“ That loaned employees of other affiliated companies were included within the ambit of petitioners' coercive acts plainly does not evidence such a generalized scheme against all telephone employers, for it was only the employment of such employees at the struck plant that brought them within the scope of the unions' activities. [2] We therefore conclude that the inclusion in the order of the words 'or any other employer' was unwarranted and the order is modified by striking the same therefrom. ”