Plumbers Local Union No. 307, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1361 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 307, AFL-CIO 1361
threaten to lay off employees or to close or move our plant out of Lake City,
Florida, if a union should win a representation election; promise raises or pro-
motions to employees if they refrain from voting for a union in a representation
election or if they assist us in discouraging other employees from supporting or
voting for a union in a representation election; nor , in any other manner will we
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
and protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the aforesaid labor union or any other
labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging and refusing to reinstate any
of our employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer to Jessie R. Heard, Monroe Lindsay, Catherine Williams, and
Garfield English reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and we
will make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of their discharges.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit
described below.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union, as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such an understanding
in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our Lake City, Florida,
operation, but excluding all other employees, office clerical employees,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
AERO CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE -We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Ross Build-
ing, 112 East Cass Street, Tampa, Florida, Telephone No. 223-4623, if they have any
questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Plumbers Local Union No. 307, AFL-CIO and Warren Zimmer-
man d/b/a Zimmerman Plumbing and Heating. Case No. 13-
CC-/.00. November 30, 196.
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 31, 1964, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
149 NLRB No. 118.
7 70-076-65-v of 149-^87
1362 DECISIONS' OF "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had not engaged, in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint
and recommending dismissal, of the `complaint in its entirety, as set
forth inn the attached Trial ^ Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, -the
General Counsel filed 'exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson in Chicago,
Illinois, on January 29 , 1964, on the complaint issued by the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board against Plumbers Local Union No. 307, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in illegal
picketing activities in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )(B) of the Act., In
its answer , the Respondent denied "each and every allegation of the Complaint." All
parties were represented and participated in the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to
file briefs . On or about March 31, 1964, counsel for the General Counsel and counsel
for the Respondent , filed briefs with the Trial Examiner which have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Warren Zimmerman, an individual proprietorship doing business as Zimmerman
Plumbing and Heating, is engaged in the plumbing, heating, and sewer contracting
business (primarily as a subcontractor) and operates out of Highland, Indiana. Zim-
merman's business establishment is located about 8 miles from the Illinois line. Dur-
ing the year period ending September 1963, Zimmerman performed services in States
other than the State of Indiana, particularly in the State of Illinois, valued in excess
of $50,000, and during this period purchased materials, received in substantial part
from places in States other than in State or States in which services were performed,
valued in excess of $50,000.
Calumet Flexicore Corporation, an Indiana corporation, is engaged in the manu-
facture of precast concrete floor and roof slabs. During the year preceding the hear-
ing, Calumet shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Gary, Indiana,
location to points outside the State of Indiana.
I find that Zimmerman and Calumet are employers engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
1 The charge in this proceeding was filed by Warren Zimmerman, d/b/a Zimmerman
Plumbing and Heating, herein called Zimmerman, on September 27, 1963; the complaint
was issued on November 7, 1963. Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to the
year 1963.
PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 307, AFL-CIO
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
1363
The Respondent , Plumbers Local Union No 307, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue
The rather narrow issue presented in this case is whether the activity engaged in by
the Respondent , and alleged in the General Counsel's complaint to constitute a viola-
tion of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (n ) (B) of the Act , was permissible "area standards"
picketing , or was conduct violative of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. In essence,
the General Counsel contends that the Respondent 's activities here involved did not
comply with the Moore Dry Dock 2 standards . Moie specifically , the General Coun-
sel contends that the record here shows that the construction site "was not the situs of
the dispute and that Zimmerman was not engaged in his operations at this situs" at any
time that picketing took place ; hence , it is urged , the picketing was secondary and
unlawful rather than primary and lawful . On the other hand, the Respondent con-
tends that this is an "area standards" picketing case, in which the Respondent, by
picket signs and handbills , clearly announced the purpose of the picketing to be in
protest of Zimmerman 's wages and conditions of employment , disclaimed that it was
for any objective prohibited by the Act, specifically stated that there was no intent or
attempt to induce or encourage any person engaged at the jobsite or elsewhere to
engage in a refusal to work or to handle goods , and made no request that any person
cease performing any services or cease doing business with any person.
