Knitgoods Workers Union

KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 577 then classified as layout man A. During the first several weeks on this new operation, the layout man was closely supervised and instructed in this work by a member of the Employer's engineering staff, familiarizing him with the use of the calculating machine and assisting him in adjusting himself to placing the layout information on paper rather than on a metal template. During this period when this method of operation was being installed, the I. A. M. filed a grievance under its contract by which it sought to have the work of the layout man preparing coordinate charts up-graded, but this grievance was withdrawn with the agreement that the Employer should be given more time to study this new operation. The basis of the I. A. M.'s grievance was that the new job required a higher grade of skill and knowledge than that required of layout man A. Subsequently, the grievance was resubmitted, the I. A. M. at this time contending that the job of layout-calculator required, in addition to the work normally performed by a layout man, that the employees select the particular machine on which the work was to be performed, determine the sequence of operations, the ability to mentally visualize the work to be performed, the exercise of independent judgment and further contended that, in its responsibilities, layout- calculator compared with the responsibilities of time-study and methods employees. The Employer disposed of this grievance by reclassifying the job of layout- calculator to the classification of time-study and methods engineer, thus removing it from the unit for collective bargaining represented by the I. A. M.3 and placing. it for the purposes of collective bargaining within the unit represented by Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions. This reclassification became effective on August 6, 1956. On August 22, 1956, the I. A. M. filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, First Region, Case No. 1-CA-2156, that this action of the Employer was. violative of Section 8 (a) (1) (5) of the Act. This charge was withdrawn, the case being closed by letter dated November 14, 1956. Thereafter, on December 14, 1956, the instant motion for clarification was filed. Testimony at the hearing as to the job layout-calculator shows that it is a salaried position and that it is subject to the supervision of the Employer's divisional industrial engineer who Js charged with the administration of the Employer's time-study operation. The location of the operation has been removed from the vicinity of the presses to a location occupied by time-study employees and by certain clerical employees, some of which clerical employees are within the I. A. M. unit. The present incumbent is classified as a method and time-study engineer C and his normal progression from that classification would be through method and time-study engineer B to time-study engineer A. He is in the process of being trained for such progressions by attending classes which include instruction in the taking of time studies, the calculation of time values from such studies, the methodizing of jobs and the general operations of a method and time-study engineer. RECOMMENDATION The hearing officer is convinced that the classification layout-calculator as it is set out in this Record is a time-study classification. It is therefore recommended that the unit found by the Board to be appropriate herein be amended by the addition of the words "including layout-calculators" after the words "time-study men" as they appear among the exclusions in the recital of the unit contained on the first page of this Report. 8 See unit description , above. Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155 International Ladies' Gar- ment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO and Packard Knitwear, Inc.. Case No. 2-CC-407. July 10,1957 DECISION AND. ORDER On April 15, 1957, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Local 155 had engaged in and was engaging in viola- 118 NLRB No. 71. 450558-68-vol . 118-88 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There- after, the Respondent Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re- port together with a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem- ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 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 Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155, In- ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall : 1. Cease and desist, during the effective period of the certification issued by the Regional Director of the Board on October 18, 1956, in Case No. 2-RC-8452, or any other certification of the Board of a bargaining representative other than the Respondent for employees of Packard Knitwear, Inc., or of any other employer, from engaging 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, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; where an object thereof is forcing or requiring Packard Knitgoods, Inc., to recognize or bargain with Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the representative of any employees in the collective-bargaining unit cov- ered by such certification. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices in the New York City area where notices or communications to members are nor- I In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner discussed the relevancy of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Douds v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, 224 F. 2d 49 , to the issue of this case . After issuance of the Intermediate Report, that court refused enforcement of the Board 's Order in Local 50, Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO, 115 NLRB 1333. See N. L. R. B. v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union ( Arnold Bakers, Inc.), 245 F. 2d 542, where that court reaffirmed its earlier view on the question of whether peaceful picketing was unlawful in an analogous situation . With due defer- ence to the view of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on this issue, we adhere to our ruling in 115 NLRB 1333. KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 579 orally posted, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Re- port marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of Local 155, be posted by Local 155 immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 155 to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by .any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Order what steps Local 155 has taken to comply herewith. 