Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 178

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 725 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO 178
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 178 and
Springday Company, Division of Dayco Corpora-
tion . Case 17-CC-411
September 25, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On June 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Sidney J. Barban
issued his decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent Union had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions and supporting briefs to certain of
the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National 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 hearings and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
'Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local
Union No. 178, their officers, representatives, and
agents, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
The Respondent's exceptions are in part directed to certain credibility
findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy
not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3) We find insufficient
basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings in this case
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
725
SIDNEY J BARBAN, Trial Examiner- This matter was
heard at Springfield, Missouri, on March 12, 1970, upon
allegations in the complaint issued January 23, 1970 (based
upon a charge filed on November 26, 1969, and amended
on December 23, 1969)" The complaint alleges that the
above-named Respondent (herein the Union), in support
of a labor dispute with Broyles Plumbing Company (herein
Broyles), established and maintained a picket line at the
Springfield, Missouri, facility of the above-named Charging
Party (herein Spnngday), at time that Broyles was not
engaged in business operations at Springday, coercing per-
sons engaged in an industry affecting commerce, and induc-
ing individuals employed by Springday and Bramer Con-
struction Company ' (herein Bramer) (with which two
companies the Union had no dispute) to cease work in
the course of their employment, with an object of forcing
and requiring Springday and others to cease doing business
with Broyles, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii) (B)
of the Act
The answer to the complaint denies the commission
of any unfair labor practices. It is admitted that the Union
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act,
and that Springday, which shipped from its Springfield
facility to places,outside Missouri goods valued in excess
of $50,000 in a recent annual period, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
U )on the entire record in this case, from observation
of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs
filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. RELATIONSHIP OF THE COMPANIES
Spnngday is engaged in manufacturing operations at
its Springfield facility, employing in excess of 1,000 produc-
tion and maintenance employees who are represented for
the purposes of collective bargaining by the United Rubber
Workers, a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act. During the period here in question, Spnngday had
engaged Bramer to construct an addition to its plant and
Bramer was engaged in this project upon the Spnngday
premises using employees represented by the Carpenters
and the Laborers unions. Springday also engaged Broyles
to furnish labor to install a boiler on the plant premises,
for which Broyles was to be paid on a time basis. As
described hereinafter, Broyles began this work on November
24, but was dismissed from the plant premises before the
end of the workday after the Union began picketing at
the edge of the plant premises, and the work was thereafter
completed by workers employed by Springday. No relation-
ship between Broyles and Bramer is shown in the record.
' All dates herein, unless otherwise noted, are in 1969
185 NLRB No. 102
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ii. GEOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS
The Springday plant is located at the northeast corner
of the intersection of Battlefield Road and Scenic Drive,
in an isolated, somewhat "rural" area There is a facility
on the northwest corner of that intersection referred to
as Horner Box Company. There is also one farmhouse
in the vicinity z Other residences, and homes being devel-
oped, are some distance away and apparently not in the
normal traffic pattern involving the Springday plant. There
are no other shops or commercial enterprises in the area
The Springday premises has a frontage on Battlefield
Road in excess of 1,200 feet (measured by the scale of
G.C's Exh. 3). It would appear from one photograph
in evidence that the premises may be enclosed, at least
in part, by a chain link (or similar construction) fence.
The main entrance to the plant, used by the production
and maintenance employees, Bramer, Broyles on November
24, and by others visiting the plant, is on Battlefield Road.
This is approximately 250 feet from the eastern corner
of the premises. The boilerroom in which Broyles was
to perform services is set back approximately 360 feet
from Battlefield Road. If measured along the line of Battle-
field Road, the entrance to the boilerroom from a small
paved area immediately in front of the boilerroom (marked
with an "x" on G.C.'s Exh. 3) is approximately 540 feet
west from the main entrance road and about 420 feet
east from the point on Scenic Drive at which Springday
maintains an entrance to the plant for its research and
development employees.
