Local 3, Intl. Brotherhood of Electrical Wkrs.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 785 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

LOCAL 3, INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WKRS.
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO and Wickham Contracting Co.,
and Ralph Perone Joint Ventures and Eugene Iov-
ine, Inc. and Board of Education of the City of New
York. Cases 29-CC-410, 29-CC-408, and
29-CC-414
September 26, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On March 7, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Her-
zel H. E. Plaine issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
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 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings,2 and
conclusions 3 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 the Respondent, Local 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
Flushing, New York, its officers, agents , and repre-
i Respondent argued that it was deprived of due process because the
Administrative Law Judge: (a) quashed four subpenas served on members
of the Board of Education ; (b) barred testimony designed to establish that
Respondent intended to become the collective -bargaining representative of
Wickham 's employees and thus would not try to replace them with Local 3
members ; and (c) considered testimony concerning Respondent 's report at
a public hearing called by the Board of Education without permitting the
introduction into evidence of a tape recording of that meeting . We have
carefully examined the entire record and find that, in view of the additional,
uncontradicted evidence relied on by the Administrative Law Judge in find-
inq a secondary object , Respondent was not prejudiced by these rulings.
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 Wail 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.
3 Since we have found that the strike called by Respondent had a second-
ary objective, we find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether or not
Respondent's demand for a "layoff plan" was valid under the 8(e) construc-
tion site proviso.
785
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
DECISION
HERZEL H.E. PLAINE, Administrative Law Judge: The
question presented in this consolidated proceeding is
whether the Respondent Union (Local 3 , IBEW , or Local
3) violated the secondary boycott provisions , Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B), of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act), in the period July-September 1974.
The consolidated complaint , filed September 6, 1974,1
alleges that Local 3 , IBEW, whose members comprise the
bulk of the electricians working for the New York electri-
cal contractors doing work for the Board- of Education
(and for others) in New York City, caused the Local 3
electricians to walk off and stay away from the jobs of their
employers at over 100 Board of Education school sites,
commencing in early July 1974, causing other contractor-
employers and their employees in other trades to cease
work at the school sites ; and that an object of the work
stoppage or strike was to force or require the electrical
contractors employing the Local 3 members to cease doing
business with the Board of Education , to force or require
the Board of Education to cease doing business with elec-
trical contractors Wickham and Perone , lovine , and cer-
tain other employers of electricians not represented by Lo-
cal 3. Prior to the strike Wickham and Perone and lovine
had successfully bid for , and were performing , electrical
work at several schools . The electricians employed by
Wickham and Perone and by Iovine were represented by
the Intervenor Union (Local 363 , Teamsters), and there
were some smaller electrical contractors whose employees
were nonunion.
While the Board of Education is the central governing
body of the New York City schools , it is not an agency of
the city but of the State of New York with autonomy sepa-
rate from the city government though receiving certain
services from the city government, such as the legal serv-
ices of the city corporation counsel . Shortly after the strike
began , McLaren , executive director of the school board's
division of school buildings, and Van Arsdale , Local 3's
business manager , discussed on July 19 what it would take
to get the Local 3 electricians back on the school jobs so
that the jobs could proceed for school openings in the fall
term . Immediately following the discussion , Director Mc-
Laren issued orders to electrical contractors Wickham and
Perone and Iovine to stop work on their several school
projects , because the labor they were using was "causing
work stoppages on various other buildings and projects of
the Board of Education," and not to resume work until
.,you furnish labor that will not cause a stoppage ." Shortly
thereafter , on July 30 , Wickham and Perone obtained a
temporary restraining order from the U .S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, enjoining the Board of
On a charge by Wickham Constracting Co. and Ralph Perone Joint
Ventures (Wickham and Perone) in Case 29-CC-4l0, filed July 23, 1974; on
a charge by Eugene lovine , Inc. (Iovine), in Case 29-CC-408, filed July 29,
1974; and on a charge by the Board of Education of the City of New York
(Board of Education in Case 29-CC-414, filed August 29, 1974.
220 NLRB No. 117
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Education from enforcing the stop-work orders against
them. A week later, on August 6, on advice of the corpora-
tion counsel that the stop-work orders against Wickham
and Perone and Iovine were improper, Director McLaren
rescinded the orders.
Local 3 electricians did not resume work for their con-
tractor-employers on school board work, and the major
school building and renovation projects did not recom-
mence, until after September 13, 1974, when the National
Labor Relations Board (the Board) obtained from the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York, a temporary
injunction against the work stoppage, under Section 10(1)
of the Act, pending disposition of the unfair labor practice
charges in the case at bar.
The Respondent, Local 3, denies that the strike of school
board projects had as an object pressuring the Board of
Education to cease doing business with those of its electri-
cal contractors whose employees were not members of Lo-
cal 3.
Respondent Local 3 contends, first, that its collective-
bargaining agreement with the electrical contractors had
expired on June 30, 1974 (extended by mutual consent to
July 11), while negotiations for a renewed agreement were
in progress, hence, argues Local 3, the walkout or strike
after the labor contract expired (though it was a strike only
of school work and not of other work of the same electrical
contractors) was a legal walkout or strike. Second, Local 3
contends that it had a "primary" dispute with the Board of
Education, namely, that Local 3 was seeking from the
Board of Education establishment of a "layoff plan," in
effect a guarantee that electricians working for electrical
contractors on school contracts would constitute, as electri-
cal contracts were completed, the work force from which
contractors for new work would be required to draw their
electricians before hiring any other electricians. Says Local
3, this was a legal demand under the construction industry
proviso to Section 8(e) of the Act and a strike to obtain it
was not an illegal action under Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
The several Charging Parties (as well as the General
Counsel) contend that Local 3's defenses are sham and are
designed to cover up Local 3's primary dispute with electri-
cal contractors Wickham and Perone and Iovine, whose
employees are not affiliated with Local 3, and to cover up
the illegal object of forcing the Board of Education to
cease doing business with Wickham and Perone and Iov-
ine.
