District 50, United Mine Workers of America

348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT promise or grant wage increases or other economic favors as inducements to our employees to influence or interfere with our employees in their choice of bargaining representative ; nor, as part of any plan to influence or interfere with our employees' free choice of representative , will we conduct or cause to be conducted elections among our employees ; we will not question them regarding their union membership or activity, or solicit them to abandon or forego their union activity or sever their affiliation with any union or labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. BEN CORSON MANUFACTURING CO., BELMONT ALUMINUM EXTRUSION CO., PARKSIDE DISTRIBUTING CO., CORBEN MANUFACTURING CO., Employers. Dated---------------- By---------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its agent, Charles C. Camp and George Winn and Lyle Winn, co-partners doing business as Marion Machine Works District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its agent, Charles C. Camp and Wiley Cochran, an individual operating Tamora Fluorspar Mine. Cases Nos. 14-CC-59 and 14-CC-60. April,01,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On November 9, 1954, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Intermediate Report in this consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent District 50 filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the following additions and modifications : 1. The Trial Examiner found that the primary dispute in this case concerned the wage rates of the employees of Patton who, under a contract with Ozark, was operating various of its mines; that in fur- therance of this dispute the Respondent Union's pickets, led by its agent, Respondent Camp, accosted employees of Kaegi, Davis, Marion, 112 NLRB No. 56. DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 349 and Cochran who, under contract with Ozark, were operating trucks used to haul ore from the foregoing mines and various other mines to Ozark's processing plant; that the pickets urged these employees not to haul the ore; that the object of the Respondents was to force Kaegi, Davis, Marion, and Cochran to cease doing business with Ozark; and that the Respondents thereby violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. In its brief, Respondent District 50 contends, in effect, that the conduct of the pickets was privileged primary action because such action was in furtherance of a campaign by District 50 to unionize the Illinois fluorspar mines. However, Davis, Kaegi, and Marion were not, in any event, mine owners but were engaged solely in hauling ore under contract with various mine owners, and, accordingly, could not have been parties to any dispute with Respondent over unioniza- tion of the mines. In the case of Cochran, while he was a mine opera- tor, and District 50 had at one time attempted to negotiate a contract with him, the record establishes, and we find, like the Trial Examiner, that the dispute which actually gave rise to the accosting of Cochran's employees by the pickets was one between District 50 and Patton over his reduction of wages of his employees. Accordingly, we find that Cochran was not a party to the primary dispute in this case. As Kaegi, Davis, Marion, and Cochran were not parties to the pri- mary dispute, but were neutral employers, the Respondents' induce- ment of their employees not to haul ore to Ozark's plant was unlawful, secondary action, except insofar as such inducement occurred at a point reasonably close to the situs of the primary dispute-namely, the mines operated by Patton.' It is clear from the record, and we find, that the encounters between the pickets and the employees of Marion and Cochran occurred at points remote from the primary situs,2 and we find, therefore, like the Trial Examiner, that the Respondents' inducement of such employees not to haul ore to Ozark's plant violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. However, as to the incidents involving the employees of Kaegi and Davis, in our opinion there is insufficient basis in the record for finding that they occurred at points not reasonably close to the pri- mary situs.3 Accordingly, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) by the inducement of the employees of Kaegi and Davis not to haul ore to Ozark's plant. I See N L R B. v International Rice Mtilling Co, 341 U S. 665. 2 Cochran' s employees is ere approached by the pickets as they were leaving his mine; Marion's employees were met by the pickets at a ferry landing on the Ohio River, some miles from the primary situs. 3 While the record shows that some of these incidents occurred as much as one -quarter of a mile from Patton' s mine shafts, it is not clear whether the picketing was adjacent to the mine property or was at some distance from the property. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Upon the entire record in this proceeding and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that Respondents Charles C. Camp and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging the employees of Wiley Cochran and Marion Machine Works, or any other employer, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their em- ployment to perform services for their employers where an object thereof is to force or require any employer or person to cease trans- porting or supplying ore to, or to cease doing business with, Ozark- Mahoning Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at the business offices, if any, and at the meeting halls of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, in Rosiclare and Marion, Illinois, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap- pendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Charles C. Camp and by a representative of District 50, be posted by said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and be main- tained for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices affecting members of District 50 are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign as aforesaid and mail sufficient copies of the said notice, "Appendix A," to the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region for posting (1) by Ozark, if it be willing, at its Rosiclare plant and at each of its mines, and (2) by the aforesaid Cochran and Marion, if they be willing, at places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith. MEMBERS RODGERS and LEE, DOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. I In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 351 APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 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 and encourage the employees of Wiley Cochran, an individual operating Tamora Fluorspar Mine, George Winn and Lyle Winn, co-partners doing business as Marion Machine Works, or any other employer, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employers where an object thereof is to force or require any employer or person to cease transporting or supplying ore to, or to cease doing business with, Ozark- Mahoning Company. CHARLES C. CAMP DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard in Harrisburg, Illinois, on September 21 and 22, 1954, pursuant to due notice. The complaint issued on July 15, 1954, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board 1 and based on charges duly filed and served , alleged in substance that Respondents had since May 26 engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees of Wiley Cochran, Marion Ma- chine Works, Charles Kaegi, and E. C. Davis,2 by means of orders, instructions, di- rections, and appeals, to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to transport, work on, or handle goods or commodities , or to perform services for said employers , an object thereof being to force or require said Cochran, Marion, Kaegi, and Davis to cease using, selling , handling, transporting or other- 1 The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board. Respondent Union, whose name was corrected at the hearing to conform to the caption above, is re- ferred to herein as District 50 All events occurred in 1954 , except where otherwise specified. 2 Herein called Cochran, Marion, Kaegi, and Davis, respectively Cochran is the owner and operator of the Tamora Fluorspar Mine. Marion Machine Works is a partnership ( see caption ), and E. C. Davis is a partnership composed of E C. Davis , Lloyd Davis , and Winfred Barnard. Stella Kaegi does business under the name of Charles Kaegi. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Ozark-Mahoning Company (herein called Ozark). Respondents filed a joint answer in which they made a general denial of the unfair labor practices. All parties were represented by counsel (except Cochran) and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant -evidence, to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions. The General Counsel made an oral argument and has filed a brief. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION-OZARK'S BUSINESS Ozark is a Delaware corporation, engaged in mining and milling lead, zinc, and fluorspar. It owns a number of mines in the vicinity of Rosiclare, Illinois, and in Kentucky, whose output is supplied to a flotation plant which Ozark operates at Rosiclare for the purpose of processing the crude ore. In 1953, Ozark shipped from said plant to extrastate points processed ore valued in excess of $100,000. During the same year Ozark purchased from extrastate sources materials for its said plant valued in excess of $100,000. Ozark also operates mills and mines in Colorado, and a drying plant in Wilmington, Delaware. As Ozark's operations alone meet the Board's jurisdictional standards, Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of Respondents' acts on the operations of the various secondary employers. Jamestown Builders Exchange, 93 NLRB 386, 387; Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation, 110 NLRB 206. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED; RESPONDENT CAMP'S STATUS District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Respondent Camp was during the months of May and June 1954, a field repre- sentative of District 50, engaged in promoting the interests of the District and its members. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and setting Ozark and District 50 are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering the production and maintenance employees at the Rosiclare plant. Ozark procures ore both from its own mines and by purchase from other mine owners or operators for delivery at the plant. However, Ozark has no employees of its own who are engaged in mining (except at the Commodore mine in Kentucky) or in hauling ore to its plant, but contracts instead with independent contractors for those services. At the time covered by the complaint Ozark had contracts with J. W. Patton and Sons and KMD Mining Company for the operation of its mines in the Cave in Rock district in Illinois, and with Kaegi and Davis for the trucking of the ore to the plant. Ozark was also purchasing ore from Cochran and from the Nancy Hanks mine in Kentucky, whose operators (Tinsley and Lloyd) contracted with Marion for hauling their ore to the Rosiclare plant. Marion, which operates both a general machine shop and a trucking business, was also hauling, under contract with Ozark, the output of the Commodore mine. During the month of May, Ozark and Patton had discussions 3 concerning an adjustment of the price fixed by their contract, as a result of which a reduction of 25 cents a ton was agreed on. Though the General Counsel represented at the hearing that the price cut led, in turn, to a wage cut by Patton to his em- ployees, he offered no evidence which directly established that fact. However, certain statements made by Camp during the course of the events later referred to herein plainly showed that Respondent's actions were directed primarily at Patton and Ozark. with the object of "stopping this wage cutting." There was no evidence, however, that District 50 represented the employees of any of the concerns in- volved save for Ozark's plant employees, though it had held negotiations with Cochran in 1953, looking to the representation of his employees. See footnote 6, 3 Respondents' inotion to strike testimony concerning those discussions, on which rul- ing was reserved at the hearing, is hereby denied DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 353 .infra. There was no labor trouble at Ozark's mill, which continued to operate during the occurrence of the events which are summarized below. B. The main events As Respondents offered no evidence, the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses stands unrefuted. Briefly stated, it showed that on various occasions from May 27 through June 10, Respondents induced and encouraged employees of Davis, Kaegi, Cochran, and Marion to refuse to haul ore to Ozark's mill. Though confined at first to contractors who were hauling from Ozark's own mines, Respondents' efforts were soon broadened to shut off all current sources of Ozark's supply of ore, and the pressures exerted to accomplish that objective became increas- ingly forceful and coercive. Since much of the evidence is cumulative, it need not be summarized in detail. A brief iesume will be made of the main incidents, under the names of the respective contractors whose employees were involved. 1. E. C. Davis On the morning of May 27, two of Davis' trucks, driven by John H. Tyer and Hansel Pennell, were stopped by Camp and a group of some 40 men as they arrived at the gate to the mine shaft of one of Ozark' s mines at Cave in Rock, which was being mined by Patton. Camp told Tyer, driver of the lead truck, "we've got a picket line here this morning . . . and I wish you'd tell Mr. Davis that." Some of the men in the group (among whom Tyer recognized employees of Patton and KMD Mining Co.) told Tyer that, "we are going to stop Patton this morning." At Tyer's suggestion, Camp went back to the truck in the rear and talked with Lloyd Davis, who was riding with Pennell. Camp told Davis and Pennell that that was a picket line he had there and that they were not letting any trucks in. Davis requested that he be permitted to load those trucks (so that they would not have to return empty), but Camp refused, stating that "we started out to stop this wage cutting and want to do a good job while we're at it." Camp returned to Tyer's ruck, and Tyer told Camp that as he did not work for Patton and as he had seen Kaegi's truck go out with a load, he thought he might load. Camp refused, stating, "No, we are not going to allow any more trucks to load," and he ordered Tyer to "turn around." The trucks turned around and left. On June 7, Pennell was hauling ore which had been stockpiled at another of Ozark's mores also mined by Patton. On his fourth trip he was stopped on the road near the mine by Camp and a group of 4 or 5 men. Tyer inquired, "Is this all?" and when Camp replied, "Yes, this is all," Tyer turned back. 2. Kaegi On May 28, 3 of Kaegi's drivers were stopped by Camp and some 40 men near the entrance to one of Ozark's shafts being mined by Patton. Patton's truck, driven .by Patton, had also been stopped