B. The facts
The activity of the Respondent Union here involved occurred at the building site of
a medical clinic being constructed by a Dr. Mansueto at 511 Ridge Road, Munster,
Indiana, within the Respondent 's geographic jurisdiction . Dr. Mansueto , the builder
of the clinic and owner of the construction site, did not employ a general contractor
but Instead directly let the contracts for the various aspects of the project. Nick
Petsas, who had the contract for the carpentry work, also represented the owner on the
job and acted as coordinator . Zimmerman was awarded the plumbing , heating, and
sewer work.
On August 30 and 31, at a time when the actual construction of the clinic was in its
very early stages, two employees of Zimmerman installed drain tile around the below-
ground footing portion of the building. This preliminary aspect of Zimmerman's job
was completed on August 31, and his employees then left, removing such equipment
and tools as they had brought with them. So far as appears , the construction work
progressed normally until September 27, at least as concerns the other crafts working
on the building . It is also clear that, as construction progressed , Zimmerman would
return to the building site to perform the plumbing and heating work pursuant to his
contract , and also to install approximately 1,000 feet of sewerline north of the
property.3
Beginning on September 18, and continuing through October 1, the Respondent
picketed the jobsite with one or two pickets during the normal work hours of 8 a.m.
2Sailors ' Union of the Pacific ( Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 547 , 549. In that
and succeeding cases, the Board held that "picketing of the premises of a secondary
employer is primary if it meets the following conditions . ( a) the picketing Is strictly
limited to times when the situs of dispute is located on the secondary employer ' s premises ,
(b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business
at the stitus; (c) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the
situs, and (d ) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary em-
ployer ." As stated in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No 861 ( Plauche Electric, Inc .), 135 NLRB 250 , 255, the Moore Dry Dock standards
"are not to be applied on an indiscriminate `per se' basis , but are to be regarded merely
as aids in determining the underlying question of statutory violation "
3 The building site was 90 feet wide and 200 feet deep , and on the south side fronted
on Ridge Road and the public sidewalk parallel to that street. The north half of the
building site was excavated for a basement and it was in this portion of the construction
area, which was most distant from the street and about 5 feet below sidewalk elevation,
that Zimmerman ' s employees laid drain tile on August 30 and 31.
1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The pickets at all times confined themselves
to the public sidewalk in front of the jobsite. The sign they carried or otherwise dis-
played read as follows:
ZIMMERMAN
PLUMBING - HEATING
Fails to meet Prevailing
WAGES & CONDITIONS
THIS NOTICE
is addressed only to the Public. It is not addressed to any
Employers or Employees, nor is anyone asked to Cease
doing business with anyone. Please read handbill which
spells out purpose of patrolling.
PLUMBERS
UNION 307
A.F.L. - C.I.O.
In addition to picketing the jobsite, the Respondent distributed handbills at the job-
site and in the immediate neighborhood. These were given to anyone who passed by;
indeed, Zimmerman himself was offered and accepted one on the first day that the
pickets appeared. None of the workmen on the jobsite, who continued to perform
their duties despite the picketing, was approached or talked to by any of the Respond-
ent's pickets. According to Burr Burnham, business i epresentative of the Respondent,
the sole purpose of the picketing was in pursuance of the objectives stated in the hand-
bill passed out to the public, and not for the purpose of inducing employees of neutral
employers then working on the site to honor or respect the Respondent's picket line
The handbill distributed by the pickets read as follows:
PROTEST TO THE PEOPLE OF MUNSTER AND VICINITY
You will note that the job sites at 511 Ridge Road is being peaceably patrolled
by one or two persons. The plumbing on these particular job sites is being done
by Zimmerman Plumbing & Heating. Please read the information on the picket
signs. This leaflet will perhaps better explain what is contained on the signs.
The peaceful patrolling is being done by Plumbers Local Union No. 307 of the
AFL-CIO. As a union we are, of course pro-union but this is not why we are
picketing. True, we always like to see members of the union employed not only
because they are our members, but also because we know that as the result of
their intense training and experience and the completion of a five-year apprentice-
ship program these men are qualified to give the finest service and perform work
with the expert craftsmanship which they have learned. But we have an addi-
tional interest in our area. We believe it is our obligation along with other resi-
dents of the area to maintain a certain standard of living. A standard of living
comes from wages and conditions and we believe the wages and conditions which
permit the maintenance of our standard of living and your standard, are those
which prevail in the general area. Once these wages and conditions which prevail
are reduced this means that the standard of living is reduced and is not only
reduced for the mechanic but it is reduced in the entire community as well
because the merchant, the professional man and anyone whose business is
dependent upon the prevailing wage of the mechanic is hurt when prevailing
wages are not met. And, this is why we are patrolling. Zimmerman Plumbing
& Heating is not meeting prevailing wages and conditions and this in our opinion,
represents a threat to the entice community.
This notice is addressed only to the public. It is not addressed to any
employers or to any employees There is no intent or attempt to induce or
encourage employees of any employer, or any person to engage in a refusal to
work, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials and so on.
No one is requested to cease performing any services. No one is requested to
cease doing business with any one person There is no intent to have any particu-
lar work assigned to anyone, nor is there an intent to seek recognition or start
bargaining. '
We believe that the people in this area should be familiar with what is going on
and that is the sole purpose of patrolling.
PLUMBERS LOCAL' UNION NO. 307
AFFILIATED WITH A.F.L.-C.I.O.
PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 307, AFL-CIO 1365
It is undisputed that in September 1963, members of the Respondent working under
its contracts were paid $4.80 per hour plus 10 cents per hour for health and welfare
and received double time for overtime. On the other hand, Zimmerman's journeymen
employees were paid $4.40 per hour and nothing for health and welfare,_and were
compensated at time and one-half for overtime.
By September 27, brick work on the walls had progressed to the point that the pre-
cast floor slabs, supplied by Calumet Flexicore, were ready for installation. Calumet's
employees arrived that day, crossed the picket line, and laid the slabs. However, after
completing the laying of the slabs, about 2 p.m., Jack Vensel, the masonry subcon-
tractor, and his employees stopped working because of an unrelated dispute involving
the failure of Dr. Mansueto or Vensel to post a wage and welfare payment guarantee
bond covering the bricklayers and laborers.4 Calumet's men then left, as they could
not proceed, and returned to complete the slab installation about a week or 10 days
later, after Vensel had been replaced by another masonry contractor.
Picketing and handbilling ceased on October 1. Zimmerman returned to the job
between October 7 and 15. During the period of the picketing, Zimmerman visited
the job almost daily; his purpose, as he at first testified, in thus visiting the job was
"to find out why this picket was there carrying the sign ... which I didn't care for,
naturally." Later, he testified that he went to the jobsite after the picketing started in
order to "see how things were going on the job, see if it was going to be stopped" so
that, if the job were stopped, he could go the Board's Regional Office and file unfair
labor practice charges. He further testified that he did not visit the job to see if he
could proceed with his work, as there would be no work for his men until the roof
went up. Zimmerman did file charges on September 27, and on the same day executed
an affidavit, in support of a request that a temporary injunction be obtained against the
Respondent. In that affidavit, Zimmerman recited that because of the picketing "the
laborers for the brick masons and laborers for" Calumet Flexicore "have refused to
work on the site" and, as a result of such refusal, the bricklayers "are unable ... to
complete the walls" and, in consequence, Zimmerman "has been unable to complete
his contract; that there is oily two days work available for said plumbing contractor
whose [who is] due to start completion of the job on Monday, September 30, 1963."
Petsas, the coordinator on the job, testified that the plumbing was to be installed
between the brick walls and done in conjunction with the brick work as the job went
forward, prior to the roof going up. The roof work began on October 29, at least
2 weeks after Zimmerman returned to the job. Moreover, Petsas testified that during
the period of picketing he either saw Zimmerman at the job or talked to him by tele-
phone, almost daily, and that Zimmerman would on these occasions inquire how the
work was progressing "so he could get going with his plumbing." Asked whether
Zimmerman "was all geared to move in almost daily to complete some more of his
work" during the period of picketing, Petsas answered, "Yes, that would be correct."