The case was tried in Brooklyn, New York, on October
24-25, 1974. Counsel for all of the parties have filed briefs.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses and consideration of the briefs, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent Union, Local 3, IBEW, which has its
principal office in Queens, New York, is, as the parties
admit, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
Likewise, the Intervenor Union, Local 363, Teamsters is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. See exhibit GC-6b, decision of the Board, United
Construction Contractors Assn., 212 NLRB 767 (1974).
Charging Party Wickham and Perone is a joint venture
of Wickham Contracting Co. (Wickham), a New York cor-
poration, and Ralph Perone, an individual, with the princi-
pal office and place of business in Pelham, New York.
Wickham and Perone is an electrical contractor that has
engaged in electrical installation at various jobsites in and
about New York City. In the year prior to the filing of the
complaint, Wickham and Perone purchased supplies in ex-
cess of $50,000, of which in excess of $50,000 were deliv-
ered to its jobsites in New York from points outside the
State of New York. Wickham and Perone is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is a
person engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(l),(6), and (7)
and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
Charging Party Iovine is a New York corporation with
its principal office in Rosedale, New York. Iovine is an
electrical contractor that has engaged in electrical installa-
tion at various jobsites in New York. In the year prior to
the filing of the complaint, Iovine purchased supplies val-
ued in excess of $50,000, of which in excess of $50,000 were
delivered directly to Rosedale from points outside the State
of New York. Iovine is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act, and is a person engaged in com-
merce and in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(1), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the
Act.
Charging Party Board of Education is an agency of the
State of New York, with its principal office in Brooklyn,
New York. The Board of Education is responsible for the
education of the public school children of the City of New
York, including responsibility, performed almost entirely
by contracting, for construction and repair of school build-
ings on sites owned by the Board of Education in New
York City. In the year prior to filing of the complaint, the
Board of Education purchased goods in excess of $50,000,
of which in excess of $50,000 were delivered directly to it
from points outside the State of New York. Although, as
an agency of the State, the Board of Education is not a
statutory employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act, it is nevertheless a person engaged in commerce,
whose operations affect commerce, within the meaning of
Sections 2(1), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act, and a
person entitled to the protection of Section 8(b)(4). Plumb-
ers, Steamfitters, Refrigeration, Petroleum Fitters, and Ap-
prentices of Local 298 v. County of Door, 359 U.S. 354, 358
(1959); Local 16, International Longshoremen and
Warehousemen's Union (City of Juneau), 176 NLRB 889
(1969).
Each of the electrical contractors, Pettinelli, Smith, Pe-
trocelli, Herrick, Crescent, London, Salzstein , Sheldon,
Kaish, Litemore, Heckler, Hirsch, Boro, and Mulvihill
(each more fully identified as to name and place of busi-
ness in pars. 4 through 17, respectively, of the consolidated
complaint), is, as the parties admit, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and each is under con-
tract with the Board of Education to perform electrical
work at one or more of its jobsites. As the parties further
LOCAL 3, INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WKRS.
admit, each of said electrical contractors is a person en-
gaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 2(1), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4)
of the Act.
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The School Board's Construction Operations and its
Contractors' Union Organization
The Board of Education has a division of school build-
ings, which is responsible for design , construction , mainte-
nance , and operation of the school facilities.
Practically all of the construction and repair is done by
contracting out the work , and for this purpose the division
of school buildings , headed by Executive Director Hugh
McLaren, writes the specifications , advertises and takes
bids, and prepares the recommendations for contract
awards on the bids taken. The recommendations go to the
chancellor of the board , who is its chief administrative offi-
cer. If he approves , the recommendations for award are
transmitted to the Board of Education which passes upon
and makes its awards in a public meeting . Thereafter, the
division of school buildings follows up on performance of
the contracts.
By law, when such construction work in excess of
$50,000 is procured by bid (rather than performed by the
regular employees of the governmental agency), three sub-
divisions of the work , namely ( 1) plumbing, (2) heating and
air conditioning , and (3) electric wiring, must be written
up, bid for, and awarded separately. There can be a general
contract for all else of the construction job.
Director McLaren testified that in the summer of 1974
he had 120 major jobs under construction at many school
sites, completion of which was needed for the fall school
term . For each there was a separate electrical wiring con-
tract (as well as appropriate contracts for the other types of
work). Additionally , for minor jobs and maintenance, there
were additional contracts including many with electrical
contractors.
The major electrical contracts were largely being per-
formed by the 14 electrical contractors-Pettinelli , Smith,
Petrocelli , etc.-identified in paragraphs 4-17 of the com-
plaint . These contractors and others had a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Local 3 , IBEW, which represented
the employees of the contractors. According to Director
McLaren, 98 percent of the major electrical contracts (dol-
larwise) were being performed by the contractors whose
labor agreement was with Local 3.
However, in early 1974, electrical contractors Wickham
and Perone and Iovine each were successful bidders on
certain school jobs for which contracts were awarded to
them. Both contractors were working on their respective
jobs in early July 1974 when action to force them to stop
took place. Wickham and Perone, in their separate capaci-
ties, and lovine are members of a contractors ' associa-
tion-United Construction Contractors Association-
through whom the three were parties to collective-bargain-
ing agreements with Local 363, Teamsters which
represented their electricians?
787
In connection with some of the small maintenance con-
tracts (under $5,000) between the Board of Education and
contractors, including electrical contractors, according to
Director McLaren, a number of one and two man shops do
this work and some of these electricians are nonunion.
