Local 134, IBEW

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1972

197 N.L.R.B. 879 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

LOCAL 134, IBEW 879
Local No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers , AFL-CIO and International Telephone
& Telegraph Corporation , Communications Equip-
ment & Systems Division . Case 13-CD-209
June 22, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS , FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On February 7, 1972, Trial Examiner Thomas S.
Wilson issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief; i the Employer filed an answering
brief, cross-exceptions, and a supporting brief; and
the Intervenor, Communications Workers of Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, filed a brief in support of the decision
of the Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record2 and the
Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions
and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial
Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to
adopt his recommended Order, with the modifica-
tions set forth below.
As more fully set forth in his Decision, the Trial
Examiner found that shortly after the ITT employees
arrived at the jobsite Respondent's steward, Becker,
checked their union cards in the presence of other
employee-members of Respondent and immediately
announced either "I can't work here" or "We can't
work here." However, he did not leave then, but
shortly thereafter joined the foreman and other
employees of Charles Johnson Electric Company, all
of whom are represented by Respondent, for coffee.3
During the conversation, Becker informed the other
employees that one of the ITT technicians had a
CWA card while the other showed no card. At the
end of the coffee break, Steward Becker announced
to the assembled employees, "I am leaving because I
do not care to work with nonunion men." He
thereupon left the jobsite and the other Johnson
employees left after him.
It is clear from the totality of Steward Becker's
conduct that he was not acting as an individual when
he announced in advance his action to the assembled
Johnson employees. He was acting in his role as
steward when he inspected the union cards of the
ITT employees and immediately made the statement
referred to above. Rather than leaving the jobsite at
that point, he joined the assembled Johnson employ-
ees for coffee. We can only infer that he did so to be
certain that those employees were aware of the
presence of the CWA members. It is apparent that
his announcements of his findings regarding the
union cards of the ITT employees and the action he
was taking were a clear signal designed to "induce or
encourage" the assembled Johnson employees to
leave the jobsite as well.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respon-
dent, by the above conduct of its steward, Becker,
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act. However, we
base our finding on the fact that Steward Becker's
conduct was directed at the employees of Johnson,
not of, Riley. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we are
satisfied that the status of Johnson and Illinois Bell
was in issue. The record fully establishes, and we
find, that Riley, Johnson, and Illinois Bell, the
secondary persons herein, are engaged "in an
industry affecting commerce" within the meaning of
8(b)(4).4 Accordingly, we shall modify the recom-
mended Order to reflect our findings herein.
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, as herein
modified, and orders that Respondent, Local No.
134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) "C. A. Riley
Electrical Construction Company" and substitute
therefor "Charles Johnson Electric Company."
2. Delete from paragraph 2(b) "C. A. Riley
Electric Construction Company" and substitute
therefor "Charles Johnson; Electric Company."
3. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial
Examiner's notice.
i Attached to Respondent 's brief were copies of the briefs it filed with
the Board following the 10(k) hearing and its motion for reconsideration of
our Decision and Determination of Dispute issued thereafter (191 NLRB
No 122)
2 Respondent 's request for oral argument is denied as, in our opinion,
the record and the exceptions , cross-exceptions , and briefs adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties
3 Contrary to the Trial Examiner 's finding that members of Respondent
employed by Illinois Bell Telephone Company and C A Riley Electrical
Construction Company were also present at this coffee break , the record
shows that only Johnson's employees and foreman were present
4 Sheet Metal Workers International Association , Local Union No 299,
AFL-CIO (S M Kisner and Sons), 131 NLRB 1196, 1199
197 NLRB No. 127
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encour-
age any individual employed by Charles Johnson
Electric Company, or by any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the
course of his employment, to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work
on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to perform any services; or threaten, coerce or
restrain any other employer or person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
where in either case an object thereof is to force
and require ITT-CESD to assign the work
described below to employees who are members
of or represented by Respondent rather than to
employees of ITT-CESD, currently represented
by Communication Workers of America. The
work involved consists of: Terminating the cable
and installing telephone instruments in Cook
County, Illinois.
LOCAL No. 134,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Everett McKinley Dirksen Building,
Room 881, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7572.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Before THOMAS S. WILSON, Trial Examiner: Upon a
charge duly filed on December 3, 1970, by International
Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, Communications
Equipment & Systems Division, herein referred to as
ITT-CESD, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein referred to as the General
Counsel' and the Board, respectively, by the Regional
Director for Region 13, issued its complaint dated
September 10, 1971, against Local No. 134, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein
referred to as Local 134 or Respondent.
