Local Lodge #193, Boilermakers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 608 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Boilermakers Local Lodge # 193, International Broth-
erhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders , Black-
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO and United
Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
Boilermakers Local Lodge # 193, International Broth-
erhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuildres , Black-
smiths , Forgers and Helpers , AFL-CIO and Del-
marva Power & Light Company of Maryland
Boilermakers Local Lodge #193, International Broth-
erhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders, Black-
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO and The
Green Contracting Co., Inc.
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
542, AFL-CIO and Delmarva Power & Light Com-
pany of Maryland . Cases 5-CC-514, 5-CC-517, 5-
CC-518, 5-CP-66, and 5-CC-520
June 28, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On January 27, 1971, Trial Examiner Eugene F.
Frey issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner 's Decision. Thereafter, both
Respondents filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and the General Counsel and Charging Party Del-
marva Power & Light Company filed answering 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 these cases to a three -member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision , the exceptions and briefs , and the
entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner except as modified herein.
The Trial Examiner finds that Respondent Boiler-
makers Union violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) when it pick-
eted for recognition for more than 30 days without
I The Trial Examiner erroneously finds that Respondent Boilermakers
refused to refer boilermakers to Charging Party United Engineers at its
Indian River site . The record shows that United Engineers did not employ
any boilermakers at that site and did not request the referral of any boiler-
makers to that site Accordingly, we do not base any of our findings on the
Trial Examiner's erroneous factual finding
filing a representation petition.Respondent Boilermak-
ers excepts to this finding. In our opinion' the evidence
in the record fails to establish that Respondent Boiler-
makers was picketing with a recognitional objective.
The Trial Examiner's findings that Respondent Boiler-
makers had such an objective are based largely on a
single comment made by Respondent Boilermakers
Business Agent Gertz during the course of a 2-hour
meeting with, and initiated by, representatives of
Green. Green's president, James Green, asked Gertz
how they could solve the problem confronting both of
them. Gertz replied that one solution would be for
Green to hire "193 people" (boilermakers). We do not
believe that this one isolated remark during the course
of a long meeting is sufficient to establish recognitional
objective. At no other time did Gertz or any other
Boilermakers official say or do anything to indicate that
an objective of the picketing was recognition by Green.
Nor, in our opinion, were Respondent Boilermakers
picketing efforts together with all the surrounding cir-
cumstances sufficient to establish such a recognitional
objective, even when considered in the context of
Gertz' remark to Green.' Accordingly, we find that
Respondent Boilermakers did not picket with a recog-
nitional objective and shall, accordingly, dismiss the
Section 8(b)(7)(C) allegations of the complaint.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Delete paragraph 3 and substitute the following:
"Respondent Boilermakers has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by engaging in, and induc-
ing and encouraging employees of United and other
persons engaged in commerce to engage in, strikes and
refusals in the course of their employment to perform
services for their employer, and by threatening, coerc-
ing, and restraining United, Delmarva Power & Light,
and other persons engaged in commerce, or in an indus-
try affecting commerce, with an object of forcing and
requiring Delmarva Power & Light to cease doing busi-
ness with Green, and of forcing and requiring United
to cease doing business with Delmarva Power & Light
in order to force Delmarva Power & Light to cease
doing business with Green."
As indicated in his separate opinion, Member Fanning joins in the
dismissal of the 8(b)(7)(C) allegations of the complaint for the reasons stated
herein Member Kennedy would affirm the Trial Examiner's findings and
conclusions in this as in all other aspects of the case. See his partial dissent-
ing opinion.
' Because of the past history of their dispute with Green, the Boilermak-
ers was, no doubt, aware at all times that they had little or no hope that
Green could be persualied to hire boilermakers and to recognize the Boiler-
makers as the bargaining agent for these employees This factor tends to
further support our finding that recognition was not an objective of the
picketing.
191 NLRB No. 72
ORDER
LOCAL LODGE # 193, BOILERMAKERS 609
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby or-
ders that the Respondents, Boilermakers, Local Lodge
# 193, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO, and International Union of Operating En-
gineers, Local 542, AFL-CIO, and their respective
officers, agents, and representatives, jointly and sever-
ally, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's recommended Order, as herein modified:
1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) everything beginning
with the words "and with an object of forcing and
requiring The Green Contracting Co., Inc., to recog-
nize ...."
2. Substitute the attached notices for the Trial Ex-
aminer 's notices.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and
it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
MEMBER FANNING, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
I agree with Member Jenkins that Respondent Boil-
ermakers did not violate Section 8(b)(7)(C) and join
with him in the dismissal of those allegations of the
complaint.
I also agree with my colleagues that Respondent
Boilermakers violated 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by its failure to
refer employees upon request to United's Vienna site
and that the Respondent Operating Engineers violated
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by its failure to refer employees as re-
quested to United's Indian River site.
Unlike my colleagues I would not find any of the
picketing unlawful. At all times the picketing was di-
rected against Green and in compliance with the stan-
dards set forth by the Board in Moore Dry Dock. ` Both
United and DPL and all employees working at the site
knew that the picketing was directed against Green and
that the primary dispute was with Green. Under these
circumstances I would hold that Boilermakers state-
ments to United and DPL to the effect that the pickets
would continue to picket as long as Green was on the
site were nothing more than expressions of an intention
to continue to picket Green in a lawful manner pre-
scribed by the Board.' The statement that the United
employees would not return until the picketing ended
were merely statements of what was expected based on
Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB
547
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11
(L. G. Electric Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766 (my separate opinion at
769)
their already established pattern of conduct.' While, as
noted above, I agree with my colleagues that Respond-
ent Unions violated 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) when they refused to
refer employees, I do not believe that this illegal con-
duct is so inextricably interwoven with the picketing
that the latter is tainted thereby.' Accordingly, I would
not find the picketing unlawful and would only order
Respondents to cease and desist from their unlawful
failures to refer employees as requested.
I do not agree that Respondent Boilermakers unlaw-
fully coerced, encouraged, and induced employees to
refuse to perform services for United in violation of
8(b)(4)(i)(B). This finding is based on the Trial Ex-
aminer's view, adopted by my colleagues, that the Boil-
ermakers had reason to believe that the United crafts-
men would honor the picket line and the Baltimore
Trades Council signature on the sign constituted a sig-
nal to the craftsmen not to go to work. The effect of this
reasoning is to say that anytime a union has reason to
believe that a group of employees of a secondary em-
ployer will honor a picket line the union is violating the
Act by picketing even though the picketing is otherwise
lawful. Nothing in the Act supports such a finding. Nor
is a union precluded from putting its signature on a
picket sign because some employees of a neutral em-
ployer many choose to honor the picket line because
they are members of or desire to support the sponsoring
union. My colleagues also adopt the Trial Examiner's
statements to the effect that the failure of Washington
and Gertz to order employees to go to work constitutes
an unlawful coercion, encouragement, and inducement
for these employees to refuse to perform services for
United. I do not understand how the failure to induce,
encourage, and coerce employees to go to work can be
equated with the inducement, encouragement, and co-
ercion of the employees not to go to work. I know of
nothing in the Act which requires a picketing union to
take affirmative action to insist that employees of a
secondary employer report to work. In my view a pick-
eting union's only obligation in this regard is to refrain
from coercing, encouraging, and inducing employees to
refuse to perform services for the secondary employer.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)
allegations of the complaint.
MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting in part:
I dissent from my colleagues' reversal of the Trial
As a matter of fact this expectation was not entirely realized as at the
Indian River site some of the craftsmen did return prior to the cessation of
the picketing.
' Alexander Warehouse & Sales Company, 128 NLRB 916, Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 175 (MeJunkin Corporation), 128
NLRB 522 (my dissenting opinion at 528), International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11 (General Telephone Company of
California), 151 NLRB 1490 (my separate views at in. 4) L G. Electric
Contractors, Inc., supra (my separate opinion).
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR-RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner's finding that Boilermakers violated Section
8(b)(7)(C) and 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B), second part, of the Act.
Section 8(b)(7)(C) was designated, to remove the
threat of picketing or picketing of an unorganized em-
ployer for an unlimited length of time, without the
filing of an election petition, either to compel the em-
ployer to recognize the union as the bargaining repre-
sentative of his employees or to force or require the
employees to select such union as their representative.