Additionally, the Board of Education has on its payroll,
by direct hiring, about 70 electricians, who perform miscel-
laneous functions. According to Director McLaren, these
electricians are members of Local 3, IBEW, but there is no
contract for them between the Board of Education and
Local 3. McLaren testified that they are paid the prevailing
wage rate fixed by the city controller's office, which has the
function of establishing prevailing wage rates, where these
apply to direct or to contract employees. Further, said Mc-
Laren, Local 3 represents the 70 electricians before the
controller's office in determining the prevailing wage rate
applicable to them, but that the Board of Education is not
a party to any of this proceeding or negotiation, and simply
accepts the rates fixed by the controller.
In addition to Director McLaren's testimony, there was
also the testimony of the chairman of the Board of Educa-
tion, James F. Regan, that the Board of Education has no
direct relationships or dealings with any of the construc-
tion trades unions, and that in the construction field the
school board dealings are with contractors and through
bidding by contractors.
B. The Walkout and Related Events
In mid-1974, Local 3's labor agreement with its New
York City contractors (which covered all of the contrac-
tors' work, public and private, in the five boroughs of the
city) was due to terminate on June 30, 1974. Negotiations
for renewal were in progress and the contract was extended
to July 11, 1974, but expired without agreement being
reached. (Testimony of Bernard Rosenberg, a business rep-
resentative of Local 3.)
Commencing in the week of July 8, 1974, and extending
into the following week, the Local 3 electricians on the
Board of Education jobs of their several contractors began
walking off those jobs and ultimately stayed away for over
2 months, until after a temporary injunction under Section
10(1) of the Act was granted against Local 3 on September
13, at the request of the (Labor) Board, exhibit GC-10. As
Union Representative Rosenberg testified, this walkout or
strike involved between 200 and 300 Local 3 electricians,
but none of the other Local 3 electricians walked out or
struck the work of the employers on their other public or
their commercial jobs. The bulk of the Local 3 membership
continued to work, despite the absence of a labor contract,
and a new contract was signed in late September 1974 by
the employers' associations and Local 3.
While there was no picketing of the Board of Education
jobsites by Local 3, the strike of the Local 3 electricians
2 At the time of trial , there had been an election on September 19, 1974,
that involved , among others, the employees of the Wickham Contracting
Company (one of the coventurers of Wickham and Perone ) but not the
employees of Ralph Perone (the other coventurer) Also involved were the
employees of lovine. The competing unions in the election were Local 363,
Teamsters, and Local 3, IBEW . See exh . GC-6b. Apparently the outcome of
the election had not been resolved at the time of trial
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
brought all work on these jobsites to a halt, according to
Director McLaren. Because the electrical contractors had
not done and were unable to do their preliminary work,
such as laying pipe for wiring, the concrete men, carpen-
ters, and other trades workers ran out of work and had to
stop, said McLaren. The result, he said, was a shutdown of
most of the Board of Education's major jobs.
Director McLaren, who had been out of New York City
when the strike began, came back and asked Local 3's
business manager , Thomas Van Arsdale, for a meeting.
They met on Friday, July 19, at McLaren's office.
Local 3's Business Manager Van Arsdale told McLaren
that the work stoppage of the Board of Education jobs had
been authorized on July 8 at a union membership meeting,
but that some of the men "jumped the gun" and the strike
had had a spasmodic start . Van Arsdale did not testify, but
Union Representative Rosenberg supplied some details
concerning the union meeting of July 8. Rosenberg testi-
fied that between 1,500 and 2,000 members attended, that
Van Arsdale told the members that the men who worked
on Board of Education jobs were not assured of job securi-
ty because the Board of Education was not awarding
enough jobs to contractors with Local 3 men, that other
contractors who did not have agreements with Local 3
were being awarded contracts with more frequency, and
that he, Van Arsdale, approved a work stoppage because
there was no work contract and because he and they felt
that job security was being threatened since the Board of
Education was more frequently awarding electrical con-
tracts to non-Local 3 contractors and the Local 3 men
would not be working on Board of Education jobs as in the
past 3 According to Rosenberg, Van Arsdale also outlined
for the union members a "tentative proposal" he was mak-
ing to the City and the Board of Education for some job
security, under which the men working on school jobs, as
their work finished, would constitute a layoff list from
which the contractors would draw men first on new jobs
awarded them.
Coming back to the July 19 meeting of Director Mc-
Laren and Union Business Manager Van Arsdale, McLar-
en asked why the Local 3 electricians were off the job, and
Van Arsdale said he was concerned about the security of
work of his Local 3 members, that the work available to
them was dropping off, and that inasmuch as they had
done practically all of the work for the Board of Education
for many years, they should continue to do that work. Mc-
Laren replied that the Board of Education could not pro-
vide for that legally; that under the state and municipal law
the lowest responsible bidder was entitled to the work no
matter which union his employees belonged to. Van Ars-
dale referred to the schools in which Wickham and Perone
and Iovine were doing the electrical contracting, along
with an allegation that Wickham and Perone were not pay-
ing the prevailing wage rate . McLaren said his people
3 In his prior testimony before the U.S. District Court (exh. GC-11),
Union Representative Rosenberg testified that there was no discussion of a
work stoppage at the union meeting and the Local 3 members working on
the Board of Education jobs decided spontaneously they would not report
to work, that he, Rosenberg, told them he approved it, and that Van Arsdale
told Rosenberg he approved Rosenberg's action. In the case at bar, Rosen-
berg changed this testimony to what was recited above
would do all they could to see that Local 3 contractors
were not unfairly bid against, but on qualifications of con-
tractors such as lovine, whom he knew was not aligned
with Local 3, he said he saw no way to recommend against
the award of a contract.