Although Zimmerman in effect conceded that during the period of picketing he
could have proceeded with some of his work, he contended that to have done so
before the roof went up would have been to work "backwards." However, the affi-
davit he made on September 27 indicates that there was then work he could have done
but for the picketing, for he stated therein that "there is only two days work available"
for him and that he was due to start "completion of the job on Monday, September 30,
1963." Moreover, his testimony that on September 18, the day picketing began, he
"was scheduled to return when the roof was on the building," appears not only con-
trary to his affidavit but also in conflict with the testimony of Petsas that plumbing was
to be done in conjunction with the erection of the walls and the undenied fact that
Zimmerman did return 2 or 3 weeks before the roof was started on October 29.
C. Concluding findings
As articulated in the complaint , the General Counsel's theory is that as a result of
the Respondent 's picketing activities "the employees of Calumet ceased working at the
On September 27, Sidney O'Neill , the business representative of Bricklayer's Union
No. 6, came to the job and told Vensel, who was a member of that union, that no bond to
guarantee wage and welfare payments had been posted , and that in consequence Vensel
and his two men were to leave the job. Sometime later Vensel was replaced by another
masonry contractor. Up to September 27, however, Vensel and his men had worked
despite the pickets , and it seems plain that his departure from the job had no connection
with the picketing.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
construction site," that the Respondent by its acts unlawfully "induced and encouraged
individuals employed by Calumet, and by other persons" not to perform services and
"threatened, coerced and restrained Calumet and other persons engaged in commerce
,or in industries affecting commerce," and that an object thereof was "to force or
require Calumet, and other persons . to cease doing business with Zimmerman
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act." In his brief, how-
^ever, counsel for the General Counsel does not argue that anything in the record
establishes that Calumet's employees, or those of any other employer, ceased working
because of the Respondent's picketing, or were encouraged to do so by any conduct of
the Respondent other than picketing. Indeed, any such argument would be contrary
to the evidence, which establishes that the employees of Calumet and Vensel ceased
work on September 27, as set forth above, for reasons unrelated to the Respondent's
picketing. Rather, the contention is that "the requirements as spelled out by Moore
Dry Dock are not present in the case, and thus the Respondent engaged in illegal
picketing." While disclaiming a "per se" approach, and recognizing that the Moore
Dry Dock standards "cannot be applied indiscriminately," General Counsel asserts
that the facts here, read in conjunction with those standards, make out a statutory
violation. Thus it is argued that certain circumstances-and the absence of others-
establish that an object of the Respondent was to induce "employees of other
employers at the jobsite to cease work and to have their employers cease doing busi-
ness with Zimmerman." Reliance is placed upon the following factors- (1) The
Respondent did not attempt to organize or seek to represent Zimmerman's employees,
who were not on strike or picketing; (2) during the picketing Zimmerman's employees
were not present and no Zimmerman work was being performed; (3) there is no evi-
dence that the Respondent made any effort, when it commenced and continued its
activity, to ascertain whether Zimmerman or his employees were engaged in Zimmer-
man's normal operations at the jobsite, a burden which it is stated "should be on the
Respondent"; and (4) no tools or materials were left on the jobsite when Zimmer-
man's employees left the project on August 31. These considerations, it is claimed,
make clear that the jobsite was not the situs of the dispute between the Respondent and
Zimmerman and that Zimmerman was not engaged in his normal operations at the
situs during the picketing, thereby compelling the conclusion that such picketing was
illegal secondary picketing.
The Respondent, on the other hand, stresses the legend on the picket sign and the
language of the handbill, which clearly state that the protest is against the fact that
Zimmerman did not meet prevailing wages and conditions of employment. It is
pointed out that the handbill, which was addressed only to the public and not to any
employers or employees, specifically negates and disclaims any other purpose of the
picketing. Moreover, the Respondent correctly points out that it engaged in no other
conduct in support of its position. Finally, the Respondent argues that Zimmerman
was, at the times material, engaged in his normal operations at the common situs, even
though his employees were not on the job; in support of this position, attention is
called to the fact that Zimmerman checked almost daily at the site and was "geared to
move in almost daily." Accordingly, and in view of Zimmerman's September 27
affidavit and the testimony of Petsas that Zimmerman's work was to be done in con-
junction with the bricklayers as the walls progressed, it is contended that but for the
picketing Zimmerman would have worked.