By such means, employees are assured a free choice by
the encouragement of ,prompt resort to the Board's
election machinery, rather than the economic pressures
of picketing, as the method for resolving questions of
representation. As was stated in this regard in Depart-
ment & Specialty Store Employees Union, Local 1265
[Oakland G. R. Kinney Co.] v. Brown, 284 F.2d 619,
626 (C.A. 9, 1960), cert. denied 366 U.S. 934, "There
is no doubt that the purpose [of Section 8(b)(7)] was to
place rather severe and drastic limitation on picketing,
other than informational, and to provide for a represen-
tation election without delay."
When a union pickets an employer for the sole pur-
pose of compelling compliance with prevailing area
wage and benefit standards-so-called "area stan-
dards" picketing-the Board has held that such picket-
ing is outside the proscription of Section 8(b)(7) since
it is nonrecognitional in nature . See, e.g., Local 741,
Plumbers (Keith Riggs Plumbing), 137 NLRB 1125;
Houston Building and Construction Trades Council
(Claude Everett Construction Company), 136 NLRB
321. However, the Board has made clear that when a
union "embarks on picketing for an ostensible area
standards object it should be charged with responsibil-
ity to disentangling its purpose from the more obvious
and ultimate object of obtaining recognition. If it is to
be permitted to preserve the standards it has already
negotiated, it should be required to forswear organiza-
tion or recognition as the immediate object of such
picketing in some affirmative manner.... It is reasona-
ble, especially where, as here, there is a long history of
recognitional attempts on Respondent's part, that a
union should be required to make it clear in unmistake-
able terms that its immediate object is a limited one,
and it also must suggest, if asked, methods whereby the
employer may fulfill such object by means short of
recognition and signing an agreement." Painters Local
272 (Charles R. Curtiss), 183 NLRB No. 89.
In the instant cases the Trial Examiner found that
since 1963 Respondent Boilermakers has had a labor
dispute with Green, a nonunion employer engaged in
the maintenance and repair of boilers, in the course of
which it has engaged in economic warfare against
Green, including secondary boycott activity which was
found by the Board violative of the Act in International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 193 (Combustion
Associates, Inc.), 144 NLRB 1206. In that case, the
Board (Members Fanning and Brown, with Member
Leedom dissenting) absolved Respondent Boilermak-
ers of unlawful picketing of Green at a common situs
known as Spring Garden on the ground that such pick-
eting conformed with the criteria laid down by the
Board in Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547. In
Combustion Associates the Board noted, at 1209-10,
that although Boilermakers "made no overt demands
on Green, since there is no evidence that it would have
refused an offer of a contract from Green, its failure to
request a contract does not preclude it from having a
genuine dispute with Green."
Beginning on April 29, 1970, Respondent Boiler-
makers maintained picket lines at a Vienna plant where
Green was working, with signs claiming that Green
was "unfair." When Green met with Respondent Boil-
ermakers' Business Agent Gertz on April 30 and asked
him how he could resolve the problem of the picketing,
the Business Agent replied that the picketing would
cease if Green hired Boilermakers' members. On May
19, Boilermakers established a similar picket line at an
Indian River site where Green was also working. Boil-
ermakers continued the picketing for more than 30
days without filing a representation petition. On these
facts, the Trial Examiner found, correctly in my view,
that Boilermakers wanted the boiler work done by a
union employer having a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with it, and that it thereby violated the picketing
ban of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
Rejecting Respondent Boilermakers' argument that
a violation could not be based on the Business Agent's
suggestion that Green "hire [Boilermakers'] people,"
the Trial Examiner found that such remark did not
stand alone, and that Boilermakers' Business Agent
Gertz had made it plain that his sole objective was to
get Green off the two maintenance jobs so that mem-
bers of his union could do that work under "fair" con-
tractors as in the past , meaning employers whose em-
ployees were members of Boilermakers and who
recognized that union as their bargaining agent. He
also found that the same purpose was evident when
Gertz indicated to Green that he resented Green taking
work from his members at both plants and that the only
solution was for Green to hire his members, which
would mean (1) discharging his present work force; (2)
recognizing Boilermakers as bargaining agent of such
new work force, which would be compulsory under the
Act, as they would all be members of Boilermakers;
and (3) paying any "193" people so hired the union
wages and benefits and give them the working condi-
tions prescribed by the Boilermakers' contract with
"fair" employers. The Trial Examiner observed that it
is a fair inference that Gertz' suggestion to Green was
motivated "by the well-known and fundamental objec-
tive of all building and construction trades unions to
LOCAL LODGE # 193, BOILERMAKERS 611
have all work on all projects in their respective areas
performed only by union labor."
My colleagues, while refraining from finding the ob-
ject of Boilermakers' picketing of Green, disagree with
the Trial Examiner's findings that among the objects
were a recognition and a collective-bargaining contract.
Allegedly in support of their position, they point to the
long history of Boilermakers' dispute with Green, and
claim that it is proof that it was hopeless for Boilermak-
ers to expect to achieve an object of securing recogni-
tion and a contract. Such claim, in my view, has no
support in logic or law.
Boilermakers' argument against the Trial Ex-
aminer's finding is that there is simply no evidence to
warrant finding a recognitional or a bargaining object;
it attempts to explain away the business agent Gertz'
remark to Green that employment of union labor under
a union contract would end the picketing on the ground
that the remark was made "only as a joke," and was
"not intended as a serious proposal." In view of the
long history of Boilermakers' dispute with Green, and
particularly the Boards' above findings in the Combus-
tion Associates case, I cannot accept this argument. It
has been long settled that as long as one of the union's
objects is illegal it is immaterial that it may also have
other, legitimate objects. In my view the record amply
supports the Trial Examiner's conclusions that an ob-
ject of the picketing was recognition and a contract.
Department & Specialty Store Employees Union v.
Brown, 284 F.2d 619, 628 (C.A. 9, 1960); Cf. NL.R.B.
v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council
[Gould & Preisner], 341 U.S. 675, 688-689.
I would affirm the Trial Examiner's 8(b)(7)(C) and
the second part of 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) findings against Boil-
ermakers.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encour-
age employees of United Engineers & Construc-
tors, Inc., or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce to
engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their
employment to perform services for thier respec-
tive employers, and WE WILL NOT threaten,
coerce, or restrain United Engineers & Construc-
tors, Inc., Delmarva Power & Light Company of
Maryland, or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, in
either case with an object of forcing or requiring
Delmarva Power & Light Company of Maryland
to cease doing business with The Green Contract-
ing Co., Inc., or of forcing and requiring United
Engineers & Constructors, Inc., to cease doing
business with Delmarva Power & Light Company
of Maryland in order to force the latter Employer
to cease doing business with The Green Contract-
ing Co., Inc.
BOILERMAKERS
LOCAL LODGE # 193,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS,
IRON SHIPBUILDERS
BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS
AND HELPERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center,
Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Telephone 301-962-2822.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT, acting individually or in joint
venture with or as agent of Boilermakers Local
Lodge # 193, International Brotherhood of Boil-
ermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forg-
ers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, engage in, or induce
or encourage employees of United Engineers &
Constructors, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to
engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their
employment to perform services for their respec-
tive employers, and WE WILL NOT threaten,
coerce, or restrain United Engineers & Construc-
tors, Inc., Delmarva Power & Light Company of
Maryland, or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, in
either case with an object of forcing or requiring
Delmarva Power & Light Company of Maryland
to cease doing business with The Green Contract-
ing Co., Inc., or of forcing or requiring United
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Engineers & Constructors, Inc., to cease doing
business with Delmarva Power & Light Company
of Maryland in order to force the latter Employer
to cease doing business with The Green Contract-
ing Co., Inc.
INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF
OPERATING
ENGINEERS,
LOCAL 542, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center,
Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Telephone 301-962-2822.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE F. FREY, Trial Examiner: This is a consolidated
unfair labor practice case tried before me at Salisbury, Mary-
land, on July 30 and 31, and October 27 and 28, 1970, with
all parties participating fully in the trial through counsel. The
issues in the case' are whether Respondent Boilermakers Lo-
cal Lodge No. 193, International Brotherhood of Boilermak-
ers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO, (herein called the Boilermakers) and Respondent
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 542,
AFL-CIO, (herein called the Operating Engineers) in course
of a labor dispute between Boilermakers and Green, coerced
and induced employees of United, Delmarva, and other per-
sons, by picketing plants of Delmarva at Vienna, Maryland,
and Millsboro, Delaware, to strike and refuse to perform
services for their respective employers, and whether both
Respondents refused to refer and furnish their respective
members, upon request of United, for work at said locations,
in violation of their respective collective-bargaining agree-
ments with that employer, although neither Respondent has
or had a labor dispute with United or Delmarva; all with the
objects of (1) forcing Delmarva to cease doing business with
Green, both directly and by forcing United to cease doing
business with Delmarva, and (2) forcing Green to recognize
' The issues arise on a consolidated complaint issued June 5, 1970, by the
General Counsel of the Board through the Regional Director for Region 5
in Cases 5-CC-514, 517, and 518, after investigation of charges filed by
United Engineers & Constructors, Inc (herein called United), in 5-CC-517
on May 19, 1970, in 5-CC-514 on April 30, 1970, and in 5-CC-518 on May
25, 1970 The same officials of the Board issued an amended consolidated
complaint on June 17, 1970, on the basis of the above consolidated com-
plaint and a charge filed May 13, 1970, by The Green Contracting Co., Inc.
(herein called Green) in Case 5-CP-66, and a charge filed June 9, 1970, by
Delmarva Power & Light Company of Maryland (herein called Delmarva
or DPL) in Case 5-CC-520. .
and bargain with Boilermakers as representative of Green's
production and maintenance employees, although Boiler-
makers has not been certified as such representative, and that
by such conduct with these objectives Boilermakers has vi-
olated Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii)(B), and (7)(C) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.
(herein called the Act), and Operating Engineers has violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
Respondents filed answers which, as amended at the hear-
ing, admitted jurisdiction but denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices. At close of the hearing motions of
Respondents to dismiss the complaint on the merits were
taken under advisement by the Trial Examiner and are now
disposed of by the findings and conclusions in this Decision.
At close of the testimony, all parties waived oral argument,
but written briefs filed by General Counsel, Boilermakers,
and Delmarva on December 18 and 21, 1970 (after extensions
of time therefor granted by the Chief Trial Examiner) have
been carefully considered by the Trial Examiner in prepara-
tion of this Decision. The Trial Examiner has signed and
issued this Decision on January 20, 1971, for transmittal to
the parties in the usual course.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my observa-
tion of the demeanor of witnesses on the stand, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESSES OF THE EMPLOYERS
United is a corporation engaged in the building and con-
struction industry in various States of the United States, in-
cluding Maryland and Delaware . Its principal office is located
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania . In the 12 months prior to
issuance of the amended complaint it realized from its busi-
ness gross annual revenues exceeding $2 million of which
more than $50,000 was derived from services performed out-
side the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . In the same period
it had direct inflow to its projects in Maryland and Delaware
of materials and supplies worth more than $50,000.
Delmarva is a Maryland corporation with its principal
office in Salisbury , Maryland . As a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Delaware Power and Light Company, a Delaware corpora-
tion, it is engaged in distribution of electric power in the
States of Maryland and Delaware and the Commonwealth of
Virginia through and in conjunction with the parent corpora-
tion and other wholly-owned subsidiaries thereof. In course
of these operations Delmarva receives gross annual revenues
exceeding $250,000, and it has annual direct inflow of materi-
als and supplies valued in excess of $50,000.
Green is a Maryland corporation engaged in the States of
Maryland and Delaware , among others , in the business of
maintenance and repair of boilers for and under contracts
with Delmarva and other persons engaged in commerce. In
its business operation it receives gross annual revenue exceed-
ing $1 million and has direct annual inflow of materials and
supplies valued over $50,000.
At all times material herein United , Delmarva, and Green
have each been engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
i Unless otherwise indicated, all dates mentioned hereafter are in 1970
LOCAL LODGE # 193, BOILERMAKERS 613
II. STATUS OF RESPONDENTS
The Boilermakers and Operating Engineers are labor orga-
nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Events
At all times material herein Delmarva has been operating
electric power generating stations at Vienna, Maryland, and
Indian River, Millsboro, Delaware. Since mid-1969 United
has been engaged as general contractor in the erection of
extensive new power generating facilities and additions to
existing power generating and distribution facilities for Del-
marva at said stations.' In performing such operations United
has had collective-bargaining agreements with various craft
unions, including each of Respondents.' Under its contracts
with Respondents, and the custom and practice established
thereunder, United is required to employ individuals who are
members of or represented by Respondents for all work per-
formed by United within the respective jurisdictions of Re-
spondents, and Respondents are each required to supply
United with employees to perform such work in the numbers
as required and requested by United. Respondents have not
had, at any time material herein, a labor dispute with United
or Delmarva.
Green was engaged since April 6, 1970, in boiler mainte-
nance and repair for Delmarva at each of the above power
generating stations , and while so engaged Boilermakers has
not represented any of Green's employees nor is it currently
certified as bargaining agent of any of its employees. At no
material time has Boilermakers or any other labor organiza-
tion charged Green with unlawful assistance to any labor
organization in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. How-
ever, since 1963 and continuing during the material times
herein, Boilermakers has had a labor dispute with Green, a
nonunion contractor, in course of which it has engaged in
economic warfare against Green , including secondary boy-
cott activity which was found violative of the Act in one
instance. Combustion Associates Inc., 144 NLRB 1206. Prior
to 1970 Boilermakers had furnished craftsmen to United and
other contractors doing boiler work for DPL at one or both
of the above-named plants, and in course of its attempts to
place its members on similar jobs in its jurisdictional area,
Henry Gertz, its business agent, learned early in 1970 from
a DPL official that Green would perform boiler repair and
maintenance for DPL at Indian River in the near future.
B. The Unlawful Conduct of Respondents
1. Activity at Vienna plant
Pursuant to the Boilermakers ' contract obligations with
United, Gertz on April 27 sent six of its members to the
Vienna project at the request of United. The crew worked
through April 28 at tasks preparatory to boiler installation,
operating under supervision of Raymond J. Powers as fore-
man, with George Washington acting as union shop steward
on the job, both having been selected from the crew for their
respective positions by Gertz. Late on the 28th, Powers
learned from shop stewards of other union crafts on the job
that a nonunion contractor was doing boiler work in another
building on the site.' Powers told Washington, who visited
that building and learned that Green employees were remov-
ing old boiler tubes preparatory to installing new ones and
that they were not getting the union wage scale or other union
benefits for that work. Washington at once reported what he
had learned to Gertz, by telephone, particularly that Green
employees were doing work of the Boilermakers on an exten-
sive repair job, and asked for orders, since the United crew
knew about Green and wanted to know what to do, Gertz
ordered the crew to continue working that day, saying he
would visit the plant the next day and investigate the Green
job personally. That night he received verbal sanction for
picketing the site from a regional official of the Boilermakers'
national headquarters.
On the 29th, Gertz came to the site an hour or so before
the'employees' usual starting time and , with Washington,
verified from Green employees that they were working
nonunion. He then returned to the parking lot reserved for
United employees, prepared picket signs, and set up pickets
at two locations: two or three were stationed at two points on
Indian Town Road, a county road which is the main entrance
to the plant for DPL and United employees, at its intersection
with Maryland State Route No. 331, one station being about
300 or more feet from the point where the county road enters
plant premises, and a single picket standing about 150 feet
further into the plant grounds, and 100 or so feet from sepa-
rate inside gates used by DPL and United employees to drive
into their respective parking areas. Gertz equipped each
picket location with signs stating Green was "unfair, pays
substandard fringes and wages," also "For public informa-
tion." The signs were copied by Gertz from another sign
bearing the name "Wilmington Building Trades" which had
previously been prepared by him for use at the Indian River
plant whenever Green began work there, hence the signs at
Vienna at the outset also contained the name of that labor
organization. About an hour after the picketing started,
Gertz had that name crossed out, after receiving telephone
advice from Tom Schrank, an official of the Wilmington orga-
nization, that the picket site was outside its jurisdiction.' He
inserted "Baltimore Building Trades," but not the name of
Boilermakers.
While Gertz was preparing the signs in the parking lot used
by United employees, members of his union and other crafts
came to him as they came to work, and Gertz told them he
was setting up an "informational" picket line. As no members
of Boilermakers were on hand when he set up the picket lines,
he asked for volunteers, and members of other unionized
crafts, including electrical workers, operating engineers and
steamfitters, helped him prepare the signs and began the pick-
eting. As members of the Boilermakers and other crafts came
in, they asked about the pickets, and Boilermaker members
asked for orders, so he told them it was an "informational"
picket line, and they did not cross it or try to, go in to work.
' The new and added facilities, costing about $46 million at both loca-
tions, are designed to handle increased daily power demands at Indian
River, and peak demands at Vienna, and are important adjuncts to electric
power distribution networks serving electric utilities in the Delmarva Penin-
sula (including Delaware and the eastern shore of Maryland and Virginia)
and in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and other parts of Maryland
° United operates under national agreements signed with parent national
labor organizations of Respondents and other building trades unions, under
terms of which it is required to adhere to the labor referral practices of the
locals of such national unions when doing work in the territorial jurisdiction
of the locals.
I Members of at least the following unionized building trades were em-
ployed by United at Vienna: Boilermakers , operating engineers , carpenters,
electricians , dock builders , ironworkers, laborers, pipefitters , teamsters, ce-
ment finishers
6 Although Boilermakers was not an affiliate of the Wilmington Council,
Gertz had previously advised Schrank that his union would picket at Indian
River (which was within the jurisdiction of the Wilmington Council) when
Green started work there. There is no proof that Schrank objected to this,
nor to the use of the name of his Council on the signs Gertz prepared for
Indian River picketing.
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Members of the Boilermakers joined the picket line as they
came in, and picketed in shifts daily thereafter.'
Prior to and on the 29th, Green employees were using
Indian Town Road and the same main entrance as DPL and
United employees to reach their own parking area, which was,
located near their own work site at a substantial distance
from the parking lots of DPL and United employees. There
was no connection between the United construction work and
the Green maintenance work, each being a different type of
work and performed in different areas of the plant.
After the picketing started, DPL regular plant employees
entered the plant and worked, as did Green employees who
had entered and begun work before the pickets appeared.
However, none of the United employees, about 150 all told,
crossed the picket line. All of these unionized building trades
craftsmen, except carpenters and pipefitters, came from locals
of their respective unions affiliated with Baltimore Building
Trades Council; the excepted craftsmen came from local
unions in Seaford, Delaware, which were affiliated with Wil-
mington Building Trades Council and Delaware Building
Trades Council.
When Walter T. Peck, the United project superintendent,
arrived at the site early on the 29th and asked his boilermaker
foreman why boilermakers and other craftsmen were not
working and the reason for the picket line, the foreman intro-
duced him to Gertz and Washington, who were with the
pickets. Peck asked Gertz "What are you doing to me?", why
the pickets were there, "What and how long it would last.
Gertz replied "We are not doing anything to you," and ex-
plained that DPL had engaged a nonunion contractor for
boiler repair work, which was work that boilermakers did, so
he had put up a picket line "to let everyone know." Peck
suggested Gertz withdraw the pickets so that United boiler-
makers could go back to work. Gertz replied that when
Green was off the job, the picket line would come down and
boilermakers would return to work, but as long as the pickets
were there, his members would not cross it.
On the afternoon of the 29th, Gertz and Washington had
a talk at the Green work site with one McShane, project
supervisor of Green, in which Gertz talked about Green's
wages and working conditions. McShane told Gertz that
Green had a right to be on that job, after Gertz said Green's
method of getting the job had hurt the livelihood of members
of Boilermakers. McShane suggested that Gertz talk to Green
about this. Gertz was agreeable, so McShane arranged an
immediate telephone talk with James G. Green, president of
Green, in which the two agreed to meet on the 30th in
Green's Baltimore office.
On the same afternoon, after discussion of DPL officials
with Green, DPL caused a sign to be installed on another
county road giving access to the plant on the southeast from
U.S. Route 50, at the intersection thereof with Route 50,
which designated that entrance as the sole and exclusive en-
trance to the plant for employees, suppliers and visitors of
Green. That intersection was about 1,200 feet on a straight
line from the DPL and United parking lots and gates thereof,
and the access road itself is about 700 feet at its closest point
inside plant property from the gates aforesaid. Along the
main highways, the Green gate is about 2,000 feet from In-
dian Town Road. At the same time DPL posted another sign
over the main inside gate used by its employees, designating
that gate as the sole entrance for such employees. Boilermak-
ers through Washington learned late that afternoon of the
posting of the separate gate signs . That afternoon Green sent
Boilermakers a telegram announcing the separate gate for
' The above facts are found from credible testimony of Gertz, Powers,
Washington, and various United and DPL officials.
Green employees, which Gertz received late afternoon of the
30th. The picket line was continued at the two locations -
aforesaid through the 30th, but the pickets were withdrawn
on May 1st and transferred to the separate Green gate, where
they remained until May 23, when Green finished its work at
Vienna. Boilermakers' members went back to work there for
United on May 26.
When David K. Winslow, DPL superintendent at Vienna,
arrived there early on the 30th, the union steward of the
electrical workers who manned the plant8 introduced him to
Washington. Winslow asked Washington why., the, pickets
were there, explaining that the United project had to proceed
on a fixed schedule. Washington-asked if Green was ion, the
site at that time. Winslow said it was.Washington asked why
DPL was using,Green for boiler maintenance,, "why we lost
the job," why members of Boilermakers were not considered
for this work which they had "traditionally" done for DPL.
Winslow replied that Green submitted a bid which was about
one-third lower than any other bid, and DPL had had prior
bad experiences using men furnished by Boilermakers for this
work. Washington admitted his union had sent poor workers
to the Vienna and Indian River plants in the past, but that
its new business agent, Gertz,' was trying to "upgrade our
image" and would try to supply competent craftsmen "to do
a better job" if its members were given a chance to do boiler
maintenance work for DPL in the future. He said his mem-
bers in Baltimore were out of work and needed jobs. Wash-
ington asked Winslow why Green's bid was so much lower
than others, and Winslow suggested as possible reasons that
Green probably paid lower wages and benefits than other
contractors, because Green had workmen who could do five
different types of work so that he did not have to hire five
different types of craftsmen, whereas members of Boilermak-
ers had a record of low productivity. He told Washington
DPL had awarded the work to Green only on the basis of
price, emphasizing that DPL dealt with various unions and
every employee in the plant was in a union.
Winslow asked Washington why pickets were at the main
entrance, when there was a separate gate for employees of
Green, who was working for DPL, not United. Washington
did not answer this. Winslow asked why there appeared to be
a dispute between two building trades councils, referring to
the name of Wilmington Building Trades at the bottom of the
picket signs. Washington explained that the union pipefitters
on the job had come from the Wilmington Council, but all
other crafts, including boilermakers and operating engineers,
had come from the Baltimore Council, and that the picketing
had been "sanctioned" under the Wilmington Council by
mistake. Winslow asked why the other crafts were staying
away from work if the picket line was set up only by boiler-
makers. Washington replied "because we are all building
tradesmen." Washington asked how long Green would be
working there, and Winslow estimated about 2 weeks. Wash-
ington said "I don't want to shut down this job, but we and
Ed Cortney Cortney was president of Baltimore Building
Trades1s will not come to work as long as Green is in the
plant." Winslow said he could understand how the other
union trades could refuse to work because no strike vote had
been taken among members of those unions. Washington
replied that Cortney sanctioned the strike, and repeated that
"the job will not get started until Green is out of the plant,"
8 They were members of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(herein called IBEW).
Gertz became business agent about June 1969
° Cortney was president of Baltimore Building Trades Council
LOCAL LODGE # 193, BOILERMAKERS 615
and that, once Green was "out," the picket lines would come
down and the boilermakers would return to work.
After his talk with Washington, Winslow was advised by
a Green officer over the telephone that Green employees
would not work April 30 and May 1, as Green would wait
to find out if "things would cool off a bit," but they would
return on Monday, May 5. Winslow at once told this to
Washington on the picket line, and the latter replied that he
wished he had known this before." The pickets remained on
Indian Town Road on April 30 and May 1.
On the afternoon of the 30th, Gertz had a 2-hour confer-
ence with James G. Green and two other Green officials at
its office in Baltimore. Green outlined his company's work at
Vienna and asked what caused the picketing. Gertz said he
had learned Green was on jobs for DPL "to stay," and he was
concerned that Green was doing such large repair jobs in
utility plants, for this was the main work and livelihood of
members of his union who had traditionally done repair work
as well as new construction in power generating plants. He
referred to past "friction" between Green and his union on
this, and said Boilermakers would "protest" employment of
any but "fair contractors" for that work. Green asked if
Boilermakers would continue to "protest" employment of
Green by DPL, saying Green had established a separate gate
for its employees at Vienna, which Boilermakers could legally
picket, but that it should remove its pickets from the main
entrance to the plant so that United employees could get back
to work on the new construction. Gertz replied that he would
"comply with the legal requirements of the situation." Green
asked how they could solve the problem confronting both of
them, and what solution Gertz could suggest . Gertz replied
"hire 193 people." Green replied that, as his company was
running an open shop, employment of boilermakers from
Gertz' local would require Green to sign a contract with it,
and to accept work restrictions and trade jurisdiction limita-
tions which Green was not then required to follow. Green
also mentioned the "agreement " of the Baltimore building
trades to work only on jobs where all craftsmen were union-
ized, so that if Green used any union boilermakers, he would
have to hire all union craftsmen. Gertz did not deny this, but
said he would have to get further advice about it.