According to the uncontroverted testimony of John
McCarty, Jr (herein "McCarty"), the business agent of
the Union, Battlefield Road is "fairly heavily traveled"
by automobiles.' There are no pedestrian walkways on
Battlefield Road at this point and there are no street
lights illuminating the area at night.
iIi. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Start of the Picketing
Broyles began work in the Springday boilerroom about
8 a.m., on November 24. The Broyles truck, apparently
distinctively marked, was parked on the paved strip in
front of the boilerroom. McCarty states that he caused
a picket to be set up at the Springday plant that day
about 12 noon, at which time, he asserts, the Broyles
truck was parked at the plant. The picket sign, carried
by Virgil Ebright, was hand lettered, the name of the
Union being in heavy black letters, with the remaining
legend considerably smaller in size. The sign reads as follows:
i General Counsel has requested that the transcript be corrected by
the insertion of the word "farmhouse" after the word "one" on 1
23,, p 126 No opposition has been filed The record is clear that
this was the reference in the testimony and accords with my recollection
The motion is granted.
' In its brief, the Union contends that it was prejudiced because
the Trial Examiner sustained General Counsel's objection to the further
question that Battlefield Road "is one of the major traffic headaches
in the city right now, isn't it?" However, aside from the fact that the
inquiry was cumulative, McCarty was not shown competent to testify
to this conclusion
LOCAL UNION 178
PLUMBERS AND FITTERS
-is protesting the substandard conditions of employ-
ment of employees of BROYLES PLBG COMPANY
on this job.
-is not attempting to organize the employees of said
Co. and is not requesting recognition by said Co.
-is not attempting to induce any individual employed
by any person in the course of his employment not
to pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not
to perform any services.
-is not attempting to induce any person to cease doing
business with said company.
-does not have a dispute with any other craft or
employer on this job.
This notice is addressed only to the general public °
The picket at first was observed some 60-70 feet west
of the main entrance on Battlefield Road, but, about 1:30
p m., a man was seen directing the picket to walk farther
east in the immediate vicinity of the main entrance, where
the picket thereafter carved his sign, crossing the entrance
road on every second or third turn. Since only McCarty
was shown to have control over the picketing, it is inferred
that it was he who directed the picket to walk at the
main entrance rather than farther west along Battlefield
Road
Before 2 o'clock that afternoon, Springday engineer
Patterson told the two Broyles' employees working in the
boilerroom that it had been decided that they should leave
the plant at 3 o'clock that day. Patterson testified that
the Broyles' workers left about that time. Shortly after
3 p.m., Patterson saw a Broyles' truck on Battlefield Road
with two men driving west along Battlefield Road.
McCarty testified that "in the neighborhood of 3 o'clock"
he saw the truck moved inside the plant. He further asserted
that he did not see the truck leave the plant, or see
the truck at all thereafter. In fact, McCarty testified that
he had no knowledge that Broyles' men "had ever left
the project." This is difficult to believe. The evidence is
convincing that Broyles' employees left the Springday plant
about 3 p.m It is inferred therefore that the Broyles'
truck passing the plant at that time was the truck which
had just previously been on the Springday premises. McCar-
ty must have seen it, unless he had left before that time,
which is not necessarily inconsistent with his specific testi-
mony (although the impression was that he had remained).
His uncertainty as to when picketing ceased that afternoon
also might indicate that he left before the cessation of
the afternoon picket activity. In any event, the Union
must be charged with the knowledge of Ebright, the picket,
who had been placed there to serve the Union's purposes
I find that Ebright who was unquestionably there at the
time, saw the truck and Broyles' two employees leave
' The Union sought to prove that at the time the picket was set
up, McCarty was aware of the working conditions of Broyles ' employees
through conversations with Horace Pittman who had worked for Broyles
approximately 7 months previous , and from others unnamed General
Counsel argues that this evidence is not entitled to credence or weight
It is considered unnecessary to resolve this issue in order to decide
this matter , as set forth hereinafter
PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO 178
the plant about 3 p.m., that afternoon.' McCarty, as his
"best judgment," said that the picket left that afternoon
about 4.45 p.m.
Springday's Attempts to Contact the Union
Richard Kortjohn, personnel manager for Springday, sent
the following telegrams to McCarty, addressed to his home
and to his office, about 5 30 p.m., on November 24:
We protest the picket by your union at the Springday
plant Your picketing was conducted while Broyles
Plumbing Co was not on the premises We have estab-
lished an entrance to be used exclusively by Broyles
Plumbing Co and we demand that you cease picketing
our main entrance on Battlefield Road
At the time these telegrams were sent, Kortjohn stated
he did not know exactly which gate would be reserved
for Broyles However, he was advised shortly thereafter
that Broyles would use the Scenic Drive gate normally
used by the 75 research and development employees Broyles
was notified that evening to use only the Scenic Drive
entrance when arriving for work the next morning.