Van Arsdale said that his people had been to talk to the
mayor and deputy mayor and corporation counsel, Mc-
Laren replied that the Board of Education was not a city
agency.
McLaren said he was concerned, he had 120 major jobs
under construction now stopped because the electricians
were out, and he asked Van Arsdale what it would take to
get his men back to work. Van Arsdale replied he needed
full assurance from the Board of Education that would give
job security to the Local 3 members. The meeting ended by
McLaren saying he would talk to the deputy chancellor
(McLaren's immediate superior) and they would get back
to Van Arsdale.
Immediately following his meeting with Union Business
Manager Van Arsdale, Director McLaren discussed the
matter with associates , he said, and, concluding that with
the need for school openings in September it would be
better to stop a few jobs rather than keep most of the 120
jobs stopped, he forthwith sent letters to Wickham and
Perone (exh. GC-2, dated July 19, 1974), to lovine, and to
several small electrical maintenance contractors, also not
aligned with Local 3, ordering them off their jobs. The
letters told each of the contractors addressed that the labor
he was using was causing work stoppages on various other
Board of Education projects, and that he must stop work
until such time as he furnished labor that would not cause
a stoppage.4
Anthony Biele , president of Wickham, and in charge of
the joint venture Wickham and Perone, was telephoned the
same day, July 19, by one of McLaren's subordinates,
Burns, telling him that the Board of Education was sending
him the described letter and that he was to leave his jobs
immediately and until he acquired other labor that would
not cause work stoppages. Biele asked how he was doing
that, and Bums replied, by not employing Local 3 men.
Biele said he would not pull his men off the job until he got
something in writing.
Biele received the McLaren letter ordering him off the
job the following Monday, July 22. He telephoned School
Board Director of Construction Turecamo who said he
took his orders from Executive Director McLaren, and
passed him to McLaren. McLaren told Biele he wanted his
men off the job at once, accusing him of not paying the
prevailing wages and having too many apprentices on the
jobs. When Biele protested that he had been investigated
on this score by the controller, who had found he paid the
right wages and had the proper amount of apprentices, and
that McLaren should consult the controller, McLaren then
told Biele he was causing work stoppages by not employing
Local 3 members, and to get his men off the job immedi-
The letters purported to invoke Art 5 of the Board of Education con-
tract, which provided that a contractor shall not have work performed or
labor or means employed in carrying out his contract that would cause or
result in a suspension , delay, or strike of the work under the contract of any
of the trades working in or about the premises or in any other building of
the Board of Education
LOCAL 3, INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WKRS. 789
ately . Biele asked if there was any way he could resolve the
matter, and McLaren answered that he could work only by
joining or being a member of Local 3. They argued, and
McLaren concluded the discussion by saying he was issu-
ing field directives to have Biele's men thrown off the jobs.
(McLaren in his testimony did not contradict Biele 's testi-
mony.)
A half hour later Biele was told by his foremen that they
had received school board field directives (exh. GC-4) to
leave the jobsites , and Biele told them he had no choice
and they should comply. The Wickham and Perone electri-
cians left the jobsites and did not return until 3 or 4 weeks
later, after Wickham and Perone obtained a temporary re-
straining order against the Board of Education from pre-
venting Wickham and Perone performing its contracts
(U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, dated
July 30, 1974, exh. GC-3), and after the Board of Educa-
tion rescinded the stop -work orders against Wickham and
Perone, and others, by letters dated August 6, 1974 (exh.
GC-5a and b).
Eugene Iovine , president of electrical contractor Iovine,
also received a telephone notice to stop work (as in the case
of Biele of Wickham and Perone), followed by a Board of
Education written stop-work order, on July 23, 1974. The
call to him came from School Board Director of Construc-
tion Turecamo, who told lovine his men would have to
leave the 2 school jobs they were on because Local 3 was
stopping work on over 100 school jobs unless Teamsters
affiliated contractors and nonaffiliates of Local 3 were re-
moved from Board of Education jobsites. Iovine called the
school board action ridiculous and said he intended to fin-
ish his contract jobs. Turecamo replied that Iovine would
be receiving a letter from Director McLaren telling lovine
that it did not have the men of the labor type that Local 3
wants on the jobs. Further, said Turecamo, if the Iovine
electricians didn't stay away from the two jobs, he would
lock the gates of the jobsites.
lovine asked if the stop-work orders included other
trades, and Turecamo answered they applied only to the
electrical trade. After receiving the written stop-work or-
der, lovine and his men continued to work in defiance of
the instructions to stop .5
Director McLaren testified that on July 19, in his meet-
ing with Local 3's Business Manager Van Arsdale, he did
not tell Van Arsdale he was going to have calls made or
letters sent to Biele and Iovine to leave their jobs on the
school sites ; but, on July 25, he telephoned Van Arsdale
and said he had removed the contractors who were not
Local 3 contractors from the school jobs and expressed the
hope that on the basis of this, Van Arsdale's men would go
back to the jobs because the schools were badly needed for
September . Van Arsdale replied he would look into it, but
he wanted a meeting with McLaren's superior, Vice Chan-
cellor Gifford. The meeting was arranged for that af-
s In connnection with the later August 6 recision of the stop-work orders,
following the temporary restraining order against the school board, supra,
Director McLaren explained that he was informed by Deputy Corporation
Counsel Buxbaum that it was erroneous to use Art. 5 of the electrical con-
tracts (see In . 4, supra) for the purpose his division was using it, and the
stop-work orders should be rescinded . McLaren complied.
ternoon, July 25. At the meeting, said McLaren, Van Ars-
dale went over the ground he had previously covered with
McLaren (at the July 19 meeting), essentially the need for
job security for Local 3 electricians and assurances from
the Board of Education that Local 3 men would not be put
out of work. According to McLaren, Van Arsdale men-
tioned.a layoff list, and this, said McLaren, was the first
time he had heard of a layoff list or layoff plan, which was
later discussed at a larger meeting in the Deputy Mayor's
office in the third week of August. Van Arsdale reiterated,
said McLaren, that since Local 3 electricians did most of
the Board of Education electrical work they should contin-
ue to do it.
