Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers

CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS 629 APPENDIX Professional employees: Project surgeon, assistant project surgeon, registered nurses. Confidential employees: File clerk and senior clerk in the labor relations department, secretary to labor relations man- ager , general clerk for director of plant services, secretary to project engineer, secretary to assistant project engineer, secretary to general construction superintendent, secretary to wage, hour, and salary division, secretary to wage, hour, and salary supervisor, conference reporter, secretary to assistant general construction superintendent (mechanical), executive secretary to project manager, secretary to assistant deputy project manager (engineering), executive secretary to assistant deputy project manager (supply), secretary to director of plant services, secretary to general staff administrator, executive secretary to assistant deputy project manager (construction), executive secretary to assistant deputy project manager (comptroller), security investigator, stenographer acting as secretary to assistant project comptroller, stenographer acting as secretary to project engineer, stenographer acting as secretary to general staff coordinator, stenographer acting as secretary to labor relations manager, and stenographer acting as secretary to wage, hour, and salary division supervisor. Supervisors: Chief telephone operator, assistant chiefs in time department, machine supervisor'in IBM department, key punch operator supervisor in IBM department, chief material checker in the supply department, paymaster assistants in the time section of the accounting department, supervisor in personnel services, assistant chief accountant, assistant in- ternal auditor, chief of mail unit, general clerk in the plan room, coordinators (distribution in the supply department), and assistant chief in the IBM department. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 135, affiliated with INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and HOOSIER PETROLEUM COMPANY, INC. Case No. 35-CC-22. August 7, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On April 8, 1953, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find- ing that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety , as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the charging party, Hoosier Petroleum 106 NLRB No. 111. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company, Inc., filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. t 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex- aminer only insofar as they are consistent with our decision. We find, in disagreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent engaged in picketing activities prohibited by Sec- tion 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. In reaching his contrary conclusion, the Trial Examiner was of the opinion that the picketing was directed against a primary employer with whom the Respondent had a labor dispute at his place of business and that therefore the picketing was protected. In support of this conclusion, the Trial Examiner made two critical findings, namely: (1) that Floyd, the disputing employer, was not an independent contractor but that his business was an integral part of the operations of Hoosier Pete, the alleged secondary employer, so that Hoosier Pete was a coemployer of Floyd's drivers involved in the dispute; and (2) even if Floyd was an independent contractor, the picketing occurred in front of Hoosier Pete's filling station, which was also at all material times Floyd's place of business. The General Counsel and Hoosier Pete contend, in substance, that the picketing violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) because, although the Respondent had a labor dispute with Floyd, an independent contractor, it picketed Hoosier Pete's filling station both before and after the removal of Floyd's tractors from these premises in a manner contrary to the standards enunciated in the Board's Moore Drydock decision z as to put pressure on Hoosier Pete, a neutral to the dispute, to cease doing business with Floyd, the ultimate object being to force Floyd to recognize and bargain with the Respondent, an un- certified union. Floyd's Independent Contractor Status Before considering the nature of the Respondent's picketing activities, it may be well to determine first the relationship between Floyd and Hoosier Pete. As discussed in the Intermediate Report, Floyd is the owner of seven tractors which, fora number of years, he has used to haul gas and oil for Hoosier Pete 8 in the latter's tank trailers to IAs the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the request of Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc., for oral argument is denied. 2 Moore Drydock Company (Sailors Union of the Pacific, AFL), 92 NLRB 547. We agree with the Trial Examiner, that, for the purpose of this proceeding, Hoosier Pete and Vortex Petroleum Company constitute a single employer because of common officers and stock ownership. Therefore, to simplify discussion of the issues, we shall not make separate reference to Vortex which technically owns the trailers and with which Floyd is under contract. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS 631 filling stations owned and operated by Hoosier Pete and in- dependent dealers. Under their latest agreement , which was in effect at the time of the events herein, Floyd leased his tractors to Hoosier Pete for such exclusive use and agreed, among other things, to furnish the drivers, keep the tractors in good operating condition, and pay the operating costs. As compensation for furnishing the tractors and services, Hoosier Pete agreed to pay Floyd a percentage of established Inter- state Commerce Commission freight rates. The Trial Examiner found that Floyd was not an independent contractor because, as he viewed his contractual arrangements with Hoosier Pete, he had lost all authority and control over his tractors and had, in effect, become the equivalent of a super- intendent of Hoosier Pete's transportation division. In so find- ing, the Trial Examiner relied on the fact that Floyd hauls exclusively for Hoosier Pete from whom he and his drivers receive delivery orders. However, we are not persuaded that this factor alone neces- sarily precludes finding an independent contractor relationship. The Supreme Court, applying in the Greyvan case * the broader test of the meaning of "employee" based on the purposes of the Social Security Act, found that the truckmen there in question, though hauling exclusively for Greyvan, were independent con- tractors. Moreover, the delivery orders referred to above that Hoosier Pete issues to Floyd and his drivers relate simply to the result intended to be accomplished and do not reflect such a right of control by Hoosier Pete over the manner or means of Floyd's performance of his contract as is required by the applicable common law right-of-control tests to establish an employer-employee relationship. On the other hand, the record is replete with uncontradicted evidence establishing that Floyd is an independent contractor. Thus, under the lease agreement , Floyd must furnish respon- sible drivers, keep his tractors in good repair and operating condition at his own expense, carry fire, theft, and collision insurance, and pay all operating costs, and Hoosier Pete, in turn, pays him a percentage of I.C.C. freight rates . 