Operating Engineers Local 12 (Associated Engineers)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 1172 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
12, AFL-CIO and Associated Engineers. Case
31-CC-1517
13 June 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 23 November 1982 Administrative Law
Judge Richard J. Boyce issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, the General Counsel and the Charg-
ing Party filed cross-exceptions and supporting
briefs, and the Respondent filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.
The Respondent excepts only to the broad Order
recommended by the judge. The General Counsel
excepts to the judge's failure to explain the basis on
which a broad remedial order was recommended.'
For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the
General Counsel that the judge was warranted in
recommending a broad order.
The charge in this proceeding, filed 14 April
1981 with complaint issuing 30 April 1981, alleged
that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act by certain picketing and other
conduct in furtherance of a dispute with Associat-
ed Engineers. While this matter was pending, a
complaint issued 8 October 1981 in Operating Engi-
neers Local 12 (Frank De Pietro & Sons), Case 31-
CC-1570, alleging that the Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by engag-
ing in picketing at a neutral gate during September
1981. On 4 March 1982 the cases were consolidat-
I The Charging Party excepts to the judge's failure to order the Re-
spondent to publish the attached notice to employees in its newsletter,
contending it is necessary to dispel the damaging effects of a previously
published article in the newsletter. The prior article referred to the Re-
spondent's efforts at "organizing the non-union survey companies" by set-
ting up picket lines at jobsites and advised members that the "best rule
for a union man or woman to follow is: 'I don't cross picket lines-
period!' Do not work on a project on which a scab is workingl No matter
how many gates they have up-just Ieave." Although the article was not
charged as a separate unfair labor practice, it was an obvious appeal to
the Respondent's members to flout the Board's reserved-gate rules for
common situs picketing and a part of the pattern of unlawful conduct
which warrants a broad remedial order in this case. We believe publica-
tion of the notice is necessary to counteract the impact of the article and
we therefore find merit in the Charging Party's exception. Plumbers Local
403 (Pullman Power Products), 261 NLRB 257, 269-270 (1982), enfd. 710
F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1983).
270 NLRB No. 175
ed for hearing on the same day before the same ad-
ministrative law judge.
Both cases were heard by the judge on 27 July
1982. On 30 September 1982 the judge issued his
decision in Frank De Pietro & Son.2 In his decision,
the judge found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by picketing a
neutral gate with an object of enmeshing neutral
contractors in its dispute with a nonunion contrac-
tor and further recommended that a broad remedial
order issue. The Respondent did not file timely ex-
ceptions to the judge's decision and, accordingly,
the Board adopted the decision and recommended
Order on 2 November 1982.3 Thereafter, the judge
issued his decision in this proceeding.
We agree with the judge that a broad order is
warranted in this case, since in our opinion the Re-
spondent's conduct in the present case and its con-
duct in Frank De Pietro & Sons demonstrate a pro-
clivity to violate the secondary boycott provisions
of the Act.4 In so doing, we recognize that in the
past the Board has held that an administrative law
judge's decision to which no exceptions are filed
may not be relied on to show a respondent's pro-
clivity to violate the Act.5 However, we are not
persuaded by the rationale advanced for treating
such decisions differently from formal settlement
agreements not containing a nonadmissions clause,
which the Board has found may be considered
when determining whether a respondent has dem-
onstrated a proclivity to violate the Act.6 The
mere fact that a formal settlement is formally re-
viewed and approved by the Board, and an admin-
istrative law judge's decision not excepted to is not,
pales in significance when one considers that the
latter is a fully litigated decision adopted by the
Board as its own and the order contained therein
has the same force and effect of a fully reviewed
Board decision. As such, it may result in an en-
forcement or contempt proceeding just as any
other Board order. While the lack of formal review
' JD-(SF)-265-82 (unpublished).
3 On 6 December 1982 the Respondent requested permission to except
to the broad Order. This request was denied as untimely 3 January 1983.
4 See, e.g., Stage Employees Local 52 (Michael Levee Productions), 238
NLRB 19 (1978), enfd. 593 F.2d 197 (2d Cir. 1979); Delaware Building
Trades Council (Pettinaro Construction Co.), 230 NLRB 42 (1977).
See, e.g., Tri-State Building Trades Council (Structurrs Inc.), 257
NLRB 295 (1981); Broadway Hospital, 244 NLRB 341 (1979); Elkwood
Detective Agency, 239 NLRB 99 (1978); Plumbers Local 142 (Cross Con-
struction Co), 169 NLRB 840 (1968). In Cross Construction, the Board,
noting that the respondent had "voluntarily" complied with a recom-
mended order in an earlier case, merely held that a broad order based on
"this single violation" was not warranted "[iln the circumstances of this
case." In later cases, the Board continued to apply this "rule" by rote
until giving it a rationale, albeit perfunctory, in Tri-State Building Trades
Council, supra.