2 This -notice is hereby amended by substituting the words "A Decision and Order" for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner." 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." INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges, as amended, filed by Packard Knitwear, Inc., herein called Packard or the Company, against Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board 1 through the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued a complaint dated January 21, 1957, alleging that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, herein called the Act. In substance the complaint alleges that since about October 18, 1956, the Respondent, through its officers, agents, and representatives, by picketing, appeals, instructions, and other means, has induced and encouraged the employees of Packard and of other employers doing business with Packard to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com- modities, or to perform services for their respective employers, an object thereof being to-force or require Packard to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative of its employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, notwithstanding that another union, Novelty Knitwear Workers Union (unaffiliated), herein called the Independent, was duly certified by the Board about October 18, 1956, as the exclusive representative of the employees in said unit. - The complaint further alleges that the Respondent, since the above date, initiated and authorized picketing at Packard's plant and otherwise induced and encouraged em- ployees of Packard concertedly to refuse to perform services, and induced and en- couraged employees of suppliers and truckers making deliveries to and from Packard, as well as employees of employers normally doing business with Packard, to refuse to transport or handle merchandise being delivered to or from its plant. The Respondent filed its answer to the complaint denying generally the allegations thereof and the commission of any unfair labor practices. Affirmatively; it states the picketing was an appeal to Packard's employees to become members of the. Union and is protected under Section 8 (c) of the Act. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at New York City, on February 11 and 12, 1957, before the Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence upon the issues. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, counsel for the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that.the General Counsel had failed to establish any violation of the Act, which motion was denied. The Trial Examiner, at the conclusion of the case, afforded counsel opportunity to present argument and to file briefs. The General i The General Counsel and the staff attorney appearing for him are referred to as the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board. 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Counsel and counsel for the Respondent orally argued the matter and, thereafter, counsel for the Respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF PACKARD Packard, a New York corporation, maintains its principal office and factory in Brooklyn, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of ladies' sweaters. During the year 1956, Packard manufactured and sold products valued at approximately $195,000, of which amount between $85,000 and $90,000 represented direct ship- ments to customers outside the State of New York. The Trial Examiner finds that Packard is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Respondent and the Independent are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Chronology of events 1. The Company's operations Benjamin Lippman, president of Packard, stated the corporation was organized about February 1956,2 and leased 1 floor for its operations in a 4-story building located at 49 Wyckoff Avenue, between Starr Street and Willoughby Avenue, in Brooklyn. The building has a front entrance used by the employees of Packard, as well as those of three other business firms that occupy the building, and at the end of the building (toward Starr Street) there is a driveway from the street leading into a yard and loading platform at the rear of the building. Around the first of March, Packard hired two maintenance men, on a temporary basis, to prepare the factory for operation. Leon Hochstadt, secretary-treasurer, said the Company commenced operations and the hiring of production employees in May and by the latter part of the month had employed about 30 or 40 persons. He further stated that by the end of June the Company had about 50 employees and at the peak of its operations had some 60 workers. At the time of the hearing, which was the off-season, the Company had about 20 employees. 