6 Concededly, Floyd is the actual employer of the drivers, whom he hires, fires, and disciplines, determines their rates of pay, pays their wages, social security, and employment insurance, withholds tax deductions and makes the required Federal and State re- ports. He keeps his own payroll and business records at his office at home, and bills Hoosier Pete for the trips made. Significantly, Hoosier Pete has no financial interest in Floyd's tractors, which carry the stenciled inscription denoting his 4Greyvan Lines, Inc. v. Harrison, reported sub nomine U . S. v. Silk, 331 U. S. 704. See also, Swanson Brothers Logging Company, 71 NLRB 614. 5 Steinberg & Company, 78 NLRB 211; Oklahoma Trailer Convoy, Inc., 99 NLRB 1019. 6 Floyd also services Hoosier Pete 's trailers for which he is paid. Under an oral arrange- ment Floyd and Hoosier Pete split between themselves the license fees for the tractors and trailers. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ownership and that they are leased. Floyd also assigns drivers to specified tractors, decides whether to drive one himself, and determines the route and place where petroleum products are to be obtained, depending upon their ultimate destination. Lastly, the Respondent and the drivers recognize Floyd as their employer; indeed, the Respondent requested recognition from him and, upon Floyd's denial, filed a representation petition alleging him to be the employer of the drivers. The foregoing evidence establishes to our satisfaction that Floyd is an independent contractor.' For this reason and the fact that there is nothing in the record indicating that Hoosier Pete possesses any control over Floyd's labor relations, 8 we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Hoosier Pete is not a coemployer of Floyd's employees. Accordingly, we find that Hoosier Pete is a neutral employer whom Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) is designed to protect from involvement in the Respondent's labor dispute with Floyd. This brings us to the next question whether the Respondent, by its picketing activities, extended the dispute to Hoosier Pete. The Respondent's Picketing Activities It is undisputed that the ultimate objective of the Respondent's picketing was to secure recognition from Floyd as the bargaining representative of his employees. The General Counsel and Hoosier Pete contend that the Respondent sought to achieve this aim through economic pressure exerted on Hoosier Pete, a neutral employer. As discussed in the Intermediate Report, the Respondent picketed in front of Hoosier Pete's filling station. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that Floyd maintained a regular place of business at these premises at least until he removed his tractors and the trailers.' The pickets carried signs bearing the legend "ON STRIKE" in bold printed type. Under- neath and printed by hand on one line was the name "JESSE FLOYD" and below it were the words "HAULERS FOR" and on the next line in larger letters was the name "HOOSIER PETE". It appears from the Intermediate Report and testimony in the record that pickets would hold up their signs, yell and gesture to truckdrivers entering the gas station , and to drivers standing at the gas pumps getting gas to draw their attention to the picket signs; they would try to stop trucks about to 7Cf. Oklahoma Trailer Convoy, Inc., supra; EldonMiller, Inc., 103 NLRB 1627, A. E. Black- lidge, 91 NLRB 222, and Nu-Car Carriers, Inc., 88 NLRB 75, enfd. 189 F. 2d 756 (C A. 3), relied upon by the Trial Examiner, are plainly distinguishable on their facts. 8 Cf Swanson Brothers Logging Company, supra. 9In view of our determination herein with respect to the nature of the picketing , we find it unnecessary to decide whether during the course of the picketing Floyd had abandoned the filling station as his regular place of business. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS 633 enter the station and climb up on the fenders; they would tell them that the station was unfair and on strike; they would warn truckdrivers that their cards would be pulled if they "gassed up"; a picket who made such a threat was, contrary to the Trial Examiner's finding, identified as Ted Bennett; and unidentified pickets on one occasion ran to the bulk plant area behind the filling station proper and dissuaded a truckdriver of a supplier of Hoosier Pete from unloading oil. There is also evidence that, after speaking with the pickets, some of the truckdrivers drove through the station without purchasing, gas while others made their purchases. It is clear from the foregoing that, if the wording and the format of the picket signs did not alone reveal an intention to convey the idea to Hoosier Pete's customers that Hoosier Pete was directly involved in the Respondent's labor dispute with Floyd, the pickets' conduct dispelled any such doubt. Indeed, Nolan, the Respondent' s business agent in charge of the picketing, admitted that he had instructed the pickets to hold up the picket signs so that truckdrivers would read them because good union people do not cross picket lines, and that truckdrivers who had crossed the picket lines and bought gas apologized for not seeing him before. It is significant that none of these truckdrivers would have occasion to do business with Floyd. We therefore find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent's picketing activities were not directed against Floyd only but were deliberately intended to extend the area of the dispute to neutral employers and thereby force Hoosier Pete to cease doing business with Floyd and to force Floyd to recognize the Respondent as the bargaining representative of his employees." The Trial Examiner nevertheless found that the picketing was protected because Floyd maintained a regular place of business on Hoosier Pete's premises. However, as in the case of a labor dispute which has an ambulatory situs, such as that present in the Moore Drydock case,'1 where, as here, the primary employer has a regular place of business on the premises of another employer, the competing rights of a union to picket at the location of the labor dispute and of a secondary employer to be free from picketing in a controversy in which it is not directly involved cannot be absolute. It seems not unreasonable to require in such a situation that the picket- ing clearly disclose that the dispute is with the primary employer. 12 Plainly, such a requirement does not curtail the 10 Cf. Richfield Oil Corporation (International Brotherhood of Boilermakers etc.), 95 NLRB 1191. lMoore Drydock Company (Sailors' Union of the Pacific. AFL), 92 NLRB 547, standards approved in N. L. R. B. v. Service Trade Chauffeurs etc., 191 F. 2d 65 and 199 F. 2d 709 (C. A. 2). 12Richfield Oil Corporation, supra. 