The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act,
1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain
allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Chicago,
Illinois, on November 4, 1971, before me. All parties,
including Communications Workers of America, herein
CWA, who were permitted to intervene, appeared at the
heanng, were represented by counsel, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to produce, examine, and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence materi-
al and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the
hearing oral argument was waived. Briefs were received
from General Counsel, Respondent, ITT-CESD and CWA
on November 29, 1971.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and
accordingly I find:
ITT-CESD is engaged in the distribution and installa-
tion of electronic telephone equipment and related prod-
ucts with facilities in the States of Connecticut, Illinois,
Tennessee, New York, New Jersey, California, Florida,
and other States. During the past calendar year, ITT-
CESD, in the normal course of its operations, has
received goods and materials valued in excess of $100,000
which was shipped to its facilities directly across the state
lines.
ITT-CESD is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and is a person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Local No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, and Communications Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
I This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General
Counsel at the heanng
LOCAL 134, IBEW 881
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Wettering if he had any questions regarding the PBXjob in
A. The Facts
On August 27, 1970, ITT-CESD entered into a contract
with the Village of Elk Grove , located in Cook County,
Illinois, whereby ITT-CESD agreed to install and main-
tain for 1 year one of its PBX telephone systems in the new
administration building of the village of Elk Grove. On
November 10, 1970, ITT-CESD subcontracted the neces-
sary cable pulling work in connection with such contract to
C. A. Riley Electric Construction Company whose employ-
ees were represented by Local 134. During all times
material herein , employees of Charles Johnson Electric
Company and Illinois Bell Telephone Company were also
working in the new administration building. The employ-
ees of both these companies were also represented by Local
134.
On November 10, 1970 Lester Fulton , ITT-CESD
supervisor of maintenance and installation of PBX
systems, met with C . A. Riley, president of C. A. Riley
Electric Construction Company, who inquired as to who
was going to do the cable termination and hanging of
instrument work on the PBX system. Like a good
businessman Riley wanted that work . Fulton answered
that ITT-CESD would do that work with its own
employees known as communic&ions technicians , who, he
informed Riley, were represented by CWA. Riley told
Fulton that he, Riley, wanted the work and suggested that
Fulton had best meet with Burton Van Wettering, a
business agent for Local 134.
So the next day, November 11, Fulton met Van
Wettering in Riley's office where , before excusing himself,
Riley informed Van Wettering that ITT-CESD intended to
do the terminal work on the PBX system with its own
employees who were represented by CWA . Van Wettering
then launched into a discussion of various union problems
which had arisen and had been solved . He spent some 20
minutes over a problem the labor unions anticipated would
arise with a project Leavitt and Son had in Cook County
but which never arose due to prior discussions with the
unions. Van Wettering told Fulton that the Cook County
building trades knew that Leavitt and Son had built
Leavittown , Pennsylvania , with nonunion help and so had
been prepared to "stop" Leavitt and Son on their project in
Cook County if Leavitt and Son had tried to build that
project with nonunion help. He told Fulton that at a
prebuilding meeting Leavitt and Sons decided to use union
help, so the Cook County project proceeded unhampered.
Lest the point be dismissed , Van Wettering brought out the
fact that Leavitt and Son was also a subsidiary of ITT so
that ITT-CESD was in the same category as Leavitt and
Son. Van Wettering ended the conversation with a flat
statement that CWA was not recognized in Cook County
and that CWA would install no telephone equipment in
Cook County.
On November 30, 1970 Joe Dale Foster , ITT-CESD
director of labor relations , met with Van Wettering at the
Holiday Inn in Elk Grove Village and asked Van
the administration building of the village. Van Wettering
stated that Local 134 installed all telephone and PBX
equipment in Cook County, Illinois , along with the
maintenance work thereon. Foster reminded Van Wetter-
ing that ITT-CESD had subcontracted the cable pulling
work at the administration building to Riley as they had in
New York City and in Los Angeles and asked why he
could not accept that. Foster also explained that ITT-
CESD had a nationwide contract with CWA covering the
installation employees. Van Wettering's answer was that
CWA did not do telephone work in Cook County, that to
allow that would be to recognize CWA which only had
some clerical employees in Cook County. Van Wettering
then reiterated his story about the Leavitt and Son's project
in Cook County, that the building trades were prepared to
"stop the job" if Leavitt and Son had attempted to build
the project with nonunion help but that, to their surprise,
Leavitt and Son had decided at a prejob conference to do
the job with union help. As the men shook hands at
parting, Foster said that he hoped there would be no hard
feelings if Van Wetering did not get the PBX work. To this
Van Wetering answered: "We'd better get that work or
there will be trouble." He asked that Foster contact his
superiors and then let Van Wetering know their decision.
