated to the Respondent
Union's dispute with Polly.
On the basis of his demeanor while testifying and the
pattern of conduct followed throughout by the Respondent
Union I credit Harnack's version of the events. I note that
in the conversation as testified to by Harnack, Celano
first indicated to Riegel that he had no business working
at the premises and then inquired if the telephone installer
belonged to the Respondent Union. Had Celano been
interested in protecting Local 134's jurisdiction he would
have first determined the telephone installer's union
membership and based upon that knowledge advised the
man that the work was not his to perform.
As in the case of Celano's inducement of Hetherington,
the A & B truckdriver, not to perform services for the
secondary employer on whose premises Polly was doing
the electrical work, I find that Celano's successful
inducement of the Illinois Telco employee not to perform
his normal services on the bakery permises, again that of
an innocent secondary, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act."
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with the
operations of the several employers' set forth in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
"On August 14 Polly was advised by Mugnolo that he was released from
the work he was performing in the bakery Mugnolo replaced Polly with
an electrical contractor under contract with Local 134 whose name he
obtained from the list of approved contractors in the booklet given to him
by Celano
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
In his brief General Counsel requests that in addition to
the foregoing remedy Local 134 be ordered to cease and
desist from engaging in its secondary activities not only at
jobsites where Polly is working but in addition "at all
locations where employers whose employees are members
of Local 102 are performing services " I do not find that
the violations set forth above warrant such a sweeping
remedy General Counsel has proved but two incidents of
secondary inducement in connection with Local 134's
campaign against Polly." (It cannot be gainsaid that
Local I34's grievance against Polly is frivolous in view of
the circumstances surrounding Polly's recognition of Local
102.) In essence General Counsel is requesting that the
remedy here encompass employers whose activities are not
within the scope of Local 134's actions in this proceeding.
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v.
NLRB , 362 U.S 479.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and on
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Acra Electric Corporation, LaBorio Baking
Company, Inc., Polly Electric Company, A & B Freight
Lines, Inc., and Illinois Bell Telephone Company are,
each of them, engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2 Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 Louis Celano is an agent of the Respondent Union
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
4. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to
heremabove in section III, B, 2 and 3, and C, 2, hereof,
the Respondent Union threatened, coerced, and restrained
employers with an object of causing said employers to
cease doing business with Polly Electric Company, in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
5. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to
hereinabove, in section III, B, 3, and C, 2, hereof, the
Respondent Union induced and encouraged employees of
employers engaged in commerce to refuse, in the course of
their employment, to perform services for their employers
all with the object of causing employers engaged in
commerce to cease doing business with Polly Electric
Company in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent,
Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, and its agent , Louis Celano, and its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1 Cease and desist from:
"Respondent requests that I take note of the Regional Director's
original dismissal of the instant case which action was predicated in part
on his finding that "the incidents which formed the basis for the charge
were isolated in character " It is the General Counsel who issues
complaints and not the Regional Director and the action of the Regional
Director, reversed as it was here by the General Counsel, has no probative
value
(a) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Acra Electric
Corporation, LaBorio Baking Company, Inc., or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce where an object thereof is forcing or
requiring such persons to cease doing business with Polly
Electric Company
(b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging individuals
employed by A & B Freight Lines, Inc., Illinois Bell
Telephone Company, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage
in a refusal in the course of their employment to perform
any services where an object thereof is to force or require
any person engaged in commerce to cease doing business
with Polly Electric Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent Union's
representative, shall be posted by its agent Louis Celano,
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its members are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 13
signed copies of said notice in sufficient number to be
posted by Acra Electric Corporation, A & B Freight
Lines, Inc., LaBorio Baking Company, Inc., and Illinois
Bell Telephone Company, said employers being willing.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 134, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO
AND EMPLOYEES OF A & B FREIGHT LINES, INC., AND
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
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 threaten, coerce, or restrain Acra
Electric Corporation, LaBorio Baking Company, Inc ,
or any other person engaged in commerce with an
object of forcing or requiring Acra Electric
Corporation, LaBorio Baking Company, Inc., or such
other person, to cease doing business with Polly Electric
Company.
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage
individuals employed by A & B Freight Lines, Inc.,
Illinois Bell Telephone Company, or any other person
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
LOCAL 134, IBEW 513
engaged in commerce to refuse in the course of their
employment to perform any services where an object is
to force or require Acra Electric Corporation , LaBorio
Baking Company , Inc., or any other person , to cease
doing business with Polly Electric Company
LOCAL 134,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO, 1 AND ITS
AGENT, Louis CELANO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If members or employees have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office,
881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
Telephone 314-622-4167