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union's right to publicize its dispute with the primary em- ployer while at the same time it avoids unnecessary inter- ference with the neutral employer's business. As discussed above, the Respondent did not conduct its picketing activities in a manner which clearly showed that they were directed against Floyd and not Hoosier Pete whose business , as a consequence , suffered . In sum, we find that the Respondent, by its picketing activities , induced and encouraged employees of Hoosier Pete and motor carriers to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employ- ment to perform services or to use materials , with the object of forcing or requiring Hoosier Pete to cease doing business with Floyd , in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) of the Act, and with the further object of forcing or requiring Floyd to recog- nize or bargain with the Respondent, although the Respondent was not certified as the representative of Floyd ' s employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 ( b) (4) (B). The Effect of the Unfair Labor Practices upon Commerce The activities of the Respondent , set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I of the Intermediate Report , have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. The Remedy Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices , we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re- spondent , Chauffeurs , Teamsters , Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 135 , affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, its officers , representatives , agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging the employees of Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc., motor car- riers, or any other employer (other than Jesse G. Floyd), to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture , process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles , materials, CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS 635 or commodities, or to perform any services for their respec- tive employers, where an object thereof is (a) to enforce or require Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc., motor carriers, or any other employer or person to cease doing business with Jesse G. Floyd; or (b) to force or require Jesse G. Floyd to recognize or bargain with Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehouse- men & Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, AFL, as the collective-bargaining representative of his employees, unless and until such labor organization has been. certified as such representative in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office and meeting halls in Indian- apolis, Indiana, copies of the notice attached hereto as an appendix." Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of the Respondent, be poster by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing, within ten(10) days from the date of this Order, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Chairman Farmer and Member Styles took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 13In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pur- suant to a decree of the United States Court of Appeals , enforcing an Order." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 135, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any employees of Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc., motor carriers, or 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any other employer (other than Jesse G. Floyd), to engage in a strike or concerted refusal inthe course of their employ- ment to use, manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com- modities, or to perform services for their respective em- ployers, where an object thereof is (1) to force or require Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc., or any other employer or person to cease doing business with Jesse G. Floyd; or (2) to force or require Jesse G. Floydto recognize or bar- gain with Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, as the representative of his employees, unless and until certified as such representative inaccord- ance with the provisions of Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 135, affili- ated with International Brotherhood of Dated ................ Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, Labor organization. By ................................................... (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed November 20, 1952, by Hoosier Petroleum Company. Inc.. herein called Hoosier Pete, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued a complaint dated January 21, 1953, against Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the Respondent, Union, or Local 135. The complaint alleged that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the charging party. With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged that , since on or about November 17, 1952, the Union had engaged in, and by orders, rules, instructions, directions, and appeals , had induced and encouraged the employees of Hoosier Pete, the employees of various motor freight carriers, and the employees of other employers to engage in strikes or concerted refusal, in the course of their employment, to use, process , transport, or other- wise handle or work on goods , articles , materials , or commodities or to perform services, an object thereof being to force the aforesaid employers to cease doing business with Jesse IThe General Counsel and the staff attorney appearing for him at the hearing are herein referred to as the General Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board. CHAUFFEURS. TEAMSTERS. WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS 637 G. Floyd, an individual, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, and another object thereof being to force or require Floyd to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative of the employees of Floyd, the Respondent not having ever been certified under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act as the representative of said employees, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (B) of the Act. Due to the prior illness of Respondent's attorney, the undersigned permitted the Union to file its answer at the opening of the hearing over the objection of the attorney for the charging party. This answer admitted some of the allegations of the complaint but denied the commis- sion of any unfair labor practices. Before the hearing in the present case was held, the General Counsel instituted a proceed- ing under Section 10 (1) of the Act in the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of Indiana , Indianapolis Division , seeking an injunction against the Respondent pending a decision by the Board in the present case. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in the instant case at Indianapolis , Indiana, from February 16 to 19, 1953 , inclusive before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, Hoosier Pete, and Respondent participated in the hearing by counsel and were af- forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to intro- duce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned advised the parties of their rights to file briefs, findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both. Briefs were received from the General Counsel, the charging party, and the Respondent on March 20, 1953. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the under- singed makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. COMMERCE At all times material herein Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc., more familiarly known as Hoosier Pete, was and is an Indiana corporation engaged in the sale of petroleum products at retail in the States of Indiana, Illinois , and Missouri among other States of the United States. These sales are made through filling stations either owned and operated by Hoosier Pete or by dealers licensed by Hoosier Pete. The main office of this corporation is located at 2037 East Washington Street, Indianapolis , Indiana. It operates a retail filling station at 1211 West Washington Street, known as Station No. 7, in Indianapolis, Indiana, where during the 12 months ending November 1, 1952, it engaged in the sale and distribution of gasoline and oil at retail in a volume of sales exceeding $360,000, 25 percent of which dollar volume of sales was made to trucks owned by various freight carriers and operated by them directly in interstate commerce. Vortex Petroleum Company, herein called Vortex, an Indiana corporation, whose main office is also located at 2037 East Washington Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, is exclusively engaged In the transportation of petroleum products to and for the Hoosier Petroleum Com- pany, Inc., with the exception of some small amount of transportation of such products to the Lilley Brokerage Company and the Monarch Buick Company, which is done with the consent and approval of Hoosier Pete. The sole assets of Vortex are its tank trailers. It has no em- ployees. Its clerical work is done by employees of Hoosier Pete. Jesse G. Floyd is an individual who, in 1946, owned and operated 2 automobile tractors which have subsequently been increased to 7. In 1946 Floyd entered into some arrangement with Vortex whereby his tractors were used exclusively for hauling Vortex trailers. The agreement in effect at the time material here is as follows: AGREEMENT This Agreement made and entered into by and between Vortex Petroleum Co., Inc., hereinafter known as "First Party" and Jesse G. Floyd, hereinafter known as "Second Party", WITNESSETH: Whereas, First Party is the owner of tank trailers to be used in transport of petro- leum products, and 6 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Whereas, Second Party is the owner of seven (7) tractors same being one White tractor model WB-20T, Serial number 329885, one White WC-22-T, serial number 150-A-18484, one WC-22-PLT, serial number 375763, one White WC-22-PLT, serial number 384849, one White tractor model WC-20-T, serial number 39723, one Ford Tractor model F8, serial number 60797, one White tractor model WC-22-PLT, serial number 403111, and Whereas, Second Party desired to lease said tractors exclusively to First Party for the purpose of pulling the tank trailers of First Party, NOW THEREFORE BE IT AGREED: 1. That Second Party leases to First Party the above referred to tractors to be used exclusively for the purpose of pulling the tank trailers owned by First Party. 2. Second Party agrees to furnish responsible drivers for each tractor, and to keep said tractors in good repair and operating condition all at expense of Second Party. 3. Second Party shall carry insurance on said tractors covering loss by fire, theft and collision, and shall furnish copy of such insurance to First Party. 4. Second Party shall pay all expenses incurred in operation of said tractors, and agrees to purchase his requirements of gasoline and oil from the First Party during the period of this agreement. 5. First Party agrees to carry public liability and property damage on Second Party's tractors as well as the tank trailers owned by First Party, and to cause Second Party to be named as an insured in such policy. 6. Second Party shall receive as full compensation for said tractors and services to be performed hereunder seventy-three (73) percent of the established freight rates as established by the Interstate Commerce Commission. 7. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto for a period of one year from date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 1st day of April , 1952. FIRST PARTY VORTEX PETROLEUM CO., INC. By /s/ P. H. Logan SECOND PARTY /s/ Jesse Floyd Floyd maintains his books and records at his home in Indianapolis , Indiana, under the control of his wife as bookkeeper. The sites of his other operations will be discussed more fully hereinafter. The Respondents admit, and the undersigned finds, that Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. U. THE RESPONDENT Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Events and relationships prior to the strike As noted heretofore, Hoosier Pete is an Indiana corporation. Its closely held stock is owned in equal shares by P. H. Logan, T. R. Jenkins, and N. B. Jenkins. These 3 men are respectively the president and treasurer, the vice president, and the chairman of the board of directors of Hoosier Pete which is composed of the 3 men referred to above together with L. E. Tenney and M. R. Lafoon . The secretary and purchasing agent of Hoosier Pete is Donald E. Brown. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS 639 The also closely held stock of Vortex is owned in approximately equal shares by P. H. Logan, T. R. Jenkins, N. B. Jenkins, L. E. Tenney, and M. R. Lafoon, who also constitute its board of directors. As in the case of Hoosier Pete, Logan is its president and treasurer, T. R. Jenkins, one of its vice presidents, but, Vortex not having a chairman of its board of directors, N. B. Jenkins is a vice president. Donald E. Brown is likewise secretary of Vortex. Thus, although Hoosier Pete and Vortex are separate corporate entities under the corporation laws of the State of Indiana , the evidence disclosed them to constitute practically a single entity due to the common stock ownership, officers , and operations. Vortex was incorporated in 1946 in order to purchase certain tank trailers previously owned by George Lilley, late president of Hoosier Pete, and then engaged in transporting petroleum products to and for Hoosier Pete. Since its incorporation , Vortex has been, and now is, engaged exclusively in the transportation of petroleum products to and for Hoosier Pete with the exception of a small amount transported to Lilley Brokerage Company and Monarch Buick Company. 