McCarty testified that he received these telegrams (or
one of them) at his office at 10 a m., the next morning
He stated that he did not remove the picket, which was
again at the Springday premises that morning , because
he "had no knowledge as to whether the truck and the
men had ever left the project or not."6
As considered in more detail below, McCarty, his son
Larry McCarty, and James R. Mills an executive board
member of the Union, also picketed the Springday premises
on the evening of November 24. Kortjohn, who apparently
was unaware that McCarty was on the picket line, called
his home that evening about 11 p.m., and asked for him.
Kortjohn told Mrs. McCarty (who identified herself) that
the pickets were back, that he had reports of employee
difficulty in getting into the parking lot on plant premises
and asked if there were any way that she could "get
word" to her husband, or that Kortjohn could talk to
him, to which she replied, "No, I don't know where he
is or what time he will be back " At this point, Kortjohn
complained to Mrs McCarty that McCarty had put up
the picket even though Broyles was not then on the premises,
to which she answered that McCarty would not do this.
The following morning , notwithstanding the establishment
of a separate gate for Broyles, as described hereinafter,
Springday notified Broyles not to return to the plant until
further advised Broyles did not return to the plant on
November 25. When picketing continued in the vicinity
of the main gate, Kortjohn, about noon, called McCarty's
office, at which time his secretary told Kortjohn that McCar-
' The Union stated at the hearing that Ebright had been subpenaed,
but was unable to come to the hearing to testify because of illness.
Though advised that the Trial Examiner would consider a continuance
in order that his testimony might be secured , the Union did not request
this action
' The Union claims in its brief that it was prejudiced by the Trial
Examiner's ruling striking McCarty's testimony concerning trucks McCar-
ty said he knew had been hidden on other projects This is rejected.
The Trial Examiner considers McCarty's problems on other projects,
if any, too remote to open them up for litigation in this matter
727
ty was out of the office, and that she did not know where
he was, or when he would be back. Kortjohn then told
the secretary that Broyles was not working at the plant,
but the picketing continued at the main employees' entrance,
and asked that she locate McCarty and inform him. She
said she would try.
That afternoon, Kortjohn sent an identically worded
telegram and a letter to McCarty confirming that Broyles
was not on Springday premises, asserting that the picketing
was interfering with deliveries and services, and stating
that unfair labor practice charges were being filed McCarthy
testified that he received these communications the next
day, November 26, by which time the picket had been
removed.
The Union contends that Springday was also responsible
for communications between Bramer and McCarty on
November 25, which will be discussed below in connection
with the picketing activities of that day.
Picketing During the Evening , November 24
About 8 o'clock on the evening of the 24th, McCarty,
Larry McCarty, and James Mills began carrying the picket
sign previously described, in the vicinity of the main entrance
to the Springday premises It was dark, and a number
of persons coming into the plant stopped their cars and
asked the pickets what the cause of the activity was.'
Richard L. Pittman (herein Pittman), who works on the
11-7 shift, testified that when he stopped his car right
at the main employees' entrance on Battlefield Road that
evening, a picket detached himself from a group of men
standing on the corner of the drive and walked up to
Pittman's car. Pittman testified that "I asked him what
had happened, and he said that the Company had employed
nonunion help to come in and do work, and if I remember
right, he said something about pipefitters or plumbers,
I can't recall on dust that, and later on he stated if I
was union not to cross the line, and if I was otherwise
go ahead, and I stated well, I was a supervisor, I was
going ahead."
McCarty, Larry McCarty, and Mills, though they could
not identify Pittman, each testified substantially that they
told questioners that night that the sign was an informational
banner and that they were protesting substandard wages
and conditions paid by Broyles. Each denied telling any
of the questioners that evening that they should not cross
the picket line if they were union
The testimony of Pittman as to this incident is credited.