Green told Gertz he also had a boiler repair job for DPL
at Indian River plant, and asked if Boilermakers would picket
there when Green started that job. Gertz replied that he
would "protest" employment of Green there or at any other
generating stations , and would do everything he could to
prevent Green from doing "Local 193 work" there, as that
site was also within the jurisdiction of Local 193. There was
also discussion of poor work done by members of Boilermak-
ers on DPL jobs in the past, and Gertz indicated he had
learned from DPL officials that Green had the low bid for the
Vienna job because Boilermakers had a "bad taste" from
work done by its members on prior DPL jobs, and that he
hoped to have a chance for his members to show they could
do quality work for DPL.12
11 Washington admits that he learned early that day from the IBEW shop
steward that Green employees had already left the job, and he wanted to
verify this from Winslow himself. However, he apparently did not ask Wins-
low that specific question, but only if Green was still "on the job."
The above events of April 29 and 30 are found from credible and mutually
corroborative testimony of witnesses of both sides Testimony of any of
these witnesses in conflict therewith is not credited
11 This conversation is found from credible testimony of Green and Dal-
ton, as corroborated in large part by admissions of Gertz. Testimony of the
latter at variance therewith is not credited
When Green employees resumed work at Vienna on May
4, entering through their separate gate, Boilermakers main-
tained their picket with signs only at that location. When
President Green entered the work site past the pickets early
that morning, Washington introduced himself as captain of
the picket line, indicating he regretted the need for the pick-
ets, but that Gertz was meeting with the Baltimore Building
Trades Council that day, and he hoped a solution would come
out of the meeting. Later that day Washington parked his car
in the United parking lot off Indian Town Road, and talked
to United employees at that location. Although Green em-
ployees crossed the picket line to go to work daily until Green
finished its work on May 23, none of the United employees
worked on the United project until after Green had left the
plant." During this period, United sent daily telegrams to
Boilermakers requesting that it send craftsmen to the job, but
these requests were ignored. Several oral requests to Gertz for
men in the same period, and inquiries as to when the pickets
would be withdrawn, were met with the reply that boilermak-
ers would return to work only when Green was off the job.
However, in these discussions, and as late as May 22, Gertz
usually asked United officials if Green was off the job and, if
not, when it would be. In this period Boilermakers had a
waiting list of members needing employment . In the same
period United sent similar requests to other building trades
unions for craftsmen, but without success. United was unable
to get any craftsmen in the open market to man its project."
2. Activity at Indian River
At Indian River Green had a contract for replacement of
a component of the steam boiler operating a main generating
unit. United's work was a $23,000,000 contract for complete
construction and installation of a new generating unit, with
building and all added facilities. There was no connection or
interrelation between the Green and United jobs.
Green employees began work on April 28, but worked only
that day on preliminary installation of platforms and other
tasks preparatory to the main job. They were scheduled to
start the main work on Monday, May 4, but could not be-
cause DPL needed that generating unit to fulfill power com-
mitments. Green employees finally resumed work on May 18,
entering the plant premises through a separate gate, clearly
marked for their exclusive use, at the intersection of a DPL
right-of-way with County Road No. 331 adjacent to a rail-
road spur entering the plant and paralleling the DPL right-of-
way for a transmission line. On that date and for some time
before, employees of DPL and United entered the plant
through the normal plant entrance along another blacktop
county road (called the "plant road") which runs at right
angles to the Green entrance road toward the same railroad
right-of-way. The normal plant entrance is about 1% miles
from the Green gate. After entering plant premises, United
workers reached their place of work through a separate gate
further north on the railroad spur line.
Prior to May 18, Gertz had notified the Wilmington Build-
ing Trades Council that Boilermakers had a labor dispute
with Green and intended to picket that employer wherever it
appeared on a construction job, that Green had a contract at
Indian River, and Boilermakers would picket there May 19.
Homer G. Dawson, president and business agent of Operat-
ing Engineers, knew this through the Council, of which Oper-
ating Engineers was a member. On the 18th, Steward Wash-
ington alerted shop stewards of other unionized crafts
" During the enitre picketing, the DPL force of about 700 electrical
workers, all members of IBEW, continued to work.
10 The events of May 4 and later are found from credible evidence of
James G. Green, Gertz, Washington, and documentary proof.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working for United at Indian River, in the United parking lot
there, that Boilermakers would picket Green."
At start of work on May 19, Gertz established pickets with
signs making the same statements about Green as at Vienna,
at both the Green and DPL-United entrance gates. He placed
Washington in charge to "ramrod" or supervise the pickets.
That day no boilermaker craftsmen were working for either
United or Green, and as Gertz was short of boilermakers at
the site, he asked Dawson if he would furnish some of his
members for picketing. Dawson and another Operating Engi-
neers' agent, one Lattanzio, procured and sent Harlan M.
Hill, one of its members, to Indian River "to help the Boiler-
makers," with instructions to report to Washington. Hill and
another Operating Engineers' member, one Smoot, later sent
there in the same way, picketed at various times with mem-
bers of Boilermakers. 16 As soon as the pickets appeared, mem-
bers of Operating Engineers who were working for United
called Dawson to report it, and that they had not gone in to
work. He replied "Fine."
When H. O. Long, DPL plant superintendent, and Doyle
A. Bush, United project engineer, arrived at the plant, they
noticed that the picket signs contained the name of Wilming-
ton Building Trades Council," but on inquiry of pickets Hill
and one Preston, a member of Boilermakers, at the DPL-
United entrance, they learned that Boilermakers had set up
the pickets with Washington in charge. When they ap-
proached Washington, who was then with the pickets at the
Green entrance, they saw some DPL plant employees talking
to Washington, although it was long past their usual report-
ing time. They questioned Washington's right to picket at the
DPL-United entrance, but he referred them to Gertz. The
DPL employees finally reported for work about 1% hours late,
but no United employees crossed the picket line to work;
hence the United project was stopped completely that day.
The pickets were withdrawn from the DPL-United employee
entrance about 10:45 a.m. that day. United had not called for,
and had no need for, boilermakers that day.
On the morning of the 19th, Green sent a telegram to
Boilermakers advising of the separate entrance for Green
employees, suppliers, and visitors. Gertz received it on the
20th, and there were no pickets at the DPL-United entrance
that day. However, United employees did not report for
work, and its project remained shut down.
On May 21 and 22,' Boilermakers continued the picketing
at the Green entrance, and resumed it at the DPL-United
employees' entrance. On these days the signs contained the
name of Boilermakers Local 193. On the 22nd, Bush asked
Hill, who was picketing at the normal plant entrance, why he
was picketing there, and Hill replied he was picketing for the
Operating Engineers because one Melvin Josephson had a
"rig" on the site."
" Washington was not then employed at Indian River, but had worked
there for another subcontractor of United up to about 4 weeks before May
18, and had been the shop steward for Boilermakers on that job. Since he
was captain of the picket line at Vienna, and was given the same duty by
Gertz when he set up the picket line at Indian River, and he does not deny
talking to the other shop stewards there on the 18th, it is a fair inference,
and I find, that he was alerting them that a picket line would be set up there
on the 19th by Boilermakers.
16 Both Hill and Smoot were at the top of the out-of-work list of members
maintained by Operating Engineers and were paid $15 a day by that Re-
spondent while picketing.
" At some point during the Indian River picketing, the name of Respond-
ent Boilermakers was added to the signs.
is The Josephson company had been supplying Green with a large crane
and crane operator, which equipment had been moved into the plant
through the normal plant entrance along the "plant road," and after it was
on the site a pickup truck of Josephson continued to use that entrance in
The picketing continued until June 1, during which time
the United project was, completely shut down for lack of
workers." When Boilermakers stopped picketing, picket Hill
called Dawson to report it. The latter made inquiry of Boiler-
makers and learned that the picketing had been removed by
Boilermakers "through some agency," so he told Hill to stop
picketing.
When it became clear on May 18 that its workers would
not cross the picket line, United made daily requests there-
after of Boilermakers to furnish craftsmen, which were ig-
nored. United made similar requests of Operating Engineers
and other unions whose members were needed, but without
success. On May 21, Bush called both Dawson and Lattanzio
to find out why Operating Engineers did not sent men to the
job as requested; Lattanzio advised that he could not find any
craftsmen "interested in coming to the project as the situation
stood"; Dawson never did return Bush's call .21
3. Contentions of the parties, and conclusions thereon
a. As to Boilermakers
At the outset, it seems clear, as Boilermakers argue and
General Counsel concedes, that Boilermakers conducted
picketing at Vienna on April 29 and 30 at a common gate
used by employees of Green, the primary employer, and of
United and DPL, both neutral employers, in ostensible com-
pliance with the standards for legal common-situs picketing
established by the Board in Moore Dry Dock, 92 NLRB 547,
and later applied by the Board with court approval to picket-
ing at construction sites (Building and Construction Trades
Council, etc. (Markwell & Hartz), 155 NLRB 719, enfd. 387
F. 2d 79 (C.A. 5); Local 761, IBEW v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S.
667, 679). Compliance with those standards of itself is an
indication that Boilermakers was trying to limit the dispute
only to the primary employer and its employees, without
enmeshing neutral employers or their employees. Boilermak-
ers also contend that the only objective of the picketing, as
established by the wording on the signs and arguments made
to DPL officials and to Green itself, as found above, was to
tell the public that Green was an "unfair" employer who paid
substandard, or nonunion, wages and benefits, and that such
objective did not violate Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. It is well
settled, however, that strict compliance with the Moore Dry
Dock standards is only one circumstance to be considered in
determining the real objective of the picketing and whether
it violated the Act, and that all other pertinent circumstances
including conduct of the picketing union must be appraised."
Review of other circumstances under these principles com-
pels the conclusion that Boilermakers' objectives were illegal.
First, Boilermakers concedes that the picketing at both
plants was a continuation of longstanding economic warfare
waged by it against Green because that nonunion contractor
was continually paying substandard (or nonunion) wages and
servicing the crane, until May 25, when the name of that supplier was added
to the exclusive gate sign at the Green entrance.
" Members of the Teamsters' and Laborers' unions returned to work on
May 27, painters came back on May 28, and on June 1 all crafts except
operating engineers were at work. The latter never did work up to June 30,
when United finished its project, so that United was never able to complete
painting of some portions of the new building roof structure as required by
its contract.
2° The facts as to Indian River are found from credited testimony of Long,
Bush , and documentary proof, as corroborated in part by admissions of
Gertz, Dawson and Hill. Testimony of the latter, witnesses at variance
therewith is not credited.
1' IBEW, Local 861, et al. (Plauche Electric, Inc), 135 NLRB 250, 255,
IBEW, Local 11, etc. (L. G. Electric Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766, 767;
IBEW, Local 3 (Atlas Reid, Inc), 170 NLRB 584.
LOCAL LODGE # 193, BOILERMAKERS 617
benefits which enabled it to underbid unionized or "fair"
employers and thereby procure contracts and work which
would otherwise be handled by "fair" contractors employing
members of Boilermakers, so that Green's success prevented
such members from doing that work. The basic objective of
procuring all such work for members of Boilermakers on jobs
within its jurisdiction is made clear by Gertz' complaints to
Peck and McShane on April 29, Washington's remarks to
Winslow on April 30, and Gertz' statements to Green the
same day, indicating that Boilermakers considered its mem-
bers were being unfairly deprived of that work, which they
had done traditionally, by Green's performance of these con-
tracts, and that it would take steps to prevent Green doing
such work anywhere. As early as 1963 Boilermakers had
picketed to protest the award of such work to Green by
another utility, and engaged in conduct which the Board had
found violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act; the
business agent of Local 193 in that case bluntly informed
neutral employers that he would do whatever was necessary
to get boilermakers' work being done by Green back for
members of his local, actually striking one neutral employer
and threatening to strike another.22 The remarks of Washing-
ton and Gertz to Winslow on April 30 as well as those of
Gertz to DPL and United officials during May clearly ad-
vised both neutrals that the only way the picketing, which
was keeping important construction work at both plants shut
down,could be removed, and United boilermakers returned
to work, was to get Green off the premises, so that members
of Boilermakers who were out of work could be brought in
for that work. Indeed, Gertz also bluntly told Green, the
primary adversary, on April 30 that the only solution to the
picketing was to "hire 193 people" which (as Green told
Gertz, without contradiction by the latter) meant paying
them union wages and benefits and installing union working
conditions, thus adopting the current Boilermakers' contract
and recognizing it as bargaining agent. Thus, I must conclude
that Boilermakers picketed, while ostensibly to publicize the
substandard wages and working conditions of Green em-
ployees, in reality to get that employer physically off the job
and procure the work for its members.
The picketing had the purpose of accomplishing this objec-
tive by enmeshing both neutral employers and putting pres-
sure on them (DPL indirectly and United directly) to stop
doing business with Green.23 The reasons for this action are
quite clear. During its longstanding dispute with Green, Boil-
ermakers had obviously been unsuccessful in preventing
Green from working within its territorial jurisdiction, for
Green operated nonunion at both Vienna and Indian River
throughout the Boilermaker picketing, so it is inferable that
Gertz had little or no hope of persuading Green by picketing
it on those jobs to persuade it to "hire 193 people" and
recognize Boilermakers as their bargaining agent on those
jobs. This is also evident from his inability on April 30th to
counter or overcome Green 's arguments against becoming a
unionized contractor. Hence, his procurement of official
sanction for the picketing at both plants on April 28th and
prior enlistment of support and sanction from both the Bal-
timore and Wilmington Building Trades Council for the pick-
eting, all before he went through the motions of verifying
23 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc., Local 193 (Combus-
tion Associates, Inc), 144 NLRB 1206.
" The picketing shut down the United project directly, but the indirect
effect on DPL was calculated to be lust as powerful and damaging, as the
new generating units under construction were vital and necessary parts of
its expansion program, so that anything holding up this portion of the
program was of as much concern to it as the obstruction of United's contract
was to it.
Green's nonunion conditions at Vienna on the 29th (which he
already knew from his steward's report and prior experience)
shows that Boilermakers intended from the outset to try to
accomplish its basic objective by picketing the neutral em-
ployers, thereby enmeshing them in the dispute and putting
pressure on them to stop doing business with Green. His
procurement of prior support from the two Building Trades
Councils effectively enlisted the active support of all other
unionized building craftsmen employed by United on both
jobs, and he made sure of this when he advised all union
craftsmen of United reporting for work on the 29th about the
picket line, and on the signs displayed the name of Wilming-
ton Building Trades Council at first, and then that of the
Baltimore Council . In addition , he used United employees
from at least three other union building crafts to man the
picket line along with his own members at the outset. He told
all craftsmen who asked about the picketing that the object
was to get Green out of the plant. The picketing effectively
shut down the United projects at both plants, as Gertz knew
it would, for United employees refused to cross the picket
line, and even refused to work after the pickets were confined
to the separate Green entrance gate.
Both Respondents argue strongly that the refusal of their
members, as well as other union craftsmen, to cross the picket
line was a voluntary concerted activity protected by the Act,
which is not chargeable to them, and they rely on testimony
of Gertz and Washington that other union craftsmen re-
spected the picket lines despite suggestions of both officials
that they could go to work as a matter of personal choice. I
do not credit this testimony, for Washington, the picket cap-
tain, admits he did not try to lead boilermakers across the
picket line, although they looked to him for orders, and that
he did not tell them they should not cross it, "because I did
not have to." He admitted he could not be expected to cross
his own picket line. Picket Powers admits he did not go to
work, although Washington said it was his own decision,
because he never crossed a picket line in his many years of
work as a union man, and that he told other craftsmen who
asked him "if the steward says for me to go in, I will go in."
It is clear that boilermakers and other craftsmen looked to
Washington and Gertz for orders, and refused to cross the
picket line to work because the two officials did not order
them to do so. Washington admitted that, when other United
workmen came to work at Vienna on the 29th and later, and
asked him what they should do, he told them "what they were
supposed to do," and they did not go to work. I note also that,
on the 30th, Washington told Winslow all union crafts were
refusing to work across the Boilermakers' picket line "be-
cause we are all building tradesmen ." This, of course, was as
well known to Gertz as to his steward, so I am satisfied that
he knew, expected, and intended that all other union em-
ployees of United would respect his picket lines when sanc-
tioned by the Building Trades Councils with which their
respective unions were affiliated. Thus, the picket signs were
a clear notice to all union craftsmen that the picket lines were
sanctioned by one or the other Council, and amounted to a
signal or order not to violate the picket lines by crossing
them, but to support the sanction of the Building Trades
organizations by refusing to cross them. The same inference
is warranted when the officials of Boilermakers, a member of
the Baltimore Council, told them the picket lines were set up
against Green, a nonunion contractor, whether or not those
agents advised them to make their own decision about cross-
ing the lines. The messageand order inherent in the signs was
that all union craftsmen must act together in exercise of their
traditional and reciprocal union solidarity to support the ac-
tion of Boilermakers. That the claimed "public informa-
tional" natue of the signs was only a pretext is clear from
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gertz' admission that that wording was to advise "anyone
that would be interested, anybody that would want to know
why a nonunion contractor can outbid a union contractor on
work like that," and that he considered any other union
craftsmen who came to the job as members of the "public"
to be informed of this. I conclude and find that the signs, plus
remarks of Boilermaker officials to other union craftsmen of
United, were calculated to and did coerce, encourage, and
induce them to refuse to perform services for United, a neu-
tral employer."
