Local 3 IBEW

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1484 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO and Gessin Electrical Contrac-
tors, Inc. Case 2-CP-539
Section 8(b)(7)(A) and I would dismiss the complaint
in its entirety.
DECISION
June 21, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND WALTHER
On March 1, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Ar-
thur Leff issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed an an-
swering brief to Respondent's exceptions and a brief
in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent Local 3, International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Flushing,
New York, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order.
CHAIRMAN MURPHY, dissenting:
Unlike my colleagues, I would find that a question
of representation could be timely raised. Therefore, I
would find that the Respondent had not violated
' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently stated that Respondent dis-
puted the existence of a collective -bargaining agreement between Local 3
and Gessin The collective -bargaining agreement in dispute is between Lo-
cal 363 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America and Gessin
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR LEFF, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge
filed November 6, 1975, by Gessin Electrical Contractors,
Inc., the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 2, issued a
complaint, dated December 10, 1975, against the Local 3,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, herein the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(7)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The
Respondent filed an answer disputing the Board's jurisdic-
tion over this proceeding and also denying the commission
of the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing was held at
New York City on January 19, 1976. Briefs were filed by
the General Counsel and by the Respondent on February
9, 1976.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Gessin Electrical Contractors, Inc., herein referred to as
Gessin or the Company, is a New York corporation, hav-
ing its office and place of business in Bronx, New York,
and is engaged in business as an electrical contractor in the
building and construction industry. It was stipulated at the
hearing that during the year 1974 Gessin in the course and
conduct of its business purchased electric cable, switches,
and other goods and materials, valued in excess of $50,000,
that was delivered to it dire-tly from points outside the
State of New York It was further stipulated that during
each of the years 1974 and 1975 Gessin, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, performed at various
construction sites located in the State of New York electri-
cal construction contracts valued in excess of $50,000 for
Graphic Building Systems, Inc., a New York corporation
which has its principal office and place of business in New
York City and which annually performs construction con-
tracts outside the State of New York valued in excess of
$50,000.
On the foregoing stipulated facts, I am satisfied and I
find, rejecting Respondent's contention to the contrary,
that Gessin is, and at times material herein was, an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. See, Siemons
Matting Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85 (1958).
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 3 or Respondent, and
224 NLRB No. 195
LOCAL 3 IBEW 1485
Local 363, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called Local 363, are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Issues
As noted above, Respondent, Local 3, is charged in this
case with violating Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act The com-
plaint alleges in substance that beginning about October 8,
1975, Local 3 picketed Gessin with an object of forcing or
requiring Gessin to recognize or bargain with it as the rep-
resentative of Gessin's electrical construction employees,
notwithstanding that another labor organization, Local
363, was then the lawfully recognized representative of
such employees under a collective-bargaining contract with
Gessin which had a November 14, 1976, termination date
and which operated as a contract bar to the raising of a
question concerning the representation of Gessin's afore-
said employees Local 3 concedes that beginning in early
October 1975 it intermittently picketed Gessin at a con-
struction site where Gessin was engaged in electrical con-
struction work, and that it did so with an object of organiz-
ing Gessin's electrical construction employees and
ultimately obtaining recognition as their bargaining repre-
sentative But, as will more fully appear below, it disputes
that any collective-bargaining agreement between Local 3
and Gessin was actually in existence at the time of the
picketing It asserts alternatively that even if the agreement