His testimony was brief, straightforward, and gave the
appearance of veracity. It is also consistent with other
evidence in the record which, as discussed hereinafter,
is convincing that the Union's picketing appeal was directed
to those persons using Spnngday' s main entrance, and
particularly Springday's employees, rather than an unidenti-
fied "general public," as the Union seems to contend.
' Spnngday works three shifts, from 7 a in to 3 p in to 11 p in ,
and 11 p in to 7 am The evidence indicates that McCarty was aware
of the shift changes
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About 11:30 that evening, after the shift change, the
three men departed and the picketing ceased that evening 9
Picketing During November 25
About 5 a in, November 25, Spnngday posted signs
at the Battlefield Road entrance, and at the Scenic Drive
entrance to the plant. These were handlettered. The sign
at the Battlefield Road entrance, which was on a pole
stuck into the ground on the east side of the entrance,
facing so that it could be seen by a person walking in
an easterly direction toward, or standing at the entranceway,
read as follows:
NOTICE
This Entrance is not to be
used by Employees of
Broyles Plumbing Co.
Broyles Plumbing Co. Employees
are to use Entrance on
Scenic Dr
THE SPRINGDAY PLANT
The sign at the Scenic Drive entrance was likewise on
a pole stuck into the ground. It restricted that gate to
Broyles and Spnngday research and development employees,
and advised all others to use other gates.
About 6 o'clock that morning, Ebright began picketing
again at the main entrance to the plant on Battlefield
Road. There was no picketing at the Scenic Drive entrance
Early that same morning, Paul A. Bramer, Jr, an officer
of Bramer Construction Company, called McCarty at his
office but was unable to reach him. McCarty called Bramer
back about 11 a.m Bramer related the conversation as
follows: "I told Mr. McCarty that I understand there was
a problem at Springday because of a Plumbers picket that
was on the premises, and Mr. McCarty said that there
was a picket at the Springday location because there was
a nonunion plumbing contractor performing work in the
building I told him that this plumbing contractor was
not a subcontractor of ours, he was not employed by
us, and that I was interested in getting the picket off
so that our people would return to work and we could
' There is a possible intimation in the Union's brief that this cessation
of picketing was connected with Kortjohn's earlier call to Mrs McCarty
("At 11 p in Kortjohn called McCarty's wife at home and told her
that Broyles employees were not present at Springday The picketing
was stopped at 11 30 p in " This has been considered and is found
to be without support in the record Mrs McCarty stated that she
did not know where her husband was or how to get in touch with
him There is no evidence that she did send McCarty a message at
the picket line Telephoning would appear out of the question at that
place and time McCarty, further, throughout the hearing denied any
knowledge that Broyles' truck or men had ever left Springday 's premises
complete our contract, and Mr McCarty said that the
picket would remain on the premises as long as the nonunion
plumbing contractor was there. I asked him what it would
take to get the picket off, and he said that if Springday
would get rid of the nonunion plumbing contractor and
give the work to his people, that he would take the picket
off in a minute. . He further said that he wanted
someone with authority from Springday to call him and
tell him that this would be carried out, and I told him
that I would pass the information on to Springday."'
Bramer testified on cross-examination that his reason
for calling McCarty was "Because I was interested in
getting the picket off the job so that we could continue
with our work " There is no other evidence in the record
as to the effect of the picketing upon Bramer's operation
at Springday
At approximately 2 to 2 30 p.m., Bramer states that
McCarty called him back to advise that no one from
Springday had contracted him, "and he said the picket
would stay on there until they did and that was it."
McCarty's account of these conversations, in pertinent
part, is as follows. "Mr Bramer asked me what the picketing
was about at the Springday plant, . . . and I dust told
him it was an informational picket banner . . Well,
he says, "You know I have a job out there and I am
in the process of being able to collect some money off
that and I need it . I says, You have known me
for a number of years and you know that I don't want
to hurt anybody ' I says, `If there is some solution that
can be worked out, I will be glad to take and work
that out.' " McCarty further testified that Bramer told him
that Kortjohn had contacted him because it was thought
that Bramer could get the picket line removed McCarty
stated Bramer then asked, "What would it take?. . . I
need to complete my job," to which McCarty replied,
"Well, I like to see things straightened up." Bramer then
said, according to McCarty, that he would see what he
could do, and in a later telephone conversation he told
McCarty that the had been in contact with Springday
and that McCarty would be getting a telephone call. McCar-
ty asserted that he received no telephone call and had
no meeting with Springday.
The Union argues that Bramer should be discredited
because, it is asserted, he made the call to McCarty and
testified under pressure from Springday, and was not clear
in his description of the circumstances of the calls, while,
it is urged, McCarty was "quite specific and clear" in
his testimony about these conversations, and because his
version was consistent with the Union's position that it
was engaged in informational picketing only, protesting
Broyles' substandard conditions.
However, it did not appear to me that Bramer testified
"under stress" as the Union claims, but on the contrary,
he made a favorable impression, giving a credible account
' Although the objection was not made at the time that the testimony
was taken , the Union argues in its brief that both Bramer's testimony
and that of Pittman referred to above should be disregarded because
not alleged in the complaint However , it is not required that General
Counsel allege his evidence in the complaint, and, in any event, these
matters were thoroughly litigated at the hearing and may properly be
decided here
PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 178
of the conversations with McCarty.10 McCarty testified
under a handicap, because of a hearing problem, but rather
than being clear and specific, as claimed, I found the
conversations, as he related them, to be vague and evasive.
Moreover, I am convinced, from the record as a whole,
that it was not McCarty's intent, as the Union asserts,
to engage only in "informational" activity and avoid enmesh-
ing others in the dispute with Broyles, but that his true
purpose was that stated to Bramer.
At the outset, notwithstanding McCarty's testimony that
the picket sign was "carried as close to the boilerroom
where, to our knowledge, [the] work was being performed
as we could carry it," the evidence is that McCarty directed
the picket to an area to the east, closer to the main
entrance to Springday, rather than somewhat farther to
the west, where he would have been closer to the boilerroom,
in front of which the Broyles truck was parked at the
time. I also find it difficult to believe that McCarty did
not know or was not made aware that the Broyles truck
left the Springday premises about 3 p.m. on the 24th.
It is further quite clear that McCarty did not return to
the Springday plant at 8 p.m. on the evening fo the 24th
to engage in publicity picketing addressed to the general
public. The area was dark, without any street illumination,
and with no pedestrian traffic which might be interested
in reading the relatively small lettering on the sign. It
was manifestly not addressed to the automotive traffic
passing by. The picketing that evening was obviously direct-
ed to those who might use the main entrance of the plant
that evening, and in particular the Springday employees
coming in on the 11 p.m. shift. After that change of
shift the pickets disbanded and left the premises. The fact
that these activities were designed to induce a cessation
of work among Springday employees is further confirmed
by the testimony of Richard Pittman that he was asked
by the picket not to cross the line if he were union
McCarty testified that about 4 p.m. on the 25th he
ordered that the picket be removed because he thought
that the public had been well informed as to the picket
by "publicity through the news media, et cetera." Counsel
for the Union in a letter to counsel for Springday, dated
November 26, stated to be in response to the correspondence
of Kortjohn to the Union, asserted that "the picket has
been withdrawn" in reliance "on your statement that there
are no employees of Broyles Plumbing Co. at work at
this time."
Conclusions
From the above, it is clear that the Union's picketing
activity was conducted in such a manner, and at times
and places, that would induce and encourage employees
of Spnngday and Bramer, as well as others using Sprinday's
main entrance, to cease work and to refuse to perform
services in the course of their employment, and thereby
10 I have carefully considered the Union's arguments concerning the
circumstances of Bramer 's call to McCarty, and find, in accordance
with Bramer's testimony, that he called McCarty, before speaking to
Spnngday, and had not been advised that Springdgy wanted him to
call McCarty to get the picket line removed, but did so because he
wished to have the picket removed in aid of his own operations
729
to threaten, coerce, and restrain Springday, in order that
Springday would be forced and required to cease doing
business with Broyles As the record shows, the Union's
tactics indeed succeeded in disrupting the business relation-
ship between Springday and Broyles
The union contends that these were not its objectives,
pointing particularly to the words on its picket sign . Howev-
er, the Union's conduct rendered the disavowals on the
sign rather sterile Instead of avoiding the enmeshment
of neutral parties and picketing only Broyles, the Union
deliberately picketed as close as possible to the main entrance
used by Springday employees and others, rather than close
to the area where the Union admittedly knew the work
was being done. The Union further picketed in the evening
of the 24th at a time and under circumstances deliberately
designed to encourage and induce Springday employees
coming in on the 11-7 shift to cease work. This is confirmed
by Pittman, who testified to a direct appeal from the
picket not to go in to work. The objective of the Union
is revealed by the testimony of Bramer that McCarty asserted
that the picket would be removed if "Spnngday would
get rid of the nonunion plumbing contractor and give
the work to his people."
The parties have extensively argued whether the Union's
purpose in picketing Springday was further evidenced by
the fact that a considerable part of the picketing took
place when Broyles was not on the plant premises (the
Union asserts that it was unaware that he had left), and
that the picketing on the 25th continued at the main
entrance although the posted sign forbade Broyles to use
the entrance (the Union claims that it was not informed
which entrance has been assigned to Broyles). While these
factors tend to confirm the findings and conclusions previ-
ously stated, that the Union deliberately sought by its
picket activity to put pressure on Springday in order to
force Springday to get rid of Broyles, those findings and
conclusions were reached upon the record as a whole,
which clearly supports those findings and conclusions quite
independently of the fact that the Union picketed Spring-
day's premises while Broyles was not on the premises,
and continued to picket the main gate after it was posted
against use by Broyles.
On the basis of the above and the record as a whole,
it is found and concluded that the Union, Respondent
herein, by its picketing activities at the Spnngday plant
on November 24 and 25, engaged in conduct in violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Springday is and at all material times has been an
employer engaged in commerce withing the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2. The Union and United Rubber Workers are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by Springday and Bramer to engage in -refusals in the
course of their employment to perform services, with
an object of forcing or requiring Springday to cease doing
business with Broyles , and thereby threatening , coercing,
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and restraining Springday with the object aforesaid, the
Union, Respondent herein, has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, which unfair labor practices
affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that'the Union , Respondent herein,
has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain action designed to effectuate the purposes of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that Respondent Plumbers & Steamfitters
Local Union No. 178, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Inducing or encouraging, by picketing or any other
means, any individual employed by a person engaged in
commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce (other
than Broyles Plumbing Company), to engage in a strike
or a refusal in the course of his employment to perform
services, where an object there of is to force or require
Springday Company, Division of Dayco Corporation, or
any other person to cease doing business with Broyles
Plumbing Company.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Springday Com-
pany, Division of Dayco Corporation or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
(other than Broyles Plumbing Company), where an object
thereof is to force or require Springday Company, Division
of Dayco Corporation, or any other person to cease doing
business with Broyles Plumbing Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 17, after being duly signed by the Respondent,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 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 Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations,
be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and
order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
in the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board "
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region
17 sufficient copies of said notice, to be furnished by
him for posting by Springday Company, Division of Dayco
Corporation, and Bramer Construction Company, if they
are willing, at places where said notice will come to the
attention of their employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations in the
complaint that the Union, Respondent herein, engaged in
conduct designed to force or require Bramer Construction
company to cease doing business with Broyles Plumbing
Company be dismissed
" In the event that Respondent has not so notified the Regional
Director prior thereto, upon adoption of this recommended order by
the Board, Respondent shall be required, as part of the Order of the
Board, to notify the Regional Director within 10 days after the action
of the Board, what steps it has taken to comply with the Order of
the Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage, by picketing
or any other means, any individual employed by persons
subject to the National Labor Relations Act (other
than Broyles Plumbing company) to engage in a strike
or refusal in the course of their employment to perform
services, where an object thereof is to force or require
Spnngday Company, Division of Dayco Corporation
or any other person to cease doing business with Broyles
Plumbing Company.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Springday
Company, Division of Dayco Corporation, or any other
person subject to the National Labor Relations Act
(other than Broyles Plumbing Company), where an
object thereof is to force or require SPRINGDAY
COMPANY, DIVISION OF DAYCO CORPORA-
TION, or any other person to cease doing business
with Broyles Plumbing Company.
PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS
LOCAL UNION No. 178
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative)
(Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO 178 731
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Mis-
its provisions , may be directed to the Board 's Office, 610 souri, 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.