immediately ahead of Kaegi's trucks, and Camp told Patton that though he could not stop Patton from going through, he was asking him not to. Patton drove through. Camp said nothing to Kaegi's drivers, but one of the men in the group said that though Patton's truck had gone through, "these trucks are not going through." Kaegi's drivers turned around and departed. On June 1, one of Kaegi's drivers was stopped at the same place by Camp and a group of about 40 men, and Camp informed the driver that he could not go through and that "We don't care how many times you come out here, we are going to be out here and stop you." Camp also said that he was not "after you boys," having no quarrel with them, but was "after J. W. Patton." The driver turned back. On another occasion, on or about June 1, another Kaegi driver was stopped by a group of men (Camp not being present), at an Ozark shaft mined by KMD, and was told that he could not haul the ore which was stockpiled there. On June 7, Kaegi's trucks were stopped by Camp and a group of 5 or 6 men as they approached an Ozark mine operated by Patton Camp asked one of the drivers whether he was trying to starve the men around there and asked him not to haul the ore which was stockpiled on the ground. Camp also said that he did not "blame" Kaegi's drivers for trying to haul, but that he was "after" John G. Trewartha (known to the drivers to be Ozark's vice president) and wanted to stop that ore from going to the mill One of the men in the group also said that they intended to stop the Kaegi drivers from hauling that ore even if they had to skin a few heads. One of the drivers got Camp's permission to walk up and talk to Patton's operator who had been loading the trucks. The operator suggested that since Camp had not 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ordered the drivers not to come in, they should drive in and load up. The driver returned and informed Camp that if Camp was to keep him out, Camp would have to tell him not to go in. Camp replied, "I am telling you , God damn it, you can't go in." Kaegi's drivers thereupon departed. 3. Wiley Cochran Cochran was employing about 6 employees in June and was selling his crude ore to Ozark. On June 9, Camp spoke with Cochran, who was leaving the mining prop- erty, and asked him to stop taking his ore to Ozark. When Cochran protested that it was his only way to make a living, Camp said that unless Cochran stopped his trucks, "we are going to stop them." Camp also said that he had stopped the trucks of Marion , Kaegi, and Davis from hauling, that Cochran was the only one left, and that he did not want anyone hauling to Ozark. During a later conversation at Camp's home, Camp repeated that, "we have got to stop all these trucks from hauling (into Ozark )," but stated it would be satisfactory for Cochran to sell to other concerns (as Cochran had done at times). Four of Cochran's employees testified to being stopped by Camp and a group of some 8 to 10 men as they were leaving the mine on the afternoon of June 9. Camp asked them to stop hauling ore to Ozark because of labor trouble as to wage scales at Ozark's mine, and stated that he had stopped the trucks of Kaegi, Davis, and Marion, that he was stopping the hauling of ore by outside truckers, who were then the only source of Ozark's ore, and that when Ozark's stockpile was exhausted , it would force Patton's men back to work at the Cave in Rock mines . Camp also said that if Cochran's employees did go back to work, it would mean trouble , and that he would have many more men out there than he had at that time. 4. Marion Machine Works On June 9, two of Marion's drivers, hauling from the Nancy Hanks mine, were returning empty to Kentucky, having hauled loads to the Rosiclare plant. They were met at the Elizabethtown ferry landing on the Ohio River by Camp and a group of some 15 or 20 men who were wearing United Mine Workers badges. Camp told the drivers that, "we are having a little labor trouble," involving a reduction in wages, that "we are going to starve the Ozark -Mahoning mill of fluorspar . . we stopped the Illinois trucks and we want you all to quit hauling ... if you don't quit hauling, we will have to send your trucks back loaded," and that he would not let them cross the river. The next day, two of Marion's drivers , hauling from the Commodore mine, drove their loaded trucks to Rosiclare , followed in a car by George Winn, one of the Marion copartners. Observing that the trucks were being followed by another car for about 20 miles after they crossed the river, and anticipating trouble, Winn enlisted the aid of a State trooper and of the sheriff while the trucks were unloading. When Winn and the officers got to the ferry landing, they found that Camp and some 7 or 8 men had stopped the drivers there. Camp had talked to the drivers before the arrival of the officers He reminded them that he had warned them about com- ing back to Illinois and that they would get into trouble if they came back. Camp told them that they would get hurt if they came back again, that he was giving them one more warning, that