2 Except for its tank trailers, Vortex owns no property other than its so-called lease agree- ment with Floyd, quoted in full above. It has no payroll or employees and all its clerical work is performed by employees of Hoosier Pete. Although since 1946 Vortex has hauled exclusively for Hoosier Pete, the business arrange- ment between the two corporate entities has been highly informal. When asked upon what basis business was conducted between Hoosier Pete and Vortex, Brown, secretary for both corporations , testified as follows: I will try to, Mr. Examiner. We have two corporations of which we have common offi- cers. We have no written or verbal agreements between the two companies, but so far as our working for Vortex here and Hoosier here, it is pretty hard to differentiate between the two. I would be inclined to draw the conclusion that our past performance pretty much speaks for itself, to the extent there is an understanding that',brtex will do the delivering for Hoosier. Does that clarify that? TRIAL EXAMINER WILSON: a In other words, the basis on which you have been doing, the two corporations have been doing business, is their past performance? THE WITNESS: The basis under which we have been doing business would only apply with closely held corporations. Thus Vortex is, through its common officers and ownership, in truth and in fact the trans- portation division of Hoosier Pete. Although Vortex and Hoosier Pete were two separate legal corporations , they operated in fact as one entity. The Vortex tank trailers were emblazened with the words painted on their sides "Hoosier Pete." The Vortex name was nowhere in evidence. The "billing invoices" for the trips hauled by Floyd and Vortex from which the Floyd compensation is computed were sent by Floyd to 2037 East Washington Street, the common headquarters of both Hoosier Pete and Vortex, where employees of Hoosier Pete--Vortex having none--computed the amount owing from Hoosier Pete to Floyd for transportation and sent Floyd a Vortex check for 75 percent thereof less the amount owing Hoosier Pete for gas and oil purchased from it by Floyd. The complete identity of Hoosier Pete and Vortex was made obvious by paragraph 4 of the April 1952 agreement between Floyd and Vortex in which Floyd obligated himself "to purchase his requirement of gasoline and oil from the first party [Vortex] during the period of this agreement." As admittedly Vortex had no merchandise for sale--being exclusively a transportation outfit--it is obvious that this paragraph of the agreement between Floyd and Vortex referred to the products of Hoosier Pete which products Floyd did in fact purchase. The undersigned, therefore, finds that, although Vortex and Hoosier Pete were legally 2 individual corporations, they were in fact but 1 entity. This piercing of the corporate veil is permissible in this instance because of the use hereinafter attempted to be made of the separate corporate entities of Vortex and Hoosier Pete. 2 The record is silent as to any connection between the late George Lilley and the Lilley Brokerage and/or Monarch Buick Companies. 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is now necessary to analyze just where Jesse Floyd fits Into this picture. Historically Vortex in 1946, not owning any tractors to haul its trailers , entered into some business ar- rangement not indicated in this record with Floyd because of his then ownership of a few tractors, now increased to 7. By the 1952 agreement between Vortex and Floyd, quoted su r, Floyd purported to "lease" his 7 tractors to Vortex for the exclusive purpose of "pulling the tank trailers of" Vortex under an arrangement whereby Floyd was to furnish "responsible drivers for each tractor " and to pay certain of the operating expenses in return for a percentage of the transportation costs charged to Hoosier Pete. 8 The briefs of the General Counsel and of Hoosier Pete appeared to assume that under his agreement with Vortex, Floyd became an "independent contractor." This assumption does not appear to be justified either under the terms of the agreement or the practice thereunder. Under the so-called lease agreement, Floyd lost his authority to control his own rolling stock other than to employ the drivers thereof. Otherwise officials of Hoosier Pete-Vortex con- trolled the operation of the tractors on a trip-to-trip basis through orders relayed to the drivers through Floyd or given directly to them by officials of Hoosier Pete-Vortex. Floyd's tractors were to be used exclusively to haul Vortex trailers which, in turn, traveled exclu- sively to Hoosier Pete filling stations as required by Hoosier Pete. Thus Floyd appears to have enjoyed a double status: (1) by contract he was the lessor of his tractors; and (2) by practice he was analogous to a superintendent of the transportation division of Hoosier Pete hiring drivers whose competence satisfied Hoosier Pete and directing their work in accord- ance with the trip -to-trip desires of Hoosier Pete. thus , instead of enjoying the independence of action consonant with the status of an independent contractor, Floyd's position appears to have been more analogous to that of the manager of the Hoosier Pete-Vortex transportation division. On the other hand the drivers recognized Floyd as their employer. They had each signed individual employment contracts with Floyd specifying their rates of pay and other conditions of employment. Their wages were paid by his personal check. He paid the social-security and unemployment compensation taxes upon their earnings and made Federal withholding tax pay- ments as well as performing other acts indicating his status as employer . However, the drivers were all accustomed to seeking and accepting orders from Hoosier Pete officials in the absence of Floyd and his assistant, "Red" Davidson. On at least one occasion Brown threatened one of Floyd 's drivers with discharge unless , in Brown's estimation, he performed his duties "competently."4 Thus, while Floyd's legal relationship with Hoosier Pete and Vortex remained somewhat anomolous, it definitely was not that of an independent contractor. Next it becomes pertinent to consider the sites of Floyd's operations . As found heretofore, Floyd maintained his office and business records at his home under the control of his wife as bookkeeper . Otherwise all his other operations centered at the Hoosier Pete Station No. 7 at 1211 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. The premises at 1211 West Washington Street, owned or leased by Hoosier Pete, is a tract of ground with a frontage of about 400 feet on Washington Street and a depth of about 450 feet. It is divided roughly in half by a high fence paralleling the street. The half fronting on Wash- ington Street is operated by Hoosier Pete as a filling station, known as Station No. 7, catering specifically to motor freight trucks and tractors with the automotive servicing equipment usual to such a station and with parking space for the convenience of the drivers. In addition there is a large two story building in this portion of the property housing the filling station headquarters , a restaurant , and a grease pit on the ground floor with a shower room and offices leased to local trucking companies on the second floor. The other half of the property beyond the fence and distant from the street is used by Hoosier Pete as its bulk plant with storage tanks , etc. In addition there is in this portion of the premises a large parking area where for at least 5 or 6 years prior to November 18 or 19, 1952, Floyd parked his tractors and the Vortex trailers at night and when not in use. The sole means of ingress or egress for trucks to and from the bulk plant area is by a lockable 9Subsequent to the execution of this agreement Floyd, Logan, and Brown verbally agreed to various modifications of the contract whereby F loyd's percentage of the transportation receipts was raised from 73 to 75 percent and Floyd was relieved of certain increased State license fees. The record fails to disclose in which corporate capacity Logan and Brown were acting when these modifications were made 4Brown's failure to recall this incident, like Floyd's testimony to the same effect, was not convincing. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS 641 gate located close to the westerly end of the fence and reached by a driveway on the station property' running on the westerly side of the building aforementioned. Only Floyd and Hoosier Pete officials carried keys to this gate. Here Floyd parked his tractors and Vortex trailers when not in use on the road, in the locked parking space at the Hoosier Pete bulk plant. For over a year and a half Floyd had leased the grease pit which occupied the whole rear length of the station building and there maintained and serviced the rolling equipment used by Vortex and him as well as greasing and oiling the equipment of third parties , often times at the request of the station manager.6 At Station No. 7 Floyd hired new drivers. Here Floyd daily gave the next day's route instruc- tions to his drivers. Here his drivers telephoned him for future orders. Here officials of Hoosier Pete telephoned Floyd with further instructions. Here the station attendants took messages for Floyd. Here either Floyd or his assistant were generally to be found. At Hoosier Pete Station No. 7 for a period of at least 5 years Floyd maintained his headquarters from which he carried on business operations. 1211 West Washington Street was the place of business of Jesse Floyd. B. The strike of November 18, 1952 On November 17, 1952, Union Business Agents James Nolan and Byron Trefts went to Hoosier Pete Station No. 7 where they located Jesse Floyd and requested that he recognize Local 135 as the bargaining agent for the five drivers then employed by him. 6 Floyd re- quested time to consider the matter. That evening when his drivers had gathered at Station No. 7 at the end of their day's work as was their custom (and prior to notifying Local 135 of his decision), Floyd met with them at the grease pit and stated that he understood that they were joining the Union, asked them what the trouble was, and then said that he could not recognize Local 135 because, if he did, he would be out of a job with Hoosier Pete. Thereafter, by telephone from his home, Floyd refused to recognize Local 135 on the ground that he might be going out of business. About 5 or 6 a. m. on November 18, pickets from Local 135, including 3 of Floyd's drivers, appeared in front of 1211 West Washington Street marching up and down the full 400-foot length of sidewalk along the station property carrying picket signs reading: ON STRIKE JESS FLOYD haulers for HOOSIER PETE over the name of Local 135, 28 West North Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Although all the proper names on this sign were of increased size, the name "Hoosier Pete" was larger than that of Jesse Floyd. The picketing by from 2 to 4 pickets was peaceful.? As they walked back and forth, some of the pickets would hold up their signs and gesture towards them in order to draw the attention of passersby to the sign. Occasionally the pickets spoke to truckdrivers either as they were driving into 1 of the 4 entrances to the station or as they were parked at the gas pumps getting fuel. There is evidence that, after speaking with the pickets, some of the drivers of the trucks entering the station drove through the station without purchasing gasoline while others made their purchases at the station. There is evidence that some unknown picket threatened "to pull the card" of a truckdriver while he was parked at the gas pumps fueling his truck. 5The business arrangement under which Floyd performed these services for third parties was, according to the testimony of both Floyd and the station manager of Hoosier Pete, so indefinite, contradictory, if not mysterious, as to create the suspicion that the witnesses were attempting to conceal some fact. 6That same day Floyd hired a sixth driver 7 There was evidence introduced at the hearing that during the strike some party unknown threw a rock through the windshield of one of the Floyd tractors some considerable distance from Station No. 7. The charging party did not claim to have any proof that the Union was responsible for this act of vandalism. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On November 18 or 19, following a conference between Floyd, Logan, and Brown, Floyd ceased parking his trucks in the usual parking area by the Hoosier Pete bulk plant and instead began parking them at the headquarters station of Hoosier Pete, also the headquarters of bbrtex, at 2037 East Washington Street. On November 18, according to the evidence of Floyd and Brown. Floyd's lease of the grease pit at Station No. 7 was canceled. When the picketing continued in front of Station No. 7 the following day, Hoosier Pete filed its charge on November 20, 1952, against Local 135 for allegedly violating Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B). On November 23, Sunday, in the absence of pickets and with the consent of Hoosier Pete, Floyd and Davidson made use of the grease pit on the premise for greasing and oiling the tractors and trailers. So far as the record discloses, Floyd made no payment to Hoosier Pete for the use of the grease pit on this or other occasions thereafter when Floyd also made use of the grease pit to maintain his equipment until January 1953.8 This picketing continued sporadically for a period of 8 or 9 days ending about November 27, 1952, when the Union discovered that Floyd had moved his tractors and Vortex trailers to the Hoosier Pete headquarters station located at 2037 East Washington Street. Upon con- firming this discovery, which the Union had previously suspected, the picketing at 1211 West Washington Street ceased and has not since been resumed. No attempt was made to picket at 2037 East Washington Street. C. Conclusions The General Counsel and Hoosier Pete have based their case upon the following sections of the Act: 8 (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents - (4) to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com- modities or to perform any services , where an object thereof is: (A) Forcing or requiring ... other persons to cease using, selling, handling, trans- porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer , or to cease doing business with any other persons; (B) Forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as a representative of his employees unless such labor organization had been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Sec- tion 9; Although the above-quoted sections of the Act could conceivably have been interpreted in such a manner as to outlaw all strikes, primary or secondary, the courts and the Board now universally interpret the above sections in accordance with the words of Judge Rifkind: Examination of these expositions of Congressional purpose indicates that the provision [Section 8 (b) (4)] was understood to outlaw what was theretofore known as a secondary boycott.9 8 The testimony further disclosed that Floyd paid rental on the grease pit at Station No. 7 from January 1 to January 15, 1953. In fact Floyd retained the keys to the grease pit until ap- proximately 3 or 4 weeks prior to the present hearing at which time Hoosier Pete leased the grease pit to some third party. Some of Floyd's equipment was still located at the grease pit at the time of the hearing, never having been removed therefrom. 