Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen, etc.

CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETG. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 639 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, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL bargain collectively with International Chemical Workers Union, AFL, as the exclusive representative of our em- ployees in the appropriate unit described below, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. All production and maintenance employees of the Kenedy Compress Company employed at its Compress , exclusive of its clerical employees, professional employees , guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. KENEDY COMPRESS COMPANY, Employer. 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. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, of America, A. F. of L., and Marsh Foodliners, Inc. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 369 of Muncie, Indiana, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L. and Marsh Foodliners, Inc. Cases Nos. 35-CC-28 and 35-CC-29. October 24, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On June 17,1955, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Intermedi- ate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent Local 135 had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Literr- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that 114 NLRB No. 108. 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent Local 369 had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to it. There- after, Local 135 and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the In- termediate Report together with supporting briefs. Local 369 filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex-, ceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the proceeding, and here- by adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions to the extent consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter provided. 1. We find, like the Trial Examiner, that Respondent 'Local 135 violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act by its inducement of employees of the secondary employers, Strohm Warehouse and Cartage Company and Rolling Mills, Inc., not to handle goods destined for the primary employer, Marsh Foodliners, Inc., herein- after called Marsh.' 2. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that Respondent Local 369 violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act by picketing the warehouse of Stevenson's Refrigerated Truck Service. In lieu of the Trial Examiner's findings relating to the Stevenson incident, we make the following findings, based on uncontradicted evidence in the record : On February 6, 1955, Local 369, which had not been certified by the Board as the representative of Marsh's employees, struck Marsh for recognition and picketed its warehouse at Yorktown, Indiana, from February 6 until April 29, Stevenson operated a warehouse at Muncie, Indiana, 5 miles from Yorktown. During the first 3 days of the strike, Stevenson received for storage from common carriers an unusually large number of ship- ments consigned to Marsh, and during the remainder of the period of 1 We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner that the "hot -cargo" clause in Local 135's contracts with the secondary employers is not available 'as a defense, because, apart from any other considerations, those contracts had expired before the unlawful induce- ment occurred, and, contrary to the contentions of Local 135, we find insufficient evidence in the record that the secondary employers had entered into any legally binding oral agreement to continue all the terms of the old contracts , including the hot-cargo clause, pending the negotiation of new contracts with Local 135. Local 135 filed with the Board a motion to remand the case for further hearing to enable it to introduce into evidence an agreement signed by it with Marsh after the close of the hearing in the instant case. This agreement , as set forth in the motion , provides for a cessation of strike and boycott activity by Local 135, and that Marsh will advise the Board that it is no longer interested in processing the charges in this proceeding. Local 135 urges that this agreement "should serve as a basis for authorization of the withdrawal" of the instant charges . General Counsel opposes the granting of this motion. We do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by such further hearing as charges may be withdrawn under the Board's Rules only by a motion filed with the Board by the Charging Party. No such motion has been filed. Local 135's motion is therefore denied. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC. 641 the strike at least 3 other shipments consigned to Marsh were brought to Stevenson's premises. About 4 days after the strike began, How- ard, president of Local 369, observed a truck of ,a common carrier turn back from the picket line at Marsh's Yorktown warehouse and proceed to a lot next to Stevenson's warehouse in Muncie, which lot was some- times used by Stevenson.2 This truck was then seen by Howard to transfer its cargo to a Marsh truck, which drove through the Marsh picket line.3 Howard immediately posted pickets at the Stevenson warehouse who carried signs stating, in substance, that Marsh's truck- drivers and warehouse employees were on strike and that Marsh was using Stevenson's warehouse "as a subterfuge." These pickets re- mained at Stevenson's warehouse until April 29, when further picket- ing was enjoined by the Federal district court. They picketed con- tinuously 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, and on at least 3 occasions accosted drivers of trucks of Marsh's suppliers,' urging them, in effect, not to deliver to Stevenson for storage goods consigned to Marsh. From the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find that the picketing by Local 369 at Stevenson's Warehouse constituted induce- ment of employees of Stevenson and of Marsh's suppliers to engage in a concerted refusal to transport or otherwise handle goods consigned to Marsh, and that the object of such inducement was (1) to force Stevenson and such suppliers to cease doing business with Marsh, an object condemned by Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act; and (2) to force Marsh to recognize Local 369 as the representative of its em- ployees, although not yet certified by the Board, an object condemned by Section 8 (b) (4) (B) of the Act. In its brief to the' Board, Local 369 contends that the testimony in the record as to the increase in the Stevenson' s storage business during the first 3 days of the strike warrants a finding that Stevenson thereby became an ally of Marsh, the primary employer, and that the subsequent picketing of Stevenson therefore did not violate Section 8 (b) (4) (A) or (B) of the Act. Local 369 relies on the decision in the Metropolitan Federation case,5 that a secondary employer who performs struck work under contract with the primary employer is no longer a neutral, but an ally of the primary employer, so that picketing of the secondary employer does not violate the Act. Assuming, without deciding, that if Stevenson had been shown to be an ally of Marsh under the rule of the Metropolitan Federation case, the picketing of Stevenson would be lawful, we find that there z There was no evidence that this lot was leased, or belonged , to Stevenson. ' a We find no testimony in the record by Howard or any other witness to support the Trial Examiner's finding that the transfer of cargo at Stevenson 's warehouse was from Marsh's trucks to Stevenson's trucks, and that -Stevenson's trucks then delivered through the picket line at Yorktown goods which Marsh's truckdrivers had refused to take through that line. a These were Marhoefer Packing Company, Producers Dairy , and Armour and Co *Donds v Metropolitan , Fedeiatiov of Architects, 75 Fed Supp 672 (S . D N. Y.) 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is insufficient basis in the instant record for holding that Stevenson was such an ally. As the Board stated in the Royal Typewriter case,6 where a similar "ally" defense was raised 'by the respondent union, the governing rule of evidence is that, once the General Counsel has made out a prima facie case of a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) or (B), it is a matter of affirmative defense for the respondent to show the existence of special circumstances justifying its conduct. We do not believe that the Local 369 has established by the preponderance of the evidence that Stevenson was an "ally" of Marsh. While there is uncontradicted evidence that during the first 3 days of the strike Stevenson experienced an unusual increase in its storage business in connection with shipments by common carriers to Marsh, there is no direct evidence that this increase was due to the strike.' Moreover, even if we infer that such increase was due to the strike, there is no evidence that the storage space involved was contracted for by Marsh rather than by the common carriers. Nor is there any evi- dence that any goods stored with Stevenson during the strike were in fact ever delivered to Marsh's warehouse or to its retail outlets. Local 369 contends further that a finding of an ally relationship between Stevenson and Marsh is supported by the evidence, recited above, that a truck of a common carrier, which had turned back at the Marsh picket line, used a lot adjacent to Stevenson's warehouse to transfer its cargo to a Marsh truck, which then proceeded through the picket line. However, there is no evidence of any connection between Stevenson and this incident apart from the proximity of the lot to its warehouse and the fact that such lot was' sometimes used by Stevenson for its own purposes. Moreover, assuming that Stevenson authorized the use of this lot for the reloading operation, it does not appear whether such authorization was obtained by Marsh or the common carrier involved. In any event, we do not believe that such assistance as Stevenson may have rendered to Marsh in this regard was sufficient to constitute it an ally of Marsh within the meaning of the Metropolitan Federation case or to justify the picketing of Stevenson for about a month and a half after the foregoing incident. Accordingly, even if we assume that the existence of an' "ally" relationship between Stevenson-and Marsh would justify the picketing of Stevenson by Local 369, we find that Local 369 has not established the existence of such relationship, and that, by picketing Stevenson, Local 369 violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. O Royal Typewriter Company, Inc., 111 NLRB .317. Member Peterson dissented. 7 See Climax Machinery Company, 86 NLRB 1243, 1253, where the performance by a secondary employer for a struck employer of work which would have been assigned to the secondary employer even in the absence of a strike was held not-to constitute the secondary employer an ally of the struck employer within the rule of the Metropolitan Federation case. Cf. N L R. B. v. Wine Liquor and Distillery Workers, 178 F. 2d 584 (C. A. 2). CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC. ORDER 643 Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that : I. The Respondent Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 369 of Muncie. Indiana, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., shall : A. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging the employees of Stevenson's Refrigerated Truck Service, Marhoefer Packing Com- pany, Producers Dairy, Armour and Co., or of any other employers (other than Marsh Foodliners, Inc.), to engage in a strike or con- certed refusal to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, articles, or commodities, or to, perform any services where an object thereof is (1) to force or require any employer to cease doing business with Marsh Foodliners, Inc., or (2) to force or require Marsh Foodliners, Inc., to recognize or bargain with Local 369 as the representative of its employees, unless Local 369 is certified as the representative of such employees under the provi- sions of Section 9 of the Act. B. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds, will effectuate the policies of the Act. (1) Post at its business office and at all its meeting places copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 8 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 Local 369, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 369 to insure that said notices' are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. - (2) Mail to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A" for posting by Stevenson's Refrigerated Truck Service, Marhoefer Packing Com- pany, Producers Dairy, and Armour and Co., should they be willing to post the same, in places where notices to their employees are custom- arily posted. (3) Notify the said Regional Director in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, of the action taken by it to comply therewith. In the event that this Order is enforced by a 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.- 387644-56-vol. 114-42 1644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. The Respondent Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., shall : A. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging the employees of Rolling Mills, Inc., Strohm Warehouse and Cartage Company, or of any other employer (other than Marsh Foodliners, Inc.), to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle, or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any serv- ices, where an object thereof is (1) to force or require Rolling Mills, Strohm, or any other employer, to cease using, selling, handling, trans- porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Marsh Foodliners, Inc., or to cease doing business with Marsh Foodliners, Inc., or (2) to force or require Marsh Foodliners, Inc., to recognize or bargain with Re- spondent Local 369 as the representative of its employees unless Local 369 is certified as the representative of such employees pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. B. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will ,effectuate the policies of the Act : (1) Post at its business offices at Indianapolis, Indiana, and all other places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix B." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official repre- sentative of Local 135, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 135 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (2) Cause a copy of said notice to be printed' in a newspaper of general circulation in Indianapolis, Indiana. (3) Mail to the Regional Director of the Ninth Region signed copies of said notice for posting by Strohm Warehouse and Cartage Company and Rolling Mills, Inc., should they be willing to post the same, in places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (4) Notify the said Regional Director in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, of the action taken by it to comply therewith. 9In the event that this Order is enforced by a 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." CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC. APPENDIX A 645 NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 369 OF MUNCIE, INDIANA, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERIOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS Or AMERICA, A. F. OF L. AND To ALL EMPLOYEES OF -----------------------------------1 Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage- ment Relations Act, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of Stevenson's Refrigerated Truck Service, Marhoefer Packing Company, Pro- ducers Dairy, Armour and Co., or of any other employer (other than Marsh Foodliners), to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, commodities, or materials, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is (1) to force or require any employer to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Marsh Foodliners, Inc., or to cease doing business with Marsh Foodliners, Inc., or (2) to force or require Marsh Food- liners, Inc., to recognize or bargain with Local 369 as the repre- sentative of any of its employees unless and until Local 369 is certified as the representative of such employees pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 369 OF MUNCIE, INDIANA, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS Or AMERICA, A. F. or L., 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. 1 Insert here the name of the Employer to whom this notice is sent for posting pursuant to par I, 2, (b), of the Board's Order. 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 135, AFFILIATED WITH INTER-- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L., AND TO ALL Ei%IPLOYEEs- 1 Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations. Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage- ment Relations Act, we hereby notify you that : - WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of Rolling Mills, Inc., Strohm Warehouse and Cartage Company, or of any- other employer (other than Marsh Foodliners, Inc.), to engage- in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or- work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to per- form any services, where an object thereof is (1) to force or- require Rolling Mills, Strohm, or any other employer, to cease- using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in, the products of Marsh-Foodliners, Inc., or to cease doing business-, with Marsh Foodliners, Inc., or (2) to force or require Marsh; Foodliners, Inc., to recognize or bargain with Local'369 as the rep- resentative of, any of its employees unless and until Local 369 is, certified as the representative of such employees pursuant to the- provisions of Section 9 of the Act. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 135, AFFILI- ATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., 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. ' Insert here the name of the Employer to whom the notice is sent for posting pursuant- to par. II, 2, (c), of the Board's Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed March 11, 1955,1 by Marsh Foodliners, Inc., herein called Foodliners, and docketed by the Ninth Regional Office, Cincinnati, Ohio (Thirty-fifth Subregion, Indianapolis, Indiana), as 35-CC-28, and: on, a charge' ' The original charge was filed February 28, 1955. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC.. 647 also duly filed by Foodliners the same day and docketed as 35-CC-29, which were thereafter consolidated for purposes' of hearing by the Regional Director of the said Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, the said Regional Director issued a consolidated complaint against Chauffeurs; Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with In-' iternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., herein sometimes referred to as Local 135, as Respondent in 35-CC-28; and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 369 of Muncie, Indiana, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Team= sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., herein some- times referred to as Local 369, as Respondent in 35-CC-29, both referred to jointly as the Respondents, and alleged that the Respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) and Sub- section (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (Act of June 23, 1947, C. 120, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. Sec. 141 (1952 Ed.)), hereinafter referred to as the Act .2 Copies of the complaint, charges, order consolidating the cases, and a notice of hearing were duly served on all the parties. The Respondents filed an answer in which they denied having engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint .3 With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged that: Since on or about February 10, 1955, and at all times material herein, Local 135 and Local 369 [the Respondents] have engaged in, and by orders, rules, instructions, directions and appeals , have induced and encouraged the em- ployees of Strohm Warehouse and Cartage Co., Rolling Mills, Inc., Armour and Co., Miller Trucking Co., Kains Motor Service, I. R. C. & D. Motor Freight, Inc., R. & D. Express, D. G. & U. Truck Lines, Inc., Tarbet Trucking, Inc., Marhoefer Packing Co., and Stevenson to engage in strikes or concerted re- fusals, 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, objects thereof being - (1) To force said employers and persons to cease doing business with Marsh [Foodliners]; (2) To force Armour and Co., Miller Trucking Co., Kains Motor Service, I. R. C. & D. Motor Freight, Inc., R. & D. Express, D. G. & U. Truck Lines, Inc., Tarbet Trucking, Inc., and Marhoefer Packing Co. to cease doing business with Stevenson; (3) To force Marsh [Foodliners] to recognize Local 369 as the repre- sentative of certain of the employees of Marsh [Foodliners], Local 369 not having been certified as the representative of said employees of Marsh under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. The complaint further alleges that by the acts described above, Local 135 and Local 369, the Respondents herein, did engage in and are now engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Louis Plost, the duly designated Trial Examiner, at Indianapolis, Indiana, on May 17 and 18, 1955. The General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondents were all represented by counsel, herein referred to in the name of their principals. All parties participated in the 11 Section 8 ,(.b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- (4) 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 use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to pertorni any services, where an object thereof is : (A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person . . . to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer or to cease doing business with any other person ; (B) forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or baigain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9 ; i At the opening of the hearing the Charging Party moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the Respondent's answer was not timely filed. The complaint was served April 15, the answer filed May 2 The Trial Examiner denied the motion. 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, either or all, with the Trial Examiner. The parties did not argue orally. A date was set for the filing of briefs and conclusions'and findings.4 Briefs have been received from the Charging Party and the Respondents. Upon the entire record, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT There is no dispute as to the following: The Charging Party, Marsh Foodliners, Inc. (Foodliners), is an Indiana corporation having its principal office at Yorktown , Indiana. Foodliners has a warehouse at Yorktown, Indiana, and operates 22 retail food stores within the State . Its total sales during 1954 amounted to more than 19 million dollars and its total purchases during ,the same period were 16 million dollars . From October 1954 to March 1955 its purchases of merchandise from out of the State of Indiana , shipped to it in Indiana from out of the State, amounted to $1,010,577.76. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 369 of Muncie, Indiana, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Respondent herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and admits employees of Food- liners to membership. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union No. 135, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Respondent herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Secondary picketing by Local 369 (35-CC-29) at Muncie, Indiana Chancy M. Kintner, personnel director for Foodliners, testified that Foodliners' warehouse employees and truckdrivers at Yorktown are not organized for the purposes of collective bargaining and Local 369 has not been certified for such purposes by the Board; that on January 26, 1955, Ardath Howard, president of Respondent Local 369, accompanied by Dale Stevenson, another union representative, called at his office, Howard informing him that "he was there for,the purpose of getting recognition for the Employees"; that Kintner thereupon suggested an election to determine the will of the employees but that Howard "stated he didn't believe in elections"; that Howard pulled what appeared to be a packet of union designation cards from his pocket, stated "30 men had signed up" but would not permit Kintner to examine the cards and left within "15 or 20 Minutes." Ardath Howard, president of Local 369, testified regarding the above-mentioned call as follows: I asked him to recognize the union and he said that he would go for a consent election, and I told him that I would think that part of it over and that was just about all there was to it at that time. Q. Did you have any designation cards with you? A. I did. I had cards with me and he wanted-I believe he wanted to see them, but of course I wouldn't show them to him.5 Yes. He said that he would consent to an NLRB election. I suggested we go for a card check and he turned our proposition down and I turned his down. Local 369 did not avail itself of the statutory processes to file a petition for election with the Board. It has never been certified as the representative of the employees in question. 40n request of the parties, made after the hearing, the Acting Chief Trial Examiner, acting for the Chief Trial Examiner, extended the time for filing briefs to June 8. G The packet of cards was prominently displayed at the hearing, but no cards were identified or offered in evidence. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOE5SEMEN, ETC. 649' On February 26, 1955, Local 369 struck Foodliners and picketed its Yorktown ware- house and its food stores throughout the State. The strike was current at the time of the hearing. The General Counsel does not contend that the strike and picketing of Foodliners by Local 369 is in any manner illegal, the General Counsel contends only that the Respondent's "secondary activities" as hereinafter more particularly set out are con- trary to the provisions of the Act.6 Ardath Howard, hereinbefore identified as the president of Local 369, testified credibly that after the strike was called and the Respondent had set up its picket linen at the Foodliners' warehouse in Yorktown he discovered that Foodliners' trucks whose drivers turned back from the picket line were being driven to the warehouse of Stevenson's Refrigerated Truck Service at Muncie, Indiana, some 4 or 5 miles from Yorktown where the Foodliners' trucks were placed "back to back" with empty Stevenson trucks and the merchandise in them transferred into the Stevenson trucks which then delivered it through the picket lines at the Foodliners' warehouse and stores. The Foodliners' trucks were lettered with their name but the Stevenson equipment bore no names or advertisements. Howard testified he personally saw the reloading of merchandise as above described. Howard further testified, without contradiction, that the pickets, 1 or 2 being on duty each day during the workweek, displayed a picket sign reading: The TRUCKDRIVERS & WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES of Marsh Foodliners Inc. Are Not Being PAID the PREVAILING Union Scale Wages in this AREA and Therefore are on STRIKE MARSH FOODLINERS Inc. ARE USING THIS WAREHOUSE as A SUBTERFUGE Teamsters Local 369 Part of the time the words "and therefore are on strike" did not appear on the signs. The pickets generally remained in their automobiles which were parked in the street in front of the Stevenson building or at an empty lot adjoining. Howard testified: Q. (By Mr. Roberts.) Was it your purpose in putting a picket line on Stevenson's to compel Marsh to recognize Local 369? A. It was to advertise the fact to truckdrivers who might be interested that this place was being used as a subterfuge. Q. You were trying to prevent those trucks from coming in to Stevenson's, Warehouse, right? A. Well, I was leaving that up to the particular people involved. He further testified he told the pickets "to tell them that we are interested only in Marsh Foodliners' goods." Charles Robert Huffman testified without contradiction that he is employed as a truckdriver by Marhoefer Packing Company; that sometime in February 1955 he was directed by his employer to deliver merchandise to Stevenson's warehouse for Foodliners' account; that as he drove up a picket with a sign accosted him and: Well, he asked me what I was doing in there and I told him I had some merchandise to drop off here at the dock He said, "Well, who is this for?" I took my bills out of my pocket and I just handed them to him and showed him, and he said, "I wish you wouldn't deliver this," and I said, "Well, what's the scoop on it?" He said, "Well, Marsh Foodliners are on a strike and we're asking people not to deliver here to the dock." Huffman testified he made the delivery, reported the incident to his employers, and some days later: We had a safety meeting about, oh, it was just a few days after this incident, and I brought it up, and it was with all of our employess and our steward said O For a comprehensive and scholarly discussion regarding the impact of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B), see "Recognition and Jurisdictional Strikes Under Taft-Hartley" by Sidney Sherman, in Labor Law Journal, April 1955. (650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any time there was any kind of a picket line out there at the dock or any Marsh store, do not deliver, bring it back to the plant. - Huffman is not a member of any Teamsters' local but is a member of the C. I. 0. The Trial Examiner credits Huffman. George Davisson testified that he is employed by Producers Dairy of Muncie, Indiana; that on February 17, 1955, he made a delivery stop at the'Stevenson ware- house; Davisson testified without contradiction: Well, there was a boy sitting there in the car, he had a sign in front of the car. He came up and asked me what I had on. I told him I had 10 cases of milk for Marsh's. He says, "Don't you know they are on strike?" I said, "Well, I heard they were on strike but I didn't know you were picketing this place." He says, "Well, we are not just exactly picketing it," he said, "but we're asking all the drivers not to leave anything here for Marsh's." I says, "Well, if that's the way it is, that's the way it is." J. Frederick Stevenson testified that he and his wife comprise a partnership do- ing business in Muncie, Indiana, under the name of Stevenson's Refrigerated Truck Service. Stevenson testified: Q. During the month of February, 1955, was there anything unusual that happened there? i A. Well, there was a couple or three days there we had a little rush of business. He further testified that the "rush" was occasioned by "different freight companies and private carriers hauling merchandise for Marsh Foodliners." Stevenson testified his warehouse was picketed in February and that he heard ,one of the pickets, James McKinney, who had a picket sign displayed on his car, ask a truckdriver who drove up to Stevenson's dock "if he had anything for Marsh Foodliners." Hester L. Stevenson, wife and copartner of Frederick Stevenson, testified that during February 1955 "there was an increase of storage space" used at their ware- house; that the warehouse was picketed; that she saw McKinney accost a truckdriver on the driveway of the Stevenson warehouse; and that: He asked the Armour truck what business they were going to conduct there, and he said he had a delivery that he wanted to put in storage for Marsh Foodliners, and Mr. McKinney related to him that they were on strike and he was there representing the picket line. The Armour driver told him he wouldn't cross anyone's picket line. The Armour driver did not unload the merchandise. Neither Stevenson denied the testimony regarding the unloading of merchandise 'from Foodliners' trucks to their trucks. Both identified the picket signs to be as described by Howard. Conclusion as to the Picketing of Stevenson's by Local 369 The General Counsel does not contend that Local 369 engaged in an unfair labor practice or illegal conduct because it did not avail itself of the Board's processes im- plementing the Act but sought to obtain recognition as the bargaining representative of Foodliners' employees by calling a strike and picketing Foodliners' warehouse and stores. The right to strike and picket a primary employer as an incident to the strike is 'established.? It is recognized that Section 8 (b) (A) and (B) forbid secondary strikes 8 and .boycotts meaning that a strike conducted against a primary employer may not be extended to a secondary employer, that is one who is not directly involved in the dispute. When the battle lines are drawn between a union and a primary employer any resultant damage to the employer's business must be expected from the blind -fortunes of war but there must be no extending of the strike, boycott, or picket line 4 International Rice Milling Co v. N L R B , 341 U. S 665; United Brick & Clay Mlorhers v Deena Ai tleare, Inc, 198 F 2d 637 (C A. 6). 8 See footnote 2. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC. 651 so as to produce an injurious effect on the business of a third party wholly uncon- cerned in the struggle between the primary employer and his employees .9 Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) forbids strikes or boycotts against one employer for the purpose of forcing another employer to recognize or bargain with a union not certified by the Board, and forbid a union (or its agents) to engage in such strikes or boycotts or "to induce or encourage employees" to do so. In an extremely intriguing and, very able brief the Charging Party argues that the picketing of Stevenson's Refrigerated Truck Service by Local 369 falls square- ly within the prohibited pattern for the reason that Stevenson was a neutral in the dispute. The Charging Party argues that the sole justification for holding the picketing legal would be if the situs of Foodliners and Stevenson was the same, which ob- viously was not so, being 5 miles apart and in different towns. The Charging Party further argues that the picketing was not limited to such times as Foodliners' trucks were present, citing Moore Drydock, 92 NLRB 547. The Trial Examiner does not agree. Although there can be no doubt that the object of the picketing of Stevenson's by Local 369 was to put pressure on Stevenson's by inducing a strike or refusal to perform services by Stevenson's employees and a refusal by Stevenson's customers to do business with it and thereby cause Stevenson to cease serving Foodliners; can it be said that viewed realistically under all the circumstances the picketing was directed against one who was wholly neutral to the dispute? Both Stevenson partners admitted they experienced an increase in business from Foodliners because of the strike. Stevenson's warehouse is a building 56 x 65 feet including the loading dock space. Of this space 15, x 18 feet is used as an office. Attached to the main room is another 30 x 39 feet in size. Normally refrigerating equipment, metal, potatoes, and cased grape juice is stored in these buildings. It would seem that a very limited space would be available for Foodliners' products. Under all the circumstances the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that after the beginning of the strike the Stevenson warehouse became a mere exchange point for Foodliners' merchandise on the way through the various picket lines established by Local 369. The fact that Foodliners' trucks were unloaded into Stevenson's trucks at the ware- house or in its vicinity goes to buttress such a finding. The operation at Stevenson persuades the Trial Examiner that although Steven- son was a secondary employer it was not a disinterested third party but was in fact an ally of Foodliners interested with Foodliners in breaking the strike of Local 369 in exactly the same manner as any other hired strikebreaker. -The Trial Examiner is inclined to the view that the hard and fast rules by which ordinary conduct is judged cannot well be applied to the conduct of a strike for a strike is in reality an act of war between employer and employee and must be judged by criteria quite different than that applicable to ordinary employer-employee relationship. When argument fails, or is not attempted, and there is a resort to force, the Marquis of Queensberrys rules and the Geneva convention are forgotten. In applying the Act to a strike situation, in all fairness the literal wording of the Act can scarcely be used in interpreting the acts of an employer and his striking employees because they become combatants and one should think in terms of sieges, blockades, armies, and their allies. The Trial Examiner is convinced that the picketing of Stevenson by Local 369 was in reality the picketing of Foodliners inasmuch as by lending itself to the break- ing of the strike Stevenson was not acting for itself as a disinterested party engaged in its ordinary business but was in reality a hired ally of Foodliners. The Trial Examiner so finds. The picket sign statement "Marsh Foodliners, Inc. are using this warehouse as, a subterfuge" expressed the true situation. In a case in which the court found the secondary employer to be an ally of the primary employer 10 it was held that picketing of the secondary employer ally in a strike against the primary employer ally was not violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 9 United Marine Division, Local 333, International Longshoremen's Association (Inde- pendent New York Shipping Association ), 107 NLRB 686. IQDouds v Metiopotitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists & Technicians} Local 231 at al, 75 F. Supp 672 (D C. N. Y.). 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that as the conduct of Local 369 in seeking recognition by a strike of Foodliners' employees is held to be legal, its picketing of Stevenson, whom the Trial Examiner finds to be an ally of Foodliners, is not violative of any of the provisions of the Act. The Trial Examiner will there- fore recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Local 369 violated the Act, more particularly Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) thereof. B. Boycott at Indianapolis, Indiana by Local 135 (35-CC-28) 1. Strohm Warehouse and Cartage Company Burnett A. Strohm, president of Strohm Warehouse and Cartage Company of Indianapolis, Indiana (Strohm's), testified that in February 1955 the Strohm Com- pany's warehouse employees were not represented by a union for collective bargain- ing, that the said employees had been unionized since 1936, and that Strohm had been party to a contract with Local 135 regarding these employees; that this contract was effective from November 1, 1953, to October 31, 1954, but had expired and had not been renewed, however, Strohm and Local 135 were, in February 1955, negotiating for a new contract; and that following the expiration date of its last contract with Local 135 Strohm had adhered to the previous contract wage scale, and after the contract's expiration date had processed a grievance filed by employees prior to the expiration date of the contract. The contract, above referred to, contained a "hot-cargo" clause which permitted employees covered by the contract to refuse to handle the goods of another employer whose employees were engaged in a lawful strike against their employer. The Respondent contends that the contract in question, although bearing the ex- piration date October 31, 1954, was in full force and effect during' February 1955, arguing that in fact it was in effect at the time of the hearing although it has not been renewed, nor had any new contract been negotiated to replace it. The basis of the contention of Local 135 being that Strohm having adhered to the wage provisions of the contract and processed the grievance from the employees was sufficient proof that the entire contract remained in effect, including the "hot-cargo" clause. The Trial Examiner finds no merit in this contention. In the opinion of the Trial Examiner the contract has expired by its own terms. All clauses being subject to negotiation and not in binding effect until a new agreement had been reached. The Trial Examiner therefore finds that the contract dated November 1, 1953, here- tofore existing between Strohm and Local 135 expired on October 31, 1954, and was not binding on Strohm during February 1955. Merchandise belonging and intended for delivery to Foodliners was, in the regular course of business, stored in Strohm's warehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana, being removed by Foodliners by its own trucks or by common carriers. Strohm testified that during the morning of February 14, 1955, Leo Bauer and one Nolan, business representatives of Local 135, called at his office and Bauer . told me at the time that Marsh Foodliner was there to pick up merchandise and that he had advised the boys at the loading dock that they were on a strike and not to give them the merchandise. Leo Bauer, business agent of Local 135, admitted calling on Strohm on Feb- ruary 14; denied that he had told the Strohm employees not to handle Foodliners' merchandise; with respect to the conversation he testified: Mr. Nolan and I went into his office one morning and talked to him, and I told him that there was a strike at Marsh Foodliners. A. Well, we talked about his farm and various things like that, like I always talk with him. I have talked with him about a number of things. Q. Is that the extent of what you said to him about Marsh Foodliners? A. Yes, sir. Bauer admitted that he saw the Marsh truck at the Strohm warehouse before he talked to Strohm and admitted that he "jumped on the dock" where Shop Steward Hardesty asked if Foodliners were on strike and he told him they were. William Hardesty testified he was shop steward for Local 135 at Strohm's ware- house; that on February 14, 1955, a Foodliners' truck driven by a Foodliners' CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC. 653 -employee known to him came to the warehouse; and that the driver made out his orders for merchandise and then: Well, he sat there a while and then all at once he left, and then directly he came back in and give me his side of the copies and said something about being out on a strike and got up and left, he give me his tickets and just left. He never did get to the dock or anything. According to Hardesty this was his first information regarding the strike at Fobd- liners'; that shortly after the driver left, Bauer and Nolan arrived and he asked them if Foodliners were on strike and "they said yes." Upon the entire record, the evidence considered as a whole, and his observation -of the witnesses the Trial Examiner is persuaded that Strohm's account of the re- marks made by Bauer to him regarding the handling of Foodliners' merchandise by Strohm employees, as made on February 14, is the more accurate account thereof and credits Strohm's testimony and not Bauer's account. The Trial Examiner therefore finds that on February 14, Leo Bauer, a representative of the Respondent Local 135, informed Burnett A. Strohm, president of Strohm's Warehouse and Cartage Company, that Bauer had instructed the Strohm warehouse employees not to handle merchandise intended for Foodliners. Strohm further testified that "several days after the February 14 incident" he asked Shop Steward Hardesty to "segregate" certain merchandise for shipment to Food- liners and that Hardesty refused to do so, stating: . . . that he had been advised by Leo Bauer of the Teamsters Union not to segregate or handle any of the merchandise for Marsh Foodliners. After Hardesty had refused to do the work, Strohm then asked employee Sidney Doss to do so but Doss also refused. Robert T. Blumberg, warehouse foreman at Strohm's, testified that at about 3 p. in., February 18, he heard Strohm "ask Hardesty to assemble some merchandise for Marsh Foodliners" and heard Hardesty say "he had been advised by the union not to, and he wouldn't." Hardesty admitted being asked to assemble merchandise for Foodliners, but expressed doubt as to Blumberg being present, testifying: He was at the first time, but I didn't think he was on the second, when they come the second trip. Hardesty also admitted Doss and he refused to handle Foodliners' merchandise as requested by Strohm. Hardesty's testimony is not clear on the point but seems to be that on February 14, the day Bauer and Nolan called on Strohm, they spoke to him (Hardesty) after the Foodliners' truck left and called his attention to the "hot-cargo" clause in the expired contract between Local 135 and Strohm. Accord- ing to Hardesty sometime later Bauer and another representative of Local 135, Loran W. Robbins, brought the expired contract to the Strohm warehouse, read the "hot-cargo" clause to the employees, told them they need not handle any "struck" goods "unless we wanted to," and that thereafter he (Hardesty) also told this to his fellow employees. Hardesty testified: Q. Did you tell the rest of the men that there was a strike at Marsh? A. Yes. Q. Did you tell them that under the contract they didn't have to handle Marsh's goods? A. I told them they could do as they liked, they could or couldn't. Q. You pointed out the contract clause to them? A. Yes. Upon the entire record, and his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner credits Strohm and finds that William Hardesty, steward for Local 135, refused to handle merchandise intended for Foodliners and told Strohm in effect he did so on orders from Local 135. Strohm further testified that sometime in March he asked Hardesty if Food- liners' merchandise could be moved as he understood such goods were being handled at other warehouses; that Hardesty replied he would telephone the Union for instructions and then told Strohm the delivery could be made; that later Food- liners called for the merchandise but Hardesty first refused to let it be handled saying he had been misinformed but finally permitted the merchandise to be loaded, with the understanding that no more calls for merchandise would be made by Foodliners. At the time of the hearing, with the exception of one lot of goods taken on a court replevin order, no other goods had been moved from Strohm's for •Foodliners. 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hardesty did not impress the Trial Examiner as a wholly truthful witness; his testimony seemed purposely so framed as to be misleading . Hardesty did not di- rectly deny Strohm's testimony with respect to the second delivery of merchandise to a Foodliners' truck. He testified that he telephoned the office of Local 135 to find out if the Foodliners' strike was still on, was informed, after some delay and in an indirect manner, that it was, and thereafter loaded out merchandise for Foodliners to common carrier trucks whenever requested . The Trial Examiner does not credit this testimony. 2. Boycott at Rolling Mills, Inc. Jesse Johnson, employed by Foodliners, testified without contradiction that on February 25, 1955, he drove to the warehouse of Rolling Mills, Inc., at Indianapolis, .Indiana, and presented bills of lading for Foodliners ' merchandise to the warehouse .foreman, who in turn gave them to the steward of Local 135. Johnson testified- Q. What is his name9 [The union steward.] A. Mr. Gardner. Then Mr. Gardner said he'd have to go in and call the union office and find out if it was all right to load them. He went into the office; when he came back out he said he couldn't load them, they told him not to do it. Q. Do you recall his exact words? A. As I remember, his exact words were "No dice," he said, "They told me not to load any." Q. Did Mr. Waldon say anything? A. He asked Gardner at that time if that was a flat refusal to load the Marsh merchandise and he said yes. Johnson was corroborated by Frederick P. Carson. The record is clear that Rolling Mills, Inc., had been under contract for its em- ployees with Local 135; that after the expiration date of such contract which was October 31, 1954, the parties agreed orally to keep the insurance features set up in the expired contract in effect. No new agreement had been negotiated at the time of the hearing. Leo Bauer, the representative of Local 135, testified that he advised the employees of Rolling Mills, Inc., after the Foodliners' plant had been struck and therefore after ,the expiration date of the contract between Local 135 and Rolling Mills, that under the "hot-cargo" clause of the expired contract "it was their right to handle it [struck goods] or not to handle it," but that he did not mention Foodliners. He admitted that a Foodliners' truck was at the warehouse at the time he spoke to the Rolling Mills' employees. Bauer also, admitted that he gave the same advice to warehouse employees of other employers in Indianapolis. Loran W. Robbins testified that he is a business agent of Local 135; that he learned ,of the strike at Foodliners on February 28, 1955; that after this date, he discussed the contract which bore the expiration date of October 31, 1954, and which had been herein referred to in connection with Strohm and Rolling Mills, with the employees of "Strohm, Rolling Mills, Indianapolis Warehouse, Indiana Terminal and Tripp." After Robbins had learned of the strike at Foodliners, he testified: The WITNESS: The second day I took the contract, I went around to all the warehouses in the Association, I read the particular section known as protection of rights, or hot-cargo, to the people so that they would know what their con- tract did say, and also so that they would know their rights and not be afraid of anyone that might come to talk to them. He further testified: Q. Did you say to them, "Don't be afraid of the NLRB examiners?" A. I probably did, because that was the intent behind my visit, yes. Conclusion as to Boycott at Indianapolis by Local 135 It is admitted that representatives of Local 135, upon learning of the strike at Food- liners by its sister Local 369, notified the employees of those warehouses in Indian- apolis who were Local 135 members that they were not obliged to handle any of the merchandise belonging to Foodliners stored in the regular course of business in the warehouses of their employers. Clearly such conduct by Local 135 was to induce such employees of secondary em- ployers not party to the dispute between Local 369 and Foodliners, the primary em- ployer, to engage in a concerted refusal to handle the goods belonging to Foodliners in an effort to force their own employers to cease doing business with Foodliners and CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC. 655 by such pressure cause Foodliners to recognize Local 369 as the bargaining agent of its employees although Local 369 was not certified as their bargaining agent. Local 135 argues that its above related conduct was beyond the reach of the Act because of a "hot-cargo" clause it in its contract with various Indianapolis ware- houses with whom it bargained as a group. The Respondents admit: The evidence discloses that Teamsters Local No. 233 had contractual relations with several warehouses in Indianapolis for many years last past; Respondent Unions' Exhibit No. 1, which was a uniform contract executed between Team- sters Local 233 and the warehouses in Indianapolis , discloses that said contract was to continue in full force and effect from November 1, 1953 to October 31, 1954 and thereafter from year to"year unless either party served a 60-day notice prior to October 31 of any year to terminate said contract; notices to terminate said contract were forwarded to Strohm Warehouse and Cartage -Co. and to Rolling Mills, Inc., but after the sending of such 60-day notices, the employees continued to work in the various warehouses, and in particular in "Strohm" and "Rolling Mills," after October 31 , 1954 and up to approximately April 25, 1955, at which time they were on strike; Teamsters Local Union No. 233 merged with and became a part of Teamsters Local Union No. 135 in September of 1954 and all the members of Teamsters Local Union No. 233 at said time be- came members of Teamsters Local Union No. 135; all negotiations with respect to a new contract were continued on behalf of representatives of Teamsters Local Union No. 135 with representatives of the warehouse employers in Indianapolis.12 The Trial Examiner has found that the contract above referred to had expired and was not in effect during any time material herein. It is clear, in fact admitted, that employees of Strohm , Rolling Mills, and others did refuse to handle Foodliners' merchandise stored with their employers in due course; and that such refusals were made after direct requests by their employers that they handle the goods. The Trial Examiner is convinced on all the evidence considered as a whole that there can be no doubt that Local 135 exerted unlawful pressure against secondary employers, Strohm and Rolling Mills, by its inducement of their employees not to handle Foodliners' goods. In this connection, it may be noted that union pressure need not take the form of direct orders not to work in order to violate the Act. Thus, in Joliet Contractors, 99 NLRB 1391, 1935, enfd. 202 F. 2d 606 (C. A. 7), it was held unlawful inducement under Section 8 (b) (4) (A) when a union rep- resentative told employees of a secondary contractor , "You know the union rules. Do what is right." In Richfield Oil Corporation, 95 NLRB 1191 , a picket's statement to drivers for secondary employees , "You are over 21. Use your own judgment," was adjudged illegal inducement. As the Supreme Court observed in Electrical Workers v. N. L. R. B., 341 U. S. 694, 701-2, "The words ` induce or encourage' are broad enough to induce in them every form of influence and persuasion." 13 The Trial Examiner therefore finds that Local 135 had engaged in conduct viola- tive of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B ) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., occurring in connection with the operations of Marsh Foodliners, Inc., primary employer, as set forth in section I , above, 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent , as above named , had engaged in and is en- gaging in certain unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take,certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Moreover, the Trial Examiner believes that a broad order is required to prevent n See Conway's Express, 87 NLRB 972. i2 See Respondent's brief, page 5. 33 See also N L. R B v Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 193 F. 2d 421 (C A 10). enfg 87 NLRB 755 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the recurrence of similar unlawful conduct by the Respondent in the future. Ins' order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the Trial Examiner recommends that the Respondent Local 135 cease and, desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Marsh Foodliners, Inc., Yorktown, Indiana, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and its operations meet the stand- ards set up by the Board for asserting jurisdiction over it. 2. The Respondent, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 135, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., is a labor organization with- in the meaning of Sections 2 (5) and 8 (b) of the Act, and is engaged in doing busi- ness and in promoting and protecting the interests of its employee members. 3. Respondent Local 135 has engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act by having induced and encouraged the employees of Roll- ing Mills, Inc., Strohm Warehouse and Cartage Company, and of other employers„ to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities of Marsh, or to perform services for their employers in connection therewith, the object of the Respondent's conduct hereinabove described being to force or require Foodliners to recognize or bargain with Local 369 as the collective-bargaining representative of Foodliners' employees although Local 369, has not been certified as the representative of such employees in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Local 369 has not engaged in any unfair practices within the meaning of the Act as alleged in the complaint. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Millwright Local Union No. 2484 and H. B. Clem , Financial Sec- retary, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL and Harold Lisenby. Case No. 39-CB-95. Oc- tober 25,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On June 29,1955, Trial Examiner Sidney L. Feiler issued his Intdr- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondents had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and recom- mending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup- porting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the 114 NLRB No. 106.