Local 4, Hoisting & Portable Engineers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 888 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local #4, Hoisting and Portable Engineers , Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO
and O . DiMascio Construction Corp. Case
1-CC-582
October 19, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 6, 1967, Trial Examiner Benjamin B.
Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision, and, in addition, also filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint, to discharge the
Trial Examiner and revoke all reference to the
complaint, and to quash the Decision and Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, motion,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner. I
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent , Local #4, Hoisting and
Portable Engineers , International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers , AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order.
' The Respondent 's "Motion to Dismiss Complaint For Want of Ju-
risdiction , To Discharge the Trial Examiner And Revoke the Reference
Of the Complaint , and To Reject And Quash Decision and Recom-
mended Order Of The Trial Examiner" is hereby denied , in its entirety, as
being without merit Denver Building and Construction Trades Council,
et al, (The Grauman Company), 82 NLRB 93, 94, Evans v
International Typographical Union (American Newspaper Publishers
Assn ), 76 F Supp 881 , 885 (D C Ind ), Alamo Express , Inc., and Alamo
Cartage Company , 127 NLRB 1203, 1204, Local 50, Bakery and Con-
fectionery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO (Arnold Bakers,
Inc ), 115 NLRB 1333, 1334
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed and served on January 17, 1967,1 the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a com-
plaint on February 10, alleging that the above-captioned
Union, as Respondent, by certain picketing activity at a
motel construction project, violated the secondary
boycott provisions in Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act. On February 20, at a hearing held in Boston, Mas-
sachusetts, all parties were represented and were af-
forded full opportunity to present relevant evidence.
General Counsel and Respondent waived oral argument
on the record and filed briefs, which have been duly con-
sidered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Holiday Inns of America, Inc., herein called Holiday,
is a Tennessee corporation engaged at the Westgate
Shopping Center in Brockton, Massachusetts, in the con-
struction of a motel, herein called the Westgate project,
the approximate value of which is $1,200,000. O.
DiMascio Construction Corp., herein called DiMascio,
is a Massachusetts corporation engaged as a subcontrac-
tor in performing excavation work and installation of
water, sewer, and drain lines at the Westgate project. In
the fiscal year preceding issuance of the complaint,
DiMascio had a direct inflow in interstate commerce of
purchased materials valued in excess of $50,000.
Respondent admits that DiMascio is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and I find that the
jurisdiction of the Board may appropriately be asserted in
this proceeding.2
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local #4, Hoisting and Portable Engineers , Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, herein
called the Respondent or Local #4, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events Preceding "Area Standards" Picketing on
January 16
About October, Holiday commenced its construction
of the motel at Westgate, performing a portion of the
work with its own employees, and subcontracting to vari-
ous specified firms other work, e.g., excavation, brick, ce-
ment, electrical, and plumbing. On October 13,
DiMascio started blasting and excavating rock.At that
time, its equipment consisted of a 210 compressor, which
it owned, and a larger, 600 compressor, which it rented
All dates are sequentially in 1966 or 1967
2 Reilly Cartage Co., et al., 110 NLRB 1742, 1744, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc (McAllister Transfer, Inc ), 110 NLRB
1769
167 NLRB No. 123
LOCAL 4, HOISTING & PORTABLE ENGINEERS 889
from another company. The 600 compressor was
operated by an employee of Holiday and member of
Local #4, who apparently at times also operated the 210
compressor. Orlando DiMascio, who testified he was the
"owner" of the subcontracting company, did certain work
himself on the project; it does not appear that any of his
own employees operated either of the compressors during
this early period. Thomas Lynch was also engaged at this
time as an excavating contractor , with the essential func-
tion of removing the earth and rock which DiMascio
"blew out."3 About December 15, the compressors were
no longer needed, and DiMascio sent back the 600 com-
pressor to its owner. On December 21, Lynch had
completed his excavation work and departed from the
job. Lynch's employees were members of Local #4.
DiMascio was the only nonunion contractor on the pro-
ject.
Early in November, DiMascio brought a backhoe and
a bulldozer to the jobsite. On January 3, these machines
were put into operation for the purpose of digging
trenches and laying water, sewer, and drainage pipe.
Commencing at this time, O. DiMascio and four em-
ployees were working on the job. DiMascio personally
ran the equipment "most of the time." However, one of
his employees, Volpe, also operated this equipment,
usually the bulldozer and at times the backhoe.
Alcide Morrell, business representative of Local #4,
makes the rounds of some 150 jobs in the Brockton area.
He testified, inter alia, as follows: Although he drove by
the Westgate project every day, his actual visits took
place about every 8 to 10 days. Before January 1, he saw
no DiMascio equipment on the jobsite at any time. On
January 12 or 13 (Friday), he was at the Westgate jobsite
and observed an employee of DiMascio operating the
backhoe. He looked for, but was unable to find, Lynch or
his employees. He then spoke to Carl L. Edge, Holiday's
job superintendent on the project (which conversation he
admitted was brought about by the fact that Lynch was
not there). He said he "had a great concern" over the
i manner in which the job had suddenly changed. The
previous week (under Lynch), there had been four people
working; i.e., an operator and an oiler on the backhoe
"getting the wages that existed in the area,""an operator
on a shoveldozer, an operator on a bulldozer, and a com-
pressor operator.4 Now (under DiMascio), there was "a
backhoe running with one operator and no oiler and on
one occasion when they had to run a little compressor,
doing this also. They also had a front-end loader on the
job ...." He told Edge that this was, in effect, an
elimination of other jobs and constituted a violation of
"our standards" - which he then asked Edge to "take
some steps to correct." Edge's responses were merely -
7 Lynch had a large bulldozer , a front-end loader on tracks , a backhoe
to loosen rock and dig foundation for the building , and one or two trucks
for hauling
4 Thus, he apparently enumerated five employees
5 Morrell did not indicate whether this call to Pennington was made be-
fore or after his alleged conversation with Edge on January 12 or 13
6 With respect to the foregoing , there is no serious conflict in the
testimony as to the facts which are material herein Morrell 's version, as
shown above , contains certain significant admissions However, I find
that his testimony concerning these events , as well as those subsequent,
was frequently shifting, evasive , and self-contradictory To the extent of
any material conflict, I am disposed to credit Edge.
' An exhibit showing the physical layout of the Westgate project and
contiguous areas was introduced and explained in some detail The project
is depicted as a triangular shape with the right angle at the northeast com-
pass point Generally described , the hypotenuse of approximately 800
feet lies parallel with a cloverleaf section of (State ) Route 27, Route 24 is
"I don't know." On January 13, Morrell admittedly
telephoned a Mr Pennington, general job superintendent
for Holiday, at the headquarters office in Memphis,
Tennessee.5 According to Morrell, Pennington told him
he would call Edge and see that any problem on the West-
gate job was adjusted. The next morning, January 14,
Edge telephoned Morrell at his home and indicated that
Pennington had instructed him to make the call to see
what could be done to prevent the job from being
picketed on Monday, January 16. Edge wanted to
"straighten out the job," and Morrell said he "would be
glad to." Edge asked Morrell to write him a letter setting
forth the problem. Morrell replied that he had already ex-
plained the violations to Edge a day or two before, that he
"couldn't take the time now because it was continuing to
be a violation and that he [Edge] could read the problem
on the picket signs."
In his testimony, Edge positively denied that he had
any conversation with Morrell before he made the
telephone call, at Pennington's request, on January 14.
He asked Morrell what he had to do to keep the job from
being picketed on Monday, was told he could read it on
the picket signs, and he asked for a letter stating why the
job was being picketed.6
B The Picketing and Subsequent Events
Early Monday morning, January 16, before any work
commenced on the Westgate project, the employees' en-
trance to the jobsite was patrolled by two pickets carrying
signs, viz.
LOCAL #4 I. U.O.E
P. DIMASCIO CO. MAINTAIN
BEST AREA STANDARDS
No work was begun on the project; employees of all sub-
contractors and of Holiday honored the picket line and
remained off the jobsite. About 7:30 a.m., Edge asked 0
DiMascio to take his equipment off the Holiday property.
Thereupon, DiMascio proceeded to move all his
machines and equipment from the Holiday site to a loca-
tion nearby on privately owned land.? About 8 a.m.,
DiMascio told one of the picketers, named Fenton, that
the DiMascio equipment was removed from the site and
was now on private property." Edge inquired of the
pickets as to why they were picketing, since the
DiMascio equipment was removed from Holiday
premises. They said they would stop. The picketers then
put their signs in a truck, but remained in the vicinity.
west , Oak Street is north, and Westgate Drive is east and borders the
principal entrances to the project Except for State property along Routes
27 and 24, essentially all the adjacent land is owned by one Ray Mucci
The motel project, which is "staked out ," is situated on prope-ty that
Holiday leased from Mucci At the northeast corner of the project, a tem-
porary road, indicated on the exhibit as "employees entrance ," leads to an
area , designated on the exhibit as "Employee Parking ," which directly ad-
joins the motel structure The road or "employees entrance ," at which the
January 16 picketing took place, is off the leased Holiday property and is
owned by Mucci Similarly, Mucci owns the adjacent land to which
DiMascio moved his equipment on January 16 This equipment was
placed on a proposed but incomplete street leading into the east area of the
motel, the equipment was about 30 feet from the nearest Holiday property
line and about 350 feet south of the "employees entrance "
" According to Morrell, DiMascio also told the picketers that they were
on private property
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereupon, the various construction employees entered
the project to work. However, that morning Morrell came
to the job office at the construction shack and addressed
Edge in the presence of DiMascio and two other subcon-
tractors. He said that Edge "conned his men off the
picket line."" DiMascio told Morrell that the picket sign
had his name on it and he was the man Morrell "wanted
to talk to." Morrell answered or acknowledged he knew
DiMascio.10 Morrell then reinstated the picket line,
although the workmen, already on the job, continued for
the rest of the day. At 4:30 p.m., Edge reached Morrell by
telephone. He asked what he would have to do to get the
pickets removed. Morrell said he would have to assure
him that an oiler and operator would be used on the
DiMascio equipment.
On January 17, before starting time in the morning, the
pickets were again patrolling the "employees entrance,"
and none of the employees entered upon the project to
work. The picket sign now stated "0. DiMascio Con-
struction Corp.," but was otherwise the same." At 10
a.m., there were policemen and construction employees
"milling around" the "employees entrance." At this time,
the picketers undertook to move to a public road "right
off Route 27," about 1,600 feet from, and leading into, the
main entrance southeast of the Westgate Shopping
Center. Before getting into the truck to move from the
"employees entrance," Fenton, a picketer, turned and
said to the construction employees "standing around"
that - "the picket was still on." While the picketing was
transferred to and carried on at the "main entrance," all
secondary employees continued to remain away from
work. 1
At 10:30 a.m. on January 17, Morrell came to the con-
struction shack and questioned Edge whether he had
spoken to the Holiday office in Memphis Edge said he
had. Morrell then asked if he "would assure him of using
Local #4 men as ... he had talked to Mr. Pennington,
and [Edge] told him he would go along with what Mr.
Pennington said." Morrell thereupon stated he would
take the pickets off.13 About 11 a.m., the picketing was
halted, and has not since been restored. Work was
resumed that afternoon and has continued since then
without interruption - by the employees of Holiday and
of all subcontractors except DiMascio. As of the hearing
date, DiMascio's equipment has not been brought back
to the jobsite, and his scheduled work of installing
drainage, water, and sewer lines on the Westgate project
remains to be done.14
C. Findings and Conclusions
In the picketing of Westgate construction project -
which involves a typical common situs harboring neutral
0 As credibly testified by Edge and DiMascio
10 Morrell testified that he had not previously or subsequently spoken
to DiMascio
II P DiMascio Construction Corp., as originally on the picket sign, was
an erroneous designation of a predecessor company bearing the name of
0 DiMascio ' s father
12 There is testimony by Morrell, for example, that some of the con-
struction employees regularly came to work through the "main entrance "
Although the employees were not required to use only the "employees en-
trance ," Job Superintendent Edge testified that to his knowledge the em-
ployees of the subcontractors used no other entrance . In any case, it is
clear from the record that none of the employees entered the project to
perform work during the course of picketing either at the "employees en-
trance" or later at the "main entrance "
13 Edge 's credited testimony Morrell 's testimony was that , at 10 30
a m on January 17, after he had a further conversation with Pennington,
employers - the critical question presented herein is
whether Respondent had an unlawful object of embroiling
any of the neutral, or secondary, employers in its labor
controversy with the primary employer, DiMascio. The
evidence, I find, amply supports the allegations of the
complaint that, by its picketing and related conduct,
Respondent brought forceful pressure to bear upon
Holiday, a neutral employer, to cease doing business with
DiMascio, thereby violating the secondary boycott provi-
sions of Section 8(b)(4)(B).
Numerous and varying positions were advanced by
Respondent in its answer to the complaint, at the hearing,
and in its brief - all of which, though duly considered,
need not be treated in detail.15 The conclusions reached
are substantiated for the reasons, as follows:
Belated arguments of Respondent to the effect that
Holiday was not a neutral employer are rejected.16 The
fact that in late 1966 an employee of Holiday, and
member of Local #4, had operated compressors in con-
nection with the blasting work of DiMascio scarcely
served to identify Holiday as the primary employer or to
render Holiday an ally of DiMascio in the subsequent pri-
mary dispute. Essentially, the dispute arose in January
1967, when DiMascio had commenced the use of a
backhoe and bulldozer in laying pipe for water, sewer,
and drainage. Respondent's quarrel was entirely with
DiMascio, the sole nonunion employer on the job, al-
legedly for violating "area standards," and only
DiMascio was named in the picket signs. Indeed,
Respondent admitted in its formal answer that - "At no
time material herein has Respondent Local #4 been en-
gaged in a labor dispute with Holiday or any of its sub-
contractors (other than DiMascio)."
At the hearing, Respondent's counsel asserted the
defense that the picketing was not intended to affect the
employees of the neutral employers, that these employees
could have entered the jobsite from various access points
other than from the place picketed, and that Respondent
was not responsible for what these employees decided to
"do on their own." In contrast, Business Representative
Morrell testified that the purpose of the picketing was to
notify and inform the "people who were working" that
there were violations involving DiMascio and Local #4.
It is also shown that a picketer (Fenton) informed the
construction employees on January 17 that "the picket
was still on," in circumstances clearly implying that he
wanted them to continue to honor the picket line. On the
entire record, it is beyond doubt, and I find, that the
picketing was intended to induce and encourage the
secondary employees to cease work, and that it was fully
effective in achieving this result. Such cessation in turn
he went to the construction shack and told Edge he was removing the
pickets in view of the assurance given him that Pennington would be per-
sonally responsible to see that whatever violations were occurring on the
jobsite would be straightened out
14 Morrell testified that he has not visited the Holiday jobsite since
January 17
15 Inter alia , no merit is found in Respondent's contentions in its brief
that the Board faded to prove its right to resort to the issuance of the com-
plaint , to seek injunctive relief, and to hold a hearing, and that the Board
failed first to exhaust the procedures for mediation and conciliation in
Title II of the Act.
'S N L.R B. v. Denver Budding and Construction Trades Council, et al.
(Gould & Preisner), 341 U.S. 675.
LOCAL 4, HOISTING & PORTABLE ENGINEERS 891
constituted restraint and coercion upon the secondary
employers."
No peculiar immunity attaches to such picketing
because it carried the legend that DiMascio does not
maintain "best area standards." For purposes of the
statute, the legality of such picketing at a common situs
turns upon its actual object, as disclosed by all of the
evidence; i.e., whether it is essentially primary or second-
ary in character and effect.
As described by Morrell, the "area standards" which
DiMascio violated consisted of the failure to employ an
oiler on the backhoe, in addition to the operator; use of a
single employee in operating two or three pieces of equip-
ment ; and payment of wage rates below those contained
in Local #4's contract in the area. Respondent's
testimony is not at all persuasive that it was reasonably
aware of the wage rates being paid by DiMascio or of the
manner in which DiMascio was operating its equipment.
Evidence of the "best area standards" consists, in sub-
stance, of a collective-bargaining agreement between
Local #4 and a building trades employers association of
Boston and eastern Massachusetts, and testimony by
Respondent that Federal and State authorities rely upon
such agreements for payment of the prevailing wage on
their respective construction projects in the area.
Area standards picketing of the type here involved is
no less subject to the criteria for common situs picketing
established by the Board in the Moore Dry Dock case, 18
viz:
(a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when
situs of dispute is located on the secondary em-
ployer' s premises ; (b) at the time of the picketing the
primary employer is engaged in its normal business
at the situs; (c) the picketing is limited to places
reasonably close to the location of the situs; and (d)
the picketing discloses that the dispute is with the
primary employer.
Observance of all these conditions by the picketing union
would presumptively indicate a lawful objective, in that
reasonable efforts were being made to confine the dispute
to the primary employer without enmeshing neutral em-
ployees and employers.'9
In the present case, Respondent was advised and
became aware, shortly after it began picketing on January
16, that all of DiMascio's equipment had been removed
from the Holiday jobsite, and that thereafter DiMascio
was not working on the project. Nevertheless, Respond-
ent continued to picket for most of that day (including
the period in which the secondary employees had
returned to work) and for a portion of the following day.
In these circumstances, I cannot hold that Respondent
adhered to the Moore Dry Dock standard which limits the
picketing to times that the primary employer is engaged
in its normal business at the situs.
Even if it is assumed that Respondent nominally com-
plied with all the Moore Dry Dock standards, the pre-
sumption flowing therefrom that the picketing was pri-
mary in nature is decisively negated by other evidence,
summarized below, which reveals that Respondent's true
objective was to enmesh the secondary construction em-
ployers and to cause Holiday to cease doing business
with DiMascio.20
In light of all the evidence, Respondent's purported ob-
ject of the picketing - to persuade DiMascio to maintain
"best area standards" - appears as merely a convenient
pretext and subterfuge. Respondent avoided discussion
of the dispute with DiMascio, and made no attempt to ad-
vise it of the nature of the alleged area standards viola-
tions and as to how it, DiMascio, could resolve the
dispute. Respondent concentrated all its practical efforts
to obtain satisfaction by directly approaching Holiday,
who was in no position itself to institute the so-called
standards which Respondent testimonially sought. How-
ever, Holiday could and did cause the removal of
DiMascio from the project. Morrell's admission that
Edge asked him, on January 14, what could be done to
prevent the job from being picketed on January 16,
reasonably justifies the inference that Morrell had con-
veyed the intention or threat to picket in his earlier
telephone conversation with Pennington at Holiday's
headquarters in Memphis. Respondent continued its
picketing activity even though it was aware that Holiday
had caused DiMascio to remove its equipment and cease
work on the project. It is clear that the picketing was
proximately related, in time and cause, to Morrell's ascer-
tainment that four or five Local #4 members were no
longer on the job, i.e., those who were previously operat-
ing for Lynch the major equipment under Respondent's
jurisdictional concern, and that instead a nonunion sub-
contractor, DiMascio, had brought in and was operating
such equipment. Ultimately on January 17, as an obvious
condition to the removal of the picket, Morrell requested
that Edge "assure him of using Local #4 men." Upon
Edge's agreement to "go along" with what Pennington
told Morrell, the picketing was lifted. Work on the
Holiday project has since proceeded without the
presence of DiMascio, and DiMascio's scheduled opera-
tions remain to be performed. Thus, the assurance given
by Holiday and the continuing fact of DiMascio's
removal from the job have satisfied Respondent's picket-
ing objective, further demonstrating that the purpose of
the picketing was at all times material secondary and un-
lawful in character.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, as alleged.
19 E.g., Local 370, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, etc. (Baughan Plumbing and
Heating Company, Incorporated), 157 NLRB 20.
18 Sailor 's Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92
NLRB 547, 549.
19 E.g., United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 891, AFL-CIO (Bryant Sheet Metal Co), 164 NLRB 251,
Carpenters Local Union No. 944, et al. (Interstate Employers Associa-
tion , and Ralph Duris), 159 NLRB 563; International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 11, AFL-CIO, et al. (L G. Electric Contrac-
tors), 154 NLRB 766; Local 895, International Brotherhood f Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, et al. (East-
ern New York Construction Employers), 153 NLRB 993.
20 Ibid. Respondent asserts that Holiday has "in no way terminated" its
business relations with DiMascio because DiMascio "is still keeping its
equipment in place and is ready to resume work ." Such a fact, if true,
would not constitute a defense. It is sufficient that an object of Respond-
dent was to force or require Holiday to cease business relations with
DiMascio , whether or not successful The plain evidence, however, is that
a disruption and cessation of business between Holiday and DiMascio has
indeed occurred entirely as a result of Respondent 's conduct And it is a
purpose of the statute to effect an expeditious restoration of the status quo
ante upon the finding of violations as here committed.
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Employer's
operations described in section 1, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above factual findings and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. DiMascio and Holiday are each employers engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the
Act
3. By the picketing and related conduct set forth in
section III, above, Respondent has induced and en-
couraged individuals employed by Holiday, and by other
secondary employers, to engage in a refusal in the course
of their employment to perform services for their em-
ployer and has restrained and coerced Holiday, and
other secondary employers, with an object of forcing or
requiring Holiday to cease doing business with
DiMascio, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, it is
recommended that Respondent , Local #4 , Hoisting and
Portable Engineers , International Union of Operating
Engineers , AFL-CIO , its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or
encouraging any individuals employed by Holiday Inns
of America , Inc., or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce , except O.
DiMascio Construction Corp ., to engage in, a strike or
refusal in the course of their employment to perform any
services, or threatening , coercing , or restraining Holiday
Inns of America, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or an industry affecting commerce , where in
either case an object thereof is to force or require Holiday
Inns of America , Inc., or any other employer or person,
to cease doing business with O. DiMascio Construction
Corp.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act-
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."L' Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region
1, sufficient copies of said notice, to be furnished by him
for posting by Holiday Inns of America, Inc., and all
other persons engaged in building construction services
at the Westgate motel project, if they are willing, at places
where they customarily post notices to their employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.22
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
22 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 1, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage in-
dividuals employed by Holiday Inns of America,
Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce, except O. DiMascio
Construction Corp., to engage in a strike or refusal
in the course of their employment to perform any ser-
vices, or threaten, coerce, or restrain Holiday Inns
of America, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or an industry affecting commerce, where
in either case an object thereof is to force or require
Holiday Inns of America, Inc., or any other em-
ployer or person, to cease doing business with O.
DiMascio Construction Corp.
LOCAL #4, HOISTING AND
PORTABLE ENGINEERS, IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
LOCAL 4, HOISTING & PORTABLE ENGINEERS 893
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees or members have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions, they
may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Of-
fice, 20th Floor, John F . Kennedy Federal Building,
Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Mas-
sachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3300.