About 9:15 p.m. on December 2, 1970, Foster tele-
phoned Van Wetering and told him that ITT-CESD was
going to do the PBX work in the Administration Building
with its own employees beginning the next morning.
Promptly after the receipt of this telephone call, Van
Wetenng telephoned the Local 134 business manager at his
home and informed him that CWA men would work on
the PBX job the next day. The business manager ordered
Van Wetenng to go to the jobsite the next day to see if
CWA employees were in fact working there.
Van Wetering testified that, as ordered, he was at the
jobsite the following morning about 8 o'clock. Before
leaving shortly thereafter he testified he spoke to no one
except to say "Hello" to Robert Becker, the steward for
Local 134 on that job.
About 10:15 a.m. that day Fulton arrived at the
administration building with Communication Technicians
Louis Rodriguez and Dennis Satnano, who are headquar-
tered in New York City. As they entered the telephone
room in the basement of the building where their work was
to begin, there were already two employees of Illinois Bell
present and at work. One of these two employees, known
in this record only as "Bart," immediately on their entry
announced that "if they are working here I am leaving"
and began packing up his tools preparatory to departure,
as did the other Bell Telephone employee. A minute or two
later steward Becker entered the telephone room, showed
his Local 134 card to Fulton, and asked to see the cards of
Rodriguez and Satriano. Rodriguez showed Becker his
CWA card but Satnano had no card to show.2 Becker
immediately announced to those present that either "I
can't work here" or "we can't work here."3 After this
2 Becker testified that Satnano merely shrugged his shoulders as though to bung his card from New York . If this difference were material , I would
he did not understand English while Fulton testified that Satriano explained credit the testimony of Fulton
in good English , which according to Fulton, he spoke, that he had forgotten 3 In his oral testimony Fulton testified that Becker used the plural
(Continued)
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
comment Becker and the four or five other employees of
Johnson Electric drifted away
Becker remained on the job for a few minutes until it was
time to have a coffeebreak with the rest of the employees
from Local 134 and Jack Schutten, superintendent for
Johnson Electric on the job. During this coffeebreak,
Becker was asked about the two ITT-CESD employees
and answered that one of them had a CWA card while the
other showed no card. At the end of the coffeebreak
Becker told the assembled Local 134 employees that he
was going home because he did not want to work with
"nonunion men " He thereupon departed for home. The
other Local 134 employees also left the jobsite From home
Becker telephoned the union office and left word for the
business manager that "there were nonunion men on the
job."
No Local 134 employees worked in the administration
building for the rest of the day.
That afternoon George Coney, director of finance for the
village of Elk Grove, invited Harold George, regional sales
manager for ITT-CESD, who happened to be in the
telephone room at the time with the communications
technicians, to come upstairs. As George entered the room
Coney was talking to one Turnberg, superintendent for the
general contractor on the construction of the administra-
tion building. Coney asked Turnberg if the job would be
completed. Turnberg answered that he could not complete
the job if CWA was on the job. Thereupon Coney turned
to George and asked if it would be possible not to have
CWA on the job the following morning. George stated that
it would be possible if Coney made a formal request.
Coney made the formal request and George agreed that
CWA would not be on the job the next morning. Coney
thereupon turned to Turnberg and told him that CWA
would not be on the job the next day. Turnberg then dialed
a number on the telephone and reported to someone that
CWA would not be on the job the next morning.
Late that afternoon Contractor Johnson of Johnson
Electric telephoned Becker and informed him that he
"could go back to work there, that these other fellows
weren't going to be there." Accordingly Becker returned to
work on the morning of December 4. All the other Local
134 employees also returned to work that day
The ITT-CESD technicians did not return to work until
December 21 and thereafter completed their work on the
PBX system. The Johnson Electric and Riley Electric
employees had completed their work in the administration
building by December 21.
On the afternoon of December 3, 1970, ITT-CESD
through its attorney filed the charge in this case alleging
that Local Union No. 134, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring
whereas his affidavit puts the phrase in the singular According to Becker,
after seeing Rodriguez' CWA card and having Satriano "shrug his
shoulders," he merely thanked them and left the room
4 Respondent Union ends the first section of its brief as follows
Local 134 urges the Trial Examiner to recommend to the Board that
it reconsider the previous decision [Decision and Determination of
Dispute, 191 NLRB No 1321 because it was in error to have issued that
decision in conflict with the above-cited authorities
ITT-CESD to assign the work in dispute to members of
Local 134 rather than to employees of ITT-CESD
represented by Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO.
A hearing on this dispute was held in Chicago, Illinois,
before Hearing Officer Stephen S. Schulson on March 12,
15, and 17, 1971.
On June 30, 1971 the Board, finding that it was satisfied
"that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred," proceeded to determine
the merits of the dispute and made the following specific
determination of the dispute as follows: -
1. Employees of International Telephone & Tele-
graph Corporation, Communications Equipment &
Systems Division, who are currently represented by
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to perform the work of terminating the cable
and installing telephone instruments in Cook County,
Illinois.
2. Local Union No. 134, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to
force or require International Telephone & Telegraph
Corporation, Communications Equipment & Systems
Division, to assign the above work to individuals
represented by Local Union No. 134, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO.4
On August 30, 1971, Local 134 admittedly informed the
Regional Director for Region 13 that Local 134 did not
intend to comply with the Board's aforementioned deter-
mination of dispute.
B. Conclusions
The evidence here proves and I, therefore, find that-
I On November 11, 1970,5 and again on November 30,
1970, Union Agent Burton Van Wettering threatened,
coerced, and restrained two separate agents of ITT-CESD
by warning that, unless ITT-CESD assigned the remaining
PBX work of terminating cables and hanging instruments
for the PBX system which ITT-CESD had contracted to
install and maintain in the administration building of the
village of Elk Grove to members of Local 134 instead of to
members of CWA, the work in the administration building
and on that system would be "stopped."
In the conversation on November 11 this threat, while
not stated in so many words, was made explicitly during
Van Wettering's 20-minute harangue about how the Cook
County Building Trades Council had decided "to stop" a
Leavitt and Son project in Cook County unless Leavitt and
Son decided to use union labor in the construction of the
project instead of the nonunion labor which Leavitt and
Son had used on its Leavittown project in Pennsylvania.
This threat was explicit enough during his 20-minute
lecture but Van Wettering left nothing to chance when he
The short answer to this is, of course, that, as a Trial Examiner of the
National Labor Relations Board, I enjoy no appellate jurisdiction over the
actions of that Board but, on the contrary, am bound by the decisions of
that Board
5 Despite Respondent 's objection voiced for the first time in its brief, I
use the events of this date although , as stated in the brief , the date was not
alleged in the complaint because, despite that omission in the complaint, the
conversation here found was fully litigated at the hearing
LOCAL 134, IBEW
pointed out that Leavitt and Son was, like ITT-CESD, an
affiliate of ITT so that the two organizations were in
exactly the "same category." The threat to shut down the
Elk Grove administration project was implicit in every-
thing Van Wettering had to say on November 11 A man
need not be hit over the head to know that he is being
threatened and coerced.
On November 30 Van Wettering went through this same
20-minute threatening harangue to another agent of
ITT-CESD as to what would happen unless ITT-CESD
assigned the remaining PBX work in the village adminis-
tration building to members of Local 134 instead of to
ITT-CESD's own employees who were members of the
CWA. On this second occasion, apparently bewildered that
his first threats and coercion had proved unsuccessful, Van
Wettering made the threat explicit by ending the conversa-
tion with the statement that unless ITT-CESD assigned the
remaining work on the PBX system to members of Local
134 "there will be trouble." This time Van Wettenng was
leaving nothing to chance.6
After Van Wettering's threats and coercion were proved
unavailing as indicated by the telephone call of 9.30 p.m.
to him on December 2 that ITT-CESD was assigning the
work to its own employees, Van Wettering's prophecy was
fulfilled on December 3 at the exact time that the
ITT-CESD communications technicians began work in the
administration building This stoppage by Local 134 hardly
appears to have been a mere coincidence.