Dr. Bernard Gifford, the deputy chancellor, testified (at
the call of Respondent Local 3) that at the July 25 meeting
were Director McLaren and himself of the school board,
and Van Arsdale and a Mr. O'Hara for Local 3. Dr. Gif-
ford had been previously informed, he said, of the strike
action by Local 3 and of McLaren's action to remove con-
tractor Wickham and Perone and other contractors not af-
filiated with Local 3. Van Arsdale talked about Local 3's
role in doing work for the City of New York and the Board
of Education, and spoke repeatedly, said Dr. Gifford, of
the need to provide job security for Local 3 members.
When Dr. Gifford pressed Van Arsdale on what the school
board could do, it became obvious, said Dr. Gifford, that
there were problems between Local 3, IBEW, and Local
363, Teamsters, Van Arsdale alluding to a jurisdictional
dispute between Local 3 and Local 363 and noting that the
school board had let contracts to contractors who were not
Local 3 contractors but employed Local 363 members, spe-
cifically naming Wickham and Perone. Van Arsdale also
made accusations against Local 363, said Dr. Gifford, re-
garding the apprenticeship program and kickbacks.
Dr. Gifford told Van Arsdale that he was not a hearing
officer and could not sit in judgment, and asked Van Ars-
dale for a concrete proposal to recommend to the Board of
Education. According to Dr. Gifford, Van Arsdale gave
him none nor did he give any sense of what he wanted.
Van Arsdale said he had made certain suggestions to De-
puty Corporation Counsel Buxbaum on job security with
the city for members of Local 3, referring to these in gener-
al terms and indicating he was not prepared to describe
them in writing or with any definiteness. Dr. Gifford final-
ly asked Van Arsdale to put in writing what he wanted
Gifford or the Board of Education to do, and, said Dr.
Gifford, he would set up a meeting for Van Arsdale with
the school board. Van Arsdale said he would comply, but
never sent anything to Dr. Gifford. Dr. Gifford's testimony
was devoid of any reference to a layoff list or plan or dis-
cussion of such a list or plan by Van Arsdale at this meet-
ing.
Continuing his testimony, Vice Chancellor Dr. Gifford
told of a next meeting on August 20, 1974, in the office of
Deputy Mayor Cavanaugh. In addition to himself, Direc-
tor McLaren, and Local 3's Business Representative Van
Arsdale, among those participating were the deputy mayor,
Deputy Corporation Counsel Buxbaum, School Board
Chancellor Anker, School Board President James Regan,
and several school board members, including Joseph Mon-
serrat and Amelia Ashe. (Those of the school board mem-
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bers and staff-other than McLaren-who testified con-
cerning the meeting were called by Respondent Local 3,
and again, as already noted, its principal, Van Arsdale, did
not testify.)
According to school board member, Monserrat , the dis-
cussion was on the issue of getting the Local 3 workers off
strike and back to work . According to School Board Presi-
dent Regan there was an unanswered question of why Lo-
cal 3 was picking on the Board of Education projects and
not other projects, and reference to the great inconvenience
in delaying new schools for 23,000 children and the loss of
time and safety dangers to other children in schools where
modernizing was going on. Van Arsdale stated, said Re-
gan, that he had to be concerned about his Local 3 work-
ers, and the others were not his problems.
According to Dr. Gifford, President Regan, Member
Monserrat , and Director McLaren, Van Arsdale spoke of
job security for members of Local 3, and talked of a layoff
plan or list; and, while he had not reduced any of it to
writing, addressed himself to city work as well as Board of
Education work .6 Under the plan the electricians working
for contractors on public projects would constitute a work
force to be listed as their jobs were completed and they
were laid off, and contractors acquiring new public work
would be required to hire electricians from the layoff list in
order of seniority of layoff before hiring elsewhere. Under
the proposal , said Member Monserrat , it would be required
that members of Local 3, IBEW, on the list be hired by
contractors who did not have collective -bargaining con-
tracts with Local 3 , and it was also stated that members of
Local 363, Teamsters, on the list would be hired by con-
tractors who did not have collective -bargaining contracts
with Local 363. In the case of the Board of Education
work , Van Arsdale said , the proposal was made to assure
employment for a group of electrical workers who in a
sense had been working for the Board of Education for
many years . Monserrat and his colleagues testified that
they understood Van Arsdale' s main purpose was to pro-
vide work for his Local 3 members , and that, while the plan
on its face did not purport to exclude Local 363 members
or nonunion electricians or others not affiliated with Local
3, the fact was that the great bulk of the electricians were
members of Local 3.
At the meeting , President Regan, and his colleagues, ex-
pressed grave doubts as to the legal and practical efficacy
of the plan . Regan said the Board of Education did not
deal with the unions of its construction contractors, but
only with the contractors and with them through competi-
tive bidding .? Member Monserrat raised the question of
6 On the day following the meeting, viz August 21, 1974, Local 3 Business
Manager Van Arsdale sent a letter to School Board President Regan enclos-
ing a five-sentence outline of his layoff plan, exh. R-l.
In this connection , according to Director McLaren , poor to the August
20, 1974, meeting , the Board of Education , at a meeting of its own , attended
by its administrative officers and lawyer (the deputy corporation counsel),
adopted the opinion that the labor dispute in which Local 3 was engaged
was not a dispute between Local 3 and the Board of Education but between
Local 3 and Board of Education electrical contractors-Pettinelli, Smith,
Petrocelli , et al-and directed McLaren to advise each such contractor that
the Board of Education would hold each to performance of his contract on
time without an extension of time , see form letter, exh. GC-8, dated August
15, 1974. Exhs . GC 9a-d were typical replies to the school board from some
meeting minority quotas and apprenticeship quotas and
other hiring requirements established by law, when such
type job applicants were not on the layoff list; and also
pointed out that, under the relatively new decentralized
school system requiring consultation by the central school
board with local school boards on matters affecting them,
the central board could not unilaterally impose what Van
Arsdale wanted. According to President Regan, Deputy
Corporation Counsel Buxbaum expressed doubt as to the
legality of Van Arsdale's plan.
Regan, Monserrat, and Gifford pointed out that even if
the city came up with some such union-type employment
plan as advocated by Van Arsdale, the Board of Educa-
tion , as a separate state agency , could not necessarily go
along, but would have to make its own determination in
the light of the requirements on it.
Following the August 20 meeting, the Local 3 strike and
the stoppage of work on the principal school board jobs
continued for almost another month until after the is-
suance by the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New
York, on September 13, 1974, of a temporary injunction
against Local 3, under Section 10(1) of the Act (exh.
GC-10).
C. Local 3 Conduct Directed to Teamsters Affiliated
Contractors
President Anthony Biele of Wickham, and in charge of
the joint venture Wickham and Perone , testfied that, after
he was ordered to stop work on the school board jobs by
Director McLaren, he was called by and met with Local 3's
business representative , Rosenberg , on July 25, 1974.
President Biele testified that, after a sales pitch on the
advantages of being affiliated with Local 3, Union Repre-
sentative Rosenberg told Biele that if he joined Local 3,
Local 3 would give him good men to complete the Wick-
ham and Perone contracts on the school jobs, then idled by
the Board of Education stop-work order. According to
Biele , Rosenberg did not claim that he represented any of
the Wickham and Perone electricians,8 and Biele told Ro-
senberg that he, Biele , could not make a decision for his
men, or vote for them, or tell them to vote for Local 3.
President Eugene lovine of electrical contractor lovine,
whose school board contracts were also the subject of Di-
rector McLaren's stop-work notices, testified, without con-
tradiction, that, while he had not been approached by Lo-
cal 3's Representative Rosenberg, he had been asked at an
earlier time by Local 3's agent, D'Arty, to drop Local 363,
Teamsters, with whom lovine had a labor contract
(through its association of contractors-United Construc-
of the electrical contractors disclaiming responsibility for the work stoppage
or power to resolve any of the issues involved , and claiming entitlement to
an extension of time.
8 Union Representative Rosenberg conceded that he did not show any
authorization or membership cards to President Biele or name any Wick-
ham and Perone employees who were interested in Local 3, and admitted
that he asked Biele to sign a consent agreement with Local 3. Rosenberg
also testified that after the September 19, 1974, election that pitted Local 3,
IBEW, against Local 363, Teamsters (in which election Wickham employees
were involved , see In . 2, supra , Local 3 called a strike against Wickham on
September 23, and Rosenberg claimed that a number of Wickham employ-
ees coined in the strike.
LOCAL 3, INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF 'ELECTRICAL WKRS.
tion Contractors Association ), and go with Local 3, IBEW.
Notwithstanding Local 3's strike of school board jobs,
contractor Wickham and Perone continued to bid on new
contracts with the school board , and, as Director McLaren
testified , was the low bidder on the Martin High School
renovation that required over a million dollars of electrical
work. McLaren further testified that in the light of U.S.
District Court Judge Stewart 's restraining order of July 30,
1974 (exh. GC-3, supra) enjoining the Board of Education
from , among other things , holding up awards of contracts
to Wickham and Perone, he forwarded the Wickham and
Perone bid to the school board with a recommendation for
award of the contract. When the matter reached the school
board for award at its public meeting of October 16, 1974,
Local 3's Representative Rosenberg appeared and urged
denial or postponement of the award , seeking to present
witnesses that Wickham and Perone paid kickbacks, and
arguing that the successful bidder was not abiding by the
apprentice program or the prevailing wage determinations,
or both.
School Board Member Monserrat, who presided at the
public meeting, testified that the school board took the po-
sition that it was not the proper forum to hear and de-
termine such complaints , that there were hearing and re-
view board procedures under the controller's jurisdiction to
deal with such matters, and that , since there had been com-
pliance with the procedures leading to the signing of the
contract , the Board of Education was not in a position to
refuse or postpone the award , and the contract was award-
ed to Wickham and Perone . In passing the approving reso-
lution, said Monserrat, it was noted that if the complaints
alleged were proven correct the Board of Education would
take appropriate action to rescind the contract.
D. 8(b)(4) Findings
The evidence establishes that an object-if not the prin-
cipal object-of the strike of the school board jobs by Re-
spondent Local 3 IBEW electricians was to pressure the
Board of Education , through pressure on its contractors, to
cease doing business with electrical contractors whose em-
ployees were not Local 3 members, in particular contrac-
tors Wickham and Perone and Iovine whose electricians
were Local 363, Teamsters, members.
The principal staff of the Board of Education clearly got
that message directly from Local 3's Business Manager
Van Arsdale after the strike began . Van Arsdale com-
plained on July 19, 1974, to Executive Director of School
Buildings McLaren, and again to School Board Vice Chan-
cellor Dr. Gifford, on July 25, that Wickham and Perone
and other electrical contractors not affiliated with Local 3
had been awarded school board work which Local 3 elec-
tricians had been doing almost exclusively, and took the
position that the members of his union should continue to
do that work and be assured of it before ending their strike
and coming back. Reacting immediately and cooperatively
on July 19 to Van Arsdale's complaint and message, Direc-
tor McLaren sought to induce the return to work of the
more numerous Local 3 electricians , by ordering contrac-
tors Wickham and Perone and Iovine and their Local 363,
Teamsters, electricians off the few school jobs they were
791
performing. This attempt to eliminate the contractors not
affiliated by labor contracts with Local 3 was aborted
shortly thereafter by the restraining order of the United
States District Court against the school board, and by the
school board repudiation and recision of Director Mc-
Laren's stop-work orders aimed at the contractors not
aligned with Local 3.
Further supporting evidence of the objective to remove
from and keep off school board work the non-Local 3 con-
tractor and its Teamsters affiliated employees was the con-
comitant action of Local 3's Representative Rosenberg, on
July 25, attempting to induce President Biele of Wickham
and Perone to sign up with Local 3 and complete with
Local 3 electricians his current school board jobs, then
halted by Director McLaren's stop-work orders.9 When
this failed, Local 3 gave further evidence of pursuing its
objective by attempting to prevent the award of new Board
of Education work to Wickham and Perone at the school
board meeting of October 16.
It is a fair inference that had contractors Wickham and
Perone and lovine agreed to sign with Local 3 and use
Local 3 electricians in July the work stoppage by Local 3
would have ended. It is also apparent that Respondent,
having initially struck to obtain all school board work for
its members and having observed from the events of the
first month of the strike that the school board could not or
would not agree to award work only to Local 3 contractors,
then suggested the layoff list plan in the second month of
the strike at the meeting of city and school board officials,
August 20, 1974.10 The layoff list proposal was another way
of insuring continued Local 3 presence on school board
jobs (and city public works jobs), almost exclusively in the
case of the school board, since Local 3 contractors and
their electricians were performing 98 percent of the school
board work. While the layoff list might include a token
number of Local 363, Teamsters, electricians and non-
union electricians, the bulk of the list would be Local 3
electricians.
Local 3 contends that because its labor contracts with
the major electrical contractors had expired on July 11,
1974, Local 3 members were not thereafter obliged to work
for any contractor and Local 3 was not required to ask any
members to work for any contractor. However, the proof
was that, on July 8, Local 3 and its Business Manager Van
Arsdale authorized and directed a walkout of those mem-
bers who were working on Board of Education jobsites,
because, among other things, their job security was being
threatened by the Board of Education more frequently
awarding electrical contracts to non-Local 3 contractors;
while the much larger portion of the membership contin-
ued without interruption to work on other public and com-
mercial work of their contractors in the City of New York
notwithstanding the absence of a renewed labor contract
until late September (testimony, Director McLaren and
9 Before the Local 3 strike of the school board,lobsites, a similar overture
had been made to contractor lovine, whose electricians were also affiliated
with Local 363, Teamsters, by another Local 3 representative, D'Arcy, that
lovine sign up with Local 3.
10 The testimony of the school board members and principal staff (Dr.
Gifford and Director McLaren) made clear that this was the first time the
Board of Education was apprised of the layoff list proposal.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union Representative Rosenberg)."
Thus, Respondent Local 3 was actively and directly re-
sponsible for the strike and induced and encouraged em-
ployees to refuse to perform services for their employers.
The absence of a labor contract had no effect on the large
majority of Local 3 members who continued working on
non-school board work, and the determinant factor in pre-
cipitating the work stoppage of Local 3 members on school
board work was not the absence of a labor contract but
rather the deliberate calling of a strike to put pressure on
the school board to cease doing business with non-Local 3
contractors.
For purposes of further argument, Local 3 prefers to ig-
nore its primary labor dispute with the Teamsters affiliated
electrical contractors, Wickham and Perone and lovine.
Instead , Local 3 contends that its primary labor dispute
was with the Board of Education from whom, says Local 3,
it was demanding the inclusion of a layoff plan in future
school board contracts for electrical work. The plan would
bind the electrical contractors to employ the electricians
now doing school board jobs, who would comprise the
"layoff" list as their jobs were completed, and thereby
"preserve" school board work almost exclusively for Local
3 electricians who now do almost all of that work.
There are two obvious difficulties with this contention.
First, it was an afterthought, proposed by Local 3' s Busi-
ness Manager Van Arsdale to the Board of Education on
August 20, 1974, more than a month after the strike began.
As already indicated, the motivation for the strike, at its
inception , was to put pressure on the school board to cease
doing business with non-Local 3 electrical contractors and,
when it became apparent by the second month of the strike
that the Board of Education would not deal only with Lo-
cal 3 contractors, Respondent switched to the so-called
"primary" demand.
Second, the "primary" demand rests on an alleged pri-
mary relationship between the Board of Education and the
Local 3 electricians , who are employed by the major elec-
trical contractors, said to be akin to direct school board
employment of such electricians , on assertions that several
hundred of these electricians work year-in, year-out only
on school board work, and are directly supervised by the
school board ,12 as are school board employees. The asser-
tions were not established, and what was claimed to be
school board supervision of the electrical work performed
by contractors turned out to be the presence of school
board inspectors on jobsites , from time to time , checking
compliance with job specifications. On its part, the Board
of Education, from the testimony of its members and prin-
cipal staff, rejected the existence of any such direct rela-
tionship between the school board and the employees of its
contractors, and there are no facts that contradict this posi-
i i The failure of Respondent Local 3 to call as a witness Business Manag-
er Van Arsdale, its principal officer and actor in these events , gives rise to
the inference, adverse to Respondent , that he would not contradict the testi-
mony of the others concerning his conduct and statements including admis-
sions to them , see International Union, UA W [Gyrodyne Co. of America] v.
N.L R. B, 459 F.2d 1329, 1336 (C.A D.C., 1972).
12 These electricians are not the 70 electricians (taken note of under sec-
tion iI ,A, supra) who are Local 3 members , directly employed in the school
system for maintenance and other tasks by the school board.
tion, or that constitute the school board's relationship to
the construction work a surrender of neutrality. As the
Board said in Local 14055, United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO (Dow Chemical Co.), 211 NLRB 649 (1974);
The short answer to this line of argument is that the
Board does not normally predicate loss of neutral sta-
tus on economic interdependency alone, absent such
factors as common ownership or managerial control
(citations omitted).
Moreover, even if it were to be found that one of the
objects of the Local 3 strike was the obtaining from the
Board of Education, as "an employer in the construction
industry," a limiting agreement affecting contracting or
subcontracting at construction jobsites under the first or
construction proviso to Section 8(e) of the Act,13 such ob-
jective would not excuse the 8(b)(4) violation arising from
the concurrent objective of the strike to force the Board of
Education to cease doing business with the Teamsters affi-
liated contractors, N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Con-
struction Trades Council [Gould & Preisner], 341 U.S. 675,
688-690 (1951); Northeastern Indiana Building and Con-
struction Trades Council (Centlivre Village Apartments), 148
NLRB 854, 857-858 (1964), enforcement denied on other
grounds, 352 F.2d 696 (C.A.D.C., 1965); Retail Clerks
Union, Local 770 (Food Employers Council), 145 NLRB 307,
308-311 (1963).
Respondent Local 3's strike of the Board of Education
jobsites, with an object of requiring the electrical contrac-
tors employing Local 3 members to cease doing business
with the Board of Education to force the Board of Educa-
tion to cease doing business with electrical contractors
Wickham and Perone, lovine, and other employers of elec-
tricians not represented by Local 3, had a secondary objec-
tive that was proscribed by and in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. In the period July-September 1974, Respondent Local
3 induced and encouraged its members, employees of the
major electrical contractors for the Board of Education, to
walk off and strike the jobsites where such employers were
performing work for the Board of Education, and struck
such jobsites, causing a complete cessation of work, with
an object of forcing the major electrical contractors to
cease doing business with the Board of Education to force
the Board of Education to cease doing business with elec-
13 While the Board has not directly held that a governmental agency, such
as the Board of Education , can be an "employer in the construction indus-
try", within the meaning of the proviso to Sec 8(e) of the Act, collateral
decisions-such as international Assn Machinists & Aerospace Wkrs., AFL-
CIO (Marriott In-Flue Services), 197 NLRB 232, 237-238 (1972), enfd. 491
F.2d 367 (C.A. 9, 1974), holding that "employer" under Sec. 8(e) is used in
the broader generic sense than the statutory definition of Sec. 2(2) and is the
equivalent of "Person"; and Los Angeles Bldg. and Construction Trades
Council, AFL-CIO (Church's Fried Chicken), 183 NLRB 1032 (1970), hold-
ing that a company , primarily in the business of selling chicken at its stores,
that acted as its own general contractor for building the stores was notwith-
standing its primary business an "employer in the construction industry" as
used in Sec . 8(e)-suggest that in an appropriate case the obtaining of an
agreement from the Board of Education under the construction proviso of
Sec. 8(e) would be sanctioned by the Act.
LOCAL 3, INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WKRS. 793
trical contractors Wickham and Perone , Iovine , and cer-
tain other employers of electricians who were not members
of or represented by Local 3. Such conduct by Local 3
constituted unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
2. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that Local 3 cease and desist
from engaging in the unfair labor practices and take the
affirmative action of posting appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended:
ORDER 14
him) of the signed copies of the notice for posting by the
electrical contractors, including those affiliated with Local
3 and those that are not, and by the Board of Education, if
they are willing, at locations where notices to employees
and contractors are customarily posted..
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Local 3 has taken to comply herewith.
14 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 , recommendations , 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
15 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
Order 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 "
Respondent, Local 3, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents , and repre-
sentatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging any of its members or other
individual employed by the electrical contractors doing
business with the Board of Education, or by any other per-
son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce , 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 , where an object
thereof is to force said electrical contractors to cease doing
business with the Board of Education to force the Board of
Education to cease doing business with electrical contrac-
tors Wickham and Perone , Iovine , and others whose em-
ployees are not members of or represented by Local 3.
(b) Threatening, coercing , or restraining the electrical
contractors of the Board of Education, or the Board of
Education , or other persons engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce , where an object thereof is to
force the electrical contractors to cease doing business with
the Board of Education to force the Board of Education to
cease doing business with electrical contractors Wickham
and Perone , Iovine , and others, whose employees are not
members of or represented by Local 3.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in its business offices and meeting halls , copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Immediately
upon receipt of copies of said notice, on forms to be pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 29, Local 3 shall
cause the copies to be signed by one of its authorized rep-
resentatives and posted, the posted copies to be maintained
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places , including all places where notices to members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Local 3 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Return to the Regional Director for Region 29, by
mail or otherwise , a sufficient number (as determined by
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found , after a
hearing, that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any of our mem-
bers or other individual employed by the electrical
contractors doing business with the Board of Educa-
tion of the City of New York, or by any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting 'com-
merce , 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 perform any
services, where an object thereof is to force said elec-
trical contractors to cease doing business with the
Board of Education to force the Board of Education
to cease doing business with electrical contractors
Wickham and Perone , lovine , and others , whose em-
ployees are not members of or represented by Local 3,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the electri-
cal contractors of the Board of Education, or the
Board of Education , or other persons engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce , where an
object thereof is to force the electrical contractors to
cease doing business with the Board of Education to
force the Board of Education to cease doing business
with electrical contractors Wickham and Perone,
lovine, and others, whose employees are not members
of or represented by Local 3 , International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO.
LOCAL 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO