Local Union No. 638, Plumbers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Enterprise Association of Steam , Hot Water,
Hydraulic , Sprinkler , Pneumatic Tube, Ice
Machine and General Pipefitters of New York and
Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of the United As-
sociation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada and Consolidated Edison Com-
pany of New York, Inc. Case 2-CC-1135
June 17, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
On January 22, 1970, Trial Examiner Benjamin
A. Theeman issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Union
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, 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 Respondent Union filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an
answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
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-
' We hereby correct the following inadvertent error in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision- the beginning of fn 14 should read as follows "Fee
testified .." rather than "Daly testified "
Y We agree with the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that , at the time of the
Respondent 's August 1969 activities, Courter was a neutral because "there
was no legal method by which Courter could comply with the union's de-
mands to fabricate the pipe " In this connection , in addition to the other
factors cited by the Trial Examiner , we note that Courier's original ar-
rangements with Hydronic and Consolidated Edison , which resulted in
Courier's relinquishing control over the work , were made with the express
consent-on two occasions-of Daly, Respondent's business agent
Courter had no way of foretelling that Respondent would thereafter change
its mind , and acted in reliance on Daly's original assurances
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent Union, Enterprise As-
sociation of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprin-
kler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General
Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union
No. 638 of the United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In-
dustry of the United States and Canada, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN A. THEEMAN, Trial Examiner: The
complaint' alleges in substance that the Enterprise
Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprin-
kler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General
Pipefitters of New York City and Vicinity, Local
Union No. 638 of the United Association of Jour-
neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitters Industry of the United States and
Canada (Respondent or Union), induced or en-
couraged employees of Courter & Company, Inc.
(Courter), to refuse to unload and install at the
74th Street powerhouse jobsite, New York City, of
the Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc. (Con Ed), certain prefabricated pipes
purchased by Con Ed from Hydronic Fabrications,
Inc. (Hydronic), delivered by Hydronic to Con Ed
at the 74th Street jobsite, with the object (a) to
force or require Courter and Con Ed to cease (1)
using or otherwise dealing in the products of
Hydronics and (2) doing business with Hydronic,
and (b) to force or require Con Ed and Courter to
cease doing business with each other, all in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B)2 and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq. (the Act).
' The charge was filed August 8, 1969 , by Consolidated Edison Com-
pany of New York , Inc Complaint issued September 3, 1969
2 The pertinent part of this section is
8(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
(4)(1) to engage in , or to induce or encourage any individual employed
by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employ-
ment , to use, manufacture, process, transport , or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles , materials, or commodities or to perform
any services, or (ii) to threaten, coerce , or restrain any person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where an ob-
ject thereof is.
M
(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
183 NLRB No. 61
LOCAL UNION NO. 638 , PLUMBERS
The Respondent denied the commission of the un-
fair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me
in New York City on November 12, 1969. The
General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the
Respondent appeared by counsel. The parites were
given full opportunity to participate, adduce
evidence, and examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses. Oral argument was had. No briefs were
filed.'
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
517
representative of its annual operations, Hydronic
fabricated, sold, and distributed pipe and other
products valued in excess of $50,000, of which pipe
and other products valued in excess of $50,000
were shipped from said place of business in in-
terstate commerce directly to States of the United
States other than New York.
Con Ed, Courter, and Hydronic are employers
and persons engaged in commerce and in an indus-
try affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tions 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYERS
Courter, a New York corporation, has main-
tained an office and place of business at 317 West
13th Street, in the city and State of New York, and
at various jobsites in the State of New York, includ-
ing the 74th Street jobsite, where it is, and has
been, a mechanical contractor in the construction
industry, engaged in the installation of power piping
and related systems. During 1969, a period
representative of its annual operation generally,
Courter, in the course and conduct of its business,
contracted with Con Ed to perform work valued in
excess of $50,000 at the 74th Street jobsite.
Con Ed, a New York corporation, has main-
tained an office and place of business at 4 Irving
Place in the city and State of New York, and vari-
ous other places of business in the State of New
York, including a powerhouse at 506 East 74th
Street, New York City (the 74th Street jobsite),
where it is engaged in the production, sale, and dis-
tribution of electricity and steam. During 1969, a
period representative of its annual operations, Con
Ed, in the course and conduct of its business,
purchased and caused to be transported and
delivered to its 74th Street powerhouse oil and
other goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 of which such oil and other goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 were trans-
ported and delivered to its 74th Street jobsite in in-
terstate commerce directly from States of the
United States other than New York, and in foreign
commerce directly from foreign countries.
Hydronic, a New York corporation, has main-
tained an office and place of business at 3375
Royal Avenue in Oceanside, New York, where it is
engaged in the fabrication, sale, and distribution of
pipe and related products. During 1969, a period
The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues herein are adequately set forth in the
Statement of the Case.
B. Con Ed and Courter Contract for Construc-
tion Work at the 74th Street Powerhouse Jobsite
Early in 1969' Con Ed started to modify its
powerhouse at 74th Street in New York City. In
March, Con Ed entered into a contract with
Courter that the latter install a water treatment
system and make certain alterations in the steam
system as part of the modification.' The Courter
contract required Courter to install and erect pip-
ing. The contract did not require the pipe to be
fabricated by Courter, nor did it specify a company
that was to fabricate the pipe.' The contract
showed that December 15 was the date the
modified plant was to start operating and
November 1 as the date by which Courter was to
complete its work.
When Courter contracted with Con Ed it was al-
ready busy with another construction job which
would prevent Courter from fabricating pipe for
Con Ed either at its plant or at the 74th Street
jobsite. In effect, Courter knew that if it were to
fabricate the pipe for the Con Ed job, it would not
be able to meet the November 1 date. This condi-
tion was also known to Con Ed and the Union.
Daly, business agent for the Union, gave assurances
to Con Ed prior to the time of the execution of the
Courter contract' that Courter could install pipe at
the 74th Street jobsite that was not fabricated by
Courter but fabricated by another company.
' Motion by counsel for the Charging Party dated December 12, 1969, to
correct the transcript is granted.
All dates herein are 1969
' Con Ed's purpose was to increase the output of its plant from 350,000
pounds per hour to 1,150,000 pounds per hour to meet the increased steam
demands in upper Manhattan . By doing this, Con Ed would eliminate the
operation of its 60th Street station which , if operated , would be in violation
of the pollution laws
e In lieu of placing the contract in evidence the parties stipulated
In its original specifications under a contract between Courter and
Company and Consolidated Edison Company, Courter was required to
install and erect piping There is no i equirement that such pipe be
fabricated either by Courter and Company or by anyone else.
No issue is raised in this proceeding regarding the effect on the parties
of this and other Daly assurances mentioned in this proceeding
519 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Union Contract
Employees of Courter were members of the
Union. Courter was a member of the Mechanical
Contractors Association of New York, Inc. (MCA).
The Association and the Union had entered into a
labor agreement terminating June 30, 1969, con-
taining rule V8 and rule X referring to the fabrica-
tion of pipe before installation. Rule X stated in
part:9
Acetylene, electric or other forms of cutting or
welding shall be done either in the shop or on
the job of the direct employer at the option of
the employer.
In this instance Courter was a "direct employer"
within the meaning of rule X. Rule X was con-
tinued in effect after the termination of the MCA
contract. Con Ed, Courter, and Hydronic at all
times herein were aware of the existence of rule X
and its effect on pipe that was to be installed in the
74th Street jobsite. -
D. Courser Contracts With Hydronic
To Prefabricate Pipe
In March, after receiving the Con Ed contract,
Courter entered into a contract with Hydronic
providing that the latter fabricate pipe from
sketches submitted to it by Courter and deliver the.
assembled pipe to the 74th Street jobsite.10
Prior to the execution of the contract, Courter
asked Hydronic for assurances that the Union
would create no problem. Hydronic received such
assurances from Daly after Hydronic assured Daly
it would comply with rule V of the labor agreement
in fabricating the pipe. Hydronic advised Courter of
this fact and the contract was concluded between
them." Between the months of April and June
Hydronic delivered to Courter at the 74th Street
jobsite 160 pipe assemblies (about 10 to 12
truckloads). These assemblies were unloaded by
employees of Courter and installed by them in the
plant.'
E. Daly, Business Agent of the Union, Advises
Courser They Have Breached Rule X
In June and July three conversations occurred
between Daly and Fee, a steamfitter's superinten-
' In effect rule V required that the fabrication of pipe "must be per-
formed by journeymen steamfitters or apprentices working in units of two,
one of whom must be a steamfitter "
Rule X has been in existence more than 20 years
° The Union represented the employees of Hydronic also
" There is no issue with regard to the Hydronic/Courter contract
" Usually pipe was installed the same day it was delivered In no event
was pipe installed more than a week later
13 The "Sheridan decision" dated June 24 was so designated because
Sheridan was the arbitrator who wrote it The decision pointed out that
frequently during the pendency of the agreement containing rule X a busi-
ness agent of the Union gave permission to a direct employer to install pipe
that had been fabricated by another company The decision held that the
dent employed at the 74th Street jobsite by
Courter. Fee was a member of the Union.
In the first conversation in the latter part of June,
Daly and Fee discussed the fact that the labor
agreement was nearing its termaintion date and that
there were rumors the men were dissatisfied with
the way in which the pipe fabrication was being
handled. Daly then advised Fee that under the cir-
cumstances and in view of the Sheridan decision13
"he would have to bring Courter and Company up
on charges" for violation of rule X.
In the second conversation, a little later in June,
Daly again advised Fee that Courter would be
brought up on charges; that this would be done
though it meant retracting the assurance that he,
Daly, had earlier given Con Ed that there would be
no problem because of fabrication by Hydronic."
In the third conversation, the early part of July,
Daly confirmed to Fee that he had decided to bring
Courter up on charges. is
Between the time of the second and third conver-
sations, the Union held a meeting at which the
membership discussed and decided not to amend
rule X.
F. Con Ed Modifies the Courter Contract and
Contracts With Hydronic
Because of the issuance of the Sheridan decision
and the vote of the Union to maintain rule X
unchanged, Con Ed considered the job schedule at
74th Street to be in jeopardy and notified Courter
accordingly. Then, by letter dated July 15, Con Ed
unilaterally modified the Courter contract to pro-
vide in effect that Con Ed would supply the pipe for
Courter to install.16 Con Ed also advised Courter
that a downward revision in price was expected.
Courter was given no choice with regard to the
amendment. Subsequently, Con Ed entered into a
contract with Hydronic providing that Hydronic
furnish pipe to Con Ed for installation by others.
The contract designated no company to do the in-
stallation.
G. Hydronic Delivers Pipe; the Union Prevents it
From Being Unloaded and Installed
During the first week in August , Fee told Daly
that Con Ed was going to deliver pipe to the jobsite.
union business agent had no authority unilaterally to amend rule X and that
the direct employer by installing such pipe was liable for breach of the
agreement Mention of the contents of the Sherifan decision is no indica-
tion that the Trial Examiner agrees with its holdings
14 Daly testified
he had promised the Con Edison Company that there wouldn't be
any problem relative to the fabrication because they insisted that the
Con Edison Company had to have this plant for December 15 opera-
tion and that he understood their problem as well as our problem and
he assured them there wouldn't be any problem relative to fabrication
15 Charges were filed by the Union by letter dated July 1, 1969
'6 No issue is raised in this proceeding as to the effect of Con Ed's
amendment or its action in so doing
LOCAL UNION NO. 638, PLUMBERS
Daly responded that he would have to inform the
employees of Courter that they could not install the
pipe if and when it came to the job.
On August 7, a truckload of fabricated pipe ar-
rived at the jobsite from Hydronic for delivery to
Con Ed. The parties admit that it was the obligation
of the employees of Courter to unload the pipe.
The shop steward of the Union acting on instruc-
tions from Daly told the men not to unload the
truck. The truck was not unloaded and left.
On August 12 another truckload of pipe was
delivered. At that time the shop steward was under
union instructions to unload the pipe but not to in-
stall it until further word. The pipe was unloaded
but was not installed until about 2 weeks later.17
Analysis and Conclusions
Under the terms of the Con Ed/Courter contract
as amended by Con Ed, the possibility that Courter
might do the work of the fabrication of pipe was
eliminated. Thus, there was no "cutting or welding"
of pipe to be done by Courter in its shop or on the
job that would make rule X applicable to that con-
tract. This result was Con Ed s objective. The con-
tract requirement that Courter install pipe
furnished by Con Ed remained in force. Except for
the action of the Union there is nothing in the
record to show that Courter's employees were
prevented from installing the pipe. It follows then
that the Union's action to prevent the unloading
and installation of the fabricated pipe on August 7,
and the installation of the pipe on August 12, could
not have been taken to preserve or enforce its
rights under rule X as that rule affected the Con
Ed/Courter contract, or to demand that Courter
carry out its terms under the MCA agreement.
The record does not support Respondent's con-
tention that Con Ed's amendment was the result of
the collusive or conspiratorial action of Con Ed,
Hydronic, and Courter. The record details the ac-
tion taken by Con Ed that resulted in the July
amendment of the Courter contract. Such action
was no more than to advise Courter that the
amendment would happen. There is no evidence
that (a) Con Ed consulted Courter in any way be-
fore the amendment occurred; (b) Courter had
anything to do with the award of the contract to
Hydronic; or (c) Con Ed and Courter acted in any
collusive manner to bring about either the amend-
ment, or the award to Hydronic. There is no
question that Con Ed knew that the pipe already in-
stalled had been fabricated by Hydronic from plans
and specifications given to Hydronic by Courter.
But it is considered reasonable that under these cir-
cumstances Con Ed with its operation date in
17 Daly testified he did not stop the installation of the pipe Whether he
personally gave the orders or not is immaterial The shop steward testified
he was acting under union instructions
18 This conclusion is in no way altered by the fact that Con Ed, Courter,
and the Union knew in March that Courter would be unable in the future
to fabricate the pipe either at its plant or on the job
519
jeopardy should request Hydronic to continue the
fabrication of the pipe for delivery to Con Ed. Ac-
cordingly, it is concluded from the record as a
whole that Con Ed, Courter, and Hydronic did not
act collusively or conspiratorially in amending the
Courter contract and granting the new contract to
Hydronic.18
Courter was a direct or primary employer of
members of the Union but (and what follows is the
key to this decision) under the amended contract it
was not a direct or primary employer of such em-
ployees for the purpose of fabricating pipe. Under
the amended Con Ed/Courter contract, the Union's
demands were directed to no provision that Courter
was obligated to perform or responsible to accom-
plish. Thus under the terms of the amended con-
tract, there was no legal method bjy which Courter
could comply with the Union s demands to
fabricate the pipe.
The foregoing makes it obvious that the object of
the Union's action was directed at the contract
between Con Ed and Hydronic. The record clearly
shows that the actions taken by the shop steward on
August 7 and August 12 were pursuant to the
Union's instructions and resulted from the fact that
the pipe was fabricated by Hydronic and not by
Courter. The record shows further the Union's ac-
tions induced and encouraged Courter's employees
on those days to refuse to handle and to install the
pipe delivered by Hydronic to the 74th Street
jobsite. It follows that an object of the Union's con-
duct was to compel (a) Con Ed and Courter to
cease using and handling pipe fabricated by
Hydronic, or any other employer than Courter and
(b) Con Ed and Courter to cease doing business
with Hydronic or with each other. Such conduct is
proscribed by the Act and constitutes a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
In Enterprise Association, etc. (Consolidated Edis-
on Company of New York, Inc.), 124 NLRB 521,
the Union, Courter, and Con Ed were parties to a
proceeding before the Board involving an action
arising out of the effect of rule X that was almost
on all fours with the action in this case. The Board
found that the Union had violated the then Section
8(b)(4)(A) of the Act.19 The Board's Order was
enforced in 1961 by the Second Circuit in N.L.R.B.
v. Enterprise Association of Steam, etc. (Con-
solidated Edison Co.), 285 F.2d 642.
In dealing with similar situations where
prefabricated material has been delivered to con-
struction sites, the Board has developed what it
designates as the right-to-control test for establish-
ing neutral employers and to distinguish between
primary and secondary employers. This test has
is Now Section 8(b)(4)(B) under the 1959 amendment of the Act with
no significant changes in text
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
received court approval" and was recently used by
the Board in finding a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(B) in Local 636, etc. (Mechanical Contrac-
tors Association of Detroit, Inc.), 177 NLRB 189.21
In that case the Board said:
In deciding that Page was not the primary
employer, we have used the "right to control"
test.7 This is the most readily available analyti-
cal tool in deciding the primary-secondary
dichotomy and conforms, we believe, with the
Congressional intent in proscribing secondary
boycotts. It has received the approval of a
number of Courts of Appeals.8 As explained by
Judge Prettyman:'
The basic criterion is, as the statute
(Section 8(b)(4)) specifically provides,
the object, or objects, of the union action.
So the problem is: What was the object?
The Board has held several times that, if a
union demands that a contractor do
something he is powerless to do except by
ceasing to do business with somebody not
involved in the dispute, it is manifest that
an object of the union is to induce this
cessation of business. The courts to which
this problem has come have agreed with
the holdings.
' Idem [as footnote 6 Pipe Fitters Local No 120 (Mechanical Con-
tractors ' Association of Cleveland, Inc ), 168 NLRB 991, Local 5,
Plumbers (Arthur Vennert Company), 137 NLRB 828, enfd 321 F 2d
366 (C A D C ), cert denied 375 U S 921, International Longshore-
men's Association (Board of Harbor Commissioners), 137 NLRB 1178,
1182,enfd 331F2d712,717(CA 3)]
" National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v N L R B , 354
F 2d 594 (C A 7), Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, U.B of C
v NLRB, 339 F 2d 142 (C A 6), N L R.B v International
Longshoremen 's Association, 331 F 2d 712 (C A 3), Local 5, Plumbers
(Arthur Venneri Company) v NLRB , 321 F 2d 366 (C A D C ),
N L R B v Enterprise Association , 285 F 2d 642 (C A 2)
° Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, U.B of C v N.L R.B , 339
F.2d 142, 145 (C A 6).
We think this is rational and proper
reasoning.
It is concluded that the facts in this case are
governed by the above decisions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water,
Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine
and General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity,
Local Union No. 638 of the United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc., Courter & Company, Inc., and Hydronic
Fabrications, Inc., are employers engaged in com-
merce or industries affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of
the Act.
3. On August 7 and 12, 1969, Respondent vio-
lated Sections 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by
engaging in certain conduct found in section III.
4. The said unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, the customary
cease-and-desist order and the usual affirmative re-
lief ordered in cases of this nature, including post-
ing of notices, is recommended.