On the anticipated arrival of the ITT employees, the
Local 134 steward, Thomas Becker, promptly checked the
cards of the two technicians and found one with a CWA
card and that the other had forgotten his card in New York
City. Becker, knowing full well what the ITT-CESD
technicians were on the premises due to his inspection of
the work to be done, promptly stated "I am leaving
because I do not care to work with nonunion men.' 17
Despite this statement, however, Steward Becker did not
immediately depart the premises as promised but carefully
waited until after he had had coffee with all the other Local
134 employees on the job, employees of Johnson, Illinois
Bell, and Riley At the end of coffee and after explaining
that one ITT-CESD technician had a CWA card and the
other none, Steward Becker announced to that assembly
that he was leaving because he did not care to work with
"nonunion men."8 By this statement and by his action,
Steward Becker at least sought to, and did, induce and
encourage the other Local 134 members employed by
Riley Electric "to refuse to perform any service" in the
course of their employment. The encouragement was
sufficient so that all Local 134 members left the premises at
or about this time .9
Van Wettering's conversations with the ITT agents made
the object of his and Becker's actions so clear that no
6 Respondent relies on the denial by Van Wettering that he ever made
the "there will be trouble" statement-which was the only element in either
conversation which Van Wettenng denied The threat was there whether or
not Van Wettering uttered the disputed words These words merely made
explicit what might be said to have been perfectly implicit theretofor I have
no doubt that Van Wettenng on the second occasion became explicit That
was the purpose of the conversation
r It is to be noted here that Becker , despite this statement , knew that
Rodriguez, at least, was a union man, albeit a member of CWA
8 This plural is Becker's
883
discussion of that is here required. Local 134 was going to
do the ITT-CESD PBX work in Cook County instead of
the CWA employees or else the work in the administration
building would be "stopped." This is prohibited by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
Hence we have an agent of a labor organization, Steward
Becker, inducing and encouraging employees of a person
engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting
commerce to refuse in the course of their employment to
perform any services for the purposes of forcing or
requiring an employer, ITT-CESD, to assign work to
members of Local 134 instead of to employees represented
by CWA, which is a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(D) of
the Act.
Then we have an agent of a labor organization, Business
Agent Van Wettering, threatening and coercing a person
admittedly engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, ITT-CESD, with the object of forcing
that employer to assign particular work, the PBX system
work in the administration building of the village of Elk
Grove, to Local 134 members instead of to employees of
ITT-CESD who happen to be members of CWA, which is
a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(n)(D) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
ITT-CESD described in section 1 , 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 of commerce
The Remedy
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D)
of the Act I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
remedy the unfair labor practices of this nature
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation,
Communications Equipment & Systems Division, and
C. A. Riley Electric Construction Co. are engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, and Communication Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
9 1 include only the employees of Riley Electric Company in this for the
technical-but unrealistic-reason that neither Johnson Electric nor Illinois
Bell were alleged, or proved, to be "persons engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce " and hence the employees of these two
employers do not fit the description of Section 8(b)(4)(i) The employees of
Riley, on the other hand, were engaged in work subcontracted from
ITT-CESD which was admittedly an employer described in that section of
the Act and hence Riley's employees would necessarily fit within Section
8(b)(4)(i) of the Act
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. 'Local 134 has failed and refused to comply with the
Board ' s Decision and Determination of Dispute dated
June 30 , 1971 [191 NLRB No. 1221.
4. Respondent, by threatening ITT-CESD and induc-
ing and encouraging employees of an employer engaged in
commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of
his employment to perform any services for the purpose of
forcing or requiring ITT-CESD to assign particular work
to members of Local 134 rather than to ITT employees
represented by CWA, has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
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: 10
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record in this case, I recommend
that the Respondent, Local No. 134, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing, or encouraging any
individual employed by C. A. Riley Electrical Construction
Company, or by any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or
a refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport. or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or
to perform any services; or threatening, coercing, or
restraining ITT-CESD, or any other employer or person
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes
is In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce , where in either case an object thereof is to force or
require ITT-CESD to assign the work described below to
employees who are members of or represented by Respon-
dent rather than to employees of ITT-CESD currently
represented by CWA. The work involved consists of:
Terminating the cable and installing telephone instruments
in Cook County, Illinois.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:'
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's
business offices, meeting halls, and all other places where
notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by the Respon-
dent's authorized representative, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the
Regional Director for Region 13 for posting by ITT-CESD
and C. A. Riley Electric Construction Company at all
locations where notices to their respective employees are
customarily posted, if they are willing to do so.
(c) Inform its members of its obligations set forth in the
provisions of the aforesaid notice , by reading such
document during regularly scheduled meetings of the
membership, and by mailing a copy of same to each of its
current membership.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.12
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
12 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "