167 N.L.R.B. 981 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

Local 171, Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 24, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 981 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

LOCAL 171, CARPENTERS 981 Local 171, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO (Joseph J . Bancs, d/b/a Bancs Floor Covering ) and Associated Trades and Crafts International Construction Union plumbers unions to cease doing work. We shall, therefore, modify his Order and Notice ac- cordingly. ORDER Local 892 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO (Joseph J . Bancs, d/b/a Bancs Floor Covering) and Associated Trades and Crafts International Construction Union . Cases 8-CC-305 and 8-CC-306 October 24, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS BROWN,JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA On June 16, 1967, Trial Examiner Alvin Lieberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had en- gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion . Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification: The Trial Examiner found that the threats of Respondents' business agent , Moore, to have Car- penter members fined $150 if they worked on the job with ATC (Associated Trades and Crafts Inter- national Construction Union) members, induced and encouraged employees who were members of the electricians and plumbers unions (as well as the carpenter employees present) to cease doing work, all in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. The Trial Examiner reasoned that the threat made by the Carpenters' business agent would persuade the electrician and plumber present that their unions would take similar disciplinary action against them if they continued to work with mem- bers of the ATC. In view of the clear inducement of carpenter employees to refuse to work while Bancs employees were on the job, we find it unnecessary to pass on or adopt the Trial Examiner's additional finding that Moore's threat to fine Carpenter mem- bers also induced members of the electricians and Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondents, Local 171, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 892, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Delete from paragraph 1 of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order the words "Beil Electric." 2. Delete froom paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished" and substitute therefor "on forms provided. . " 3. Delete from paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order the words "Beil Electric" and "other contractors engaged in the construction of the apartment building complex known as the Austin Arms." 4. Delete from the caption paragraph of the Ap- pendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision the words "Beil Electric, other contractors engaged in the construction of the apartment building com- plex known as the Austin Arms." 5. Delete from the last paragraph on the first page of the Appendix the words "or any other em- ployee." 6. Delete from the second paragraph on the second page of the Appendix the words "or any em- ployer." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALVIN LIEBERMAN, Trial Examiner: This case, with all parties represented was tried before me in Youngstown, Ohio, on March 22, 1967,' upon a consolidated com- plaint2 of the General Counsel and Respondents' answer. The issues litigated were whether Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended (herein called the Act). More par- ticularly, the questions for decision are as follows: 1. Were Respondents at times material to this proceeding engaged in a labor dispute with Bancs Floor Covering (herein called Bancs)?3 I Unless otherwise designated, all dates refer to 1967. 2 The consolidated complaint was issued on charges filed by Associated Trades and Crafts International Construction Union (herein called ATC). 3 The subsequent questions are posed on the assumption that Respond- ents were parties to a labor dispute with Bancs. 167 NLRB No. 138 982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Did Respondents , in support of their labor dispute with Bancs , induce or encourage carpenters and other in- dividuals employed by persons neutral to Respondents' dispute with Bancs to refrain from performing services for their respective employers74 3. Did Respondents , in further support of their labor dispute with Bancs, threaten , restrain , or coerce any dis- interested person? 4. Assuming that Respondents ' conduct was proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, was it engaged in for an object of compelling any person neutral to their dispute with Bancs to cease doing business with Bancs? Upon the entire record ,s upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying , and upon careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BANCS' BUSINESS Bancs, a sole proprietorship, is engaged at Young- stown, Ohio, in the sale and installation of floor and wall coverings. During 1966, a representative period, Bancs purchased and received goods and materials valued at more than $50,000 from suppliers located in the State of Ohio which were obtained by them from sources outside the State of Ohio. Accordingly, I find that Bancs is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) is warranted. S. M. Kisner and Sons, 131 NLRB 1196, 1198; Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondents are labor organizations within the mean- ing of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction Briefly, this case concerns itself with the measures taken by Respondents ' representatives to persuade Bancs to enter into