alleged in the complaint was in existence at the time, that
agreement was not the kind of agreement that would con-
stitute a contract bar to a question concerning representa-
tion
B Chronology of Events
It is undisputed that on February 26, 1973, Gessin en-
tered into a collective-bargaining agreement with Local
363 wherein Local 363 was recognized as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of Gessin's electrical construction
employees I That agreement was for a term ending Novem
her 14, 1973 At the time material herein Local 363 had a
collective-bargaining relationship with an association of
electrical contractors, of which Gessin was not a member
Although not specific on this point, evidence in the record
indicates that the provisions of the February 26, 1973, con-
tract between Local 363 and Gessin conformed to those of
a master agreement, also expiring on November 14, 1973,
that Local 363 had negotiated with that employers' associa-
tion These provisions dealt comprehensively with the eco-
nomic terms of employment of the covered employees,
specifying precisely and in detail the agreed upon wage
scales applicable to each of the various employee classifica-
tions covered thereby, the regular hours of work, the pre-
mium pay applicable under different conditions for over-
time work, the paid holidays to be allowed, the paid vaca-
tions to be given, etc The aforesaid contract also included,
inter aha, a 7-day union security provision (validated for
the construction industry by Section 8(f) of the Act), a
provision requiring Gessin to check off and remit to Local
363 union dues of employees from whom it had received
check-off authorizations, and provisions requiring Gessin
to make remittances to Local 363's Pension, Welfare, and
Annuity Funds, as well as to an Industry Fund, in stated
amounts based on the wages earned or hours worked by
each employee in the bargaining unit The agreement also
contained an automatic renewal clause providing for auto-
matic renewal of the contract from year to year, absent
notice of termination given not less than 60 or more than
90 days prior to the next termination date The clause pro
vided that if a notice of modification rather than of termi-
nation was given, the agreement was to be deemed re-
newed subject to modification of those contract provisions
covered by the notice and that if the parties were unable to
agree on the modifications requested within a stated time
then the disputed matters were to be determined by arbi-
tration
There is no evidence in the record that either Local 363
or Gessin ever gave any notice of termination or modifica-
tion of the aforesaid contract prior to its expiration date
But neither is there any evidence to the contrary
On September 11, 1973, Local 3 filed a petition with the
New York State Labor Relations Board seeking certifica-
tion as the representative of Gessin's electrical construction
employees Local 363 did not intervene in the proceeding
before the State Board initiated by Local 3's petition On
November 21, 1973, the State Board conducted an election
to determine whether Gessin's electrical construction em-
ployees desired to be represented by Local 3 Local 363's
name did not appear on the ballot Gessin's electrical con
struction employees voted at the election not to be repre-
sented by Local 3
At the hearing, the General Counsel placed in evidence
an agreement between Gessin and Local 363 that extends
the term of their earlier agreement for a period of 3 years
until November 14, 1976 The extension agreement bears a
February 1, 1974, execution date and is signed on behalf of
the Company by Harvey Gessin, its secretary-treasurer,
and on behalf of Local 363 by Gordon Cannizio, its presi
dent The agreement was authenticated for admission into
evidence by Harvey Gessin who testified that it was execu-
ted on the date it bears 2 That agreement, after reciting that
the parties' earlier agreement of February 26, 1973, which
is therein referred to as the "main agreement," was "about
to expire' and that the parties were desirous of extending
the main agreement, provides as follows
1 The main agreement shall continue for an addi-
tional three year period upon the same terms and con-
ditions except as modified herein
2 The wage provisions of the aforementioned main
agreement shall be modified to provide an increase of
cents per hour for each employee covered by said
agreement upon the following terms and conditions
2 Gessin testified that the extension agreement was prepared by filling in
The agreement recites that at the time of its execution Local 363 repre blank spaces on a standard form of extension agreement used by Local 363
sented more than a majority of the employees covered by it and then having a copy of that form typed out and signed by the parties
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) The wage clause shall upon thirty days written
notice by the Union be reopened on each anniversary