The failure of the Respondent to attempt to organize or represent Zimmerman's
employees is, in my view, entirely consistent with the stated purpose of the Respond-
ent. Indeed, had any such attempt been made, it would have cast serious question
upon the truthfulness of the representations made by the Respondent in its picket
signs and handbills. Nor do I think the General Counsel's case is aided by the lack of
evidence of an inquiry by the Respondent, when picketing commenced and was con-
tinued, as to whether Zimmerman or his employees were engaged in normal opera-
tions at the jobsite. The inference is plain that the Respondent was aware that Zim-
merman had been awarded certain work. Zimmerman was present at the site on the
first day of the picketing as well as on succeeding days. I am unaware of any statutory
duty to make such an inquiry, or of any decisional rule that failure to make it is a
factor to be considered in determining whether picketing is primary or secondary.
The absence of Zimmerman's employees during the entire period of picketing does
not compel the conclusion that the picketing was secondary and illegal. That circum-
stance, as stated by the Board in Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (New Power Wire and Electric Corp.), 144 NLRB 1089, "is merely one of
the factors to be evaluated in determining whether the situs of the primary dispute is
PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 307, AFL-CIO 1367
located at the common situs during the picketing, and whether the primary employer
is then engaged in his normal business at the site " And in International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 861 (Brownfield Electric, Inc.), 145 NLRB 1163, the
Board said that whether "absence of primary employees from a common situs during
picketing of that site means that the primary employer is not engaged in his normal
business operation at the site, depends in significant part on the reasons for this
absence." See also Plumbers Local Union No. 307 (Meyers Plumbing), 146 NLRB
888. We turn then to a consideration of the reasons for and the effect of the absence
of Zimmerman's employees.
In appraising the testimony regarding the absence of Zimmerman's employees dur-
ing the picketing, and the effect of such absence on the question whether the situs of
the Respondent's dispute with Zimmerman remained at the jobsite and Zimmerman
was then engaged in his normal business at the site, it must be remembered that the
whole construction project had barely started and that while Zimmerman's men had
worked 2 days and departed, they would normally be coming back for substantial
periods although doubtless on an intermittent basis, to perform the many remaining
aspects of plumbing and heating work as yet not started, as the job progressed. By
September 27-4 weeks after two employees of Zimmerman had put in 2 days laying
drain tile-the basement walls and supports had been erected and the project was
ready for the installation of the concrete floor slabs. It seems reasonable to infer, as
I do, that on and prior to September 27, considering the minor amount of work per-
formed by Zimmerman up to then, and the fact that his contract called for the
performance of all the plumbing, heating, and sewer work, there was work he could
have done, without departing from normal procedures or working "backwards," while
picketing was in progress I am satisfied that Zimmerman was exaggerating when he
sought to convey the impression that between August 31 and sometime in the period
October 7 to 15, when he did return to perform work on the project, there was nothing
there for him to do. Not only is his sworn statement of September 27 to the contrary,
but his frequent visits to the job while picketing was going on and the inquiries he
made regarding job progress of Petsas, who as a witness affirmed that Zimmerman
"was all geared to move in almost daily to complete some more of his work," convey
the contrary impression
In sum, Zimmerman had contracted to perform services which in terms of the time
involved to accomplish would span virtually the entire period of construction, even
though for limited periods he or his employees would not physically be engaged in
work on the jobsite. He had begun his work prior to the picketing, the job proceeded
after picketing began, Zimmerman checked almost daily during the picketing with the
coordinator of the project and, I am convinced, would have worked between Septem-
ber 18 and October 1 but for the picketing. I find, therefore, that the situs of the
primary dispute between the Respondent and Zimmerman was located at the common
situs during the picketing, and that Zimmerman was then engaged in his normal
business at the site Accordingly, I find that the Respondent picketed Zimmerman's
operations at the common situs here involved in accordance with Moore Dry Dock
standards. As there is no other evidence fiom which it can be found that the picket-
ing was actually aimed at achieving an unlawful secondary objective, I am constrained
to find that the Respondent's picketing was not unlawful within the intendment of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n) (B) of the Act.
In view of the foregoing, it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirely.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Warren Zimmerman, d/b/a Zimmerman Plumbing and Heating, and Calumet
Flexicore Corporation are employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act
2. Plumbers Local Union No. 307, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiztaion within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Plumbers Local Union No. 307 has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)i0and (ii)(B) and Section 2(6)and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed
in its entirety.