9 Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, 75 F. Supp. 672 at 676. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS 643 It is now well established law that the General Counsel and the charging party must prove that the activities of the labor organization complained about amount to a secondary boycott of a neutral employer in order to prove a violation of the above -quoted sections of the Act. 10 It is further well established law that, where the premises of the primary employer is picketed by a union having a legitimate dispute with said employer , the picketing is lawful even though incidental damage is done by such picketing to a secondary employer and that the mere damage to such secondary or neutral employer is not violative of Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act. The charging party in its brief states the legal problem involved here as follows: The National Labor Relations Board has interpreted the provisions of Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act in regard to what constitutes lawful primary picketing and what constitutes unlawful secondary picketing in situations involving premises of a secondary employer having some incidental connection with the primary employer . In the Moore Drydock case 11 the Board established specific criteria for determining whether or not picketing of the premises of a secondary employer is primary (and thus lawful) or whether it is secondary (and thus unlawful) in circumstances where the secondary employer is har- boring the sites of a dispute between a union and a primary employer. When a secondary employer is harboring the situs of a dispute between a union and a primary employer , the right of neither the union to picket nor of the secondary em- ployer to be free from picketing can be absolute. The enmeshing of premises and situs qualifies both rights . In the kind of situation that exists in this case, we believe 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 sites 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 sites ; (c) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs ; and (d) the picketing discloses clearly that the situation is with a primary employer. 12 On the other hand Local 135 in its brief contends that it could not violate Section 8 (b) (4) because (1) Floyd was either "an employee of 'Hoosier - Vortex ' or that Floyd was engaged as a limited partner or in some form of joint venture with 'Hoosier -Vortex" '; or (2) "1211 West Washington Street was the place of business of Floyd. " In either of these eventualities the picketing of Local 135 would be primary and thus no violation of Section 8 (b) (4). As found above Hoosier Pete and Vortex , although 2 separate corporations, constituted in fact but 1 entity due to their common ownership , officers , and operations . Floyd's anom- olous relationship to Hoosier -Vortex as lessor, employRient agent, and transportation super- intendent is so interrelated and integrated with Hoosier-Vortex as to cause him to be an in- tegral part of the integrated entity despite the fact that the drivers regarded him as an indi- vidual to be their employer. Although General Counsel and the charging party assume in their briefs that Floyd was an "independent contractor ," the so-called lease agreement together with the practice thereunder prove that Floyd lacked the independence of operation and control necessary for such a legal status. The undersigned finds Floyd to be an integral part of Hoosier -Vortex. is In its brief Hoosier Pete maintained that Floyd was the "employer " of the drivers under Section 2 (3) of the Act. The undersigned agrees that Floyd does qualify as an employer under the terms of the Act but does that disqualify Hoosier Pete from also so qualifying ? Although Floyd was the ostensible employer of the drivers due to hiring and paying them along with ►oSchultz Refrigerated Service, Inc., 87 NLRB 502. Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547. N L. R. B. v. Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen and Helpers , Local 145, etc , 191 F 2d 65. 1192 NLRB 547. 12 After analysis counsel reached the conclusion that Local 135 met none of the criteria established by the Board. The undersigned cannot agree. 13See A. E. Blacklidge, 91 NLRB 221, where the Board discusses who is the employer in a situation somewhat similar to the one presented here. Nu-Car Carriers, Inc , 88 NLRB 75; N L. R. B. v. Steinberg & Co , 182 F. 2d 850 (C. A. 5). 322615 0 - 54 - 42 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other attributes of an employer, yet Hoosier Pete-Vortex maintained such control over their trip-by-trip activities as to qualify as their employer due to its authority to give them their orders and instructions and to its obvious ability to enforce those orders and instructions. As a part of the integral unit of Hoosier-Vortex-Floyd, Hoosier Pete also appears to qualify as an employer of the drivers of the Floyd tractors under the terms of Section 2 (3) of the Act. But regardless of the above, it is obvious that for 5 or 6 years prior to November 18 or 19, 1952, the business of Floyd had been conducted from 1211 West Washington Street. Indi- anapolis, Indiana, premises known in this record as Station No. 7, where Floyd parked his trucks, where he repaired and maintained the equipment in the grease pit on the station premises leased by him for that purpose, where he hired and consulted with the drivers, and from which he directed their daily trip-to-trip activities in accord with the desires of Hoosier Pete. Thus, 1211 West Washington Street was his main place of business despite the fact that his records were kept by his wife at their dwelling house. Therefore, when the picketing began on November 18, 1952, Local 135 was in fact picketing the employer with whom it had a legitimate legal dispute at his place of business. Such is definitely primary picketing and thus no violation of Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act. General Counsel and Hoosier Pete argued that, at least after Floyd ceased parking his trucks at 1211 West Washington Street and after his lease of the grease pits had been orally canceled, the picketing at Station No. 7 by Local 135 became secondary and illegal. This argument appears to concede the finding made above that, when the picketing began, the Union was picketing the primary employer at the primary employer's place of business and thus was primary and legal. This argument also raises the question whether