date thereof
(b) Should the Union sign a master agreement cov-
ering the electrical industry then the terms and condi-
tions of the master agreement as they pertain to the
wages of employees shall be substituted for this para-
graph
The extension agreement, as appears from its contents,
provides for a wage increase of "cents per hour" but does
not specify the amount Harvey Gessin explained in his
testimony that he was informed by Local 363's president at
the time the extension agreement was executed that Local
363 was then engaged in negotiating new wage terms with
the contractors' association with which Local 363 had a
collective-bargaining relationship, that pending the com-
pletion of such negotiations the wage rates provided for in
the February 26, 1973, agreement were to remain applica-
ble, but that those wage rates were to be superseded by the
new wage rates agreed upon with the contractors' associa-
tion when they became effective, and that it was with that
understanding that the extension agreement was executed
Gessin's testimony that it was the intent of the extension
agreement to have Gessin's wage rates conform at all times
to "industry" rates established by agreements in effect be-
tween Local 363 and the contractors' association finds sup-
port in paragraph 2(b) of the extension agreement
Respondent questions the veracity of Harvey Gessin's
testimony that the extension agreement referred to above
was executed on February 1, 1974, the date it bears, and
contends that the record warrants an inference that that
agreement did not actually come into existence until after
Local 3 began picketing Gessm The basis on which Re
spondent would have Gessin discredited and its requested
inference drawn is reserved for consideration in the next
subsection of this Decision It seems appropriate to observe
at this point, however, that other documentary evidence in
the record, the authenticity of which was conceded by Re-
spondent at the hearing, leaves no doubt that throughout
the period material herein Gessin maintained an ongoing
relationship with Local 363 reflecting its continued adher
ence to contractual requirements of the 1973 "main agree-
ment " Thus, the General Counsel introduced documenta-
ry evidence showing that during 1974 (beginning in
February) and through all of 1975 Gessin, in conformity
with requirements of the main agreement, submitted to Lo-
cal 363 each month remittance reports in which it identi-
fied the bargaining unit employees who had worked for it
during the preceding month, stated the number of hours
and days worked and the wages earned by each of them,
and reported the amounts that were being remitted by Ges-
sin as its contributions to Local 363's Welfare Fund, Pen-
sion Fund, Annuity Fund, and Joint Industry Fund The
General Counsel also introduced into evidence checks of
Gessin drawn to the several Funds showing that these re-
quired contributions were actually paid In addition, it was
stipulated by Respondent at the hearing that Gessin s pay
roll records show that during 1974 and 1975, Gessin de-
ducted from the wages of certain of its employees and re-
mitted to Local 363 their monthly dues to Local 363 3
In June or July 1975, Walter Ineson, a Local 3 business
agent, contacted Harvey Gessin, and requested a meeting
with him Harvey Gessin, accompanied by his father, Mel-
vin, the Company's president, met with Ineson shortly
thereafter Ineson at that meeting made clear to the Ges-
sins that he wanted their Company to "sign up" with Local
3 and spoke to them at some length about how a contractu-
al relationship with Local 3 would be advantageous to the
Company in the trade When the Gessins pointed out to
Ineson that their Company then had a bargaining relation-
ship with Local 363, Ineson stated in substance that this
did not present an insurmountable obstacle Ineson told
the Gessins that arrangements could be made to have
Gessin's employees execute and send to Local 363 their
resignations from that union, that Ineson could then sign
up Gessin's employees for Local 3, and when that was
done Gessin would be free to enter into a contractual rela-
tionship with Local 3 Ineson told the Gessins that if they
gave him their permission to do so, he would meet with
Gessin's employees and "organize the whole thing " The
Gessins were noncommittal at that meeting Several weeks
later, Ineson again contacted Harvey Gessin to inquire
about what he intended to do Harvey Gessin told Ineson
that he could not do anything because Gessin was then tied
to a contract with Local 363 Ineson repeated at that time
that Gessin could be freed of its obligations to Local 363
by recourse to the procedure he had suggested at their ear-
lier meeting
About the first week of October 1975, Local 3 placed
pickets at an apartment house construction site of Graphic
Systems, Inc, where Gessin was engaged as a subcontrac
tor for Graphic in performing electrical construction work
The pickets carried placards bearing the following legend