Boilermakers applied pressure and coercion directly on the
neutral employers when Gertz and Washington told their
officials repeatedly and in various ways in May that the only
way the pickets could be removed and their employees re-
turned to work was when Green was off the job. The neces-
sary and corollary implication was that, the sooner DPL
and/or United got rid of Green, the sooner the union work-
men of United would return to work. Both union officials
made other remarks compelling that implication to Peck, of
United, in separate discussions with him in May: when he
asked if their union would supply boilermakers, each replied
by asking when United thought Green would be finished with
its job. Boilermakers continued the pressure on both neutrals
by refusing to send workmen to United on numerous oral and
written requests during the picketing, although throughout
the picekting it had a list of members available who needed
work." Its members, including Washington, returned to
work at Vienna for United on May 25, only after Gertz
directed them to do so, on learning that Green had finished
its work and left the plant.
On all of the above facts and circumstances, I must con-
clude and find that Boilermakers set up and maintained the
picket line at Vienna, refused to furnish workmen to United
there during the picketing, caused other employees of United
to refuse to perform services for it, and threatened and co-
erced both United and DPL with an object of forcing and
requiring those neutral employers to cease doing business
with Green, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.26
I also find that Boilermakers continued the same illegal
conduct in picketing the United project at Indian River, when
Green began work there. Boilermakers argue that events
there must be considered apart from its conduct at Vienna
and that, since there were no discussions between it and
neutral employers there as at Vienna, there is an absence of
proof that picketing there was for a proscribed object. I can-
not agree, Gertz admitted that when he first alerted the Wil-
mington Building Trades Council about his intent to picket
Green, he mentioned and had in mind the Indian River
project. He prepared his picket signs beforehand for that
location but used them first at Vienna when he learned Green
would start work there before Indian River. When Green
24 The picket line had the same effect on some DPL plant employees at
Indian River for a short while on the first day of picketing there
" Gertz testified that when Peck several times asked why United tele-
grams asking for men were not honored, he said he had offered jobs at
United to every man on his out-of-work list, but all refused to go after he
told them "the circumstances prevailing on the job, i.e., a picket line on the
lob " Obviously, the mere mention of a picket line of Boilermakers on the
job was a clear signal to members not to break faith with their labor organiza-
tion by crossing its line to work
2' See cases in fn. 21 above, also Local 766, IBEW (The Martin Com-
pany), 131 NLRB 1010, 1011, Local 825, Operating Engineers (R G. Mau-
pai Co., Inc.), Local 5 Plumbers v N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 366, 370 (C A D C),
Carpenters Local Union No. 944, et als (Ralph Duns, et als.), 159 NLRB
563, 565, International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers, Local No 11 (L.
G. Electric Contractors, Inc.), 154 NLRB 766; Local 307, Plumbers, etc.
(Meyer Plumbing, Inc.), 187 NLRB No. 94
started its main work at Indian River, Gertz moved several
of his members, employees of United who had been working
and then picketing at Vienna, to Indian River to begin picket-
ing, even though neither Green nor United was using boiler-
makers there. The picketing was conducted at first at the
common entrance used by United and DPL employees, as
well as at the separate Green employee gate. Gertz confined
it to the Green gate for one day after receipt of formal written
notice of the existence of that gate, but resumed it at the other
gate on learning that a supplier of Green was still using it.
During that picketing, Boilermakers refused to honor United
requests for craftsmen for that location as well as for Vienna.
Hence, it is clear that the Indian River picketing was but an
extension and continuation of the unlawful conduct at
Vienna, even though there may have been a technical compli-
ance with the Moore Dry Dock standards as to common situs
picketing for some of the time at Indian River, particularly
since the picketing shut down the whole project, as at Vienna.
On the 8(b)(7)(C) issue, General Counsel relies mainly on
Gertz' suggestion to Green on April 30th to "hire 193 peo-
ple" as the solution to their "problem" and the picketing, plus
the admitted fact that Boilermakers had not filed a represen-
tation petition within 30 days after the picketing started.
Boilermakers argues that a violation cannot be based on this
single remark, where a Green official suggested and set up the
meeting between Gertz and Green, the only meeting between
those adversaries, and that these facts will not support a
finding that Gertz desired or expected recognition of Boiler-
makers by Green at any time. If Gertz' remark stood alone,
there might be some merit to the argument. However, Gertz
had made it plain in his statements to United and DPL offi-
cials that his sole objective was to get Green off the two
maintenance jobs, so that members of his union could do that
work under "fair" contractors, as in the past, meaning em-
ployers whose employees were members of Boilermakers and
who recognized that union as their bargaining agent. The
same purpose was evident in his talk to Green, when he
clearly indicated that he resented Green taking work from his
members at both plants, and that the only solution was for
Green to hire his members, which would mean (1) discharg-
ing his present work force, (2) recognizing Boilermakers as
bargaining agent of such new work force, which would be
compulsory under the Act as they were all members of Boiler-
makers, and (3) paying any "193 people" so hired the union
wages and benefits and giving them the working conditions
prescribed by the Boilermakers' contract with United and
other "fair" employers.27 It is also a fair inference that Gertz'
suggestion to Green was motivated by the well-known and
fundamental objective of all building and construction trades
unions to have all work on all projects in their respective
areas performed only by union labor. At Vienna and Indian
River this could be accomplished either by getting the nonun-
ion Green off the job and replaced by a "fair" contractor,
which was the clear objective of the pressure put on United
and DPL by the picketing and by Gertz' and Washington's
statements to their officials, or by persuading Green to union-
ize his employees and recognize Boilermakers as their bar-
gaining agent. The second objective surfaced in Gertz' re-
marks to Green on the 30th, and, since Boilermakers had
made no attempt to secure legal bargaining status through an
organizing campaign and resort to Board election processes,
37 Though not stated by Gertz in so many words, these conditions were
implicit in his failure to deny Green's outline of these as consequences of
hiring "193 people " Gertz also admitted that, at the time of this discussion,
Boilermakers had men available to man both DPL jobs, and that if Green
had used his members on them he would be paying them union wages and
benefits, and there would be no reason for the picketing
LOCAL LODGE # 193, BOILERMAKERS 619
I must find that Boilermakers' picketing and refusal to fur-
nish workers to United at both plants with that objective
violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
b. The Operating Engineers
It is clear from the facts found above, based in part on
admissions of Dawson, that Operating Engineers was for-
mally notified by Boilermakers beforehand through the Wil-
mington and/or Delaware Building Trades Council that the
latter Respondent would picket at Indian River when Green
began work there. When Gertz set up the picket lines, Operat-
ing Engineers furnished two of its members from its out-of-
work list to assist Boilermakers in the picketing, and one of
those members advised officials of United and DPL that he
was assisting Boilermakers in picketing at the request of the
business agent of Operating Engineers. Two members of Op-
erating Engineers then working for United refused to cross
the picket line and work, with the approval of their business
agent, and from the outset of the picketing that Respondent
refused requests of United to send men to the project, al-
though up to and on the date the picketing started and there-
after United had work for them, and members of Operating
Engineers needed work. The picketing caused a complete
shutdown of the United project, although the separate Green
project continued. Although Boilermakers stopped picketing
at Indian River on June 1 or 2, when Green finished its work
there, the Operating Engineer picket did not stop picketing
until ordered to do so by his business agent, after the latter
made inquiry of Boilermakers about it. However, Operating
Engineers did not thereafter send workers to United as re-
quested, although United had need for them up to termina-
tion of its work on June 30. When queried by United during
the picketing why Operating Engineers did not sent men as
requested, one of its agents replied he could not find members
interested in working there "as the situation stood," which
could only refer to the existing labor dispute and picket line.
These circumstances present strong proof establishing that
Operating Engineers made common cause with Boilermakers
(either as a joint venturer or agent of that union) in picketing
and thereby shutting down the United and DPL projects at
Indian River, and refused to furnish workmen to United as
requested, for the proscribed objectives found above, and
thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act,2' and hence
is equally liable with Boilermakers to remedy the unfair labor
practices.
Operating Engineers presents several defenses for its ac-
tions. It argues that its members refused to cross the Boiler-
makers' picket line of their own free will, without orders from
their union, and that such activity is protected by Section 7
of the Act and not chargeable to Operating Engineers. The
argument is specious, for it is clear that, when that Respond-
net furnished two pickets for the picket line, their appearance
was clear notice to all other members who might report for
work that their union was taking active part in the picketing
activity, thus making the picket line its own, and was a signal
that no members of Operating Engineers must violate it by
crossing it to work. Dawson's specific approval of the refusal
of two of his members to cross the picket line the first day not
only shows the active adoption of the Boilermakers' picketing
by his union, but is also consistent with the continued support
shown by its refusal thereafter to furnish members from its
out-of-work list to United when requested.29
Operating Engineers also argues it was excused by its con-
tract with United from furnishing workmen where a labor
dispute exists. While that contract says such refusal is not a
violation of that document nor ground for discharge or disci-
pline of members who refuse to cross a picket line, this is no
defense to the unlawful enmeshing of neutral employers in the
dispute with Green. At most, that clause might protect Oper-
ating Engineers and its members from a civil action by United
for breach of contract, but it cannot serve as a justification for
action otherwise violating the Act and the public interest it
serves and protects.
Nor is it any defense that United's requests for men were
not in the precise form it may have used in procuring work-
men from Operating Engineers in the past or under other
circumstances, because its contract with United does not ap-
pear to prescribe any particular form, source, or channel for
such requests; but even if it had, failure to follow specified
procedures would only serve as a defense to a civil suit based
on the contract, not to conduct violating a public Act. The
lack of substance in this technical claim is also shown by
Dawson's admission that his own records would have dis-
closed the location and nature of the United project, what
members of his union had worked there before, and the type
of work they did. Hence it would have been a simple matter
to find out by a check of his records or a call to United
officials on the site just what classification of operating engi-
neers they wanted, if he had really been interested in placing
out-of-work members in jobs. His failure to do so and to
return calls from such officials during the picketing further
shows his deliberate refusal to staff the United project because
of the existing picketing, which he admits he knew was a bona
fide strike authorized by his Building Trades Council, which
his union was bound to recognize.30
Operating Engineers also argues that after the existing Na-
tional Agreement of its parent organization with United ex-
pired on June 1, it had no obligation to furnish men to that
employer anywhere, except pursuant to an interim policy of
Operating Engineers to continue to furnish men in such situa-
tion only upon projects currently manned by its members,
and that since none of its members were working at Indian
River on June 1 it did not violate the Act by refusing to send
men after that date. This argument has no merit, because
uncontradicted testimony of United officials shows that it had
need for operating engineers to the end of its work at Indian
River, and it is clear from the facts and conclusions above
that the absence of those craftsmen from the project on and
before June 1 was due solely to the unlawful activity of both
Respondents as found above.
It is also argued that Operating Engineers is excused from
honoring requests for workmen by a Delaware statute which
prohibits the recruitment of persons as strikebreakers where
a labor dispute exists. While the statute cited (Title 19, Chap-
ter 7, Section 704 of the Delaware Code) in terms appears
broad enough to cover not only employers recruiting or
securing strikebreakers, but other persons offering to do so,
it cannot justify Respondents' continued disruption of the
business relationships between the primary and neutral em-
ployers which affect interstate commerce, for it is well settled
that where employers' business relationships show they are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
warrant assertion of jurisdiction by the Board, as here, the
26 Local 584, Teamsters (Fairway Farms, Inc), 141 NLRB 638.
:" In this connection Dawson admitted he refused to honor the requests
in part because of the labor dispute at Indian River, and Operating Engineers
in argument concedes it would have been a "useless gesture" to send men
to the job when members already on the job had walked off because of the
picket Ime
30 The corollary argument that the United requests for men were not
bona fide but purely technical actions to support this "litigation" is without
merit, because the record clearly shows that United needed operating engi-
neers throughout the picketing and even after, and for lack of them was
never able to complete certain portions of its contract work for DPL.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act and action of the Board under it totally preempts state
law."
Having considered all the arguments pro and con in the-
light of the pertinent facts and circumstances, I conclude and
find that Operating Engineers assisted and acted in concert
with Boilermakers in picketing at both plants, thereby induc-
ing employees of United to refuse to perform services for their
employer, and threatened and coerced United and DPL by
failing and refusing to furnish its members to perform ser-
vices for United as requested, with the objective of forcing
DPL to cease doing business with Green, and forcing United
to cease doing business with DPL, thereby to force DPL to
cease doing business with Green, in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of DPL,
United, and Green described in section I and III A, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in various
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act, and that Respondent Boilermakers also
violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, I shall recommend
that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. DPL , United , and Green are employers engaged in com-
merce or in industries affecting commerce within the meaning
of Sections 2(6) and (7), 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and 8(b)(7)(C)
of the Act.
2. Each of Respondents is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in, and inducing and encouraging em-
ployees of United , Green , and other persons engaged in com-
merce to engage in, strikes and refusals in course of their
employment to perform services for their employers, and by
threatening, coercing, and restraining United, DPL, Green,
and other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce , in either case with an object of forcing
and requiring DPL to cease doing business with Green and
of forcing and requiring United to cease doing business with
DPL in order to force DPL to cease doing business with
Green, and with an object of forcing and requiring Green to
recognize and bargain with Boilermakers as the representa-
tive of its employees although Boilermakers has not been
certified as the representative of such employees under the
provisions of Section 9 of the Act, Respondent Boilermakers
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) and
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
31 Bartenders, etc. Local Union No. 595 (Arne Falk, Inc.), 161 NLRB
1458, 1568.
I have considered other corollary arguments of Operating Engineers
based on its version of the facts, and legal arguments applied thereto, and
find them without merit either in fact of in law
4. By engaging in the conduct described in the preceding
paragraph in a joint venture with or as agent of Respondent
Boilermakers with the objects stated above, Respondent Op-
erating Engineers has engaged in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of
the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and the entire record in the case, I hereby issue
the following recommended:32
ORDER
Respondents Boilermakers Local Lodge No. 193, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, and Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, Local 542, AFL-CIO,
and their respective officers, representatives, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, jointly and severally, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, and inducing and encouraging employees
of United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., The Green Con-
tracting Co., Inc., and other persons engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a
refusal in course of their employment to perform services for
their respective employers, threatening, coercing, or restrain-
ing said employers, Delmarva Power and Light Company of
Maryland or any other person engaged in commerce or an
industry affecting commerce, with an object in either case of
forcing and requiring Delmarva Power & Light Company of
Maryland to cease doing business with The Green Contract-
ing Co., Inc., and of forcing and requiring United Engineers
& Constructors, Inc., to cease doing business with Delmarva
Power & Light Company of Maryland in order to force the
latter employer to cease doing business with The Green Con-
tracting Co., Inc., and with an object of forcing and requiring
The Green Contracting Co., Inc., to recognize or bargain
with Respondent Boilermakers Local Lodge No, 193, afore-
said, as representative of its employees, although said Re-
spondent has not been certified as the representative of such
employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is hereby
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their respective offices and meeting places copies
of the attached notices marked "Appendix A" or "Appendix
B," as applicable." Copies of said notices, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed
by authorized representatives of Respondents, shall be posted
by each of them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to their
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Promptly after receipt of copies of said notices from the
Regional Director, return to him signed copies for posting by
United Engineering & Constructors, Inc., Delmarva Power &
32 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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
" 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 be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN OR-
DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
LOCAL LODGE # 193, BOILERMAKERS 621
Light Company of Maryland , and The Green Contracting (c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 5, in writing,
Co., Inc., if they be willing, at their places of business , includ- within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what
ing the jobsites of United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. and steps have been taken by Respondents to comply herewith.34
The Green Contracting Co., Inc. at the Vienna and Indian
River plants of Delmarva Power & Light Company of Mary-
land, if said contractors are still working at said jobsites , and In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
all other jobsites at which they may be working within the after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
territorial jurisdiction claimed by each of the Respondents "Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing , within 20 days from
and all places where notices to employees of said employers the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
are customarily posted . herewith"