6 See, e.g., Teamsters Local 945 (Newark Disposal Service), 232 NLRB I
(1977); Carpenters (Lattanzio Enterprises), 206 NLRB 67 (1973), enfd. 499
F.2d 129 (9th Cir. 1974).
1172
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 12 (ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS)
may diminish or even negate the precedential value
of the rationale in such a decision, there is no
sound basis for treating such decisions as less than
a formal determination of a respondent's culpability
under the Act, a determination which may be con-
sidered when a propriety of a broad order is at
issue in a subsequent case. Moreover, to permit a
respondent to fully litigate a case and then avoid
the consequences of repeated unfair labor practices
merely by failing to except to an adverse decision
by the judge would exalt form over substance.
Accordingly, we hereby overrule those decisions
which hold that an administrative law judge's deci-
sion to which no exceptions are filed may not be
considered by the Board when determining wheth-
er a respondent has demonstrated a proclivity to
violate the Act. We· therefore adopt the judge's
recommended Order in this case.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local 12, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles, Califor-
nia, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and relet-
ter the subsequent paragraphs.
"(b) Publish the attached notice in the next edi-
tion of its newsletter."
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD J. BOYCE, Administrative Law Judge. This
matter was tried in Los Angeles, California, on July 27,
1982. The charge was filed by Associated Engineers (As-
sociated) on April 14, 1981. The complaint issued on
April 30, 1981, and alleges that International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 12, AFL-CIO (Respondent)
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National
Labor Relations Act (Act) on April 13 and 14, 1981, by
certain picketing and related conduct in furtherance of a
dispute with Associated.
I. JURISDICTION
Associated is a surveying and civil engineering firm lo-
cated in Ontario, California. It annually performs serv-
ices worth over $50,000 for customers in California
which meet the Board's direct inflow and/or outflow ju-
risdictional standards, and thus is a "person" and an "em-
ployer" within the pertinent sections of the Act, engaged
in and affecting commerce within Section 2(6) and (7).
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent is a labor organization within Section 2(5)
of the Act.
IlI. THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
A. Evidence
The project in question involved the regrading and
paving of 16th Street in Upland, California. The jobsite
was about 6000 feet long, east-west, and 60 to 70 feet
wide. Associated, under contract with the City of
Upland, began performing various surveying functions
on March 31, 1981. Other contractors included Ace
Pipeline, Barrett Construction Co., San Gabriel Water
Co., and Southern California Gas Co.'
It is established by the pleadings that, of these several
contractors, Respondent had a dispute with only Associ-
ated at the times of the alleged misconduct. Associated
had withdrawn the previous summer from the multiem-
ployer association through which it had negotiated with
Respondent, upon expiration of the association bargain-
ing agreement. Its subsequent negotiations with Respond-
ent, as one of several independents bargaining jointly, re-
sulted in a strike in August 1980. Associated's surveying
employees have not had union representation since.
Robert Dye, a business representative for Respondent,
testified that Respondent "was having a good deal of
problems with nonunion survey crews" at relevant times,
and that he "had been asked to go to work on the prob-
lem." To that end, Dye admittedly had followed the
truck of James Imbiorski, one of Associated's survey
crew party chiefs, from time to time, to locate projects
on which Associated was working.
On April 13, 1981, Dye entered the west end of the
16th Street project, his professed purpose being to con-
duct a "routine job check."2 On his arrival, he came
upon the foreman for Barrett Construction, Bill Douglas.
He and Douglas were acquaintances, and Barrett was
signatory to an agreement with Respondent. Dye men-
tioned that Respondent was having "some disputes with
some survey employers" in the area, and asked if Doug-
las knew who was doing the surveying on that project.
Douglas, replying that he was not "real sure," suggested
that they "go see."
Dye and Douglas, in separate vehicles, drove east
toward the surveying crew, which was working about
midpoint on the tract. As they approached, Dye recog-
nized the crew as Associated's. He and Douglas parked
to the west of one of the survey crew's trucks and got
out of their vehicles. Dye testified that he then told
Douglas the crew's identity, and asked if Associated was
performing under contract with Barrett. Barrett's agree-
ment with Respondent forbade subcontracting to firms
not signatory to an agreement with Respondent. Douglas
answered, according to Dye, that he did not know, but
was "going to check."
Douglas presently walked to the Associated truck,
where Imbiorski, the crew's party chief, was seated
inside. Douglas stated, according to Imbiorski, that Dye
I Each of whom is a "person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce" for purposes of Sec. 8(bX4Xi) and (ii) (B).
I Dye testified, "We check jobs from time to time as far as union dues
and proper referrals or clearances to those jobs." At pains to avert the
impression that he had come to the site because of Associated's presence,
Dye averred that he "just stumbled across the job."
1173
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had said Associated was nonunion and consequently
wanted him, Douglas, "to kick [Associated] off the job."
Imbiorski responded, so he related, that Douglas should
tell Dye to "go to hell"; that Associated "had a contract
with the city" and did not work for Dye.
Imbiorski next alit from the truck and heatedly con-
fronted Dye, still standing near his car, face to face. Im-
biorski assertedly declared that Associated "had a con-
tract with the city" and had "every right" to be there,
"possibly more of a right than" Dye had, with Dye
countering that he had members "working on the job"
and had "every right" to be there, too. Dye testified that
Imbiorski said nothing about Associated's having a con-
tract with the city, otherwise largely agreeing with Im-
biorski's rendition. Dye stated that this incident "fired
[him] up ... [to] . . . find out what's going on" as con-
cerned Associated's being on the job.
About the time of the encounters just described in-
volving Imbiorski, Douglas, and Dye, all but one of Bar-
rett's six or so employees, some operating heavy equip-
ment several hundred feet away, shut down their pieces
and stopped working. Moments later, leaving the site
after his exchange with Imbiorski, Dye stopped and
spoke with the remaining Barrett employee, operating a
paddlewheel scraper, whereupon that employee stopped
working as well.
Regarding the impetus behind the Barrett employees'
stoppage, Imbiorski testified that, with the help of the
rearview mirror on his truck, he saw Dye park at the left
rear corner of the truck and, emerging from his car,
wave his arm to one group of Barrett employees, then to
another, prompting all but the scraper operator to gather
around him at his car. Imbiorski's recital continued that
he could not hear Dye's words to the employees, but
that, having left his truck to deliver survey calculations
to his instrument man, he heard one of the assembled
employees ask, "So they are nonunion, what do you
want us to do?" This all happened, according to Im-
biorski, before his encounters with Douglas and then
Dye.
Dye testified, on the other hand, that he and Douglas
parked not near the Associated truck, but some 250 to
300 feet west of it; that he never made a "waving
motion" to any of the Barrett employees; and that his
only conversation with Barrett personnel, other than
Douglas and, later, the scraper operator, was with a bull-
dozer operator named Fred. Dye recounted that Fred
approached him just after his confrontation with Im-
biorski, asking what was "going on." Dye answered, so
he testified, that "a survey employer that had terminated
his [labor] contract" was on the project, and that Dye
was "trying to find out who he is working for." Dye tes-
tified that he could not remember if Barrett employees
other than Fred approached him, and that he did not
think others were present when he spoke to Fred.
Concerning his conversation with the scraper opera-
tor, Dye stated that, incidental to his asking to see the
employee's union card and dispatch slip, the employee
inquired about the "commotion" that had just taken
place. Dye assertedly responded much as he had to Fred.
Dye conceded that, given the scraper's distance from the
so-called commotion and its operating noise, he did not
think the scraper operator could have heard his ex-
change with Imbiorski.
About 3:15, having learned about the stoppage, Bar-
rett's president Ian Nascimento arrived at the site. The
Barrett employees, still idle, explained to him that "the
business agent had . . . shut the job down because of a
. . .nonunion crew." They did not resume work that
day. Normal quitting time was 3:30.
Later that afternoon, in his office, Dye received a call
from a Barrett partner, Jim Scully, informing him that
Associated was on the project pursuant to a contract
with the city and not with Barrett. This, Dye averred,
was his first information that Associated was not a Bar-
rett subcontractor. Dye then discussed the situation by
telephone with Respondent's business manager in Los
Angeles, Bill Waggoner, who counseled that, since Asso-
ciated was "working for the city . . . the only way that
[Respondent] could picket . . . would be to picket for
prevailing wages," provided that evidence could be ob-
tained that Associated was paying below area standards.
That evening, Dye and other union officials spoke
with two of Associated's 16th Street employees, Nick
Rachael and Sean Carroll, professedly concluding as a
result that Associated's pay indeed was substandard.s
About 7 o'clock the next morning, April 14, Dye and
another union official, Tom Wadman, appeared outside
the site, where they awaited the arrival of the Associated
crew. When the Associated employees drove onto the
project a few minutes later, Dye and Wadman followed
in their cars, parking, in Dye's words, "as close as possi-
ble" to them when they parked. Once parked, Dye and
Wadman left their cars, removing picket signs as they
did so, and began walking around the Associated crew,
signs in hand, singing a ditty about looking for the union
label. Dye testified that he and Wadman picketed "as
close as [they] could get" to the Associated employees
"without stopping their work, or anybody else's work."
Their signs stated:
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS UNFAIR
NOT PAYING PREVAILING WAGES
OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 12
The Barrett employees, said by Dye to have been
working at points "scattered all over" the site, shut
down their equipment and left soon after the picketing
onset. The employees of Ace Pipeline, San Gabriel
Water Co., and Southern California Gas Co. also widely
dispersed over the site, quickly followed suit. The Asso-
ciated crew left the project at about noon. Picketing then
ceased.
Imbiorski testified that, after Dye and Wadman re-
moved the picket signs from their cars, they "raised up
and waved them" over their heads while facing some of
the Barrett employees. He stated that this lasted 5 or 10
s The validity of this conclusion need not be passed upon. Respond-
ent's president Robert Mills testified that the 16th Street project being in
part federally funded, Associated endeavored to comply with the Davis-
Bacon Act requirement that prevailing wages be paid. Mills stated that
Associated used Respondent's standard area agreement as its guide in this
respect.
1174
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 12 (ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS)
seconds-"until the Barrett equipment ceased to work."
Dye denied that he and Wadman waved the signs in this
manner; and Nascimento, present at the time, testified
that he could not recall seeing this.
Imbiorski also testified that, before the crews of the
contractors other than Barrett stopped working, he saw
employees of San Gabriel Water Co. and either Ace
Pipeline or Southern California Gas Co. walk up to and
have conversation with Dye as he picketed. 4 Imbiorski
did not purport to have heard what was said, Dye
denied that these conversations occurred, denying as
well that he or Wadman spoke to anyone at the site that
morning. He elaborated, "We have been trained not to
speak when we are carrying picket signs."
Those testifying were Imbiorski, Dye, Nascimento,
and Robert Mills, Associated's president.
B. Conclusions
Credibility. Imbiorski is credited that Dye, on April 13,
beckoned to the Barrett employees by arm motion, and
that all but the scraper operator promptly shut down
their machines and gathered around him. Not only was
Imbiorski's testimonial demeanor more forthright and
convincing than Dye's, but Dye's testimony was flawed
by vagueness in certain critical respects-that he could
not remember if Barrett employees other than Fred ap-
proached him, and that he did not think others were
present when he spoke to Fred. Had there not been such
a gathering, moreover, it is unlikely that the scraper op-
erator, given his remoteness from the scene and the am-
bient equipment noise, would have seen or heard enough
to wonder and ask Dye about the "commotion."
Dye's credibility suffered in a more general sense, as
well. His statements that he "just stumbled across the
job" on April 13, and was there to conduct a "routine
job check," came across as schooled fabrications; and his
denial that Imbiorski said anything to him about Asso-
ciated's contract with the city, even though he would
have us believe that he was acutely concerned whether
Associated was a Barrett subcontractor in his preceding
conversation with Douglas, and despite Douglas's having
spoken with Imbiorski only moments earlier, was alto-
gether implausible.
Imbiorski also is credited that Dye and Wadman
"raised up and waved" the picket signs over their heads
on April 14, until the Barrett employees shut down their
equipment; and that employees of San Gabriel Water Co.
and either Ace Pipeline or Southern California Gas Co.
conversed with Dye, while he picketed, before the crews
of those three firms stopped working. Again, Imbiorski's
demeanor was the more impressive, and the other detrac-
tions from Dye's credibility, noted above, are relevant
here as well as there. Nascimento's testimony that he
could not recall seeing Dye and Wadman wave the signs
over their heads was not meaningfully corroborative of
Dye both because of its inconclusivity and because Nas-
cimento throughout his testimony, in demeanor and con-
4 Explaining his uncertainty whether one of those to converse with
Dye was an employee of Ace Pipeline or Southern California Gas Co.,
Imbionrski testified that the crews of the two "kind of work together
sometimes," and thus "are kind of hard to tell [apart]."
tent, gave the impression that he was walking on egg-
shells for fear of offending Respondent.
Law. To summarize the facts:
(a) Respondent had a dispute with Associated, but not
with any of the other firms on the 16th Street project.
(b) On April 13, having located the Associated crew
on the site, Dye made beckoning motions with his arm,
whereupon all but one of the Barrett employees shut
down their equipment, gathered around Dye for a time,
and did not resume work that day.
(c) Soon after on April 13, Dye spoke to the remaining
Barrett employee, the scraper operator, after which he
likewise stopped working.
(d) On April 14, Dye and Wadman waved picket signs
over their heads at the onset of picketing, whereupon the
Barrett employees stopped working.
(e) Soon after on April 14, while picketing, Dye had
conversations with employees of San Gabriel Water Co.
and either Ace Pipeline or Southern California Gas Co.,
after which the crews of those three firms stopped work-
ing.
It is concluded that Dye's beckoning motions and en-
suing remarks to the neutral Barrett's employees on
April 13, including his remarks to the scraper operator
and regardless of what he actually said, in each instance
induced and encouraged those employees to stop work-
ing within clause (i) of Section 8(bX4). The same conclu-
sion is dictated as concerns the waving of the picket
signs on April 14; Dye's conversations, while picketing,
with employees of the two neutral firms other than Bar-
rett; and the picketing in general, it being intertwined
with the other (i) conduct that day. As the Supreme
Court stated in Electrical Workers IBEW Local 501 v.
NLRB (Samuel Langer), 341 U.S. 694, 701 (1951): "The
words 'induce and encourage' are broad enough to in-
clude in them every form of influence and persuasion.s
It is further concluded that, by their success, these acts
of (i) inducement and encouragement perforce constitut-
ed coercion and restraint, within clause (ii) of Section
8(b)(4), against the neutral firms whose employees
stopped working. Plumbers Local 370 (Baughan Plumb-
ing), 157 NLRB 20, 21 (1966).
It is concluded, finally, that even though Associated
did not have a contractual relationship with any of the
firms whose employees stopped working, Respondent's
(i) and (ii) conduct had the requisite cease-doing-business
object within subsection (B) of Section 8(bX4). Salem
Building Trades Council (Cascade Employers Assn.), 163
NLRB 33, 35 (1967).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent violated Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act on April 13, 1981, when, in furtherance of a dis-
pute with Associated, it effectively induced and encour-
aged employees of Barrett Construction Co. to stop
working; and, on April 14, 1981, when, in furtherance of
the same dispute, it effectively induced and encouraged
I See also Electrical Workers IBEW Local 3 (L M. Ericsson Telecom-
munications), 257 NLRB 1358, 1369 (1981); Electrical Workers IBEW
Local 3 (Diesel Construction), 205 NLRB 270 (1973); United Brotherhood
of Carpenters (Wadsworth Building Co.), 81 NLRB 802, 812 (1949).
1175
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of Barrett Construction, Ace Pipeline, San
Gabriel Water Co., and Southern California Gas Co. to
stop working.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed 6
ORDER
The Respondent, International Union of Operating En-
gineers, Local 12, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed
by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry af-
fecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the
course of his employment, to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any articles,
materials, or commodities, or to refuse to perform any
other services where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire that person or the City of Upland, California, to
cease using, handling, or otherwise dealing in the prod-
ucts of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer,
or to cease doing business with Associated Engineers or
any other person.
(b) Coercing or restraining any person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where
an object thereof is to force or to require that person or
the city of Upland, California, to cease doing business
with Associated Engineers or any other person.
2. Take this affirmative action.
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." ?7 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 31, after being signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to members customarily are posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices
e If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
7 If this 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board,"
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi-
al.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice s to the
Regional Director for Region 31 for posting by Associat-
ed Engineers, Barrett Construction Co., Ace Pipeline,
San Gabriel Water Co. and Southern California Gas Co.,
should they wish to do so, at all locations where notices
to employees customarily are posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent
has taken to comply.
8 Associated's request is denied that Respondent be required to publish
the notice in its monthly News-Record.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The trial held in Los Angeles, California, on July 27,
1982, in which we participated and had a chance to give
evidence, resulted in a decision that we had violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (iiXB) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and this notice is posted pursuant to that decision.
WE WILL NOT in any matter prohibited by Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act induce
or encourage any individual employed by any person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
to engage in a strike or refusal, in the course of his em-
ployment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or oth-
erwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities, or to refuse to perform any other serv-
ices, where an object thereof is to force or require that
person, or the City of Upland, California, to cease doing
business with Associated Engineers or any other person.
WE WILL NOT in any manner prohibited by Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act coerce
or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an in-
dustry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to
force or require that person, or the City of Upland, Cali-
fornia, to cease doing business with Associated Engineers
or any other person.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 12, AFL-
CIO
1176