Employees of Gessin Electric
Join Local Union No 3 for better wages, conditions
and benefits
Local Union No 3, IBEW, AFL-CIO
158-11 Jewel Avenue, Flushing, New York 11365
591-4000
Thereafter, Local 3 continued picketing the same worksite
with the same picketing placard, not every day, but inter-
mittently until some time in November 1975 On Novem-
ber 21, 1975, at a hearing before the United States District
Court on a Section 10(1) injunction petition, Local 3
agreed to discontinue its picketing pending the Board's de-
cision on the complaint in the instant proceeding The
picketing has not since been resumed
C Consideration of Respondents Defenses Analysis, and
Concluding Findings
From the evidence in this case that is not disputed, there
can be no doubt that Local 3's picketing of Gessin consti-
3 It appears however that dues were not checked off for all employees
who worked for Gessin during 1974 and 1975 In the case of two employees
Gessin paid their dues to Local 363 without deducting the amount of such
dues from the employees wages In the case of several other employees as to
whom Gessin s records show no dues deductions Gessin testified that these
LOCAL 3, IBEW 1487
tuted recognitional picketing or at the very least organiza-
tional picketing, of the kind that Section 8(b)(7)(A) inter-
dicts where the employer being picketed has lawfully
recognized another labor organization and a question con-
cerning representation may not appropriately be raised un-
der Section 9(c) of the Act 4 So much Local 3 does not
dispute Nor does it make any claim that Local 363 is not a
lawfully recognized representative of Gessin's electrical
construction employees 5 Local 3 defends its picketing con-
duct basically upon the ground that there was no collec-
tive-bargaining agreement in effect between Gessin and
Local 363 at the time of the picketing that would have
operated as a bar to a representation election under Sec-
tion 9(c) of the Act More specifically, Local 3 asserts that
Gessm's collective-bargaining contract with Local 363, dat-
ed February 26, 1973, lost its viability on its November 14,
1973, expiration date, and was never thereafter revived
With respect to the 3-year extension agreement dated Feb-
ruary 1, 1974, upon which the General Counsel relies, Lo-
cal 3 contends, as noted above, that Harvey Gessin's testi-
mony concerning the execution date of that document
should be discredited and that it should be found that the
document is a predated one that did not actually come into
existence until after the picketing began
Local 3 adduced no evidence at the hearing that directly
contradicts Harvey Gessin's testimony relating to the exe-
cution date of the extension agreement Local 3 would sup-
port its contention principally on the basis of testimony
given at the hearing by Norman Rothfeld, its attorney, in
substance as follows On October 8, 1975,6 Rothfeld had a
meeting at his office with Howard Wendy, an attorney
then representing Gessm The meeting was at Wendy's re-
quest Wendy told Rothfeld that Gessin was "seriously
considering" entering into a contract with Local 3, but was
concerned that this might present Gessm with a legal prob-
lem because, so Wendy stated, Gessm had an existing con
tract with Local 363 However, when Rothfeld inquired as
to the expiration date of that agreement, as to the number
of employees Gessin was checking off dues for, and as to
the number of employees for whom Gessm was making
contributions to the Teamsters Funds, Wendy was unable
to supply answers to any of these questions On October
16, 1975, Rothfeld again met with Wendy, at the latter's
"urgent request " At that time, Wendy showed Rothfeld
Gessin's 1973 contract with Local 363 which had a Novem-
ber 14, 1973, expiration date, and expressed his opinion
that the automatic renewal provisions of that contract
made it still effective, thereby precluding Gessin from en-
tering into another contract, an opinion with which Roth-
feld expressed his disagreement 7 No mention was made by
were either short term employees or employees who paid their dues di
rectly to Local 363 instead of having them checked off from their wages
4 See N L R B v Local 239 International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America 289 F 2d 41 (C A 2
1961) cert denied 368 U S 833
5 See N L R B v Local 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
AFL-CIO [Darby Electric Corp ] 362 F 2d 232 (C A 2 1966)
6 Other evidence in the record establishes this to be about the time that
Local 3 s picketing of Gessin began
7 Rothfeld testified that he told Wendy that in his opinion Gessm s em
ployees were free at that time to resign from Local 363 and that if they did
so and if a majority of them then signed up with Local 3 Gessin could
Wendy of the extension agreement, dated February 1,
1974 The first indication given Rothfeld that Gessin was
claiming the existence of such an agreement was on No-