if they did come back , the trucks would end up in the river, and the drivers would have to swim back to Kentucky , without knowing or seeing who was responsible. After the arrival of the officers, the drivers were asked to repeat to them Camp's statements in Camp 's presence, and they did so. Camp made no denial and no comment, except to ask if that was all he had said. The officers stated that there was nothing they could do unless there was violence . The trucks returned to Ken- tucky on the ferry, and did not haul again until June 18, when they hauled 1 day from the Nancy Hanks mine without incident. C. Concluding findings The single question presented here is whether, under the foregoing facts, Respond- ents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), which provides, insofar as material, that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- to engage in, or 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 . . . transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services , where an object thereof is : (A) forcing or requiring any employer . . . to cease . . . selling, handling, transporting, or DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 355 otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufac- turer, or to cease doing business with any other person. The evidence summarized above plainly establishes, without need of extended discussion or analysis, both the unlawful inducement of employees and a proscribed object. Respondents' actions easily qualified, of course, as inducement or encourage- ment, since the Supreme Court has held that the words as here used are "broad enough to include in them every form of influence or persuasion." I. B. E. W. v. N. L. R. B., 341 U. S. 694, 701-2. Thus Respondents, through directions, orders, appeals, and threats of violence, were successful in inducing (though actual success is unnecessary under this section, Acoustt Engineering Co., 97 NLRB 574) employees of Davis, Kaegi, Cochran, and Marion concertedly to refuse in the course of their employment to haul ore to Ozark's mill. As to object, Camp's statements both to employees and to employers 4 showed that, because of a labor dispute which concerned wage cutting at Ozark's mines, Respondents proposed not only to stop Patton's operations, but to shut off all sources of Ozark's ore, including that which was being transported and supplied by employers who were not involved in the dispute. However, as Respondents' object was illegal, the terms of the statute make immaterial the nature of the dispute 5 which motivated Respondents' actions. Nor is it material whether Respondents' dispute be considered as being with Patton, or with Ozark, or with both of them, since it is plain in any case that Respondents had no dispute with Davis, Kaegi, Cochran, or Marion, all of whom were obviously neutrals to such dispute as existed.6 The identification of the parties with whom Respondents' dispute existed becomes important, however, for the purpose of determining whether Respondents' activities, or some of them, may have constituted permissible primary action which unions are privileged to use to press their demands on employers, for it is well established that a union may, in support of a lawful dispute, picket the primary employer at the situs of the dispute. To the extent that the nature of the present dispute is disclosed by the record, it involved both Ozark and Patton and concerned wage cutting at such of Ozark's mines as were being operated by Patton. Thus the latter mines harbored the situs of the dispute, and Respondents were entitled to engage there in legitimate primary picketing, regardless of the incidental effects on neutral employers and their employees. See, e. g., Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 110 NLRB 455, distinguishing Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 107 NLRB 299. Though the evidence suggests the possibility that some of the stoppages of the Davis and Kaegi trucks occurred at such places near the mining properties or their entrances as to constitute permissible primary action, it was not sufficiently explicit as to locus that the point can be determined with certainty; and Respondents offered no evidence which might have clarified the matter or which would qualify their activities as privileged primary action. In any event it is clear beyond question that Respondents soon broadened their activities to points far removed from the situs of their dispute by extending their inducement, encouragement, and coercion to the employees of Cochran and Marion. Thus the inducement of Cochran's employees occurred at Cochran's mine, and that of Marion's occurred at a point which was remote both from Ozark's mines and its mill. 4 Camp's inducement of Davis and Cochran not to supply further ore to Ozark, although not itself violative of the Act, showed plainly that Respondents' object was to force them and other secondary employers to cease hauling to, and doing business with, Ozark. 5 Or even that a dispute existed with a specific primary employer. Sound Shingle Co , 101 NLRB 1159, 1161, Irvin J Cooper, 101 NLRB 1284. 6 Camp at one point during his discussion with Cochran's employees asked them whether they knew they had taken "other fellows' jobs " What this inquiry related to was not clear, though Respondents' cross-examination of Cochran developed that during the summer of 1953, District 50 had negotiated with him for a working contract, that there was a private election among his employees favoring affiliation with District 50, but that Cochran re- fused to abide by the results on the ground that the election was not a legal one There- after Camp closed his mine, and on reopening it, did not rehire all the miners who had worked for him betoie The evidence showed, however, that in his conversations with Cochran, Camp made no reference to the question of representing Cochian's employees and no suggestions concern- ing their wages, hours, or woikiug conditions Indeed. Camp agreed that Cochran might continue to opeiate by selling his ore to other puichasers than Ozark. Similarly, during his encounter with the employees themselves, Camp made no references to or suggestions concerning their wages, hours, or wokuig conditions, nor did lie solicit them to join the Union. 369028-56-vol 11 24 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The foregoing findings dispose of the main questions which are suggested by the record. Actually, it is difficult to divine the exact nature of Respondents' defenses, since they entered only a general denial, and made neither oral nor written explication of their defenses or of their contentions. To the extent that the pursuit of certain lines of cross-examination indicated or hinted at possible contentions, most of them have been disposed of above, and the remainder will be treated below. Some of Respondents' inducements were directed to employers. That evidence has been considered only as supporting the finding as to Respondents' objective. See footnote 4, supra. Some of the inducements were made in the presence of persons who are referred to in the record as foremen, as in the case of Clyde Lane on the occasion when Camp stopped Cochran's employees. The evidence showed, however, that Camp's statements were directed to the entire group of employees, and were not addressed to the foremen. For that matter the evidence was not sufficiently developed either on direct or on cross-examination to establish whether the foreman actually qualified as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. See Section 2 (11). Further- more, in Lane's case cross-examination indicated that it was in the summer and fall of 1953 that he had been a foreman. The record suggests no question as to the fact of Camp's agency. He was a field representative of District 50, and was engaged in promoting the interests of the Union and its members. He was known by a number of the witnesses to represent District 50, and on some of the occasions referred to in the preceding section, the men who accompanied and participated with him in the stoppage of the trucks wore UMW badges For the foregoing reasons, and on the basis of the entire evidence it is found that by the inducement and encouragement of the employees of Davis, Kaegi, Cochran, and Marion concertedly to refuse to perform services, with an object of forcing or iequiring their employers to cease transporting ore to, and to cease doing business with, Ozark, Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The General Counsel urges in general terms the issuance of a broad cease and desist order. Though he does not specify the scope of the order which he has in mind, he has cited N . L. R. B v United Mine Workers, 195 F. 2d 961 (C. A. 6) presumably as illustrative of the remedy which he deems appropriate In that case the Board's order extended to all employees engaged in mining operations within the geographical limits of the jurisdiction of Distiict 23 of United Mine Workers because the evidence showed there the beginning of a planned program to extend the proscribed conduct to all nonunion mines within the organizing jurisdiction of the union. See 92 NLRB 916, 918. No basis has been laid for such an order here; the evidence suggests no such plan and no threat of violations save in relation to the Ozark-Patton dispute. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Ozark-Mahoning Company as set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States, and tend to lead and have led to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. 2. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Respondent Charles C. Camp was, at the time he engaged in the activities described in section III, above, the agent of said District 50. 4. Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) by inducing and encouraging employees of Davis, Kaegi, Cochran, and Marion to engage in concerted refusals in the course of their employ- ment to perform services for their employers, where an object thereof was to force and require their said employers to cease transporting ore to, and to cease doing business with, Ozark. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.]