Respondent, as shown above, has previously en-
gaged in the same type of behavior which the Board
has found violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the
Act. This fact did not deter the Union from repeat-
ing the illegal behavior. Under such circumstances,
a broad order is recommended.22
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and upon the entire record,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the fol-
lowing is hereby made and issued:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water,
Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine
and General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity,
Local Union No. 638 of the United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encourag-
ing the employees of Courter & Company, Inc., or
of any other employer or person, to engage in a
strike or refusal in the course of their employment
to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi-
als, or commodities or to perform any services for
their employers; or coercing and restraining
Courter & Company, Inc., or any other employer
or person where an object thereof is (1) to force or
require Courter & Company, Inc., or any other em-
ployer or person to cease purchasing, using,
handling, transporting, or otherwise working on
pipe fabricated by Hydronic_7abrications, Inc., or
2° See fn 8 in text quoted below
21 See also Local No 742, etc (J L Simmons Company, Inc ), 178 NLRB
351
" Cf Local No 636, United Association of Journeymen (Detroit Edison
Company and Westinghouse Electric Corporation), 123 NLRB 225
LOCAL UNION NO. 638 , PLUMBERS
any other employer or person on behalf of Con-
solidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., or
any other employer or person, (2) to force or
require Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc., and Courter & Company, Inc., to cease
doing business with each other or with Hydronic
Fabrications, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify the members of Enterprise Associa-
tion of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler,
Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefit-
ters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No.
638 of the United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus-
try of the United States and Canada that Respon-
dent has no objection to the installation of or other-
wise handling piping at any project of Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc., that has been
prefabricated by any employer for and on behalf of
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(b) Notify the members of Enterprise Associa-
tion of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler,
Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefit-
ters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No.
638 of the United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus-
try of the United States and Canada that any previ-
ous instructions, requests, or appeals which
Respondents have made against installing or other-
wise handling pipe at projects of Consolidated Edis-
on Company of New York, Inc., fabricated for or
on behalf of Consolidated as set forth in (a) above
have been withdrawn.
(c) Post at the offices of Enterprise Association
of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneu-
matic Tube, Ice Machine and General Pipefitters of
New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 of
the United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry
of the United States and Canada, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix. "23 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 2, after being duly signed by offical
representatives of the Union, shall be posted im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region
2 signed copies of said notice in sufficient number
for posting by Courter & Company, Inc., by other
members of Mechanical Contractors Association of
New York, Inc., and by Hydronic Fabrications,
Inc., and they being willing, at all locations where
notices to their respective employees are
customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in
521
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.24
Pa 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 , recommendations , 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
$' 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 Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all sides had the opporutni-
ty to present their evidence it has been found that
we violated the law by committing unfair labor
practices . Accordingly we post this notice and we
will keep the promises that we make in this notice.
WE WILL NOT (a) induce or encourage the
employees of Courter & Company , Inc., or of
any other employer or person to engage in a
strike or concerted refusal in the course of
their employment to use, manufacture,
process , transport , or otherwise handle or work
on any goods , articles , materials , or commodi-
ties, or to perform any services for their em-
ployers or ( b) coerce and restrain Courter &
Company , Inc., or any other employer or per-
son, where an object thereof in either instance
is (1) to force or require Courter & Company,
Inc., or any other employer or person to cease
purchasing, using , handling, transporting, or
otherwise working on pipe fabricated by
Hydronic Fabrications , Inc., or any other em-
ployer or person on behalf of Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc., or any
other employer , or (2) to force or require Con-
solidated Edision Company of New York, Inc.,
and Courter & Company, Inc., to cease doing
business with each other or with Hydronic
Fabrications, Inc.
WE WILL and do hereby cancel and withdraw
any orders and instructions given to our mem-
bers and any other individuals not to install
work upon or otherwise handle pipe at projects
of Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc., which pipe was fabricated for or on
behalf of Consolidated as set forth in the
preceding paragraph.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, and do hereby, notify our mem-
bers, and other individuals employed by
Courter & Company, Inc., that we have no ob-
jection to their installing , working upon, or
otherwise handling pipe at projects of Con-
solidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,
which pipe was fabricated for or on behalf of
Consolidated as set forth in the second preced-
ing paragraph.
PLUMBING AND
PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF
THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATION
OF STEAM, HOT WATER,
HYDRAULIC, SPRINKLER,
PNEUMATIC TUBE, ICE
MACHINE AND GENERAL
PIPEFITTERS OF NEW
YORK AND VICINITY,
LOCAL UNION No. 638
OF THE UNITED
ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
jy anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 36th Floor Federal Building, 26
Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007,
Telephone 212-264-0300