a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondents and to prevail on Bancs' employees to for- sake their membership in Associated Trades and Crafts International Construction Union (herein called ATC), an independent union , " and join Respondents. The a The complaint in this respect, is narrowly drawn It sets forth only that Respondents "induced and encouraged individuals employed by B & B [Construction Company] and/or Rhea-Jean [Development and Holding Company, Inc ], to engage in a strike or a refusal to perform services for their respective employers " However, witnesses for the General Counsel testified, without objection from Respondents, that when Respondents allegedly engaged in the conduct complained of there were present not only individuals employed by B & B Construction Company (hereinafter called B & B ) but also employees of other neutral persons, not including Rhea-Jean Development and Holding Company, Inc (hereinafter called Rhea-Jean) Moreover, although Respondents deny having performed any act proscribed by Section 8(b)(4), they freely gave evidence as to the presence of individuals not employed either by B & B or Rhea-Jean when, according to the General Counsel's witnesses, Respondents offered the alleged improper inducement and encourage- ment Accordingly, I do not consider myself precluded from finding, if adequately supported by the record, that individuals employed by persons other than B & B and Rhea-Jean were "induce [d]" and "encourage[d]" General Counsel contends, in conformity with the general allegations of the complaint, that in support of their efforts in this direction Respondents exerted pres- sures proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act upon em- ployers and employees having no concern in their cam- paign with respect to Bancs for an object interdicted by Section 8(b)(4)(B). Specifically, in this connection, the General Counsel asserts that Respondents' violative con- duct consisted of its threat, made in the presence of a per- son with whom Bancs was doing business, to neutral in- dividuals to impose a fine upon them if they continued to work with Bancs' employees. Respondents traverse the complaint's allegations that they violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. They deny that any employees were threatened with fines and con- tend that the record contains no evidence establishing that an object of any activity which they may be shown to have engaged in was to compel anyone to discontinue a business relationship with Bancs. B. The Labor Dispute Between Respondents and Bancs It is undisputed that at all material times Respondents were seeking a collective-bargaining agreement from Bancs and attempting to enroll as members Bancs' em- ployees, who belonged to ATC, a rival independent union. It is also undisputed that Bancs and its employees resisted Respondents' endeavors in these respects. In similar circumstances and under statutes almost in all respects parallel to Section 2(9) of the Act, which defines the term "labor dispute," the Supreme Court held that a labor dispute existed. Milk Wagon Drivers Union, etc. v. Lake Valley Farm Products, Inc., et al., 311 U.S. 91, 99-100; Lauf, et al. v. E. G. Shinner & Co., Inc., 303 U.S. 323, 325-328.7 Accordingly, I conclude that Bancs and Respondents were engaged in a labor dispute during the period encompassed by the complaint'8 C. Facts Concerning Respondents' Alleged Violations of the Act 1. The site The events upon which the complaint is based occurred at the construction site of an apartment building complex, known as Austin Arms, which was being built for its own account by Rhea-Jean. Rhea-Jean, however, did not, it- self, employ construction workers in the erection of Austin Arms. Instead, it engaged building and construc- tion specialty contractors to perform all the construction work. within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act As held in this regard in Associated Home Builders, etc v N L R B , 352 F 2d 745, 754 (C A 9) "where evidence is received without objection the pleadings are to be deemed amended " See also Monroe Feed Store, 1 12 NLRB 1336, 1337 Issued simultaneously is a separate order correcting the stenographic transcript of this proceeding in several respects 6 Insofar as it may be material, I find that ATC is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act ' The statutes under consideration by the Supreme Court in the cases cited were section 13(c) of the Norris-La Guardia Act (29 U S C 1 13(c)), and section 103 62(3) of the Wisconsin Labor Code (Wisc Stat 1937, c 103, sec 103 62(3)) 8 Although, as is well settled, an underlying dispute between a so-called primary employer and a union is not an essential ingredient of a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act (John E Martin, et al, d/bla Sound Shin- gle Co , 1 0 1 NLRB 1159, 1 161 , enfd 211 F 2d 149 (C A 9)), the actual existence of such a controversy here furnishes a framework for un- derstanding the conduct of the parties involved LOCAL 171, CARPENTERS 983 Among Rhea-Jean's contractors were B. & B., which did the carpentry; Beil Electric (herein called Beil), which performed the electrical work; and Bancs, which had the floor covering contract. In addition to supervising the em- ployees of B. & B., its foreman, George Rohan, acted as construction coordinator for Rhea-Jean. Frank Beshara, vice president of B. & B. testified without contradiction, and I find, that Rohan and the em- ployees of B. & B. whom he supervised were members of Respondent Local 171, United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 171). Employees of other contractors engaged at the Austin Arms construction site were members of other building trades unions, which, like