Local 825, Operating Engineers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

Local 825, International Union of Operating En-
gineers, AFL-CIO and Morin Erection Co., Inc.
Case 22-CC-320
October 31,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On February 14, 1967, Trial Examiner Phil
Saunders issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Decision, together with
supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.'
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 as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Local 825, International Union of Operating En-
gineers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order , as herein
modified:
1. Add the following words to the end of para-
Although the Trial Examiner recommended in his Remedy that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the specified
unfair labor practices in respect to any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce , his Recommended Order was inad-
vertently more limited As we agree that a broader order is appropriate
here , we have modified the Recommended Order accordingly . Cf Local
825, International Union of Operating Engineers ,AFL-CIO, et al. (U-
nited Engineers and Constructors , Inc) 138 NLRB 279, enfd 322 F 2d
478 (C A 3)
In agreeing with the Trial Examiner that Respondent 's picketing did not
conform to Moore Drydock standards , Member Fanning relies solely on
the facts that picketing took place at a time when Morin was not engaged
in its normal operations and was not limited to places close to the situs
where Morin would normally perform its roof decking job
graph 1(b) of the Recommended Order, and to the
end of each indented paragraph of the Appendix:
", or with any other employer or person."
2. Delete from paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order that part thereof
which reads "to be furnished" and substitute
therefor "on forms provided. . . .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PHIL SAUNDERS , Trial Examiner : Upon a charge filed
on August 11, 1966, by Morin Erection Co., Inc ., herein
the Charging Party or Morin , the General Counsel issued
a complaint dated September 30, 1966 , alleging that the
Respondent , Local 825 , International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers , AFL-CIO, herein the Union or Respond-
ent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
The Union filed an answer denying the commission of
any unfair labor practices . The parties were represented
by counsel and participated fully in the hearing before me,
and briefs were filed.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Morin is a corporation duly organized under, and exist-
ing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Connecticut. At
all times material herein, Morin has maintained its prin-
cipal office and place of business in Bristol, Connecticut,
and is now, and at all times material herein has been con-
tinuously, a subcontractor engaged in the business of
providing and installing steel decking and related services
at various jobsites located in the State of New Jersey and
in other States of the United States, including Connec-
ticut, New York, and Massachusetts. In the course and
conduct of Morin's business operations during the
preceding 12 months, said operations being representa-
tive of its operations at all times material herein, Morin
provided and performed construction and erection ser-
vices valued in excess of $ 100,000, of which said services
valued in excess of $50,000 were provided and performed
within States of the United States other than the State of
Connecticut wherein Morin is located.
At all times material herein, Allan Bros. & O'Hara,
herein called Allan, has been a general contractor en-
gaged in construction of a manufacturing and office build-
ing for Waldron-Hartig Company at South Bound Brook,
New Jersey, herein called the South Bound Brook site.
At all times material herein, Volunteer Structures
Company, herein called Volunteer, has been the subcon-
tractor of Allan for the erection of structural steel at the
South Bound Brook site; and Morin has been the subcon-
tractor of Volunteer for the erection of steel deck at the
South Bound Brook site.
At all times material herein, United Crane & Shovel
Company, herein called United, has maintained its prin-
cipal office and place of business in Kenilworth, New Jer-
168 NLRB No. 1 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sey, and is now, and at all times material herein has been
continuously, a subcontractor engaged in the business of
providing and performing crane services and related ser-
vices at various jobsites located in the State of New
Jersey.'
It is alleged, and I find, that Morin, Allan, Volunteer,
and United, each is now, and at all times material herein
has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in indus-
try affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction therein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that in pursuance of a demand
that Morin employ a member of Respondent to maintain
welding machines used by Morin, Respondent, on August
10, 1966, induced individuals employed by United to en-
gage in a strike and has thereby threatened and coerced
United. It is further alleged that on August 11, 1966,
Respondent maintained pickets at the South Bound
Brook jobsite and, by this conduct, induced individuals
employed by United, Allan, and others, to engage in a
strike against their employers, and threatened and
coerced United, Allan, and others. Finally, it is alleged
that Respondent engaged in such acts and conduct with
an object of forcing and requiring Allan, United, and
others to cease doing business with Morin.
As noted above, Allan is a general contractor engaged
to construct a plant for Waldron-Hartig in Bound Brook,
New Jersey. Volunteer is a subcontractor to Allan to per-
form the steel work, and Morin has a subcontract from
Volunteer to supply the metal roof decking. The evidence
in this record shows that the Charging Party's vice pre-
sident, Simeon Morin, visited the jobsite in early July
1966 and spoke to William Crum, general superintendent
for Allan, and that Crum told him there seemed to be a
problem involving Respondent, and that he wanted Morin
to try to solve the problem before he sent his men to the
job. Morin then went onto the actual jobsite and was
directed to Victor Belmonte, shop steward for the
Respondent. Morin asked Belmonte if there was any
problem with his company, and Belmonte told him that
there seemed to be one, and that Morin should contact
the Respondent's business agent , Jack Smith, and gave
him Smith's telephone number.2 Belmonte further in-
formed Morin that before he did any work at the jobsite
he had to have a clearance from the Union. On or about
August 8, 1966, Simeon Morin called Smith, and Smith
informed Morin that there was a problem at the Waldron-
Hartig job pertaining to welding machines. Smith asked
Morin if he was going to use any engineers on his welding
machines, and Morin said no. Morin then asked Smith
what would happen and Smith replied, "We'll see what
happens."
On August 9, 1966,3 Morin hired a crane from United
to be sent to the jobsite the following day. On August 10
the crane was sent to the jobsite with two employees of
United, an operator and an oiler, both members of
Respondent. Upon arrival, Morin's ironworkers and the
crane operators and oiler started assembling the boom of
the crane, and John Cyr, Morin's foreman at the job, was
directing his men in helping to set up the crane for hoist-
ing. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent's steward at the
site, Vic Belmonte, came over and told the operating en-
gineers of United that before they continued to work,
they should call the union hall and obtain a clearance. The
crane engineer thereupon left to make a telephone call,
and upon returning stated that they could not do any
work, and that a business agent was coming to the job. A
short while thereafter, Jack Smith, business representa-
tive of Respondent, came to the jobsite, and in the trailer
office asked Morin whether he was going to put an
operating engineer on his welding machine. When Morin
refused, Smith told him the job would not proceed. Smith
and Belmonte then walked out of the trailer, and the two
employees of United refused to do any work as they had
not received a clearance from Smith. That same after-
noon- August 10- Crum heard that there was going to
be a picket line set up on the next day so he contacted
Belmonte and asked him about it. Belmonte then in-
formed Crum that there would be pickets at the jobsite in
the morning because Morin would not put an operating
engineer on his welding machine. Crum told Belmonte
that he could not understand this because as yet Morin
had not used any welding machine on the job. Crum then
also communicated with Morin and informed him to keep
off the job until he had satisfactorily settled his dif-
ferences with the Respondent.
This record clearly establishes that on the morning of
August 1 I the Respondent picketed the jobsite at its two
entrances with signs that read:
INFORMATION
To PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES OF
MORIN
ERECTION COMPANY
DO NOT RECEIVE
AREA
STANDARD WAGES
BENEFITS AND
WORKING CONDITIONS
Belmonte was one of the Respondent's pickets who car-
ried a sign, and no employees of any of the various trades
employed at the site, approximately 80 in number, started
working at 8 a.m. - their normal time to commence work.
Also, several concrete trucks were lined up or parked in
the entrance driveway leading to the jobsite. When Crum
learned of the picketing, he sought out Belmonte and
ascertained from him Jack Smith's telephone number, but
Crum could not contact Smith until 9 a.m. Crum then
called Charles Aughinbaugh, plant manager of Waldron-
Hartig Company, and for whom the new building was
being constructed. After hearing about the pickets,
Aughinbaugh immediately came to the jobsite and
inquired of Belmonte as to who was in charge of the
I During the trial of the case, General Counsel moved, without objec-
tion, to delete specific references in the complaint to J.S R Construction
Company and any activity at a Jersey City jobsite Accordingly, the
remaining issues are concerned with the activities of Respondent at the
South Bound Brook jobsite
z In late June 1966, Belmonte had also informed Crum that Morin had
encountered some difficulties with the Respondent on previous jobs.
3 All dates are 1966 unless specifically stated otherwise
LOCAL 825, OPERATING ENGINEERS 3
picket line. Belmonte informed Aughinbaugh that he was
in charge, and in a discussion between them Aughinbaugh
stated that unless the dispute was settled or corrected,
Morin would not continue on the job. Aughinbaugh then
asked Belmonte to remove the picket line, but Belmonte
replied that he did not have authority to do so and that
Jack Smith would have to be contacted. Aughinbaugh and
Belmonte then went to the trailer office where Belmonte
place a telephone call to the union hall and a connection
was made with Jack Smith. Belmonte spoke to Smith
relating the above statements made to him by Aughin-
baugh at the picket line, and then Aughinbaugh spoke to
Smith and reiterated that he would remove Morin from
the job unless he straightened out his problems. Belmonte
then got back on the telephone conversing further with
Smith, and shortly thereafter the picket line was
disbanded and all employees at the site returned to their
jobs except the two employees of United who continued
in their refusal to operate the crane.
On or about August 18, Morin attempted to use a small
electric welding machine at the jobsite. Shop Steward
Belmonte called Crum's attention to Morin's use of this
welding machine, and Crum then directed Morin to stop
using the machine since he could not afford another work
stoppage, and the understanding was that Morin would
not use welding machines until his differences were set-
tled. Morin then removed or quit using this welding
machine.
The Respondent offered some testimony through Jack
Smith to the effect that he really did not know what the
dispute was all about. Smith ventured that when he and
Morin were in the trailer office on August 10, as afore-
stated, Morin only "raved" at him, and that he, therefore,
just "walked out." Smith admitted, however, that when
Aughinbaugh spoke to him over the telephone on August
11 and thereby informed the Respondent that Morin
would be removed from the job unless his troubles were
settled- Smith then told Belmonte to "put the job back."
Victor Belmonte also suggested in his testimony that he
really did not know too much about the dispute in
question. Belmonte stated that the pickets were already
at the jobsite when he arrived on the morning of August
11, and that he merely joined them. He further denied
telling Aughinbaugh that he was in charge of the picket
line. It seems to me it is unnecessary to further relate any
of the other denials or testimony given by the two wit-
nesses for the Respondent because, in the final analysis,
they both admit on cross-examination that they had
ample knowledge of the dispute in question, and I find
that the Respondei.c caused the work stoppage by
establishing the picket line on August 11 when Morin
refused to place an operating engineer on his welding
machine. I submit that if the picket line merely resulted
from various rumors floating around the jobsite as the
Respondent endeavored to show, it is highly unlikely that
Smith would have immediately removed the pickets when
he was given assurances that Morin would no longer be
on the job if his troubles were not settled. Clearly, the
pickets were the result of the dispute between Morin and
the Respondent.
Various other arguments are also presented by the
Respondent and they fall within the following categories:
The Respondent contends that there is insufficient
evidence to show that Belmonte is an agent of the
Respondent, and that he did not induce or encourage any
individual employed by United to engage in a work stop-
page; that the record fails to establish that United is a
neutral employer within the meaning of the Act and that
Morin and United are at least joint employers; that the
picketing completely conformed to the Board's Moore
Dry Dock doctrine, 92 NLRB 547; and that irrespective
of any of the foregoing, no acts or statements by anyone
connected with the Respondent has an objective as al-
leged in the complaint.
As pointed out, the first argument is quite readily
disposed of on the basis of testimony by Belmonte him-
self that he was Respondent's shop steward at the jobsite.
This record also shows that Belmonte informed Crum of
Respondent's problem with Morin, he told the United
employees to call the hall before doing any hoisting work,
he later introduced Simeon Morin to Smith, he identified
himself to Aughinbaugh as being in charge of the pickets,
and finally Belmonte called off the picket line and
directed the strikers to return to work after talking with
Smith, an acknowledged and admitted agent of the
Respondent. These activities of Belmonte, unrenounced
by Respondent and authorized by Smith, lead to the in-
escapable conclusion that Belmonte was Respondent's
agent at this jobsite, and I so find.4
The Respondent's second argument is also without
merit. The contention that United and Morin are joint
employers is based on the fact that Morin's supervisors
exercise some degree of control over the two crane opera-
tors assigned by United while they are working at the
jobsite. While it is true that Morin's foreman may have
generally directed the crane crew as to the material to be
hoisted and where it was to be placed, Morin had no con-
trol over the selection of the crane employees. Morin
rented from United a crane and crew for a flat sum fixed
in advance, including provision for overtime.5 As pointed
out Morin had no control over these employees so that it
could secure the performance of their work in order to ac-
complish the results contemplated by the leasing arrange-
ment with United. Clearly, United had the two engineer
employees on its own payroll, and the routine instructions
and safety requirements exercised by Morin's foreman
while the crane is hoisting decking materials to the roof
do not amount to the type of control that would classify
them as joint employers. In accordance with the above,
I find that United was a neutral party or employer.
Turning now specifically to August 10 and the events
that immediately preceded. We can clearly see that
Respondent had a basic dispute with regard to Morin's
refusal to employ a member of the Respondent to main-
tain its welding machine. Evidence in this record reveals
that Project Superintendent Crum, was informed of the
problem by Belmonte in June; Morin spoke to Smith on
August 8, and after being informed that Morin would not
employ an operating engineer on the welding machine,
Smith stated, "We'll see what happens;" and beforehand,
Morin had also been told by Crum to work out some sort
of an agreement with the Respondent before starting his
work at the jobsite. In light of such evidence there can be
little doubt as to Belmonte 's purpose when he first en-
countered United's employees and instructed them to call
the union hall before commencing their work. After plac-
4 It is well established by the Board and the courts that a union is tributor Drivers, Local 830, 281 F.2d 319, 321-322 (C.A 3), see also
responsible under the Act for the unlawful conduct of a job steward acting N.L.R B v. Acme Mattress Co., Inc., 192 F.2d 524,527 (C.A. 7)
within his general scope of authority N L.R B. v. Brewery and Beer Dis- 5 G.C. Exhs. 2, 3, and 4.
336-845 0 - 70 - 2
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing the call United employees refused to operate the
crane. Shortly thereafter, Jack Smith arrived and in-
formed Morin that the job would not proceed as Morin
had continued in his refusal to employ an operating en-
gineer on the welding machine. Again the two employees
of United refused to operate the crane. These actions and
incidents on the part of Respondent's agents show that
the object of their activity was directed at United, and
that Respondent sought to bring about a cessation of busi-
ness between Morin and United-a neutral in the,dispute
over the welding machine.6 Such is sufficient to constitute
inducement within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act, and I so find.7
This record shows that the picketing on August II
closed down all the work at the South Bound Brook site
as no employees of any contractors crossed the picket
line. As aforestated, the Respondent contends that the
picketing was in conformity with the Moore Dry Dock
standards.
The Board's recent consideration of the law pertaining
to common situs picketing returns to the first principles
of the Moore Dry Dock case, supra, wherein limitations
were established to insure that all reasonable precautions
have been taken to prevent enmeshment of neutrals in the
primary employer's dispute. In Millwrights Local Union
No. 1102, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO (Dobson Heavy Haul, Inc.), 155
NLRB 1305, the Board applied these standards. These
requirements for legal common situs picketing set forth in
Moore Dry Dock were: (1) that the picketing is strictly
limited to times when the situs of the dispute is located on
the secondary employer's premises; (2) at the time of the
picketing that the primary employer is engaged in its nor-
mal business at the situs; (3) that the picketing is limited
to places close to the location of the situs; (4) that the
picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the pri-
mary employer. However, in International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861, et al. (Plauche
Electric Inc.), 135 NLRB 250, the Board commented on
these standards indicating that they "are not to be applied
on an indiscriminate per se' basis, but are to be regarded
merely as aids in determining the underlying question of
statutory violation."
In International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 441, AFL-CIO (Suburban Development Co.;
O'Brien Electric Co.), 158 NLRB 549, the Board stated
in part as follows:
. the question of whether or not otherwise lawful
picketing is so intertwined with direct secondary ap-
peals to constitute part of an overall pattern of con-
6 Smith admitted that the Respondent had no problem with any of the
other employers working at the jobsite including the employers previously
mentioned herein , and had no current difficulties with Beers Erectors and
Buck Construction Company who were also working on the job at the
time in question
' In this regard , the Act provides as follows
(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
(4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual em-
ployed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his em-
ployment to use, manufacture , process, transport, or otherwise han-
dle or work on any goods , articles, materials , or commodities or to
perform any services, or (u) to threaten, coerce or restrain any person
engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce, where in
either case an object thereof is
duct designed to enmesh neutrals must necessarily
turn on the facts and circumstances of the particular
case.
In the instant case the picketing does not stand in isola-
tion, and must be decided on the overall pattern of con-
duct and the particular circumstances involved herein. To
find that the Respondent's actions and conduct were legal
or permissible I would have to conclude that Belmonte's
and Smith's statements and conversations with neutral
parties were nothing more than expressions of the
Respondent's intention to continue to exercise its right to
picket Morin at the site in a lawful manner. I cannot agree
with such a characterization of the Respondent's objec-
tive.8 From the record it is not obvious that Belmonte's
and Smith's statements and conduct were not mere lawful
expressions of their right to picket Morin, but rather were
unlawful threats and picketing for the purpose of forcing
the neutral contractors to require Morin to abandon his
refusal to employ an operating engineer on the welding
machine. Viewed in the light of the applicable legal princi-
ples set forth above, it is quite evident that the Respond-
ent's picketing did not conform with Moore Dry Dock
standards for lawful picketing at a common situs, and that
it was directed at, and was intended to involve, secondary
employers and their employees. This conclusion is based
on the following evidence in the record:
(a) Statements in June made by Belmonte to Crum
that Morin had encountered trouble with the Respondent
on previous jobs, and that unless Morin "got right" with
the Respondent the operators would not work.
(b) Belmonte's statement in July to Morin that there
was a problem between him and the Respondent.
(c) Smith's statement to Morin on August 8, "We'll
see what happens," after Morin had replied that he would
not hire an engineer.
(d) Belmonte's statement on August 10 to the crane
operators that they should call the union hall for
clearance before working.
(e) Smith informing Morin on August 10 that the job
would not proceed.
(f) Belmonte informing Crum on the afternoon of Au-
gust 10 that there would be pickets because Morin would
not hire an engineer
(g) Crum telling Morin on August 10 to keep off the
job until he had settled his difference with Respondent.
(h) Belmonte telling Aughinbaugh on August 11 that
he was in charge of the picket line.
(i) Aughinbaugh on August 11 telling Belmonte and
Smith that unless the dispute was settled Morin would no
longer be on the job.
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling,
handling , transporting , or otherwise dealing in the products of
any other producer , processor, or manufacturer , or to cease
doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any
other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization
as the representative of his employees unless such labor or-
ganization has been certified as the representative of such em-
ployees under the provisions of Section 9
" See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No II, AFL-CIO, et al (L G Electric Contractors, Inc), 154 NLRB
766 Also, Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades
Council (Centlivre Village Apartments), 148 NLRB 854, wherein the
Board held the union violated 8 (b)(4)(B) notwithstanding the facts that the
picketing also had a lawful concurrent objective
i
LOCAL 825, OPERATING ENGINEERS ^ 5
Certainly, Belmonte's statement to Crum that the job
was going to be picketed Onstituted a threat to Allan, the
neutral secondary employer of Crum, and further in-
dicated that an objective of the picketing would shut
down the entire job. Crum also understood the meaning
of the above because he then immediately asked Morin to
stay off the job. Moreover, as pointed out, the objective
of the Respondent to force Allan to remove Morin from
the job was borne out by the manner in which the picket-
ing ceased . As soon as Aughinbaugh assured Belmonte
and Smith that Morin would be kept off the job until he
straightened out his problems with Respondent, Smith
told Belmonte to remove the pickets. From the credited
testimony in this record, it is further noted that the
Respondent gave no indication that it was not attempting
to enmesh neutral employers in its dispute with Morin,
and in the final analysis, I am unable to separate the
picketing from the accompanying statements by
Belmonte and Smith , as aforestated.
Finally, no attempt was made by the Respondent to
picket the sites where United's crane was being made
ready for hoisting and where Morin 's foreman and some
of his employees would initially gather, nor was any at-
tempt made to picket the actual situs of Morin 's work sta-
tions. It would seem obvious to me that had the Respond-
ent actually intended to restrict its threats and picketing
to Morin- without the desire to involve neutral em-
ployers - these alternatives would have been selected
and used . Furthermore , the picketing was conducted on
the morning of August 11 when Morin did not have a
welding machine in operation , and at the time in question
was not performing any work claimed by the Respondent.
Clearly, therefore , the picketing was directed in an at-
tempt to enmesh the neutral employers.
Contrary to the Respondent's contention, all of the
foregoing clearly discloses that the Board's Moore Dry
Dock standards for lawful picketing at a common situs
was breached. The picketing took place at a time when
Morin was not engaged in its normal operations as the
crane was never allowed to operate; the picketing was not
limited to ' places close to the dispute situs whereat Morin
would normally perform his roof decking job; and the
overall pattern of conduct and statements of Smith and
Belmonte clearly shows the Respondent 's intent to in-
volve neutrals so as to apply sufficient pressure on Morin
to persuade him to relinquish his continual refusal to hire
an engineer on the welding machine.
In accordance with the above , I find that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by picketing the
jobsites on August 11, 1966.
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 the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In
view of the Respondent 's repeated violations of the Act,
particularly with regard to 8(b)(4) violations,9 it may
reasonably be anticipated that Respondent will engage in
similar unfair labor practices . I shall , therefore , recom-
mend that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging
in such unfair labor practices in respect to any other per-
son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Morin, Allan, Volunteer, and United are each em-
ployers and engaged in commerce or in an industry affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by Allan, Volunteer, and United, and other employers, to
engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employ-
ment to perform services, an object thereof being to force
the above-named employers , and others , to cease doing
business with Morin , the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
4. By the acts described above in paragraph 3 for the
objects set forth above in said paragraph , Respondent did
threaten , coerce , and restrain , and is now threatening,
coercing, and restraining Allan, Volunteer, and United,
persons engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting
commerce , and the Respondent thereby has engaged in
and is now engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
5. 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
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with the operations
described in section 1, above , have a close , intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade , traffic , and commerce
" Local Union 825, International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO (Carleton Brothers Company), 131 NLRB 452, Local 825, In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (R G Maupai Co,
Inc.), 135 NLRB 578, Local 825 , International Brotherhood of Operat-
ing Engineers ( Warren George , Inc), Case 22-CC-99 (unpublished),
Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, et al
(United Engineers & Constructors , Inc.), 138 NLRB 279, enfd . 322 F 2d
478 (C A. 3, 1963 ), Local Union 825, International Union of Operating
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, I
recommend that the Respondent , Local 825, Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, its of-
ficers, agents , and representatives shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed
Engineers , AFL-CIO (Nichols Electric Company), 140 NLRB 458, enfd.
326 F 2d 213 (C A 3, 1964 ), adjudged in criminal contempt 57 LRRM
2143 (C A 3, 1964), cert. denied 379 U S 934, Local Union 825, Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Schwerman Co of
Pa, Inc ), 139 NLRB 1426, Local 825, International Union of Operating
Engineers , AFL-CIO, et al (Utilities Line Construction Co , Inc ), 159
NLRB 1416
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by United, Allan, Volunteer, or by any other person en-
gaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce,
to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his em-
ployment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi-
als, or commodities, or to perform any services; or
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining United, Al-
lan, Volunteer, or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object
thereof is to force or require the aforesaid employers and
others to cease doing business with Morin Erection Co.,
Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office, meeting halls, and all
other places where notices to members are customarily
posted, copies ofthe attached notice marked "Appendix."to
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 22,
signed copies of said notice for posting by Morin Erection
Co., if willing, in places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by
the Respondent, be forthwith returned to the Regional
Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith. i i
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith."
Dated By
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
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 our mem-
bers that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual
employed by Allan Bros. & O'Hara, Volunteer
Structures Company, United Crane & Shovel Com-
pany, or any other person engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce, except Morin
Erection Co., Inc., to engage or refuse in the course
of his employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
materials, articles, or commodities, or to perform any
services where an object thereof is to force or require
any of the aforesaid employers or persons, or any
other employer or person, to cease doing business
with each other or with Morin Erection Co., Inc.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any of
the above-named employers or persons, or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affect-
ing commerce, when an object thereof is to force or
require said employers or others to cease doing busi-
ness with Morin Erection Co., Inc.
LOCAL 8 25, INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS , AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
APPENDIX
(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 members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 National
Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jer-
sey 07102, Telephone 645-2100.