the picketing of the Union became a viola- tion of the Act "at least" when Floyd moved his trucks and when Floyd and Hoosier Pete mutually agreed upon the cancellation of the 1Z-year-old lease on the grease pit at the sta- tion, thus purportedly showing an abandonment of Floyd's place of business at the station for the first time since 1946 or 1947. This contention of General Counsel and of Hoosier Pete appears to be hypertechnical as well as unsound both in law and in fact to the undersigned. In fact, the filing of the charge here by Hoosier Pete on the very day after these changes between Floyd and Hoosier Pete had been allegedly completed causes one to uaerethe bona fides of these changes. Especially is this so in view of the facts that, besides permitting the continued use of the grease pit by Floyd, Hoosier Pete provided sanctuary for the tractors at its headquarters station. To the cynical it might well create the impression that the charge had been filed not to protect a neutral employer, as the Act was designed to do, but rather in order to combat actively legit- imate unionizational activities on the part of the employees as well as of the Union. If this were a suit in equity, this filing by Hoosier Pete the day after these purported changes might well raise the defense of "unclean hands." So, in this case, it raises the question of the neutrality of Hoosier Pete. The question of the change of a man's place of business is quite analogous to a change of a man's domicile: being in considerable degree a matter of intent--intent to do business at a certain location. Domicile can be changed only by facts showing the individual's intent that the change is to be permanent. The same requirement must also be applicable to a pur- ported change of a place of business. Otherwise the law would seem to grant a decided and an unwarranted premium to mobility and irresponsibility. In the present case evidence is com- pletely lacking that Floyd's so-called abandonment of his place of business was permanent-- or was intended to last for any longer period than the duration of the picketing. Note the fact that, despite the "cancellation" of the oral lease on the grease pit, Floyd admittedly used that pit as usual for the maintenance of his equipment 4 or 5 days thereafter, on Sunday, November 23, when it happened that there were no pickets present at Station No. 7. The evi- dence indicates that the pit was similarly used at other times during and after the strike. Certainly this use of the pit hardly coincides with either a bona fide business cancellation of the lease or with a permanent abandonment of Floyd's operational headquarters at Station No. 7. Nor, does the fact that Floyd continued to leave his tools and equipment at the pit throughout this period--and until 3 or 4 weeks prior to the hearing--indicate any intent to abandon Station No. 7. Except for these two well-publicized changes noted at the hearing, there were few, if any, changes made in Floyd' s operations at 1211 West Washington Street. Floyd and his assistant, "Red" Davidson, continued to spend a good portion of their time at CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS 645 the station, to send and receive telephone calls at the station, and to receive orders from Hoosier Pete and transmit them to the drivers at Station No. 7 all in accordance with their usual practice. In other words, Floyd's operations continued after November 18 or 19, 1952, as they had previously at 1211 West Washington Street despite the so-called abandonment of it as place of business. Therefore, as there is no showing of any bona fide or permanent in- tent to abandon 1211 West Washington Street and as there is definite proof that Floyd con- tinued to use that location as his place of business throughout the period of the picketing, the undersigned finds that 1211 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, was at all times material herein the place of business of Floyd so that the picketing by Local 135 of Floyd at that location was at all times primary picketing of the primary employer at his place of busi- ness and, therefore, no violation of Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act. In view of this finding the situation involved in the Moore Drydock case, does not arise here. However, assuming that it did for the sake of argument, the evidence adduced here proved that Local 135 fulfilled each of the requirements set forth in that decision by the Board. Although the finding above is determinative of this case, it might be well to consider briefly 1 or 2 of the major arguments advanced by the General Counsel and the charging party in their briefs. Complaint is made that the name "Hoosier Pete" on the picket signs was in larger print than the name "Jess Floyd" thus giving the false impression that employees of Hoosier Pete were on strike. While it is true that the Hoosier Pete name was in larger letters, the wording of the sign was in fact correct for, as discussed above, Floyd was hauling for Hoosier Pete. This was even more apparent to the public whenever the rolling equipment was seen on the highway as the Vortex trailers were emblazoned with the name "Hoosier Pete." The Vortex name did not appear on the equipment at any place. The Floyd tractors had painted on the cab the words "Jesse G. Floyd leased to" followed by a painted hand pointing to the trailers with their large "Hoosier Pete." To hold Local 135 for a violation of this act because of a slight difference in the size of the printing of the names upon the picket signs would be more than hypertechnical. In addition Hoosier Pete could only be considered a neutral employer through the fiction of being a separate, distinct entity from Vortex-Floyd. Lastly the General Counsel and the charging party contend that Local 135 should have re- stricted its picketing to the driveway at the very west end of the station at 1211 West Wash- ington Street because that was the driveway closest to the locked gate into the bulk plant and the parking area used by Floyd. This technical argument ignores the uncontradicted evidence at the hearing that the Floyd tractors and trailers involved here used each and every one of the four driveways into 1211 West Washington Street and did not restrict their means of entry to the driveway at the west end. It also conveniently ignores the fact that Floyd had to have the full use of the station premises in order to use his leased grease pit as well as the Hoosier Pete pumps. This contention, besides being hypertechnical, is unsound in law and in fact. For the foregoing -reasons, the undersigned concludes that the evidence warrants a finding that the Respondent has not committed any unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) or (B) of the Act and will therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed in toto. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc., and its station at 1211 West Washington Street, Indianapolis , Indiana, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Chauffeurs, Teamsters , Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid Local 135 has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.