Respondent Local 171, were also affiliated with the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organization (herein called AFL-C I O).9 2. The events of January 17 and January 20 Bancs began to install floor covering at Austin Arms pursuant to its contract with Rhea-Jean in November 1966. Its work proceeded without incident until January 17. On that day, as noted above (see fn. 9) several em- ployees at the site discovered that Bancs' men were mem- bers of an independent union and informed Rohan, the project's coordinator, that they would not work if Bancs' employees did. Being anxious to complete the electrical, plumbing, and painting work, which was then in its final stages, and not wanting "any trouble," Rohan, as he testified, told Bancs' workmen that "they better get it straightened out [with the Local] before it goes any further." Fearing harass- ment and even violence, they left the site. Bancs' employees returned early on January 20. Rohan, however, did not permit them to work, telling them that "he did not want any of his men to lose any work," nor did he "want to be fined $150."10 Because of what had occurred on January 17, Joseph Bancs, Bancs' proprietor, and William Hauer, a business representative of ATC, also came to the site on the morn- ing of January 20. They both remonstrated, to no avail, with Rohan about his having prohibited Bancs' em- ployees from working. Rohan finally told them that he would send for James Moore, Respondents' business representative, who would, in Rohan's words, "get [the matter] straightened out once and for all." About 2 hours later, Moore, accompanied by Raymond Piaski, Respondents' financial secretary, arrived at the Austin Arms construction site and went immediately to the apartment in which Bancs' employees were waiting. At intervals after their arrival Hauer, Joseph Bancs, and Rohan, B. & B.'s supervisor who also served as the pro- ject's coordinator, entered the apartment. Moore, Respondents' representative, preliminarily engaged in small talk and then discussed with Hauer, ATC's representative, the relative merits of the unions which they, respectively, represented. As this was going on em- ployees of B. & B., who were members of Respondent Local 171; Walter Terlicky, secretary of Rhea-Jean the owner and builder of Austin Arms; an employee of Beil, the electrical contractor; and an employee of the plumb- ing contractor, both of whom, I have found, were mem- bers of unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO, also came into the apartment." Concluding his conversation with Hauer, Moore, Respondents' business representative, announced in the presence of Terlicky, Rhea-Jean's secretary, the carpen- ters employed by B. & B., and the other employees found above to have been in the apartment that "if any carpen- ters worked on the job with ATC members [he] would take them before the Board12 and fine each carpenter member $150." Then, addressing himself to Joseph Bancs, Bancs' proprietor, Moore expressed surprise that Bancs was "following along with ATC [because he] was digging his own grave." Moore also told Joseph Bancs that "he personally would follow ... harass [and] stop [Bancs] from getting jobs [and] put [Banes] out of business."13 9 There is no direct evidence to support this finding It is based on an in- ference drawn from Rohan 's narration of the events of January 17, which will be discussed below Rohan testified that on the day in question an electrician employed by Beil informed him that Bancs ' employees "didn't belong to the building trades" and stated that if they "put the floor cover- ing down he was not going to work ." Rohan testified further that the plumb- ers and painters employed at the site made similar statements I conclude from this that the electricians , plumbers, and painters were , like B & B 's employees, members of unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO Were this not the case , their refusals to work with Bancs ' employees , who belonged to an independent union , would make no sense For the validity of findings based on inferences, see Editorial "El impartial" Inc v N L R B , 278 F 2d 184,187 (C A I) 10 These findings are based on testimony given by Samuel Hartman an employee of Bancs Not denying Hartman's testimony in this regard, Rohan stated that he "just took it for granted" that a union fine would be imposed if he permitted Bancs ' men to work 11 There is no dispute concerning the presence of T erlicky, the electri- cian, the plumber , and Rohan , B & B 's supervisor , in the apartment dur- ing, at least , the latter part of , and after , Moore 's discussion with Hauer Bottomed on testimony given by Moore , Piaski , and Rohan , Respondents contend that no employees of B & B were in the apartment at any time while Moore was there Upon a careful review of the record, I conclude that the evidence relied on by Respondents does not support their posi- tion Thus, Moore testified that he could not "recall" anyone from his "or- ganization" other than Rohan and B & B 's superintendent being present Piaski "couldn't say honestly" whether any of Respondents ' members, except Rohan , were in the apartment Finally , Rohan testified that he thought he was the only member of Respondent Local 171 in the apart- ment after Moore entered and didn 't "think" any carpenters made an "ap- pearance in the apartment while Mr Hauer and Mr Moore were talking" but that some employees of B & B "might have walked up into [or through] the apartment " while Moore was there Opposed to this incon- clusive testimony is that given by Hartman, corroborated in some mea- sure by Joseph Bancs, upon which the findings here under consideration are based Hartman, who had worked at the site for at least 8 days between November 1966 and January 17, and appeared to be on a first- name basis with B & B .'s carpenters , unequivocally testified as to the presence in the apartment at the time in question of "approximately three carpenters " 12 This was, apparently, a reference to an intraunion body 11 The quotations are taken from Hartman's narration of what Moore said Joseph Bancs, Hartman's employer, and Hauer, ATC's representa- tive, gave similar accounts , and my findings concerning Moore's threat to fine carpenters and to "harass" and otherwise deal with Bancs are based on the testimony of all three Contrary testimony was given by Rohan, B & B 's foreman , and a member of Respondent Local 171, Piaski , Respond- ents' secretary , and Moore Thus , Rohan stated that he did not hear, or remember , nor did Moore mention, anything about fines Piaski likewise testified that while he was in the apartment Moore did not threaten to fine carpenters The force of their testimony is, however, considerably blunted by their admissions that they were out of the apartment for considerable periods while Moore, Respondents' business representative , was talking Moore denied making the "fine" or "harass " statements attributed to him But, the probative value of Moore 's denials is not weighty in view of his concession that he did not "have a precise recollection about everything that transpired " at the time in question 984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Having heard all this, Terlicky, Rhea-Jean's secretary, told Joseph Bancs, in Rohan's words, "pick up your stuff and get it off the job and get your bill straightened out with Mr. Saatey, [Rhea-Jean's president]." Thus, although Bancs still had work to perform at Austin Arms pursuant to its contract with Rhea-Jean, its contract was terminated. D. Contentions and Concluding Findings The General Counsel contends that in the furtherance of their labor dispute with Bancs Respondents threatened to fine their members, who were neutral to the dispute, if they continued to work with Bancs' employees; this threat was made in the presence of an officer of Rhea- Jean, which was likewise not a party to Respondents' dispute with Bancs; an object of Respondents' conduct was to compel Rhea-Jean to terminate its contract with Bancs; and in this manner Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Respondents' position is simply that they engaged in no violative conduct. Arguendo, Respondents assert that even if it be found that they did threaten to fine their members in the circum- stances urged by the General Counsel, such a threat did not violate the Act because the General Counsel did not adduce evidence to show that an object of the threat fell within the proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(B). Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, commonly referred to as the Act's secondary boycott provision'14 makes it an un- fair labor practice for a union (i) "to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in ... an industry affecting commerce" to refrain from performing ,any services," or (ii) "to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged ... in an industry affecting commerce,"15 where an object of such conduct is to compel any "person . to cease doing business with any other person." As interpreted by the Board and courts, Section 8(b)(4)(B) does not prohibit a union from taking traditional action against an employer by appealing to his employees not to perform services in furtherance of a labor dispute with that employer. It does, however, prevent a union from bringing pressure to bear on the employer party to the dispute through another, usually called a secondary em- ployer. The Congressional objective was to preserve "the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and [to shield] unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own." N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et al., 341 U.S. 675, 692. Applying these principles to the instant case, I find that Respondents induced and encouraged individuals (car- penters, an electrician, and a plumber) employed by per- sons (B. & B., Beil, and the contractor engaged to do the plumbing work at Austin Arms), neutral to the dispute between Respondents and Bancs, to refuse to work and coerced a person (Rhea-Jean), not a party to that dispute. I further find that an object of Respondents' conduct was to exert pressure on the primary employer (Bancs) by forcing a secondary person (Rhea-Jean) to cease doing business with it. Insofar as the Act requires as elements of the violation that neutral individuals be induced or encouraged to refrain from performing services or that a disinterested person be coerced or restrained, those requirements are satisfied by the threat made by Moore, Respondents' business representative, in the presence of Terlicky, Rhea-Jean's secretary, that "if any carpenters worked on the job with ATC members [he] would take them before the Board and fine each carpenter $150." It is so well set- tled, in view of the Board's decisions in this area, includ- ing Midwest Homes, Inc., 123 NLRB 1806, 1807, modified in other respects 276 F.2d 694 (C.A. 7); and New Mexico Building Branch, etc., 120 NLRB 1658, 1659-60, that threatening union members with disciplina- ry action for working with disfavored employees con- stitutes inducement and encouragement within the mean- ing of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act that extended discussion on this point is unnecessary. Terlicky having been present when Moore's statement was made, it was coercive as to him. 16 United Associa- tion Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 539 and United As- sociation Plumbers & Gasfitters Local Union No. 15, both affiliated with the United Association of Jour- neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, et al. (American Boiler Manufacturers As- sociation), 154 NLRB 314, 320, vacated on other grounds 366 F.2d 823 (C.A. 8). This is so because it amounted to a declaration by Respondents that they would not permit carpenters represented by them to work at the apartment buildings under construction by Rhea- Jean, of which Terlicky was secretary, so long as Bancs' employees worked there. See, in this connection, Interstate Employers Association, et al., 159 NLRB 563. It may be argued that the electrician and plumber who were in the apartment, not being members of a union represented by Moore, were not "induce[d] or encourage[d]" by his threat which, in terms, was ad- dressed only to carpenters. Such an argument would be specious, for, as the Supreme Court • stated in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. [Samuel Langer] v. N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694, 701-702, the "words `induce or encourage' are broad enough to include in them every form of influence and persuasion." Having heard the threat and being members of unions which, like Respondents, are affiliated with the AFL-CIO, it needs no great imagination to foresee that it would persuade them that their unions would take similar disciplinary action against them if they continued to work with members of ATC, an independent labor or- ganization. Cf. Lantz Construction Company, et al., 153 NLRB 531, 534. As noted above, Respondents argue that there is no evidence to show that an object of Respondents' conduct was to compel any person to cease doing business with Bancs. The short answer to this contention is that there is such evidence in the record. It appears in Moore's statement that "he personally would follow ... harass [and] stop [Bancs] from getting jobs [and] put [Bancs] out of business." 14 In the 1947 amendments to the Act the secondary boycott provisions were Section 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) In the 1959 amendments they were con- solidated in the renumbered Section 8(b)(4)(i)(u)(B) 15 Rhea-Jean, B & B , Beil, and the employers of the other individuals working at the Austin Arms project being contractors in the building and construction industry, they are, as the Board held in S. M Kisner and Sons, 131 NLRB 1196, 1199, persons "engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) " 16 Even were there no employees present when Moore uttered his threat it would, nevertheless, have been operative as coercion and restraint within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) with respect to Terlicky Interstate Employers Association, et al, 159 NLRB 563. LOCAL 171, CARPENTERS 985 Moreover, even had Respondents not made this object so clearly and directly apparent, I would still find that an object of Respondents' conduct was to force Rhea-Jean to cease doing business with Bancs. This is the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from the facts." Otherwise, what would it have profited Respondents to have directed its members, under penalty of fine, not to work with employees of Bancs who belonged to ATC? The clear implication of such an order is that Respond- ents would not permit its members to work at the site without being subject to disciplinary action until Bancs' employees were removed. This could be, and was, ac- complished by Rhea-Jean's termination of Bancs' con- tract. Accordingly, as the Supreme Court held under similar circumstances in N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et at., 341 U.S. 675, 688-689, an object of Respondents' conduct must have been to force or require Rhea-Jean to cease doing busi- ness with Bancs. Having found that Respondents engaged in proscribed conduct for a forbidden object, I conclude that they vio- lated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondents' activities set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Bancs' operations set forth in section I, 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 flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, my Recommended Order will direct them to cease and desist therefrom and to take such affirm- ative action as will effectuate the purposes of the Act. As Respondents' unfair labor practices encompassed in- dividuals employed by several persons, all of whom were neutral to Respondents' dispute with Bancs, and as Moore, Respondents' business representative, stated, in effect, that violations of a similar nature would be re- peated, I will recommend the entry of a broad cease-and- desist order. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bancs is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Rhea-Jean, B. & B., Beil , and other contractors en- gaged in the construction of the apartment building com- plex known as Austin Arms are engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By inducing and encouraging employees of B. & B., Beil, and other employers engaged in the construction of the apartment building complex known as Austin Arms to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their em- ployment to perform services , and by threatening, coer- cing , and restraining Rhea-Jean , an object thereof being to force or require Rhea-Jean to cease doing business with Bancs , Respondents have engaged in unfair labor prac- tices with in the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case , I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Local 171, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 892, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, andd representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or, by threaten- ing to impose fines or to take any other form of disciplinar- y action or by effectuating such threat, or in any other manner, including orders, directions, instructions, requests, or appeals, however given, made or imparted, or by permitting any such to remain in existence or effect, inducing or encouraging any individual employed by B. & B. Construction Company, Beil Electric, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work any goods, articles, materi- als, or commodities or to perform any services; or, in any manner , or by any means, threatening, coercing, or restraining Rhea-Jean Development and Holding Com- pany, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Rhea-Jean Development and Holding Company or any other person to cease doing business with Joseph J. Bancs, d/b/a Bancs Floor Covering. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended: (a) Post at their offices copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."18 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by authorized representatives of Respondents, shall be posted by Respondents immediate- ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by 11 In this respect the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir- cuit has held that a "Union's 'object' may be inferred from its acts." New York Mailers' Union, etc. v. N.L.R.B., 316 F.2d 371, 372 (C.A.D.C.). 11 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 8 signed copies of said notice in sufficient number for post- ing by B & B. Construction Company, Beil Electric, Rhea-Jean Development and Holding Company, Inc., other contractors engaged in the construction of the apartment building complex known as the Austin Arms, and Joseph J. Bancs, d/b/a Bancs Floor Covering, they being willing, at all locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 19 19 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 Respond- ents have taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 171, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 892, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, TO RHEA-JEAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOLDING COMPANY, INC., AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF B. & B . CONSTRUCTION COM- PANY, BELL ELECTRIC, OTHER CONTRACTORS EN- GAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING COMPLEX KNOWN AS AUSTIN ARMS, AND JOSEPH J. BANCS, D/B/A BANGS FLOOR COVERING Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that: After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence it has been found that we violated the law by committing unfair labor practices and we have been ordered to post this notice and to keep the promises that we make in this notice. WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers, business representatives, business agents, or anyone acting for us, whatever his title may be, do any of the fol- lowing things to force any builder, general contrac- tor, or any other company or person, to refuse to give work to Bancs Floor Covering or to stop doing busi- ness with Bancs Floor Covering. WE WILL NOT, ourselves, engage in strikes or call strikes. WE WILL NOT threaten any of our members with fines or with other punishment for working on a con- struction, or other, job on which members of As- sociated Trades and Crafts International Construc- tion Union, members of any other union whether or not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, or people who are not members of any union were working, are work- ing, or are expected to work. WE WILL NOT fine any of our members or punish our members in any other way for working on a con- struction, or other, job on which members of As- sociated Trades and Crafts International Construc- tion Union, members of any other union whether or not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, or people who are not members o union were working, are work- ing, or are expected to work. WE WILL NOT, in any other way order, direct, ask, persuade, urge, or influence any of our members or any other employee to strike, or to take part in a work stoppage, or to refuse to perform any work, on a construction, or other, job on which members of Associated Trades and Crafts International Con- struction Union, members of any other union whether or not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, or peo- ple who are not members of any union were working, are working, or are expected to work. WE WILL NOT in any way threaten, coerce, or restrain any builder, general contractor, or any other company or person. WE WILL, and we do now, rescind, cancel, and withdraw any threats to fine or punish any of our members and any orders, directions, instructions, requests, or appeals, which we may have made for the purpose of persuading, urging, or influencing any of our members or any other employer to strike, or to take part in a work stoppage, or to refuse to perform any work, on a construction, or other, job on which members of Associated Trades and Crafts Interna- tional Construction Union, members of any other union whether or not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, or people who are not members of any union were working, are working, or are expected to work. Dated By Dated By LOCAL 171 , UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN- TERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) LOCAL 892 , UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN- TERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA , 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 employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720 Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, Telephone 621-4465.