2. The meeting between representatives of Packard and the Union Lippman testified that sometime in April, Arthur Jacobson and Louis Levinson, organizer and business agent for the Union, respectively, came to the factory and, after being introduced to them by Hochstadt, he asked them what they wanted. They told Lippman, "We want to organize your place, and we want you to sign up with us." Lippman replied, "I haven't got any employees to sign up, and it is not my job. It is your job to organize the employees." The conversation thereupon concluded and Jacobson and Levinson left the plant. Hochstadt said he saw Jacobson and Levinson at the factory, in the early part of April, and asked them what they wanted. Jacobson and Levinson introduced themselves as business representatives of the Union and that they wanted or organize the shop. Hochstadt informed them, "We haven't got anybody employed over here" and " :. they answered me in a way that we can work something out anyways for the future." Hochstadt left the two men and told Lippman about the incident and who came over and talked to them. Hochstadt did not remain during their conversation. Hochstadt said one of the union representatives claimed to know him but he did not recognize either of them. Both Lippman and Hochstadt admitted that neither Jacobson nor Levinson spe- cifically requested the Company to recognize the Union as the bargaining repre- sentative of its employees, nor did they present any agreement to them. The above meeting was the only one held between the respective representatives and both Lippman and Hochstadt stated they have heard nothing further from the Union. 2 A11 dates refer to 1956 unless otherwise stated. KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 581 Jacobson stated he had information that Packard was opening a mill and that Hochstadt was one of the partners in the business. Sometime in April he decided to visit the place and as Levinson knew Hochstadt very well he asked to go with him. Upon arriving at the factory they met Hochstadt who discussed various in- dustry matters with Levinson for about 5 or 10 minutes. Hochstadt then called Lippman, talked to him briefly and left. Lippman then stated: "I know why you are here. Why don't you go and organize in Ridgewood the German bosses?" Jacobson and Levinson said nothing and left the factory. Jacobson denied that either he or Levinson requested recognition of the Union or that the Company negotiate or sign an agreement with the Union. Jacobson stated he had not talked to Lippman or Hochstadt since the above meeting. The parties stipulated that Jacobson submitted an affidavit, dated June 28, in a State court proceeding about July, in which Jacobson averred, in respect to the meeting, that he told Lippman he had heard a new plant was being set up, that he called for the purpose of learning the type of operation to be performed and, "we would like to organize the workers employed there and persuade them to join our union." Lippman replied he had nothing going yet, that there was nothing for us and suggested that they organize in another section of Brooklyn. Jacobson, according to his affidavit, stated there was nothing more to discuss at that time and that the Union would engage in organizational activities among the employees. Jacobson admitted that the averments in his affidavit were made on the basis of his best recollection at that time, but, having seen the pertinent portions thereof, he could not definitely remember stating the matters contained therein. He further stated that his testimony at this hearing constituted his best present recollection of the events. 3. The picketing Lippman said that a day or so after the meeting three pickets appeared in front of the building carrying signs bearing the legend, "Packard Knitwear on Strike," and the name of the Union . These signs were carried for about 4 days when Lippman complained to the police that there was no strike at his factory, whereupon the legend on the sign was changed to read: Workers of Packard Knitwear Inc. Join the Knitgoods Workers Union Enjoy Better Working Conditions Knitgoods Workers Union Local 155 International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union AFL Jacobson said he placed three pickets at the building, a couple of days after the meeting, carrying on-strike signs. Jacobson explained these signs were used simply because they were available. However, when he reported to Union Manager Nelson, at the conclusion of the first day's picketing, that he had used the on-strike sign, Nelson told him to change it to organizational picketing . Jacobson changed the legend to read in the manner above-stated and the signs, as thus changed, have been displayed since the second day of picketing. Isidore Levine said he has performed picket duty at the premises , 5 days a week, continuously from the first day, which he fixed as April 17. It is undisputed that picketing has been continuous and was in progress at the date of the hearing. 4. The certification of the Independent; the agreement between the Independent and Packard Alex Musachio, president of the Independent, stated he worked for Packard as a shipping clerk but quit his employment in June. In September the Independent was formed and had about 40 employees as members . Musachio said that as of the date of the hearing the Independent had no other members except the em- ployees of Packard. Lippman stated that at some undisclosed date the Company received a demand for recognition from the Independent. The Board's records show that the Independent filed a representation petition with the Regional Office (2-RC-8452 ) on September 11, and on September 28, 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as related by Lippman, the Company and the Independent entered into an agree- ment for a consent election in a unit comprising all production and maintenance employees, excluding office clericals, plant clericals, guards, watchmen, and pro- fessional and supervisory employees as defined in the Act.3 On October 10, the election was held and as a result thereof, the Independent was, on October 18, certified by the Regional Director on behalf of the Board as the exclusive bargain- ing representative, pursuant to Section 9 (a), for all the employees in the above- stated unit. Following the certification the Company and the Independent entered into bargain- ing negotiations which resulted in an agreement between the parties. The agree- ment is effective from November 8, 1956, to February 1, 1959, with the right to reopen the same on each anniversary date for the purpose of negotiating ad- ditional wage increases. 5. The proceedings under Section 10 (1) Subsequent to the filing of the charge on December 3 as amended on December 6 and 17, respectively, the Regional Director, about January 15, 1957, in accordance with the provisions of the above section, filed a petition for a preliminary injunction. to restrain the Union from ' violating Section 8 (b) (4) (C), and on February 19,. the court entered its opinion denying the relief requested . (Douds v. Knit Goods Workers' Union, etc., 39 LRRM 2438 (D. C., E. N. Y.).) B. The General Counsel's case 1. Inducement and encouragement of employees of suppliers Lippman testified that the employees worked from 8 to 4:30, and that pickets were, and are, usually present from about 7:45 to 5 o'clock. The pickets ordinarily walk ,an area from the building entrance used by the employees to the driveway. or freight entrance, a distance of some 20 feet. Lippman stated that the Company buys trimmings and sewing threads from Reliable Yarn and Trim Company and, ,prior to the picketing, placed sample orders with it which were delivered to the factoryin a truck displaying Reliable's name. He stated that on one occasion in May he observed Reliable's truck in the yard, with 1 picket standing in front of it and 1 on each -side talking to the driver. Lippman went into the yard where the truck was stopped and heard one of the pickets tell the driver, "Don't you deliver any more goods here." Lippman told the pickets they were on private property, that they should be outside the gate, and then instructed the driver to make the delivery, which he did. Thereafter, Reliable made its deliveries after 5 o'clock when no pickets were present. David Odesky, driver for Reliable, said that about the middle of April, he drove into the yard to make a delivery and as he got out of the truck one of the pickets asked him where he was going. Odesky replied he had a delivery for Packard, but since pickets were present he would go inside and advise the Company of the same. , He then went into the factory and stated to some unnamed person or persons that he would not bring up the merchandise because of the pickets. At the Company's suggestion he placed the goods on the loading platform. . As Odesky was leaving the yard one of the pickets told. him the factory was on strike and that he should not. make any deliveries. Odesky said he would take it up with his employer. He reported the incident to Reliable and thereafter he has made 1 or, 2 deliveries a month to Packard after 6 o'clock in the evening. Lippman related the Company used Nylor Dyeing Company, of Brooklyn, for dyeing its cloth, and before the picketing Nylor picked up and delivered the cloth with its own truck. After the picket line. was established no pickups or deliveries were made by Nylor, so Lippman, at his own expense, arranged for an independent trucker to perform these services. Lippman used the independent trucker for 3 During oral argument and in response to questions by the Trial Examiner, the General Counsel stated that the petition made no mention of any other labor organization being interested in the employees and that the Regional Office notified the Union, by ordinary mail, that a conference was scheduled in the matter and afforded its representatives an opportunity to attend. The Regional Office received no reply from the Union. The fore- going statements were not denied or questioned by counsel for the Union. Lippman said no representatives of the Union appeared at the conference. The Union does not question the appropriateness of the unit. KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 583 about 2 months when Nylor resumed pickups and deliveries, using an unmarked station wagon. Willie Louis Wyman, driver for Nylor, recalled driving to the loading platform around September 12, and as he got out of his truck one of the pickets asked him where he was going and he replied he had a delivery for Packard. The picket then asked him not to make it because "they were trying to organize a union." When Wyman inquired as to what he should do, the picket gave him a dime to call his employer. Wyman called his foreman and after explaining the situation to him, the foreman instructed him to return to the shop, which he did. Since this incident Wyman has made occasional deliveries to Packard, perhaps twice a week, using a station wagon, which is also used for making deliveries to other customers. Lippman stated he also does business with Cosmopolitan Knitgoods Processing Company, which washes and processes the knitgoods, and that the company made pickups and deliveries with its own truck. Sometime after the picketing no pickups were made, so Lippman called Cosmopolitan to find out the reason and he was told by a company representative, "His men would not pass the picket line, and he can't control them." Lippman thereupon made arrangements for an independent trucker to make the pickups and deliveries and this arrangement was being used as of the date of the hearing. Edward Rockwell, driver for Cosmopolitan, testified that around the middle of April, he had. a delivery for Packard but when he saw pickets at the building he returned to Cosmopolitan, without unloading. Rockwell informed his employer the reason for not making the delivery and he said, "All right, don't go in." He has not been dispatched to Packard since that occasion. Rockwell stated the pickets did not speak to him nor attempt to stop him from driving into the yard. Lippman further stated he has been purchasing yarn from a firm in Gilbertville, Massachusetts, which, prior to the picketing, made deliveries by Gilbertville Trucking Company direct to Packard. Sometime after the establishment of the picket line, Packard failed to receive a shipment from this firm, so Lippman tele- phoned its Long Island City terminal to inquire of the same. Lippman was advised the drivers would not cross the picket line and when Lippman said the factory was not on strike, the individual answered he could not control his men. Lippman then arranged to have this shipment, and apparently other shipments, delivered to a different place where it was picked up by an independent trucker, or by station wagon or private car. As of the date of the hearing the Gilbertville firm makes deliveries directly to Packard, but under a different name. Hochstadt said that about April 18, he saw a truck from Gilbertville parked across the street from the driveway, that the pickets were talking to the driver and thereafter the driver pulled into the driveway and made his delivery. No representative or employee of the Gilbertville firm or trucking company testified at the hearing. 2. Alleged acts of coercion Pasquale Pazienza (through an interpreter) stated that one morning about -May or June, he went to the factory with his brother-in-law, Cristofero Vituccio,4 and the latter's daughter, and as they approached the building entrance two pickets asked him where he was going. Pazienza said he was going upstairs to look for work whereupon the pickets stated if he did so he "could undergo some trouble." Pazienza explained to Vituccio and his daughter, neither of whom could speak English, that he was "afraid they [the pickets] might kill them," so all of them went home. Pazienza also said the pickets told them the factory was on strike. Pazienza further stated that Vituccio's daughter, who was employed by Packard at the time of the above incident, returned to work the next day and has worked continuously since that date. Vituccio, who was looking for work at the time, was, employed by Packard about 1 week later and was so employed as of the date of the hearing. Pazienza made no further visits to the factory. Frances Trowell testified she was first employed around April as a machine operator and 2 or 3 months later was promoted to her present position of forelady. Trowell said that 2 or 3 weeks after her employment she and her sister, also an employee, were reporting for work one morning when she observed three pickets. at the building entrance, one of whom remarked; "There goes one of the s- of b- that works upstairs. She is really going to get it." Trowell identified Levine, at the hearing, as the picket making the remark. She also stated that the pickets say something practically every morning she passes them, but she could not overhear the remarks, obviously because she was too far from them. 4 These names also appear in the transcript as Ponziano and Pituccio. 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. The Union's case Jacobson, who has been in charge of the picketing at all times, testified he placed 2 pickets in front of the building entrance at 49 Wyckoff Avenue and 1 picket at an entrance on Willoughby Avenue. He instructed the pickets they were picketing for organizational purposes and they were to walk up and down with their signs in front of the entrances and "they shouldn't bother anybody, let the trucks go and every- thing." Jacobson said he visited, and still visits, the picket line every day, spending about 15 minutes, and has always found everything peaceful. Jacobson denied that he, or the Union, ever contacted the Teamsters Union or any suppliers of Packard in connection with the picketing. Jacobson said the Union prepared a leaflet ad- dressed to the Packard workers outlining some of the benefits the Union had ob- tained for workers at other plants and attached thereto was an authorization card, in postal-card form. The leaflets and cards, according to Jacobson's best recollec- tion, were distributed about the last part of April by union members (not the pickets) to everyone coming out of the building. Jacobson denied that he ever spoke to Pazienza or Trowell. Levine said when he agreed to perform picket duty at Packard, Jacobson instructed him to walk up and down with the sign and that, "I should not bother nobody who goes in and out of the building, or trucks or anybody else. I shouldn't say nothing to nobody." Levine described the picket line as consisting of 2 or 3 pickets, with 1 or 2 stationed at the Wyckoff entrance and 1 at the Willoughby entrance of the building. He stated that he was stationed in front of the Wyckoff entrance, which is about 40 feet from the truck entrance, and walked back and forth a distance of about 15 or 20 feet in either direction. Levine said he carried out Jacobson's in- structions and denied that he, or the other pickets, ever requested truckers to refuse to make deliveries to Packard, or told anyone the factory was on strike. He further denied that he, or other pickets, ever threatened anyone entering or leaving the building, or that he ever saw or spoke to Pazienza, or Vituccio or his daughter, or that he ever spoke to Trowell or made the remarks related by her while on the wit- ness stand. Levine stated that on 2 or 3 occasions the driver of the Gilbertville truck asked him if he could "go up to Sapphire Knitting Mill." Levine, who was certain that Packard was the only knitting mill in the building, replied he was "not interested in where you are going. You can go up." Levine said he also saw a sta- tion wagon deliver bags marked "Nylor" to Packard. Since January 25, 1957, Levine has kept a record of deliveries made to Packard and stated that from that date deliveries have been made to Packard, without any interference on the part of the pickets, by Gilbertville, Nylor, Cosmopolitan, and by other truckers and suppliers. Concluding Findings Although it is undisputed that representatives of Packard and the Union met on only one occasion, the parties are in disagreement as to what transpired at the meeting. In brief, Lippman related that Jacobson requested him "to sign up with us," while Hochstadt , after informing Jacobson that the Company had no employees to organize at that time, quoted Jacobson as saying, "we can work something out anyways for the future." Jacobson denied that he, or Levinson, requested recog- nition or that Packard sign an agreement with the Union. In fact Jacobson asserted that they had no conversation at all with Lippman concerning the factory or the employees for Lippman opened and closed the meeting by telling them to organize elsewhere. However, in his affidavit, Jacobson averred that he told Lippman he wanted to organize the employees and when advised by Lippman there were no workers at that time, he announced there was nothing to discuss and left the factory. A day or so later pickets appeared at the building carrying signs declaring that Pack- ard was on strike, which legend was changed shortly thereafter to show that picketing was for organizational purposes. Jacobson's testimony in respect to the purpose of his visit to the factory and his conversations with Lippman and Hochstadt is neither persuasive nor convincing, and, to a certain extent is refuted by statements contained in his affidavit. The Trial Examiner therefore rejects his testimony and, on the basis of the credible testimony of Lippman, finds that Jacobson requested Packard to sign an agreement with the Union. Certainly, his request to sign an agreement presupposes recogni- tion as the bargaining representative of all the employees included thereunder. Moreover, the prompt picketing by the Union when Packard refused 'to sign an agreement clearly implies that the Union was demanding recognition, and that the picketing, therefore, had as an object requiring the Company to recognize the Union as the representative of its employees. (International Brotherhood of Teamsters, KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 585 etc., Local 41 (Union Chevrolet Company), 96 NLRB 957.) The Trial Examiner so finds. All of the above-noted incidents involving alleged inducement and encouragement of employees of Packard's suppliers by the pickets and the threats directed to Pazienza and Trowell occurred prior to October 18, the date of the Independent's certifica- tion, hence evidence of this character cannot support a finding of violation of Sec- tion 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act, nor is there any such allegation in the complaint. Under the circumstances it is unnecessary to resolve the conflicts apparent in the background evidence. However, the Trial Examiner wishes to point out that the testimony of Pazienza and Trowell is rejected even for background purposes. Pazienza was a confused witness and the that fact that Vituccio and his daughter re- turned to work the day following the alleged incident, or shortly thereafter, and con- tinued in their employment without any interference , negates the idea that the pickets uttered the threats as claimed by him. The Trial Examiner finds Trowell to be an unreliable witness for it is highly improbable, absent some corroboration, that the pickets would direct threats exclusively to her and completely ignore the other employees. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the Union maintained its picket line at the factory both prior and subsequent to the date of the Independent's certification, and was so engaged as of the date of this hearing. The record also reveals that pick- eting has been peaceful and there is no indication that any of the employees of Packard ceased their employment as a consequence of the picketing. While Pack- ard may have been inconvenienced in the manner of making pickups and deliveries there is no evidence of specific acts of inducement or encouragement in the post- certification period towards employees of suppliers. The General Counsel argues that picketing under the circumstances herein con- stitutes a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (C). Counsel for the Respondent contends that since picketing was, and is , for organizational purposes there has been no violation of the Act, relying principally upon the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Douds v. Local 50, etc., 224 F. 2d 49, herein referred to as the Arnold Bakers case. In the Arnold Bakers case the union, immediately following the certification of another labor organization, picketed the bakery with signs urging the public not to buy its products but to buy those made by union members, and that working condi- tions were below union standards . The picketing was without incident and without any effect upon either the employees of Arnold or employees of trucking com- panies doing business with Arnold. The court, in upholding the district court's refusal to grant temporary injunctive relief under Section 10 ( 1), rejected the Gen- eral Counsel's theory that picketing inherently encourages workers not to work behind a picket line and that it must be presumed the union intended such conse- quences as a result of its actions . The court further held that since none of Arnold's employees refused to cross the picket line , it might be presumed that the union did not intend to influence these employees to cease work. Although both courts ex- pressed skepticism as to whether the professed object of the picketing after certifi- cation, information to the public, was the real purpose , the circuit court was of the opinion that the picketing was not violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (C). Subsequently, the Board in its determination of the case, in a carefully considered opinion (115 NLRB 1333), found that the picketing was not protected under Section 8 (c), and, following the established principle that the traditional union picket line before employee entrances constitutes inducement and encouragement of employees who must work behind the picket line, further found that the Union's picketing con- stituted, as was intended, inducement and encouragement of Arnold's employees to concertedly refuse to perform employment for their employer with an object of forcing or requiring Arnold to recognize or bargain with it as the representative of its employees at a time when another labor organization had been certified as the ex- clusive bargaining agent, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (C).5 The Board reaffirmed these principles in Local 25 Bakery and Confectionery Workers, etc. (King's Bakery, Inc.), 116 NLRB 290. The Trial Examiner is obliged to apply con- trolling Board precedents,6 even though they may be at variance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals. 8 The Board's order in this case is presently before the circuit court on petition for en- forcement, N. L. R. B. v. Local 50, etc. , the matter having been argued on February 15, 1957. 6 See Coca-Cola Bottling Company of St. Louis, 116 NLRB 923 ; Meat & Provision Drivers Local No. 626, etc. (Lewis Food Company ), 115 NLRB 890 ; Bonnaz, etc., Local 66 (Gemsco, Inc.), 111 NLRB 82; Brewery and Beverage Drivers , etc., Local No. 67 (Wash- ington Coca Cola Bottling Works ), 107 NLRB 299. ,586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Having found that an object of the Union's initial picketing, and throughout the precertification period, was to force or require Packard to recognize it as the bar- gaining agent of its employees, the Trial Examiner further finds that there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the Union altered.or changed this objective in the postcertification period. Of course, it is immaterial whether or not the picketing, resulted in successful inducement and encouragement of Packard's em- ployees or those of other employers. Further, the fact that the legend on the picket signs characterized the picketing as organizational is not controlling in determining objective,7 but, even assuming employee organization was also an object of the picketing, that fact would afford no impunity to the Union for Section 8 (b) (4) speaks of "an" rather than "the" object and the existence of an unlawful object of the picketing has already been found. In view of the decisions of the Board in the Arnold Bakers and King's Bakery cases, on facts and issues substantially the same as those presented here, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Union by picketing, in the manner and for an objective found herein, thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, conduct in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth, in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Packard Knitwear, Inc., described 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 to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices; it is recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 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. Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and Novelty Knitwear Workers Union (unaffiliated) are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 2. On and since October 18, 1956, Novelty Knitwear Workers Union (un- affiliated), has been the exclusive bargaining representative; certified by the Board, of the employees of Packard Knitwear, Inc., in an appropriate unit, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 3. Since October 18, 1956, the Respondent has induced and encouraged em- ployees of Packard and other employers to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employer, an object thereof being to require Packard to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative of employees of Packard notwithstanding that Novelty Knitwear Workers Union has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of. the Act. By, such, conduct the Respondent, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) 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. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 7 Local Union .No. 55, etc. (Professional and Business Men's Life Insurance Company), 108 NLRB 363, 370. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 155, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO Pursuant to. the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act,.we hereby, notify you that: During the effective period of the certification of representatives of employees of Packard Knitwear, Inc., issued by the Regional Director for the National LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY - . 587 Labor Relations Board in Case No . 2-RC-8452, or any other certification. by the Board of a bargaining representative other than the undersigned labor organization , we will not engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of Packard Knitwear , Inc., or of any other employer, 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, ma- terials, or commodities , or to perform any services , where an object thereof is to force or require Packard Knitwear, Inc., to recognize or bargain with the undersigned Union in the collective-bargaining unit of employees covered by such certification. KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 155, INTER- NATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated ------------------- By----------------------- ------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company and International Brotherhood of Papermakers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 39-RC-1085. July 10,1957 ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election I an election was held among the Employer's production and maintenance em- ployees on December 12, 1956. Thereafter on February 7, 1957, the International Brotherhood of Papermakers, AFL-CIO, herein called IBPM, having received a majority of the valid votes cast in the election was certified as the exclusive representative of the above employees? Thereafter, on March 18, 1957, the United Papermakers and Paper- workers, AFL-CIO, herein called UPP, successor to the IBPM and United Paperworkers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called UPA, filed a motion with the Board requesting that the aforementioned certification be amended by substituting the name of the UPP in place and in stead of the IBPM . The Employer opposes the motion to amend the certification, in substance , on the grounds that: (1) The Board is without authority to amend the certification ; (2) the em- ployees have a right to select their own representative ; (3) the UPP is a new and different labor organization than the IBPM selected by ' Case No. 39-RC-1085 , not reported In the printed volumes of the Board's Decisions and Orders. 2 Following the election the Employer filed objections to the conduct affecting the results of the election . The Regional Director investigated the objections and on January 17, 1957, filed his report recommending that the objections be overruled. As no exceptions to the Regional Director 's report were filed, the Regional Director 's report was adopted, and the .objections were overruled. 118 NLRB No. 69.