vember 4, 1975, when Local 3 was served with papers in a
state court proceeding instituted by Gessin against Local 3
to enjoin the picketing Among the papers was an affidavit
which made reference to a 1974 agreement between Gessin
and Local 3 Upon receipt of these papers, Rothfeld called
Seymour Detsky, who had succeeded Wendy as Gessin's
attorney Rothfeld told Detsky that the reference in the
affidavit to a 1974 agreement must have been an error, as
he had never theretofore been informed of any contract
other than the one with a November 14, 1973, expiration
date Detsky admitted to Rothfeld that he had not himself
seen the document to which reference was made, but
promised to check into the matter and to file a corrected
affidavit if the document could not be produced On No-
vember 7, 1975, Detsky supplied Rothfeld with a copy of
the extension agreement , dated February 1, 1974, that is in
evidence
Rothfeld's foregoing testimony was not disputed and is
credited However, I am not persuaded on all the record
that it provides a sufficient basis for discrediting Harvey
Gessm and reaching the conclusion, urged by Respondent,
that "the document dated February 1, 1974, must have
been executed after the picketing began' Wendy's seem-
ing lack of knowledge of the document when he conferred
with Rothfeld may leave room for suspicion, but it does
not per force prove that the document was not in existence
at the time Such suspicion as it may give rise to is in my
judgment overcome by other considerations to which I ac-
cord greater weight Thus, Gessm, whose testimony stands
on this record unchallenged in all other material respects,
did not impress me as a person who would engage in a
deception of this sort His account of the circumstances
leading to the execution of the extension agreement on
February 7, 1974, appears to me to be plausible, bearing in
mind that Gessm's earlier contract with Local 363 was not
separately negotiated but simply conformed to the stan-
dard "industry" contract that Local 3 negotiated with a
contractors' association of which Gessin was not a mem-
ber Further, Harvey Gessin's testimony concerning the
date of execution of the extension agreement finds strong
confirmatory support in the documentary evidence, advert-
ed to above, which clearly establishes that Gessin imple-
mented the February 1, 1974, extension agreement by mak
ing payments on behalf of the bargaining unit employees
to Local 363's pension, welfare, and other funds, and by
checking off and transmitting to Local 363 union dues of
employees It seems to me highly improbable that Gessin
would have made payments of that kind in the absence of
a contractual obligation to do so In sum, I credit Harvey
Gessin's testimony, and find that the agreement, dated
February 1, 1974, to extend the terms of the earlier "main
lawfully enter into a contract with Local 3 As further appears from
Rothfeld s testimony Wendy at that meeting asked for a written indemnity
agreement from Local 3 to protect Gessin against any damage claims by
Local 363 should Gessin sign a contract with Local 3 but his request was
refused by Rothfeld There was also some discussion at that meeting about
whether Local 3 would be willing to deviate from its standard contract if
Gessin signed with that union
1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement" to November 14, 1977, was actually executed
on the date stated therein, and that that agreement contin-
ued to remain in force and effect at all times material here-
in
As noted above, Local 3 alternatively contends that the
extension agreement, even if found to have been executed
on the date it bears, may not be viewed as a contract which
would constitute a bar to a representation petition because
of its failure to set out precise terms, specifically with re-
spect to wage rates, to which the parties could look for
guidance I find no merit in that contention Harvey
Gessin's testimony that it was the intent of the agreement
to have the wage rates applicable to Gessin's employees
conform at all times to "industry" rates established or to be
established by Local 363's master agreement with the con-
tractors' association appears to be reasonably consistent
with the wording of the document The Board has held that
where a collective-bargaining contract is otherwise suffi-
ciently complete in its terms to stabilize labor relations be-
tween the parties thereto, it will not be invalidated as a
contract bar even though it leaves the wage provisions for
future determination Spartan Aircraft Company, 98 NLRB
73 (1952) The extension agreement here fixes a definite
and readily ascertainable method for determining the wage
rates applicable to Gessin's employees during its term
With respect to all other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, it incorporates and continues for the duration of its
term the detailed and specific provisions of the "main
agreement" which it extends I believe it clear, and I find,
that the extension agreement satisfies the stability in labor
relations standards for determining whether a contract
may appropriately be deemed a contract bar
Accordingly, I conclude and find that the 3-year exten-
sion agreement between Gessin and Local 3, executed on
February 1, 1974, operated as a contract bar to the raising
of a question concerning the representation of Gessin's
electrical employees when Local 3 engaged in its picketing
of Gessin s I further conclude and find that Local 3 by
picketing Gessin under these circumstances with an organi-
zational and recognitional objective violated Section
8(b)(7)(A) of the Act
8 Local 3 has made no point of this in its argument but I have taken into
account in reaching my conclusion that Gessin is an employer primarily
engaged in the building and construction industry to which the provisions of
Sec 8(f) of the Act are applicable Although the last clause of that section
provides that in certain circumstances therein specified agreements in that
industry are not to be regarded as a bar to a petition filed pursuant to Sec
9(c) of the At on the record before me I find that clause to be inapplicable
in this case There is nothing in this record to suggest nor has Local 3 made
any claim that the contract herein found to be a bar was executed as a
prehire agreement pursuant to Sec 8 (f) See Kiewit Puerto Rico Inc 208
NLRB 212 ( 1974) Further without passing on whether the question would
have been litigable in this proceeding if presented I also note that Local 3
has made no contention at the hearing that Local 363 s majority status had
not been established when the agreement herein found to be a bar was
executed See N L R B v Local 3 IBEW supra Cf International Hod Car
riers Building & Common Laborers Union of America Road & Heavy Con
struction Local 1298 AFL-CIO (Roman Stone Construction Co) 153 NLRB
659 (1965)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By picketing Gessin Electrical Contractors , Inc, with an
object of forcing or requiring that Company to recognize
and bargain with it as the representative of the Company's
electrical construction employees , and of forcing or requir-
ing the employees of that Company to accept it as their
collective-bargaining representative , at a time when said
Company has lawfully recognized Local 363 and a ques-
tion concerning representation might not have been appro-
priately raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, Respondent,
Local 3, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(7)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent, Local 3, has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from them, and
that it take the affirmative action provided for in the rec-
ommended Order, below, which I find necessary to effectu-
ate the policies 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
ORDERS
Respondent, Local 3, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, New York, New York, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall
1 Cease and desist from picketing or threatening to
picket Gessin Electrical Contractors, Inc, with an object of
forcing or requiring said employer to recognize or bargain
with Respondent as the representative of its employees, or
forcing or requiring employees of said employer to accept
or select Respondent as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, in circumstances where the said employer has
lawfully recognized another labor organization and a ques-
tion concerning representation may not appropriately be
raised
2 Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post in conspicuous places at business offices and
meeting halls, including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice
marked 'Appendix" 10 Copies of said notice, on forms
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
10 In the event the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order
LOCAL 3, IBEW
provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of Re-
spondent, shall be posted by Respondent upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereaf-
ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(b) Deliver or mail to the said Regional Director a
signed copy of said notice for posting by Gessin Electrical
Contractors, Inc , if willing
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith
of the National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
1489
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket or threaten to picket Gessin
Electrical Contractors, Inc, with an object of forcing
or requiring said employer to recognize or bargain
with us as the representative of its employees, or forc-
ing or requiring the employees of said employer to
accept us as their representative, in circumstances
where the said employer has lawfully recognized an-
other labor organization and a question concerning
representation may not appropriately be raised
LOCAL 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO